1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3091 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

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

Hazardous trolley poles. Mr. Lauk –– 3091

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

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

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

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

Matter of Privilege

Alleged misrepresentation by Social Credit Party newsletter.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3093

Mr. Skelly –– 3093

Mr. Howard –– 3094

Division on Deputy Speaker's ruling –– 3094

Ministerial Statement

Joint meeting of B.C. and Alberta cabinets.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 3094

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 193 — Minister's office 3094

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Tabling Documents.

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3115

Appendix –– 3115

WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'd like to ask the House to join me in offering congratulations to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), who on July 1 was blessed with the

occasion of his first grandson, born to his son Kenneth Rafe Mair. The

grandson will be the third Kenneth Rafe Mair to be a Canadian, and I

know all members of this House will join me in offering congratulations

to the minister and best wishes to the mother and father.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In the gallery today is an old friend — old in terms of the number of

years that I have known him — Malcolm Mitchell of Victoria.

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

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

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to join me in welcoming my brother

and sister-in-law, who are visiting from the fair city of Trail, Ray

and Mary King.

Oral Questions

TRAINING AND WORKING

CONDITIONS FOR PARAMEDICS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker,

despite the announcement about the grandson — and the repetition — I'd

like to ask the Minister of Health a question. Eighteen people have

just completed a one-year training program for paramedics. Dr. Vertesi

has suspended the program indefinitely, prior to graduating these 18

paramedics. In the event that that dispute between Dr. Vertesi and the

paramedics is not settled within 30 days, these 18 people will have

another year's training to re-qualify. What action has the minister

taken to solve the dispute on the paramedic training program?

Incidentally, that dispute has been on for some time; I have known

about it for six weeks.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker,

about 10 days ago I asked my staff for a report on the entire

situation. When I receive that report I will bring back to the House

the answer to the member's question.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, sometimes I wonder how long these reports take to surface.

Anyway, I'd like to ask the minister another question. Can the minister

confirm that approximately 50 overtime shifts have been allocated in a

two-week period to over 22 staff in the lower mainland because they

lack holiday relief in the emergency health services program?

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

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that paramedics themselves are

responsible for supplying their own maps, and that they're not always

reimbursed for these expenditures?

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

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

the present time there will be two paramedic teams available in the

lower mainland at any one time. Can the minister confirm that greater

Seattle, with a smaller population, has four paramedic units per shift?

What action has the minister taken to increase the number of paramedic

units available to the lower mainland to avoid staff burnout and

excessive overtime?

HON. MR. MAIR: I understand that

BCTV, for whatever accuracy they may bring to the world of news, said

what the member says. I don't know whether that is true. That is why

I've sought a report from staff, and when I have that report I will

bring the information back to the House.

HAZARDOUS TROLLEY POLES

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Way back on

March 27, 1980, I asked a question about trolley poles, and I

understand that the first member for Victoria asked a question during

estimates. The minister answered that he would do something about it.

Less than ten days ago another accident occurred and somebody was

injured. These poles are a definite hazard to passengers and bystanders

in the streets of the city of Vancouver. Has the minister decided to

take immediate action to replace those poles or in some way protect

people riding on the buses or standing on the street when these brittle

poles break?

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

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

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

MR. LAUK:

My instructions are that the poles that are brittle and are being

broken are not being replaced. Is this a new program this week?

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

MR. LAUK:

I get it from people who drive and ride on the buses, I say to the

minister. Is there a timetable that the minister cares to inform the

House about with respect to replacement of most of these old trolley

poles?

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

[ Page 3092 ]

would

attend first to those vehicles most in need. It is an ongoing program

and the Authority is proceeding as quickly as possible.

ALLEGATION OF ENERGY AGREEMENT

BETWEEN SASKATCHEWAN AND OTTAWA

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question to the outspoken Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who made a statement suggesting that the province of

Saskatchewan had reached a secret deal with the federal government with

respect to oil pricing and natural resources. Would he indicate to the

House what evidence he had to support that allegation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, my statement was that the Leader of the Opposition, the

New Democratic Party, has said publicly that he would not mind giving

up the resource revenues of the province in return for the federal

government's nationalizing those industries; and as that appears to be

the position of the NDP in British Columbia, I can only assume that the

NDP position in Saskatchewan would be similar, unless we heard

otherwise. Hopefully we will hear otherwise, but certainly we are

familiar with the position of the NDP in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that it was simply

an assumption to back up the allegation that the minister did make,

that Saskatchewan had reached a secret agreement with Ottawa on this

matter, will the minister abjectly apologize to the government of the

province of Saskatchewan, who have branded his statement as totally

without foundation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, the statement was not as suggested by the member for Vancouver

East, and I would certainly be pleased to provide the exact information

to the member. Again, I certainly would look forward to a statement

from the Saskatchewan government as to their position compared to the

position of the NDP in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD:

Would the minister kindly agree to receive the official press release

of Mr. Romanow, the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan, refuting his

statements, for his clipping file? I'll have a copy sent over to him.

ASSAULTS ON MIGRANT WORKERS

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It concerns the

regrettable incidents that occurred on the Canada Day weekend in

Osoyoos. Can the Attorney-General advise the House whether his office

has embarked on an investigation into those incidents that occurred

around the farm workers from Quebec?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: My speaker, my office has not conducted any investigation,

but I've asked the deputy commissioner of the RCMP if he would provide me

with a full report of those incidents which occurred at Osoyoos. Whether the

people involved are Canadians from some other part of this country or whether

they're British Columbians, conduct of that kind is unacceptable. I'll

be happy to provide the member and the House with a report. I think that perhaps

we should all welcome the apology which has been tendered by the mayor of Osoyoos

for such incidents, because such conduct is inappropriate in this province and

in Canada.

MR. LEGGATT:

I ask the Attorney-General if the present investigation by the RCMP has

directed itself to

section 281 of the Criminal Code, which is the

section dealing with breaches of the peace. It's the hate propaganda

section. What I'm asking the Attorney-General is: is he aware that the

RCMP is also investigating that particular

section in view of the news

reports? It would appear from the news reports that that

section has

been quite seriously violated.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, I am certain that the RCMP in the Osoyoos area are covering

all aspects of that particular incident, whether it was a simple breach

of the peace in the sense of assaults being committed upon persons, or

whether it was motivated by conduct which is proscribed by other

sections of the code. I'll be certain to be able to provide the member

with a full report.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, could

the Attorney-General advise at this point whether any charges have been

laid and, if so, what the nature of the charges is?

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

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.

In view of the same subject — these incidents at Osoyoos — can the

minister advise the House whether the Human Rights Commission has

received any complaints with regard to the conduct of the people in

that area, and could he also advise whether the Human Rights Commission

is embarking upon any investigation of those incidents?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I do not know, as of this moment, whether or not either the commission

or the branch has received a complaint. I think the appropriate

inquiry, if required, would be handled by the human rights branch which

forms part of the ministry, and not the commission. But I will

undertake to explore that possibility for the member.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBELS

IN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

MR. LEGGATT: I have a

separate question for the Attorney-General. It concerns a 1978 supreme

court judgment. It's a case called Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers.

The Attorney-General may be familiar with it. The essence of the case

was that it placed responsibility for libels in letters to newspaper

editors on the editor of the newspaper. That would appear, in any

event, to restrict freedom of speech to some extent. I'm wondering if

the Attorney-General has decided to take any action to protect freedom

of the press and to limit the onus on the editor to ensure the

authenticity of the correspondence and place the major responsibility

for libels on the writers of the letters to the editor.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, specifically, the question as posed by the member deals

with a matter of policy and, therefore, to that extent, is out of

order. I might say that several provinces have looked at the Armadale

[ Page

3093 ]

decision

and it's being dealt with in different ways in different provinces.

Some legislation has been prepared and introduced. In other cases the

provinces have deferred legislative action at this time, and that's the

position of British Columbia.

INCREASE IN ACCIDENTS AND

DEATHS AMONG B.C. WORKFORCE

MS. SANFORD: My question

is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the WCB figures, which show

that the number of fatalities and injuries in 1979 showed a greater

year-on-year increase than at any other time in the 1970s, what action

has the minister taken to alleviate the adverse conditions that

employees in B.C. have to work under?

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

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, the 1979 WCB annual report reveals a dramatic and

significant decrease in the number of inspections completed by the

board. I'm sure the minister is aware of this. In view of the reported

increase in the accidents and deaths occurring in the workforce, has

the minister taken steps to increase the number of inspections?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member that it is of some concern

to the government and that there have been discussions on more than one

occasion with the chairman of the board and the commissioners.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer as to what steps he has taken in order to

ensure that there is an increase in the number of inspections. He's had

discussions, but I don't think he has indicated to the House that there

will actually be an increase in the number of inspections this year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

At this time I cannot advise the member whether or not any of the

suggestions which have been made in our discussions with the

commissioners of the board have taken place.

MS. SANFORD:

In view of the minister's statement that his officials are reviewing

the $260 million unfunded liability of the WCB, can the minister assure

the House of the government's commitment to the long-standing principle

that employers will assume the cost of workers' compensation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

That's a matter of future policy Mr. Speaker. As for the unfunded

liability, I appreciate the concern of the member; it's a genuine

concern of the government as well. That matter has also been the

subject of discussion between myself and members of the board. I'm not

really in a position to expand on those discussions at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Thursday last the hon. member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) raised as a matter of privilege what, in his words, he believed

to be "a deliberate misrepresentation by the Social Credit Party caucus

newsletter on May 9, 1980, of statements I have made in the Legislature."

In support, the hon. member tabled a copy of the said newsletter, together with

the Hansard report of March 3, 1980, and cited a reference from the nineteenth

edition of Sir Erskine May, page 153, as follows: "Misrepresentation of

members' proceedings. Wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members

is an offence of the same character as a libel."

With

reference to the prerequisite in allowing such a matter to be raised,

Sir Erskine May, in the eighteenth edition, says at page 342: "As a

motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is therefore given

precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker

requires to be satisfied both that (1) there is a prima facie case that

a breach of privilege has been committed, and (2) that the matter is

being raised at the earliest opportunity."

In determining whether or not a prima facie case has been made out, I have considered the fact that the Hansard

report of March 3, 1980, places the words complained of in quotation

marks in recording the speech of the hon. first member for Surrey (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm). However, I believe the Chair would be delving into

the merits of the case if I were to attempt to determine whether or not

the purported quotation would expunge any element of witfulness

attached to the alleged misrepresentation. The validity of such an

answer to a charge of wilful misrepresentation would be for the House,

or a committee thereof, to consider, and not the Speaker, according to

the authorities.

