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)

THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3119 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Amberley Building Maintenance inquiry. Ms. Sanford –– 3119

Mr. Macdonald –– 3119

Mr. King –– 3119

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

Mr. Leggatt –– 3120

Voter registration cards. Mr. Passarell –– 3120

Mr. Lauk –– 3120

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

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

Matter of Privilege

Alleged remarks by the member for Alberni.

Mr. Hyndman –– 3121

Routine Proceedings

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

Fraser).

On vote 193: minister's office –– 3122

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Barber

Mr. Davis

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Gabelmann

Tabling Documents.

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

31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 3145

THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

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

MR. LEA:

I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming today the Member of

Parliament from Ottawa, representing the great federal riding of

Skeena, Jim Fulton.

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

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

MR. HANSON:

I would ask the House to join with me today in welcoming two people who

are very active in Victoria in the Blanshard Court Community Centre,

Miss Lou Jorgensen and Miss Lennie Hoover.

Oral Questions

AMBERLEY BUILDING

MAINTENANCE INQUIRY

MS. SANFORD: My question is to

the Minister of Labour. Amberley Building Maintenance has a contract to

clean B.C. government office buildings. Amberley has fired eight

workers who complained that they were required to work as many as 18 to

20 hours per day at straight time. In view of the flagrant violation of

B.C.'s minimum wage orders, has the minister taken steps to ensure that

the eight workers get their jobs back, and that they are paid at rates

consistent with the law?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am

aware of the problem to which the member has referred. I'm making the

appropriate inquiry at this time. It was brought to my attention

yesterday. Until I receive a detailed report I'm unable to make any

comments, suggestions or recommendations. I really can't say anything

more.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering if the minister has

been in touch with the Board of Industrial Relations on this, in order

to hold an inquiry. I realize he's expecting a report. Is this through

the Board of Industrial Relations, and will they be holding an inquiry

into the business practices of Amberley Building Maintenance in

accordance with

section 95 of the Employment Standards Act?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I have not had contact with the Board of Industrial Relations, but I do

have a meeting this afternoon at 3 o'clock at which this matter will be

discussed.

MS. SANFORD: I just wonder if the minister would advise us who is Preparing

the report for him if the Board of Industrial Relations is not doing that.

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

MR. MACDONALD:

On a supplementary, where you have the evidence that employees have

been forced to work in plain violation of the Hours of Work Act, are

you prepared to show some gumption and refer the matter for prosecution

to the Attorney-General's department? I am serious about this. Where

you find violations of the labour statutes of this province, shouldn't

they be prosecuted just as other people are prosecuted for breaches of

the law? Are you prepared to do that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

This matter was brought to my attention yesterday. I have advised

members opposite that I am meeting with somebody at 3 o'clock today.

Before I make any comment I would like to know all the facts on both

sides. After that I'll make a decision, but not before.

MR. KING:

On a supplementary to the Minister of Labour, the minister had

indicated to the House that he had caused an investigation to be made.

He then indicated that he was not prepared to reveal who was conducting

that investigation, although I would suggest the House is entitled to

that kind of information. Since the minister refuses to reveal the

identity of that person, has the minister asked for a report from the

offending employer?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know

how many times I'm going to have to say this. I have advised you that I

will be meeting with somebody at 3 o'clock today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I will be meeting with someone from the ministry. I want to find all

the facts. No doubt there are going to be a number of them which

haven't yet been disclosed. After finding those facts, I'll make a

decision.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I

have an oral question to the Attorney-General. In view of the court of

appeal's decision which confirms that a Sherman tank has been driven

through the government's Family Relations Act legislation, and confirms

the failure of this government two years ago to make a constitutional

reference of that act to clear the matter up then, as requested by the

opposition, and the fact that literally thousands of families and

children are now in a state of legal limbo and have to go through the

supreme court at great expense, has the Attorney-General made a

decision to act and to rewrite that act so that it is constitutional,

and bring it back to this Legislature immediately?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, not only is the member's understanding of the decision

faulty, but so is his recollection of the premise upon which he poses

his question. He could rewrite the legislation from now until kingdom

come, but, as the member well knows, he wouldn't overcome the

difficulty which exists when a court of appeal has

[ Page 3120 ]

found

that certain jurisdiction rests with federally appointed judges, or

county and supreme court judges, rather than provincially appointed

judges.