However, on the second imperative, namely

that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity, the Chair

must take into consideration the following facts. First, the words in

question appeared in Hansard

nearly four months ago, and the publication of the newsletter in

question is dated May 9, 1980, some seven weeks ago. In support of the

rule that a matter of privilege which claims precedence over other

public business be a subject which has recently arisen, Sir Erskine May

cites the following instances at page 343 in the eighteenth edition: "A

matter concerning an

article in a newspaper published on 6 May was

refused precedence because it was not raised until the 14th and a

speech reported on a Saturday because it was not raised until the

following Tuesday.

(3) When provincial newspapers appear in London on

the morning of issue, the complaint should be raised on the day of

issue." From these examples it is clear that the rule is one of very

strict application. If any explanation or reason for delay in raising

the matter did exist, the hon. member for Alberni in his statement of

the matter gave no such explanation or reason. Accordingly the Chair is

compelled to rule that the motion cannot be made without the usual

notice required by standing orders of the House.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm wondering if it is possible now to make an explanation to the

Speaker, as I understand the explanation was made to him privately as

to why the newsletter was not brought to my attention before the day I

brought it up in the House. In fact, the newsletter was distributed in

the mail-boxes of the NDP caucus. I understand it was distributed in a

limited way to Social Credit members on the caucus mailing list, but it

did not come to my attention, and to the attention of the New

Democratic Party side, until it was placed in our mail-boxes the day

before I presented the question of privilege to you. I had no

opportunity on the day that I received the Social Credit newsletter; my

first opportunity — and I believe it was discussed with you before I

brought the matter up in the House — to bring it to you was on the

following day. I did so at the first opportunity

[ Page 3094 ]

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

would urge the Speaker to reconsider the decision he has made, in light

of the new information. I was under the impression that that

information had been conveyed to Mr. Speaker privately, and that he was

aware that this was the first opportunity that that had come to our

attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be a most unusual

course of action for any Speaker to consider additional information

once having come down with a particular ruling. On that, hon. member, I

must make the ruling firm.

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

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I

would ask that you clarify to the members of the House as to the nature

of requests for information and private conversations with the Speaker.

When members come to the Speaker and ask advice as to raising a

particular matter, and bring to the attention of the Speaker's office

that this is the first time the matter has come to their attention, is

it to be presumed now that all such conversations should be recorded so

that if there is any question of dispute over the Speaker's advice in

private, pertaining to a decision by the Speaker, the matter is

recorded?

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

JOINT MEETING OF

B.C. AND ALBERTA CABINETS

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

This

province shares with the great province of Alberta not only an

adjacency as the western most part of Canada, but also many matters of

unique concern. Therefore, as the Premier of British Columbia, I have

previously extended to the Premier of Alberta an invitation for a joint

cabinet meeting between the Alberta and British Columbia cabinets to be

held in Victoria. That meeting is now arranged for Friday, July 11.

would point out that this will be a historic meeting, as it will be the

first time that the cabinets of the two provinces have met jointly. The

location of the cabinet meeting will be Government House in Victoria.

It will be a day-long meeting. It is anticipated that there will be 19

cabinet ministers, including the Premier, from Alberta, and 20 from

British Columbia. The meeting is the first of two planned, with the

second one to be held in Alberta in the fall of 1980. As I have said,

the purpose of the meetings will be to discuss matters of mutual

interest between the two provinces.

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

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I wonder if I might have leave to introduce a visitor in the gallery

who is just leaving, a former member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I might say that I am happy today and look forward to the

debate on the estimates of the ministry. I want to, first of all, pay

tribute to all 13,000 staff in the ministry, who work on transportation

problems and solutions, whether it be on land, air or water. I think if

anything shows their dedication to this service, what happened Monday

in the community of Stewart does. They were able to get organized, and

while we have lost a large structure in the way of a bridge across the

Bay River, cutting off the community of Stewart by land, the senior

people and all our people will have transportation restored to that

community by noon tomorrow. It means moving a lot of people and a lot

of equipment that is not available in that area. I am happy to tell the

House that everything is going fine. It is quite likely that they'll

have a temporary structure across before noon on Thursday, depending on

how things go. They are working around the clock. In any case, that is

a short period of time to span a river 300 feet in width and to be able

to get back some temporary transportation.

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

[ Page

3095 ]

whether they're just coming now, but I'd like to

introduce Bob Harvey, the Deputy Minister of Transportation and

Highways; assistant deputy in charge of administration, Mr. Al Rhodes;

Mr. Charlie Gallagher, general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation;

Mr. Tom Johnson, assistant deputy minister, highways operations; and

Mr. Bob Whitlock, superintendent of the motor-vehicle branch. As I said

earlier, with the leadership coming from these fine people and all the

people, it is certainly a pleasure to work with dedicated people like

this.

In this current year we have a very large, ambitious

highway program underway. Whether we complete it or not is always the

thing, and right at the moment we are having difficulty because of

weather. We can't put pavement down — as the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) knows — when it's pouring rain. It is now delayed, and I only

hope the weather changes and we can get on with it. We can still carry

out the program but we're going to have to have a weather change fairly

soon to be able to complete the improvement program prior to winter

setting in.

This year our maintenance has increased. The

vote for maintenance has increased somewhat to look after inflation and

hopefully bring a little better level of maintenance. Maintenance, of

course, as you know, looks after the salaries of permanent employees,

snow-ploughing in the wintertime and grading and general maintenance in

the highway system itself.

This year we have a large capital

program and it is in various stages of being carried out. Again, some

of our bigger projects are tied up because of the weather conditions.

know that mention will be made about last year. I didn't intend to make

too many remarks about that, but I thought I would make a few remarks

about special warrants. I am sure all members of the House will realize

that we had a lot of special warrants last year, in excess of $100

million. May I remind the House that we did get an improved

transportation system from it. It provided a lot of jobs, and the

reason that we went the special warrant course was government policy.

As the funds were available some of them were spent on this worthwhile

endeavour. That is providing employment and getting a better and safer

highway system.

A lot of discussion takes place in the

Legislature, and rightly so, regarding the vehicles. As a matter of

fact, it seems to me my estimates have come up several times this year,

due to the programs we have had referring to Bill 5 and Bill 7 as

examples, the budget debate and throne debate. The way I look at it and

for what it's worth, we have to keep upgrading our highway system

strictly on the basis of vehicle inventory alone.

I would

now take a very short time to tell the House what has happened with our

vehicle inventory in British Columbia since 1975. The total count of

vehicles in 1974 was 1,354,982; in 1979 that had increased to

1,800,486. Across the board, that's a 33 percent increase in vehicles

of all descriptions in the province over the five-year period.

I'll

break it down just a little further: passenger-wise, motor vehicles

increased 27 percent in that five-year period; commercial vehicles is

where the big increase has taken place, and in that five-year period

commercial vehicle registrations increased a phenomenal 50 percent;

motorcycles — the largest increase of all in that five-year period —

have increased 84 percent and trailers 30 percent.

Now the

reason that I mention this is that it leads to other things. The

citizens of British Columbia make decisions about how they want to

travel, and there is certainly no indication in the figures that I've

just given you that they don't want to travel by automobile. Of course,

the reasons are theirs....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

The member for Vancouver East hastens to add: "There is no other

method." Well, of course there are other methods, but not necessarily

the method that you want to see.

But this increase in

vehicle traffic puts responsibility on the government — and in this

case, this ministry — to try and do something to accommodate them.

They're there; they exist. I personally am very concerned about safety

programs and we've been stepping those up as well as trying to improve

our highway system to cope with the ever-increasing load. I say "try to

cope." I don't think we're ever going to have a very definite answer to

these programs, but I don't think we can stand still and let these

facts of life go by without trying to do something about them.

might say that there are a lot of things involving safety on our

highway system. As you know, the government has a task force

commissioned under the Attorney- General's ministry to look into all

the driving laws we have and so on, and I believe that task force is

going to report their findings shortly. On that task force are

different members of the public service, including people from my

ministry. So we are concentrating on the driver's side, but the side

that I have and that our ministry has been concentrating on lately....

I think we lose track of the fact that there is lots more than the

driver involved to what's going on out there in the highway system. I'm

specifically referring to the mechanical condition of the vehicles that

our citizens are driving — whether they be passenger vehicles,

motorcycles, pick-ups or large commercial vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, we've had checks made on mechanical condition. The first

checks in, I believe, ten years have been made on the vehicles on our highway

system, and they're absolutely shocking and amazing. Around 70 percent of

the vehicles that have been checked don't pass the mechanical checks. I

know that all members here must be really concerned about that. I guess I should

isolate that and say that's on commercial vehicles. We have not yet, but

we do intend to start checking private passenger vehicles for the same reason.

But we have so far concentrated on the commercial vehicles, and while 70 percent

of them don't pass the mechanical laws that we have — which is really what

it amounts to.... In one vehicle check where we checked, I believe, 4,000

commercial vehicles, we had 200 which were taken off the road immediately; they

weren't fit to be on the road at all.

suggest to you that not only have we got our safety problem with the

individual behind the wheel, but it also exists in the vehicle itself.

We're stepping up and intend to keep stepping up the commercial

checking of vehicles and, hopefully, to get around to some checking of

the private motor vehicles.

I might say that a lot of the

vehicles in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island are checked because

we have the motor-vehicle testing stations; but the province of British

Columbia has never had, and still doesn't have, a motor vehicle testing

station beyond Surrey, I believe it is. In other words, there is no

motor-vehicle testing station at larger areas in the province — such as

Cranbrook, Kamloops, Prince George and Prince Rupert, if you may — and,

of course, that

[ Page 3096 ]

area

of our province is not immune to having defective vehicles. We're

looking at that program, but it's expensive to build large edifices

such as motor-vehicle testing stations. I personally think there's

another way to do it, and that is by mobile testing. We have a mobile

unit doing our commercial vehicle testing now, and it seems to me that

if we expand on that we can at least get some checking of vehicles in

other parts of the province as well as the lower mainland and Vancouver

Island.

Another program that our government brought in in

1978 has turned out to be very popular, and that's our Air Transport

Assistance Program. That had a value of $26 million placed on it when

it was brought in. I'm happy to report to the committee today, Mr.

Chairman, that to date we have spent $11 million on this program. It's

bringing upgraded air services to parts of our province that didn't

have any, or had gravel strips and so on, and we've either upgraded the

gravel strips they had, or upgraded the gravel and paved as well.

would like to make an observation on how this helps in all types of

emergencies, if you want to call them that. I can assure you that if we

hadn't paved the Stewart airstrip, they'd have been three days longer

getting their bridge back — not only for the government aircraft to

bring in senior engineers, but also to bring in machinery people to get

things organized in a hurry. That's just one small example — and that

happened just this week — about the upgrading of local strips.

The

thing that I want to push is to keep these strips and further upgrade

them. It's all right to blacktop a strip in a remote area, but if you

don't have radio and so on.... We want to take our Airvac air

ambulance into these areas, and as I see it, as time goes on we will be

able to help these communities. We deal with the communities, and they

can get modern communications installed in these smaller strips so that

good Airvac service can be supplied to the more remote areas of our

province; we can upgrade that.

I might say that the

government air service has a fine fleet of aircraft and a fine body of

pilots. They're flying in British Columbia seven days a week, 24 hours

per day, regardless of weather. A great deal of it is on Airvac work.

They can now bring a stretcher case from a community like Fort Nelson

in the very northern part of British Columbia to higher medical

attention in one hour and 35 minutes. I want to congratulate those

chaps who get involved with a lot of weather conditions; they provide

an excellent service for all areas of the province. With the upgrading

of our airstrips, it only means further advancement of that type of

service.

In the ministry we have a small, very effective

branch called the transport policy analysis branch. I believe it has a

staff of six. We want to make it a little bit larger. What they are

doing is developing an overall transport policy for the province. As

you all know, they are going to start with one area, and they have

started with a transport policy analysis for Vancouver Island. When I

talk about transport I am talking about all modes, whether it be land,

air or water. We're also very concerned, Mr. Chairman, with how the

private sector fits into these forthcoming policies. They will be

consulted for input on, for example, the Vancouver Island policy, and

from there hopefully we can develop something that'll be for the

overall good of that area. But their long-term mandate is a

transportation policy for the entire province, taking into

consideration the private as well as the public sector.

When

I'm talking about transportation, I don't want to forget the B.C. Ferry

Corporation. I'm happy and proud to be the chairman of that fine ferry

corporation — the biggest and the best in the world by far, manned by

very. competent people all the way through. Yes, we have our problems,

but so does everybody else. I think they bring an excellent service to

the communities they serve in British Columbia. We have expansion plans

for that fine ferry system which I'd be glad to discuss with the

committee. Overall, I feel they provide an excellent service at an

economic rate.

You all know the provincial taxpayer

subsidizes the Ferry Corporation. While I'm on the subject of

subsidization, I don't think I should pick on the ferry system, because

B.C. Rail, owned by the province of British Columbia, is also

subsidized to about the same amount of money as the B.C. Ferry

Corporation. And up until recently — and I guess it will continue — so

has transit. We all talk about that. If I recall, in the last fiscal

year of Hydro, I believe their losses, which were picked up by the

treasury, were some $62 million. So what I'm really saying is that yes,

the province subsidizes transportation, in all shapes and forms and

there's probably nothing wrong with that.

I also have the

honour to be the new chairman of the B.C. Steamship Company, which runs

the Victoria-Seattle service. I want to emphasize that our government

doesn't consider it really a part of our transportation system, because

it serves us outside to another country, but it's of great assistance

to the tourist business and we have no argument with that. In any case,

I just want to make it clear that I'm also responsible for that. I

wanted to bring that up in my estimates, because maybe the members from

the other side might forget that I had some responsibility there and I

just didn't want them to overlook that.

In any case, that's

a broad outline with a broad brush. I don't want to take any more

valuable committee time talking about the ministry; I think it will

come out better in question and answers. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, and I thank all members for listening. I look forward to and

invite your questions.

MR. PASSARELL: I would like to

congratulate the highways minister for showing his concern over the

bridge burning in Stewart this past weekend — for myself as well as the

residents of Stewart and the many tourists who had to spend a few extra

days in Hyder. I would hope this type of cooperation would continue

between the hon. minister and myself and the opposition, and if there

is any assistance I can offer the minister, I would be pleased to help

him on this particular aspect.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: First

of all, I must apologize to the House, particularly to my own caucus,

for being a bit late getting here today. I have no intention of getting

rough or kicking the minister in the teeth in the first hour of his

estimates — we'll get into that later — but I want to point out that

the reason I'm late this morning is because of a situation that we, in

this House, had warned you about months and months ago. We had proposed

alternate suggestions to your ministry and to your Crown corporations,

which have been studiously ignored. That situation is ferry overloads

last night and this morning. The only reason I got on the vessel this

morning at all is because I happened to be lucky enough to drive a

small, economy-sized car; otherwise I wouldn't have made it on that

particular vessel.

[ Page

3097 ]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You could walk on.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It would have been faster to walk to Victoria, because wait until you

hear this, Mr. Member. What are you doing in the House? I thought it

was your turn in the barrel today anyway. Anyway, the next step after I

got off that ferry.... It was a little less than two miles from Ryan

Road to Highway 1 at the intersection, the main highway to go to

Courtenay — as you well know; you've been through there — and there was

a traffic jam. It took 40 minutes to go two miles to Courtenay. Between

Courtenay and Nanaimo I got behind a camper, which looked to me from

the back end to be about 14 feet wide, but I know it couldn't have

been, because that's not legal, and about 80 feet long, which I knew it

couldn't have been. The fine old gentleman driving this camper was

driving at the great speed of at least 25 miles an hour. There's no way

you're going to pass on that highway for miles. You know that very

well, Mr. Minister. What really put me off was that from the back of

this huge trailer was a little plastic hand waving at me for 35 miles.

If that didn't make me mad.... Anyway, about three miles from

Nanaimo there was another traffic jam. They were backed up for miles

going through Nanaimo. I'm just gently explaining to the minister why

some of us were a little bit late getting here this afternoon. I did

miss a few of your opening remarks.

In any event, Mr.

Chairman, we did finally get through Nanaimo. Believe it or not, for

the first time since I've been driving this highway, which is almost

every weekend, there was another traffic jam in the small community of

Duncan. It was another ten minutes getting through that small

community. So the situation is bad. As a result of that, I did miss

some of your opening remarks. My colleague down the way was kind enough

to make notes for me, which I haven't read thoroughly, but I will in a

few minutes. I wish to thank my colleague for that.

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

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The member said this is the full text of your remarks. Mr. Minister,

we're going to have a very short debate on these estimates. I can see

that.

Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me a few minutes of

indulgence to tell this House that I had the very pleasant experience

this last weekend of attending, at the request of the Williams Lake

Stampede committee.... It is now becoming a Canadian-wide function.

The minister was there; we enjoyed each other's company. The minister

is a good minister; he's very personable, affable and well liked in

that community. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think

the minister is as popular in his riding as he thinks he is. You know,

I talked to many hundreds of people up there over the two days I spent

there. I would be very much surprised if he were to get more than 80

percent of the vote in the next provincial election; I'd be very

surprised indeed. You're not as popular up there as you think, Mr.

Minister.

I really wanted to take this opportunity to thank the mayor, the council of

the community of Williams Lake and the stampede committee for being very gracious

hosts. It was not for me personally, but it indicated that those people had

some respect for our caucus and our party. It was very, very much appreciated.

I think about the only thing they could complain about concerning my visit to

that particular function was when I was chasing the Cariboo Queen around the

bull ring. The mayor thought that was going a little too far; and I told him

it wouldn't happen again. Other than that, the minister and I did get into

a bull-throwing contest. It's a very famous event. It was televised. There

were a lot of very prominent politicians involved. You get two chances in this

event. I'm almost certain that I outdistanced the minister in the actual

throw. You have to throw underhanded. All politicians, they claim in that country,

are underhanded, so you have to throw underhanded. I think I outdistanced the

minister in the bull-throwing contest. But when it came to being underhanded,

he won; this was the word of the judge, not my own, Mr. Chairman. The judge declared

it a tie, so we're starting off even in this House today, Mr. Minister.

Just for the record, I should tell you that Mr. Erwin Swangard, who the announcer

kept referring to as Mr. Erwin Swangard — I was hoping he would stop that; it

was embarrassing. Mr. Erwin Swangard did eventually win the bull-throwing contest;

and, in my view, rightly so.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

That's what he said; he said it three times. The first time could have

been a mistake; the second time — maybe; but the third time, there was

no doubt about it.

While we're into the niceties, over the

next several weeks while we're debating these estimates I think the

debate from time to time will get hot and heavy. There may even be an

election called before debate on these spending estimates is finished,

so I had better take this opportunity now to do as I usually do every

year. I work reasonably close to and have a lot of contact with senior

people within the ministry, and with the minister himself, who is very

good about answering correspondence. There's not much action sometimes

but he answers his mail, which is very good. It's a lot better than

some of his colleagues. Senior people in the ministry — and certainly

people at the constituency level within the ministry usually are as

helpful as they can be.

One of the interesting things,

though, that I've noticed over the last year particularly, and over the

last couple of years, is that I'm often told when I go to a local or

regional office: "Yes, I do have that particular bit of information,

but I can't give it to you. You must get that particular piece of

information from the ministry." I don't think — in terms of

constituency problems, day-to-day problems.... The minister may

wonder why I write him so many letters about problems which I really

shouldn't have to bother him with, but I have to do it because I have

no other avenue or choice left open to me. It might be a mile or two of

side road. I'll go and ask the regional manager: ''Are you going to do

something about it, and when?" He'll say: "Look, you have to go to the

minister for that information. I'm not allowed to give you that

information." That bothers me a great deal.

That order may

not have come from in the minister, I don't know. But wherever it comes

from, that kind of thing should stop. I believe that all MLAs — and I

assume that they will all be taking their turn at getting up and

speaking on behalf of their constituents under this particular estimate

sometime during the next two or three weeks — were elected to serve

their constituents. It must be the prime concern of the people

[ Page 3098 ]

who

elected them. I don't think we should have to go, as members of

opposition ridings, to the minister or deputy for every little pothole

in the riding. I tend to resent that.

Generally speaking, I

think — while we're still going on to the nice part of this debate —

this particular minister, Mr. Chairman, is generally acknowledged as

being one of the better, more personable and more accessible ministers

— certainly one of the better politicians — in this House. Just look at

the record. So, having said all of those things, it's down to work, Mr.

Minister.

It's really difficult to know where to start.

There have been so many bungles over one short year. We'll start with

the water transportation system, the overexpenditure of the funds, the

$115 million in capital projects, the unknown amount in day labour. I

don't have those figures precisely, although I have every copy of

special warrants and orders-in-council for various projects, at a time

when your own Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is saying: "Tighten

your belt." You're raising health care to the people of the province,

neglecting to bring in legislation as promised and to deal with

denticare and people programs. I have never had such a flood of UIC

and/or welfare cases, which indicates something to me. I don't think

everybody out there is looking for a free handout. Because of inflation

people are in serious general financial problems. Yet this government,

which has been called the blacktop government — rightfully so....

fact, the definition of a highway to this government is just a piece of

blacktop stretching between two election periods. That's the definition

of this government, and that's what we have had with this government

over several years.

We know where those priorities are.

There are in fact, Mr. Chairman, far more votes in five miles of

blacktop than there are in perhaps assisting two or three dozen

handicapped people in any given locality or community. So the

government knows very well where its priorities are. It's part of the

minister's job to do the best job he can. He seems to get money for

blacktop. But what happens when it comes to cabinet. Political

interference....

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

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

That member is complaining. I wish he'd stop complaining; he gets his

turn in the barrel tomorrow. If he'll just be quiet and listen to these

estimates, we'll try and get through them before Christmas; otherwise

we'll be here longer.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

In any event, I think we'll start with the bungle, the big bungle, the

real bungle. Mr. Minister, you will have to admit that a bigger foul-up has never

in the history of this province existed in water transportation on the coast

of British Columbia — never! As a matter of fact, you're not totally responsible.

Somehow or other you were overruled in cabinet. You were obviously given bad

advice, because I don't think that the things that happened with the Marguerite,

jetfoils, Surrey, Queen of the North, the hundreds of thousands if not millions

of dollars of revenue lost to the people of this province because of those bungles,

the inconvenience your ministry caused.... It was caused by cutting off

the water transportation service, Mr. Chairman, at the exact same time they

closed down a whole community unnecessarily. Can you believe that, Mr. Chairman?

Yes, you can. You're nodding, so I know you believe me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

should recap just very briefly. As I said, I'm not sure that the

minister is totally responsible. He did take some bad advice. But the

fact is, Mr. Chairman, he is the minister. He does represent these

Crown corporations in cabinet. He is the chairman of the board of those

Crown corporations. He is the Minister of Highways, so he must accept

the responsibility. It's as simple as that. He got....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Oh, okay. He did get.... He got me all mixed up here. I asked him

for a month's leave last week and he only gave me two days. Some Whip!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Ocean Falls.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

No, we were a little beyond Ocean Falls. Oh, yes. It all started, I

think, some time ago. I'm just going to give a brief recap. I won't go

over the whole story, which has been raised on numerous occasions in

this House, but I do want it on record during the course of these

estimates. We'll get into particular highway problems, I assume, a bit

later.

The chairman of the board of the B.C. Steamship

Company — and it was no secret — wanted a certain vessel. In fact, a

colleague of the present Minister of Highways at that time openly and

publicly promised that vessel to Mr. Elworthy, then general manager of

the B.C. Steamship Company. In my view, he gave some extremely bad

advice to the minister and to cabinet. As a result he was forced to

resign, and rightfully so. When you gamble you win or lose. You play

your cards or get out. In this case his bluff was called; he made a

mistake, and that's the end of it.

But the fact is the

cabinet, and this minister, who I don't think has spoken up strongly

enough in cabinet, allowed the whole process to proceed, which was the

abandonment of the Marguerite. It could have sailed for this next year

or two with some brief modifications, reasonable in cost compared to

the final and total overall costs as the situation developed. The costs

would have been practically nothing: a few hundred thousand dollars for

holding tanks. That vessel, according to every marine agency that deals

with vessel safety, was perfectly capable of sailing between Victoria

and Seattle, with a bit of work. The decision was finally made —

wrongly, in the view of the majority of people in Victoria, Seattle,

and other parts of the coast — to put that vessel into mothballs.

That

vessel, by the way, is now — as of last Wednesday or Thursday — sitting

at Yarrows. I'm just a bit curious. One of the questions you might

consider answering, Mr. Minister, is what storage fees you are paying

for the Marguerite to sit in drydock at Yarrows, how long you expect it

to be sitting there, and what plans you have for that vessel, which

should be sailing today.

To get back to the overview and brief account of the

[ Page

3099 ]

situation as it occurred at the time, a cabinet decision was then

made not to put the Queen of Surrey, now called the Queen of the North,

on the Victoria-Seattle route. It astonished everyone, because the

vessel they did place on that route, the Queen of Prince Rupert, now

called the Victoria Princess, had less than half the capacity of the

Marguerite, thereby causing great concern and dislocation. We can tell

right now, for this year alone, about the drop in the number of

tourists coming to Victoria and the effect it's having on the business

community in this city. I'm sure my colleague and good friend the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will be discussing this matter at some

length during this debate.

The next thing that happened as a

result of this very, very bad situation was that they decided to refit

the Queen of Prince Rupert, call it the Victoria Princess, and put it

on the Victoria run, and put the Queen of Surrey, which is now the

Queen of the North .... It had to have extensive refitting at a

minimum cost, if you believe the government's figures, of $7.4 million,

although I'm told the final figure was much in excess of that. To

believe the senior people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation with whom I

discussed this, the heavy fuel consumption on that particular vessel

was not necessarily suited for that route. Other things could have been

done.

In any event, all this is really water under the

bridge. It indicates a consistent record of government bungling over

the last four and a half to five years, but nevertheless this is one

more major bungle. This particular bungle cost the people of this

province, according to my figures, a minimum of $21.5 million. It may

be more. I am not counting in those figures the losses to the business

community and the inconvenience, the lack of economic growth on the

central and north coast as a result of this whole sordid mess. All I'm

talking about are dollars spent in refits, converting day ferries into

night ferries and night ferries into day ferries, reducing capacities,

bungling up the reservation systems, people left behind, people coming

over in a boat and sending them back by canoe or bus or whatever it is,

and situations along this line. I'm not counting those figures. The

only figures I'm including here are figures I have received that have

come out in committee meetings, in government reports, the government's

own figures — that total, overall financial bungle.

haven't seen the end of it yet, because we don't know what rent the

government is receiving for the former Queen of Prince Rupert, now

called the Victoria Princess, if any. I don't think the government

knows at this point. I don't think the minister knows at this point.

Maybe he does; I see him taking a note. Maybe he will give me an answer.

What

vessel is going to replace the Queen of Prince Rupert, now called the

Victoria Princess, when it is returned to the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

We would like to know; certainly the people of Victoria would like to

know; I would like to know. Where is that vessel going to go? Is it

going to go on the Queen Charlotte run? A vessel that is capable and

has been refitted to do certain things and had major revisions done to

it has to be refitted again at an unknown cost. Is it $500,000 to refit

it next fall to serve the Prince Rupert-Masset route? We don't know.

Will it be $5 million? Who knows? Nobody seems to have any figures on

that. Perhaps the minister could give us some indication of this

particular item.

More than that, there were ways of solving

the problems. We are often accused of being a negative opposition, but

the fact is that not only in this estimate and in this particular

instance.... The majority — I think all — of my colleagues

from time to time, when they get up to criticize, question and debate

ministry estimates or various bills that appear from time to time

before this House, do try to offer alternative and positive

suggestions. They are very rarely taken seriously. Why? "Aw, they're in

opposition. What do they know?" The fact is that some of us have to

deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis.

Another

little example; it isn't a big example, because nobody in Vancouver or

the lower mainland or the interior of British Columbia cares about

route 7. We warned the ministry, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation had

petitions, over 5,500 signatures in the final analysis — a significant

number of signatures — saying, look, we are going to have nothing but

overloads on that particular route this summer unless something is

done. We know what the increased traffic is going to be, using ministry

figures, corporation figures, not our figures. As a matter of fact, it

is absolutely true. This past holiday weekend there were overloads,

people waiting for six hours at Earls Cove. Can you imagine sitting for

six hours at Earls Cove? There's nothing there.

MR. BARBER: Earl is there.

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

any event, imagine sitting there in a hot car — actually a soggy car,

as it turned out — full of howling kids and a nagging wife, and all you

want to do is get a little sleep and get back home and back to work,

and there you sit.

In fact, Mr. Minister, I was very much

tempted to direct all the phone calls that 1, my wife or my poor

daughter accepted at my home over the weekend to your office, except I

that knew you weren't there.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was in Stewart.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I know. That was a good political trip, by the way; going to Stewart

was good politics. You have a lot of competent people in the Ministry

of Highways, and I'm sure that jetting up to Stewart just raised their

morale no end and solved that problem so quickly. As a matter of fact,

I'm not knocking you for that, Mr. Minister. If I were the minister I

would have done the same thing. But next time you're flying over Earls

Cove in your jet, if you could just swoop down to, say, about the

200-foot level and have a quick squint at those 500 cars and 6,000

howling kids that are just sitting in that line-up, it would be much

appreciated. Then you could at least get up in this House and say

you're familiar with the situation and that you had a personal look at

it — however brief — and maybe do something about the problem.

HON. MR. FRASER: We did.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What did you do?

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

If looking at things fixed things, I'd be a millionaire today. That's

just a little sidelight. I just thought I'd throw that in. We'll get

back to the main problem here in a moment.

I think that, as

we advised this government.... It' s the same advice I gave a

previous minister of your government and some of it, believe this or

not, is the same advice I

[ Page 3100 ]

gave

our own minister of transportation some years ago. It turned out that

it wasn't bad advice. We should be constructing vessels. I have a great

deal of respect for the general manager of the B.C. Ferry Corporation

in some ways, but I think the route of building jumbo ferries has got

to end somewhere down the line. The terminals can only handle so many

of them. That's a fact of life in the present situation. I think we

should be looking at smaller, 250-vehicle, fast, 24- to 26-knot vessels.

Somewhere

down the line, someday, unless the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) gets his way and we have the fixed

link — which we'll never see; everybody knows that's a red herring and

we'll never see that in this province — some government and some

minister is going to have to have the guts to move part of that ferry

terminal out of Horseshoe Bay — from the Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay

route — to another location. It's a political hot potato. We tossed

that potato around for a while when we were government, but we never

really had the chance to work on it. You've had five years now and

somewhere down the line a decision is going to have to be made.

I'm

not going to suggest any particular location. I don't have to, because

I'm not the minister; but I can. I've looked at the problem reasonably

well, and I and some of my colleagues have discussed the matter not

only with elected people in Richmond, Tsawwassen and out in that area,

but also with environmental groups and concerned citizens, people who

are concerned about traffic, agricultural land reserves and those kinds

of things. There are solutions available. What it takes is guts —

standing up in cabinet and saying: "Look, you guys, you're making a bad

mistake here. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), for example,

who happened to be a member of the committee at one time, knows

something about ferries and water transportation, by the way; I'll give

him that. But you had other people on that cabinet committee who didn't

know up from down — a boat from a canoe from a rowboat from an airplane

— and they made the decision and you let them get away with it. Mr.

Minister, you should have got up at that cabinet meeting and said,

"Look, what you're doing here is wrong," not for your own political

purposes, your own prestige, or anything else, but for the people of

this province. Unless you were in the community on the central and

north coast, had a small business in one of those communities, or were

kicked out, laid off, fired and tried to get out with your family, you

would never know the serious damage you caused to the people living in

those communities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I've

just been informed that your time is up. I will give you three more

minutes, though, because I did not give you a three-minute warning.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes to answer a few questions, I'll

yield. Otherwise, I would just like to take this opportunity to

intervene so that my colleague can continue with his dissertation.

I'd like to suggest that I had wondered whether or not the minister was

going up to Williams Lake this weekend, having been there once myself, and seeing

that he has his old habits in terms of the throwing contest. I think what the

minister should probably do is go into training a few weeks each year before

going up there, if he's going to continue with that kind of activity. It's

a very serious athletic enterprise, and I'm sure that the minister wants

to come back here a winner one of these times.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Minister, I know it's a bit unusual, but because I was so

late.... I do have to get a bit of material together and two or

three of my colleagues have indicated their willingness to raise a few

matters. I really will be leaving the House. It's not that I'm not

interested in what you have to say, but I must go back to my office and

pick up a bit of material. So when you see me leaving, it's for two

reasons: one, to get material; two, to have a smoke. Okay?

MR. HANSON:

I don't want to cover ground that our debate leader is going to be

covering, but while we're on what I think is the blind spot in this

minister, which is any transportation that relates to salt

water.... Blacktop is one thing, but on an island we rely on

transportation crossing water. This is where this minister has really

fallen down, and I'm sure that our critic is going to be following

right through the chronology of all the different events that happened

in the B.C. Steamship Company and so on.

I'd like to talk

about a couple of things that the minister may perceive as minor, but

they're certainly not minor to people who live on an island, and travel

the B.C. Ferries on a regular basis. One is the food. I don't know of

anyone who's ever commented to me or any member of this House that the

food is good. The food is terrible. The food is not nutritious; it is

not pleasant; it is poorly thought out....

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

MR. HANSON:

Back to the gastronomic nightmare on the ferries — it is terrible. In

every schoolhouse in British Columbia in grades K to 6 there are charts

on the wall with pictures of things that people should eat to be

healthy: leafy things, something orange, some little fish, a little

poultry, some cheese, some dairy products, some real orange juice. The

food is not good, and it really should be corrected. The food is not

the responsibility of the crew; the crew are doing their best to

provide the service that is required, but B.C. fruits, vegetables and

different marine foods that are specific to B.C. could be prepared in a

pleasant way and presented within cost guidelines that would make it

reasonable. I'm not talking about setting up a fancy restaurant; I'm

talking about food where a person could take their family and sit down

in a quiet way and have a good nutritious meal that isn't just rubbish

that's coming out of a greasy spoon. The crew and the food service

people on the ferries are trying their best and they are not happy

about it either. I really wish that you would take my comments

seriously and think about the nutritional aspects. There are many

people who eat regular meals on those ferries — several a week. You

know that old veal cutlet is something that is expensive for some

people, but there could be things that are nutritious, pleasant and that

[ Page 3101 ]

really

could be laid out as a tribute to British Columbia and something that

we could be proud of. It's one of the world class trips from the

mainland to Vancouver Island. Why should it have that kind of a food

service on it which is a tribute to no one?

Staying with the

ferry system for a second, there is a growing concern on Vancouver

Island that this government does not have a commitment to maintaining

and enhancing and streamlining the ferry system, because you have a

colleague who sits beside you who keeps resurrecting every so often

this fixed link. Now I am in open opposition to the establishment of

that fixed link. The calculations that I have done, just on the

environmental impact assessment that would have to be done.... I'm

not talking about the engineering feasibility studies, but just filling

in the gaps on the environmental side to provide answers in areas where

we don't have information. We're looking at a minimum there of $3

million for the environmental studies.

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

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

we're looking at probably $3 million for the environmental impacts,

probably somewhere between $5 million and $10 million for the

engineering feasibility studies....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the second member for Victoria has the floor. With respect

to tabling, it can only be done in the House, not in committee. We're

in committee. The member continues.

MR. HANSON: There

are estimates from various academics regarding the socio-economic

impacts of a fixed link. Again, we're probably talking about $1 million

or $2 million there, so what I'm suggesting to the minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, is that that $15 million on studies for a fixed link

— the environmental part, the engineering side, the socio-economic side

— in a downturn of revenues when we are seeing front-page stories and

statements by the Minister of Finance that his colleagues are going to

have to tighten their belts.... I'm hoping that you, Mr. Minister,

are going to be able to get that other colleague of yours in line and

ask him to cease and desist in the frittering away and the wasting of

public revenues on these studies.

People do not want a

bridge; they do not want a tunnel. The life span of floating bridges in

other jurisdictions is 40, 50 or 60 years at the most. It's not a

matter of building a floating bridge and then the costs being finished

for all time. It requires maintenance. It has a fixed life. It has

physical force factors that it would have to contend with far in excess

of the Hood Canal Bridge, far in excess of the Tampa Bay Bridge.

Oceanographic information that I've been collecting from Pat Bay and

from various other people to try and get the information on what sort

of studies would be required to build it safely and so on.... It is

clearly a project that we cannot support at this time, and I hope that

you're going to get that Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications under control.

I'd rather see that money put

into the Glenshiel Hotel here in Victoria, light rapid transit in

Vancouver, light rapid transit here going up the Island to enhance the

E&N section. The bus service on Vancouver Island is terrible. It is

almost impossible to make a trip from Port Hardy to Victoria in one

day. You cannot do it. You have much better bus service with comparable

mileage over on the mainland, say, going out into the Fraser Valley.

The bus scheduling from Victoria up to Port Hardy and back — if you

would take a quick detailed analysis of that bus schedule, it is

extremely bad, and I think the money from the Minister of Universities,

from the tunnel, could be better spent in some of these other areas to

benefit my constituents and other constituents of this Island.

The

minister mentioned briefly the subsidy of B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Unfortunately this is always a political football that gets resurrected

and raised by this government. Most people — the public — do not see a

service like a highway between Vancouver and Hope as something that is

subsidized. Of course it's subsidized; it's paid for out of general

revenue. It just so happens that our highway is across water. It was

very good that that plaque that had been put up by a former minister

responsible for the B.C. Ferry Corporation advising everyone to what

extent the ferry system was being subsidized out of general revenue was

taken down. It was insulting. It should have been taken down and it

was, and that was good. But what I'm saying is that I think we should

put that old red herring on the back burner and just let it go away and

forget about that idea. What we are interested in is a good, safe,

efficient system crossing the maritime environment that we have, that

is paid for out of public revenue in the same fashion that a road is

paid for out of general revenue in any other land-based transportation

link in the province. That just makes sense to me, and I think it

should make sense to the government.

There's

one point I

would like to get up and make more detailed statements on perhaps later

on in the estimates, but I'm just going to sort of hold the phone here

while my colleague is away. I think that this minister probably is

going to go down in history as the champion of overruns. From the time

the estimates were debated in the last session until now, do you

realize that $119 million of special warrants — orders-in-council,

special warrants for highways — came out of cabinet? That was about 28

percent of his total budget.

In a way it's a bit of a farce.

What we're involved in here is debating the amount of money that is

allocated to a minister to conduct his good works. When we finally sit

down and vote yea or nay on X dollars.... As soon as we

collectively leave this place — some of us are here all the time — the

cabinet meets and they start off on their special warrants. For the

fiscal year 1979-80, here's the list: $119,569,075, in addition to the

regular estimates, which were $406 million. So it's somewhere around 28

percent. First of all, supplementing vote 213, is highway maintenance,

$5 million; vote 214, construction capital, is $25 million; there's

another one for $25 million and another for $35 million. There are

others for $10 million, $4 million, $2 million, $500,000, $2.8 million,

$7.4 million and $1.8 million. That's $119 million. So it's a farce, in

a way. We stand here in good faith, and we negotiate. We try to debate

and argue the relative merits of the spending priorities of the

government.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON:

We're parliamenting, yes. We're trying to convey to the minister what

the priorities should be. But in actual fact, as soon as his estimates

are passed, then it's

[ Page 3102 ]

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

There's

another part — and I have pointed it out to the minister before — and

that is the breakdown of the annual report which points out where the

money is spent by electoral district. That's an interesting document.

There are more roads.... I grant the minister the fact that in his

particular riding of Cariboo there are a lot of what they call

low-volume roads — dirt roads, single-lane roads, and so on. When

special bills are passed.... For example, there was a $5 million

special appropriation for Highways, which was passed in the last

session. The lion's share of that went into the Cariboo. In actual

fact, it is the big-money draw. Out of 48 electoral districts, $40

million went into the Cariboo. Fort George was next, but the Cariboo

eats it up. There are many people who feel that the minister's own

riding gets very careful attention in highway construction and

low-volume roads. In fact, the low-volume roads may be looked after

better there than are low-volume roads elsewhere. That was a point I

raised before. I see that all that information is in the annual report.

The

major points I want to make are that it's of great concern here on

Vancouver Island and to my constituents in Victoria that there doesn't

appear to be the same commitment to building up and looking after the

ferry system — nurturing it along — as should really be the case. Under

this minister the maritime transportation system has really fallen into

disarray. He may handle the highway side in a different way, but from

my own constituency I can only judge that the maritime transportation

system is a disaster.

There is a long series of events that

took place with the B.C. Steamship Company — the events back and forth

between the Ferry Corporation and the B.C. Steamship Company. I'm going

to talk about that later on.

I would like to see the

minister take seriously some proposals to examine the LRT idea for

Vancouver Island. The ferry system can only be as good as its capacity

not only to convey people across the water, but between the terminals

and the areas where they want to go. What I think should be done is

that we should be looking at ways of getting people, in a very

convenient, comfortable and fast way, out of Victoria, so they don't

always have to take their own cars up to the terminal and aboard the

ferry. Many senior citizens in my riding find it very difficult on the

milk run that goes to the ferry terminal at Swartz Bay to make that

long walk, carrying baggage and so on, down those corridors. I get many

complaints that it is very difficult for them. If there were some way

that that particular milk run could drop people off closer so they

could go right up to the ferry and walk aboard, it would be a great

help to senior citizens and handicapped people.

We should be

looking at every single possible way of making it more desirable to

take the ferry and leave your car at home. I think that there's a great

place to have buses taken directly aboard the ferries. I think what we

need is more buses. The per passenger volume is very desirable with

buses. I think we should be looking at many buses to go directly aboard

and off at the other end. At the same time a drop-off system where

people can conveniently walk aboard would be of great help. I would

like the minister to consider that.

So I would briefly like

to recap these points again. I would like him to seriously look at the

food situation on the ferries. I would like him to get his colleague

under control, and not to fritter away capital — public revenue — that

could be used to enhance the ferry system on an endless series of

studies just to keep engineering consultant firms busy. I don't think

that's really a good make-work project for them.

I'm sure

it's going to be raised by other members, but I would like some

consideration given in these estimates for response on what is the

future of the Victoria-Seattle run. What is going to happen in the

future? We don't want to be asking questions all through the fall and

spring. Is the Victoria Princess running again? Is the Marguerite being

refitted? Is the Surrey going on? Are you going to run jetfoils only?

Is the Pan Pacific Society going to run jetfoils? Where does the B.C.

Steamship Company end and where does the Pan Pacific Society begin? I

don't want to ask any of those questions. I just want a commitment from

the minister that the Victoria-Seattle run will continue next year,

that some thought will be put into it, perhaps to refit the Marguerite,

to build another vessel, to bring something in as a stopgap. We would

like some answers. It's just too much of a waste of our time and too

much insecurity. I think, as a former businessman, you realize that

it's of great concern to the business community of Victoria. They don't

want to go through that grief again of worrying, signing petitions,

having them just pushed aside by an insensitive Premier, after 45,000

names were gathered in a short period of a week or so. So I would just

ask the minister for his assurance that the run will continue, that all

the mistakes and bungles of the past will be set aside, and that it

will be done right for the benefit here of Victoria.

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

Again,

the bus service — if the minister and his officials would just please

check the bus scheduling that goes from Victoria to Port Hardy and

back, you'll see that it is virtually impossible to make connections.

It takes too long; it is too costly. The cost of a bus ticket was

quoted to me as something on the order of $80. I'll have to check my

figures, but I'll come back. The pricing structure of the tickets is, I

think, prohibitive. It makes it very inconvenient to take buses, and if

we want to get some of the road traffic off the Island Highway — the

congestion that has been talked about by other Island MLAs — then we're

going to have to look at a good, efficient bus system up and down the

Island, meeting the ferries and so on. It has to be done in an

integrated, coordinated way. It doesn't make sense to ask people to

take the bus and leave their car at home if it's going to take them 12

to 15 hours to get here.

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm

enjoying this debate, but I'd like to deal with the member that just

sat down first, to try to reply to his questions and observations. I'll

go from back to front. Regarding the bus operations on Vancouver

Island, the government of British Columbia own the majority of the

buses, certainly the main bus company, Pacific Coach Lines Ltd., but it

doesn't come under my responsibility. It comes under the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I'd appreciate it if he'd

refer to it there. But I will say that through the Ferry Corporation we

try to coordinate the operation of that now that we have the larger

vessel on the run from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. We just recently

entered into an arrangement with Pacific Coach Lines to look after our

passengers getting on and off the Queen of the North, when it's

southbound or northbound. That's the only connection 1 have with it, to

try to coordinate it with the running of

[ Page 3103 ]

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

Back

to the Victoria-Seattle run, called the B.C. Steamship Company Ltd.

I agree, Mr. Chairman, that we don't want to leave it until the end as

happened before. Instructions have gone to the B.C. Steamship Company

and other people affected — B.C. Ferries to some degree — that we want

a resolution to our problem, first of all, that the system will run in

1981, but with what? They are working on that and we have asked for a

decision by the end of July or early August. We haven't anything to

hide. Once that decision is made then it will be put. Hopefully we're

all raring to go for the spring season of 1981.

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

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

The

second member said that he has no confidence in me, and when it comes

to marine transportation I think he has called me a landlubber. The

Leader of the Opposition said I couldn't take a sailboat across Lac La

Hache in my own riding. That is right, because I wouldn't get in a

sailboat in the first place.

I enjoy the marine side of the

responsibility I have, and I attend all the meetings of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation; I don't think I've missed a meeting since I've had the

responsibility. I want to give credit to the directors who serve for a

very nominal sum at B.C. Ferry Corporation. They all take a great

interest for all parts of the province served by that fine service.

don't know how far to go with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, because I'm

coming back up to some operational problems, but we discuss a lot of

items as expansion of the service. I've appeared before the Crown

corporations reporting committee and given my opinions regarding B.C.

Ferries' present operation and future, but there are always things

coming on the horizon that are not predicted. I think that we can

handle the future of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, but I'll get into that

a little further.

I want to now go to special warrants. I

just want to remind the Legislature that the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) mentioned that special warrants amounted to $119,567,075. That is quite correct. They were broken down into various

categories. The largest benefactor, if that's what you want to call it,

was the highway construction

section in the Transportation and Highways

ministry, and that was $95 million. There was also assistance to B.C.

Rail for the Fort Nelson extension, warrants for B.C. Ferry

Corporation, highway maintenance, air services branch, and the motor

vehicle branch. By far the largest was $95 million. I just want to say

— as chairman; I said it in my opening remarks, but it is government

policy — this money and the revenues were good and they were allocated

to other ministries as well. In the case of the highway program, they

wanted to have it continue to create jobs and get a better highway

system. One comment I didn't make: when we talk about highway work and

that, 1979 was one of the best construction seasons we've ever had,

basically due to the great weather we had. It is reversing itself this

year.

I think the underlying factor here, I'd like to say on

behalf of the government, is that we were very fortunate to have this

money, and this money was created because the economy of this province

was in excellent condition. For that reason it was available, and it

was spent to upgrade services in the province — not only in this

ministry, but in this ministry $119 million was spent. We are not

apologizing for it. It was government policy.

I also want to

tell the House that I don't think you'll see that happen in the 1980-81

year. We have been debating estimates now, as far as I'm concerned, for

four months, and this is a continuation of that and that's great. I

specifically refer to Bill 5, Bill 7 and of course the main estimates.

If you will add up the total for this ministry with the $119 million

classed under special warrants last year and the starting budget and

compare that with this year in the green book of estimates plus Bill 5

and Bill 7, you will see a relationship there. What I am telling you is

that government policy has changed and we intend to be able to live

within the budget that's before you — not just in the estimates book,

but also the money contained for this ministry in Bills 5 and 7.

There

is a very interesting discussion going on about the fixed link, and I

will reiterate government policy on that to my colleague — as I

understand government policy on the fixed link. The only thing that's

been authorized is a $100,000 study to look into the feasibility of a

fixed link. Maybe that will tell us something, but that, I want to

repeat, is the only thing that has been authorized by government. The

results of that preliminary study will be in shortly, I imagine; but

the minister responsible, my colleague, the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), should have the details

on that.

I want to now deal a bit again with the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). He got on to the operational side,

and that's good. I don't say that critically. He said that the food

service on B.C. Ferries was lousy. Well, I guess everybody's entitled

to his opinion, and that's his. I will say this — to leave some food

for thought for you: last year the B.C. Ferry Corporation spent $18

million on the purchase of food supplies. So it isn't small business.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I don't think they made a profit. What I'm indicating is the size of

business that we're involved in — and it's been in the annual report, I

think. The B.C. Ferry Corporation hauled 11 million people and 4

million vehicles last year. So, you know, it isn't like it was in the

old days; we're dealing with way larger volumes and because of this,

creating new kinds of problems.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm

not criticizing you on the food. I want to tell you this: buffet

service has been brought back on some of the runs where we have a

stretch vessel that we can get the buffet service on. Some of the

vessels we can't because of the areas involved. Another thing that has

been done to try to help with the catering for so many people is that

for the first time in B.C. Ferries we have a catering boss. He was

taken on, I believe, about a year or so ago, and I would hope that

would be of assistance. It may be, as you say, that it's been a

detriment. I don't really think you meant to say that. I'm saying that,

from the management side, they brought in a catering boss to try to get

a better organization than they had. It was good, but to try to keep

operating....

[ Page 3104 ]

guess all B.C. Ferries problems are based on too much business, which

is a happy thing to have when you're in business; but getting increased

business also increases problems. So what I'm saying is that we have

1,500 passengers, say, on a jumbo vessel, and it's on the run 1 hour

and 20 minutes, or 40 minutes, or whatever it is, and I suggest to you

that that creates difficulties in itself — to be able to feed all those

who want to be fed in the short period of time. We are dealing with a

lot of people and it creates problems, which we are always trying to

deal with on a daily basis, I might say. For the information of the

House, I understand that there is a sawoff between what is charged for

meals and what we collect from them; there is very little loss or

profit from the food end of things. That's my understanding.

The

last thing that I have a note on here is the purchase of B.C. food. It

is a policy of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to buy B.C. food wherever

possible — not only to buy it, but to make it a special on the menus

and so on, to promote it.

MR. LEA: Where do they get their mushrooms?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, maybe they're getting the mushrooms from the member's

riding of Prince Rupert. I understand you've got quite a field of them

on the Queen Charlotte Islands. No, I don't know where. If we're not

giving the people any business, write in, and we'll consider your

request for supplying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Porcupine pie?

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

MR. BARBER: Quills and all.

HON. MR. FRASER:

But I think that pretty well covers the second member for Victoria — it

won't cover it, of course, but I did most of the items he brought up.

want to go back to the comments of the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) so things don't get too stale. Again from back to front, Mr.

Chairman, to the member for Mackenzie, you made a point in your remarks

regarding the ferry terminals. Well, quite frankly, ferry terminals are

showing up now as a far bigger problem than any ship problem we have,

and again, because of increased traffic. I'll deal with the four main

terminals we have: Horseshoe Bay, Departure Bay, Tsawwassen and Swartz

Bay — just to give you my version. But Horseshoe Bay is now up to

capacity and we can't expand it any further.

We haven't said

it yet, but we have to find class C vessels coming into the system in

the spring of '81, I think. There has been a delay on that, I'd like to

inform the House. Instead of, if I recall, January and March delivery,

the shipyards are now promising March and May. But in any case they're

coming into the system in 1981 and, as far as I know, they haven't been

assigned to a run. But we're going to see, for the first time, jumbos

on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen run.

Horseshoe Bay is up to capacity. At Departure Bay we have room to manoeuvre

for increased capacity. Tsawwassen is pretty well in the same category and Swartz

Bay is getting close to capacity, but not the end of the world. We're almost

to the end of the world regarding Horseshoe Bay. You're quite right — some

decisions have to be made, but there are a lot of ways to go. In the case of

Swartz Bay, as an example, we are now, or should be, doing the physical construction

to accommodate jumbos. I believe that's going on right now. Horseshoe Bay

is definitely the biggest problem.

don't think it's any secret, Mr. Chairman, that for years — and I've

heard the debates in this Legislature — it's been proposed by prior

people of responsibility for ferries that we should be looking at Iona

— Gabriola. I'd just like to say that I guess those reports are still

there, but currently they haven't been dusted off. I don't want to

cause any alarm in any way, but those are options. I suggest there are

other options, and we are looking at those now, Mr. Chairman. Let's

deal with Horseshoe Bay, being the biggest problem, and route 2, the

biggest problem we have in the ferry corporation, by far, and expanding

the fastest of them all. Thinking back a couple of years, I think that

probably this government created that problem for themselves, inasmuch

as we got a first-class highway to the north end of Vancouver Island

for the first time in the history of British Columbia, but that, again,

creates other difficulties in traffic patterns, and that's why route 2

is shooting up so fast. Now the traffic is certainly crossing on route

2 from Horseshoe Bay to Departure Bay and obviously going to the north

end of the Island.

But the big increase in traffic, Mr.

Chairman, is coming in commercial traffic, again, as I tried to show

you in motor vehicle registrations. By far the biggest increase is

commercial. We are now starting to look to relieve the real problems at

Horseshoe Bay and find out how much it will relieve by moving the

commercial traffic that is bound for points on Vancouver Island —

obviously we can't for the Sunshine Coast — out of there and

maybe running a Queen of Alberni- type vessel from Tsawwassen to

Nanaimo, to Departure Bay. This would relieve a lot of commercial

congestion in Horseshoe Bay. Putting on my other hat for a minute —

Highways — it would help the congestion of the Upper Levels Highway

into Horseshoe Bay, and I don't think it would cause any additional

problem by the commercial vehicle coming to Tsawwassen. As I say, we

are looking into that. We have to discuss this with industry, such as

the trucking people, and we will. It might be a partial solution. I

believe the trip will take longer, but we're also short one boat

that'll cost us $40 million.

As chairman of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, I suggest those decisions have to be made before the end

of 1980. Once the decision is made — if it is made — to get a second

Queen of Alberni, it takes about two years to build the vessel.

You

remarked, Mr. Member, about jumbo construction to end. That is

something we are looking at. I believe we have two jumbos now and two

more coming into the system next year. We recently found we can take

seven of our stretched vessels and make jumbos out of them, so we would

go in the pattern that's ahead of us from two now, four next year and

eleven as required. Now it is feasible, engineering-wise, to lift seven

of the stretched vessels we have and make jumbos out of them. For the

information of the committee, going this route we will look after our

capacity in the ferry system for at least ten years at a rough estimate

of $50 million. That is talking just the seven stretched ships. It is

estimated at approximately $7 million each. Some are as low as $4

million to stretch, some are as much as $9 million. That is caused by

the fact that some of the vessels have been re-engined and some have

not and have to be re-engined. The cost varies with whatever vessel

you're talking about. We are

[ Page 3105 ]

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

We are getting back to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) and his hang-up about the Sunshine Coast. Yes, we have problems on the Sunshine

Coast at times, as we have everywhere in the system, but we

cannot.... I guess we can, all right; it would be irresponsible,

though, if we had a ferry system that looked after all the peaks of

demand we have on the system. We'd have to have double the ships we

have. I might say that apart from long weekends the B.C. ferry system

is utilized on a year-round basis at 50 percent of its capacity at the

present time. I think we should bear that in mind when we talk about

extra service and so on. That is a fact; the ferry system keeps the

records. Outside of the problems we have on the long weekends in

several areas....

I understand that no one had to wait

more than one sailing on the Earls Cove-Saltery Bay ferry, which was a

wait of an hour and fifteen minutes. On Friday, June 27 — 1 know this

member didn't worry about that, because he was in the interior of the

province — on the 16:30 sailing to Earls Cove there was a 62-car

overload; on the 18:20 sailing there was a 48-car overload. On June 28

there were no overloads. On June 29, on the 15:35 sailing from Earls

Cove there was a 1-car overload. On June 30, on the 14:40 sailing to

Earls Cove there was a 4-car overload; on the 15:35 sailing to Saltery

Bay there was a 2-car overload. On July 1, on the 21:05 sailing from

Earls Cove there was a 23-car overload. I know that you have been

concerned, the mayor has been concerned and so on, but it isn't quite

as bad as it sounds.

I don't think I have the time, nor do I

want to go back — but maybe I should — to all the decisions that were

made, rightly or wrongly, regarding the changing of ships for the 1980

season. I would just like to make a few observations, though, to clear

the air.

Regardless of other statements that were made, Mr.

Chairman, in May 1979 the Premier of British Columbia said that the

then Queen of Surrey would be put on the run from Port Hardy to Prince

Rupert. I was with the Premier at the time, at the opening of the Port

Hardy terminal, when that decision was announced. I think you should

put those dates in your mind. That decision was made to get further

capacity on the north coast run for the citizens of British Columbia,

because it had come to the point then that the very great Queen of

Prince Rupert was obviously not looking after the demand, and we had to

do something about it. As there was increased capacity, the Premier

announced that the Queen of Surrey, which became the Queen of the

North, would take the place in 1980. That is what actually happened.

Regarding

the Princess Marguerite, the decision was made to not operate that

vessel, because we had advice that it was dangerous to operate. It was

a government decision, but as one member of the government I support

that decision because I can't see how any government can take the risk

of putting a vessel out that some people said — I repeat, some people

said — was not safe to operate. Other people said it was.

come to the question: where does the Queen of Prince Rupert fit in? A

decision was made to replace the Princess Marguerite with what we now

call the Victoria Princess — the ex- Queen of Prince Rupert. That is

where the vessel is operating now.

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the answers and for the

opportunity to get some of my material together. While I think of it,

Mr. Minister, you neglected to answer my question about the cost of

storage of the Marguerite — or I missed it — at Yarrows, and future

intentions for that particular vessel. If you could just make a note of

that, I'd appreciate it.

The House will have noticed that we

are dealing with only one aspect of the minister's responsibility. In

my view, if we are going to talk about coast transportation we should

stay with that awhile, and then get on to highways later. I want the

minister to understand that we have not forgotten about highways and

other aspects of his responsibilities. I didn't want to be jumping all

over the ballpark in the first day of debate.

In any event,

during his opening statement the minister did outline to the House the

number of responsibilities that he has to assume and that have been

given him. Quite frankly, I think that part of the problem within the

ministry at the present time — no personal reflection on the minister —

is that the responsibilities of that minister are too wide and varied.

It is totally impossible for a single human being, involved with the

highways responsibilities, chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation and the B.C. Steamship Company, responsible to this House

for, I think, 26 Highways-operated vessels throughout the

province.... Part of the reason for the foul-up is probably the

fact that the minister has far too much responsibility and is unable to

cope with all the matters that he must deal with on a day-to-day basis.

any event, we were promised some time ago an overall transportation

policy for this province. I don't recall the exact dates. I have

clippings and things here, but I haven't had the opportunity to go

through them. I know that somewhere in the area of at least a year ago,

if my memory serves me correctly.... The minister can correct me if

I am wrong; I will accept that. I think, in fact, we were promised an

overall transportation policy for this province prior to the

anticipated debate of the estimates before this Legislature, and we

haven't seen that policy. I was wondering if perhaps the minister could

indicate to this House what stage that policy study is at and when he

might anticipate introducing or tabling in the House that overall

transportation policy so we could debate it. We should be debating that

policy and examining it in these estimates, which is clearly impossible

now. But hopefully we'll have the opportunity at some future date. So

if the minister could indicate to us when he intends to table that

particular document, and when it may be prepared, it would be much

appreciated.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think

it's probably — I'm not quite clear on this, Mr. Chairman —

inappropriate to discuss proceedings that took place during the course

of the Crown corporations committee hearings dealing with a number of

topics which occurred within the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Those

committee hearings went on for some time and at some length. Meetings

were cancelled on numerous occasions, for whatever reason, but they

were cancelled. I must say that the witnesses who did appear.... Is

it in order to discuss this briefly? Quite frankly, I'm not quite

clear, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee has not filed a report

[ Page 3106 ]

yet.

Administrative actions of the minister whose vote is before us now, and

his responsibility for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, are in order, hon.

member. As to that minister's administrative actions in committee, that

would be totally relevant as it deals with the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I don't intend to relive and quote from the extensive Hansard ,

background and research papers that resulted as the outcome of those

committee hearings. But there was one general trend that seemed

to.... I have to compliment some of the witnesses. They were, in

the main, generally candid. The minister himself appeared, without

coercion, if you wish to put it that way. He appeared and answered

questions, I think at least to the best of his ability. I think that

was appreciated by all of us.

However, the general trend

throughout the hearings seemed to focus on the management practices of

the B.C. Ferry Corporation and political interference within that

corporation. My information indicates that while there has been

substantial reduction in the workforce within the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, the actual management level — people in management — has

increased by two and a half times over the last couple of years. I

can't substantiate those allegations, these remarks that were made in

the committee, but I can tell you this: I do have the opportunity, as I

utilize the vessels a great deal not only travelling in and out of my

own riding but on many other routes.... It's some cause of great

concern that morale within the fleet over the last two or three years

has deteriorated to the worst I've ever seen. It seems to be

partially.... And it may well be that the misadventure in Active

Pass was due to this problem. That has never been cleared up.

a matter of fact, there was an internal study commissioned by B.C.

Ferries, hopefully asked for by the minister or the board of directors,

but called for by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That study has never been

seen or heard of since, and I wonder if that study is underway and

whether the results of that study of management practices are ever

going to be tabled in this Legislature. It is an internal study, and

quite frankly internal studies are viewed — certainly by the opposition

— with some skepticism as to the recommendations that come out of that

type of study. The minister will recall that I wrote him a letter — and

perhaps also the general manager of the corporation at the time, I'm

not, quite sure. But I did ask for an external study, not an internal

study. There's not much point in the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

doing a study on the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet); we

know before the study starts what the outcome is going to be, and we

have a similar situation here. I'm not questioning the integrity of

anybody involved in the study, but the public — and certainly the

opposition — must question that type of internal study, which has never

been made public. Perhaps the minister could comment on where that

study is at the present time.

I have one last question while

we're still on B.C. Ferries. The minister and the board of directors

indicated some time ago that they were looking for and would be

considering a full-time chairman of the board of directors to the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. I recall that the minister, during his appearance

before the Crown corporations committee, indicated that they were down

to a short list and would soon be naming a permanent chairman to the

board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I wonder if the

minister could now take this opportunity, when he stands up in this

place, to reply to some of these questions. How short is the list? You

were at six, were you not? Are you down to two or one? If you are down

to one, who is it and what is that person's experience? We would be

very interested in knowing. I would be interested in knowing, as would

the 2,600 employees of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Has Mr. Gallagher

applied? Has anybody in the present management of the system applied

for that particular post?

What we haven't discussed is fare

increases. There has been a marginal fare increase. To be quite honest

with the minister, had there been a tremendous public outcry over that

particular fare increase I would be the second one to know — the

minister would be the first. Quite frankly, there hasn't been that

large of an outcry. As people in our party and this side of the House

have said for many years, you don't go in and double or triple fares

over one year, but everybody understands the inflationary rate.

Everything costs more every year. We are up by 8 percent, 10 percent,

and 12 percent, depending on the item. So people are, I think, prepared

to accept certain fare increases and certain situations. I would like

to know from the minister if you are discussing a further fare increase

and when that might be implemented. The minister or the general manager

did tell us that there would be further fare increases either later

this year or next year definitely.

Another very contentious

point that I've been through with the corporation senior management

people and yourself on a number of occasions — a very sore point

particularly in the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast area —

is the suggestion that there will be eventual removal of resident

commuter cards. I think it's important to people living in these areas

that the residential commuter card — preferred rate for certain days of

the week — be maintained for the residents living in these

areas.... Those vessels in these areas on the coast of British

Columbia are our highways. If we're going to raise and increase fares

to a level which is unacceptable to the ordinary working people living

in those areas, then I would suggest perhaps you should consider

putting a toll on the highway into Kelowna. Why not? It is the same

principle involved. I would hope that the minister would get up in this

Legislature today and assure the residents of the Sunshine

Coast — Powell River, Texada Island area, people living in the Gulf

Islands.... It is a political decision; none of the board of

directors will make the announcement. I hope that he will recommend

against the removal of resident commuter cards for these areas and

perhaps consider extending that little service to people, if and when

we ever get some kind of decent ferry service to the central and north

coast.

I have a number of other topics which I wish to

discuss. I have raised this every year in the House from day one but

I'm going to do it again this year and I'm going to raise it every

year, whether on the opposition or the government side. I feel there

are certain groups of people, particularly at certain times of the year

— everyone within the senior management people of the B.C. highways,

people who operate the highways and ferries and are in charge of them

and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, will understand and agree with this

concept. There are certain groups of people who I feel.... I know

there have been some concessions for seniors. Maybe you could go a bit

further on that one for starters. I'm talking about certain types of

handicapped people who have to go to a major centre, usually Vancouver

but sometimes Victoria or other places, for certain types of

treatments. They are living

[ Page 3107 ]

very minimum incomes, and sometimes this government, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, has had the habit of not passing on the federal government

grants to these people for some length of time, and so what we end up

with is people living in a situation on bare minimum, having to travel

and pay full fares. So this takes care of the handicapped. I think that

with a doctor's written slip these people should be given a special

rate on these systems. They're usually travelling during the middle of

the week, early morning runs particularly and late night runs, when the

ferries are not necessarily overloaded. We usually run into our

overloads around the middle of the day and/or around the early evening

periods.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hogwash!

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The Minister of Municipal Affairs keeps hollering across the floor:

"Hogwash!" Well, if there's anybody in this House who knows about hogs,

I think it's that minister over there. You better believe it. We'll get

to your estimates, Mr. Minister, if you're still a minister. I know

you're running for leader, and I know Bill is shoving you.... You know,

one more move, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, to the left, and

you're going to be right out of there. So I'd cool it if I were you.

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'm trying my best, but these people keep interjecting. I'm trying to

get through these estimates today, and it appears I'm going to be here

a month. I just can't understand these people.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues on vote 193.

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

There are other groups within the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine

Coast and other areas of this province.... We have school groups. I

know there is some kind of fare rate with two weeks' notice. You get a

group rate and all that. The fact is that that's not good enough. I

think that when those Little League groups, soccer teams, Brownies and

guides are travelling in groups from point A to point B to participate

in community and regional activities, they should have, if not a free

rate, at least a very drastically reduced rate. I don't see anything

wrong with that. In fact, you know what that would do for you? Well,

maybe not you personally, but for your government? All those little

people are going to grow up to be voters someday. You know, it's good

politics for you. I know, you're kind of a little bit tight-fisted over

there. You talk about your government subsidies, which we're going to

get into in a little while, but I don't think it would hurt you

politically. You'd be performing a service for a group of people and

the communities. I've talked about sports groups and Guides and

Brownies, but there are other groups as well. There are cultural groups

and theatre groups that travel from Powell River to Comox to Sechelt,

you name it. I think a special rate, at least during certain times of

the year and on certain days of the week, should be initiated. What

else? There are a few other groups here I missed.

Mr.

Minister, I do want to get this on record while we are discussing the

transportation system of British Columbia. I do want to take a moment

out here to generally compliment the hard-working people in the system.

I think most of them are conscientious. I think they do the best they

can under very difficult circumstances — sometimes extremely difficult

circumstances — and I want to compliment those people. There is the

occasional exception, but generally I've found that people working in

the system, at the toll booths and on the vessels themselves, are very

well qualified and very courteous. In any event, onward and upward here.

haven't discussed, Mr. Chairman, the Highways-operated ferries. As I

recall, there are 26 Highways-operated ferries in the province — 14 of

them salt water. It's somewhere in that area. The figures may have

changed a bit in the last while....

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Right, and it's a big responsibility. I'm going to start off this

portion of the debate by saying that when this present minister was

appointed as chairman of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and

the B.C. Steamship Corporation, I, along with many, many other people

who depend on transportation services, expected that there would be

cohesion between those two major ferry systems of British Columbia. I

am extremely disappointed that the end result of all this indicates

that there is less cohesion now between the B.C. Ferry Corporation and

Highways-operated vessels in terms of trading vessels, in terms of

helping each other out in difficult situations; it’s worse now than it

was before. I'm going to make this promise to any of our people — any

British Columbians — who read this or have the opportunity to hear

these remarks: should we become the government again we will plan, with

consultation with people up and down the coast, and we will have a

cohesive system, trading information and personnel back and forth, and

it will not be a competition between two systems. It'll be one good

working system; that's what it'll be.

You know, Mr.

Chairman, I guess most members of this House are aware that there are a

number of free ferries operating in this province in a number of

localities, and I'm not necessarily knocking that. We know why those

decisions were made years ago, and there were good political reasons —

no other reasons — to make those decisions. However, what most members

in this House are not aware of is that, would you believe, on some of

those free ferries travelling and operating in the interior of this

province you can actually buy an edible meal. You can go aboard a free

ferry and buy an edible meal. Fantastic! I was just wondering if the

minister and perhaps some of his staff, whom I know are watching this

debate with great interest, would take this under advisement and

perhaps at least provide some of the people on some of the routes on

the saltwater

section of the Highways-operated ferries with that same

consideration.

The B.C. ferry service.... I know the

minister explained at some length in committee, but very briefly here

this afternoon the problems that are faced.... I'm going to make

this House and you, Mr. Chairman, another promise: when we become the

government again we're going to improve the dining and food services on

those B.C. ferries come hell or high water. I make that promise now.

That's a promise we intend to keep, and if we don't keep it, you can

[ Page 3108 ]

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

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Oh, the Premier has returned. You know, Mr. Chairman, they were asking

for the Premier at Williams Lake. They had people from as far away as

Quesnel, Anahim Lake, Alexis Creek and Bella Coola, and everybody was

asking: "Where's the Premier?" Did you answer your letter yet? We're

still waiting for an answer. Anyway, Mr. Premier, that's got nothing to

do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation, but I just wanted you to know

they're looking for you up in Williams Lake. You know, you'd have won

that bull-throwing contest. There's no question about it. You would

have beat Alec and I all to heck. Anyway, nice to see you back in the

House. Come again next week.

In any event, back to water

transportation. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, while the minister is making

notes, if he could perhaps arrange to bring this House and myself up to

date on the situation regarding the promised transportation service

from Bella Coola to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella — a linking service

that people over there have been asking for for some years. Now I

understand the minister was good enough to meet with a delegation from

that area not too long ago. I attended that meeting and we had some

hope and some reason that.... The minister, in fact, did say the

matter was being studied, and so I wondered if perhaps today,

particularly since the minister has his staff with him this afternoon,

he could bring us up to date on that situation — when we can expect

some decent, reasonable service into that particular area. I know that

ramps are very expensive, and talking about ramps, it reminds me....

don't know if the minister is aware of this or not, but it's been

brought to my attention that next year on the Powell River-Comox route,

which is a Highways-operated ferry, the present vessel, the Sechelt

Queen, the one I couldn't get on last night and the one which was

overloaded again this morning, has to be replaced. I agree with that.

The vessel is old and it's going to be far too costly to upgrade the

vessel. I do know that preliminary drawings for a new vessel for that

route have been completed some time ago. However, it's my understanding

that the ministry is now considering not constructing a new vessel — or

perhaps two new 100-vehicle vessels with possible extensions of up to

130 vehicles at some point — for that route.

They are now considering next year placing one of the stretch-jobs on that

route — that's the Powell River-Comox route, which is about an hour and

20 minute run. There's terrible food on that thing — good people, but terrible

food. In any event, the result of all of this, in terms of dollars — I'm

utilizing Ministry of Highways figures here, excluding inflationary factors

and overruns and everything at this point, because we're sure going to get

into overruns later on in this debate — is that it's going to cost $8.5

million to upgrade these two terminals at Powell River and the one at Little

River — Comox — to accommodate one of the stretch vessels, if that's the

way his ministry is going. Those vessels are capable of carrying 192 vehicles

and I don't know how many passengers, but the fact is it's entirely

the wrong vessel for that route. And I understand that the B.C. Ferry Corporation

is going to not give, not loan, but sell one of those stretch vessels for $7.5

million to the Ministry of Highways, which has the same minister as the chairman

of the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. So right away we have $16 million

right off the top, utilizing government figures.

I wonder if the minister could perhaps confirm this situation, because

we do know — projections indicate — that the overall use over a year of

one of those stretch vessels on that particular route will only be

about 22 percent capacity. What I'm suggesting — another positive

suggestion coming from the responsible opposition on this side — is

that the preliminary drawings that the ministry indicated they have for

the new vessels in the long run would be cheaper, would be better

suited to that route, would increase the service to two-hour service

rather than the four-hour sailings we now have, except for the summer

Friday-Sunday thing which was just initiated on the 20th of this month,

and would leave those stretch vessels for other routes. One other route

I'm suggesting right now for a stretch vessel, Mr. Chairman, is route 3

from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale where we have severe traffic problems,

and it's going to get far, far worse every year.

Last but

not least — I've hardly started on my list here — while we're discussing

stretch vessels, another question to the minister: is your ministry or

is the B.C. Ferry Corporation considering refitting one of the

stretched vessels for the Seattle-Victoria route for next year, or are

you looking elsewhere in the world for a vessel for that route? I'd

appreciate it if the minister could answer that question. I see my time

has run out, Mr. Chairman, so I'll take my seat. I know that there are

many other members who wish to say a few words, and it doesn't appear

that we'll get on highways at all today, but we'll s