I might advise the member, Mr. Speaker, that

instructions have been given to seek leave to appeal the opinion

expressed by the court of appeal. I might also point out to the member

— who should know — that this jurisdiction has been exercised in this

province at least since 1962, and in some respects since we joined

Confederation, and that similar jurisdiction is exercised in at least

six of the other provinces. Therefore the importance of the matter is

one which will not even escape him.

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

The

constitutional position of the court of appeal could have been obtained

two years ago, and the Attorney-General knows that. Is this minister

willing to show some cooperation with the federal government so that

this matter can be solved and valid legislation brought back into this

House, instead of going along with the Canada-bashing attitude of his

colleagues on the government benches?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deny emphatically the suggestion made by the

hon. member that people who require relief in the four areas before the

court of appeal are being denied relief in this province. When the

Polglase case was decided in October 1979, in view of the fact that

there were a large number of cases then standing before the family

courts in this province, administrative arrangements were made with the

chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to ensure that

all those matters would be dealt with expeditiously and effectively.

They have been done so ever since, and they will continue to be handled

in that way.

As far as Canada-bashing is concerned, it will

be the position of the government during constitutional discussions

which will commence in Montreal next Monday, as it has been in the

past, that the matter of jurisdiction in family law should be given to

the provinces under constitutional readjustments in this country. It's

a position in which we are supported by every other province in this

land.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further question. While

the Attorney-General makes light of the fact that the Supreme Court of

B.C. can handle these matters and is doing so well and makes that seem

very simple, the fact is that there are great delays and far greater

expenses for families in that recourse. So I'm asking the

Attorney-General this: in view of the bungling of his government with

respect to this legislation, will he extend the legal aid plan so that

those families who now have to go to the Supreme Court of British

Columbia and encounter those delays at that expense will be assisted by

this government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the

provisions of legal aid are available to those persons who have need.

It's not a matter of bungling in any respect. I suppose that the hon.

member would like us to rewrite the BNA Act in this House. He knows

perfectly well that's not possible.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General knows full well that

if he had given jurisdiction to federally appointed judges, as most of the other

provinces in Canada have done, he would have solved this matter a long time

ago. Can he tell the House why he didn't decide to give jurisdiction to

federally appointed judges and avoid all this legal nonsense?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I'm surprised to have that question come

from that member, qualified in the law as he is. He should be aware

that the supreme and county courts in this province have always had and

continue to have that jurisdiction.

MR. MACDONALD: I

have a question for the Attorney-General. Following up what was said by

my colleague, is the Attorney-General aware that five years ago the

federal government, through its Minister of Justice, whose name was

Basford — and still is — agreed with the principle that provincial

judges for this jurisdiction could be designated as federal judges by

morass into which you have plunged so many families in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of which the member

speaks. I again say that there has been no bungling with respect to

these matters. The courts in this province have always been qualified

to make the orders which are required in the four instances which have

been before the court of appeal.

VOTER REGISTRATION CARDS

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. The deputy

chief electoral officer advises that voter registration cards are

available to community groups in packets of 25 — one packet at a time.

In view of the right of every qualified citizen to vote at election

time it looks like it is coming closer and closer — and in view of the

chaotic enumeration procedures at the last election, has the minister

decided to remove this bureaucratic obstacle and freely release voter

registration cards?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if the member could run that question by me again. I doubt that

he can. Is he asking if there is a limitation of 25 registration cards

in the mailing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He did.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable question. I can say that there is no

limitation, to my knowledge, except for indiscriminate requests which

may be made. There may be a member sitting opposite who would want to

have 2,000 or 3,000 cards at his disposal. I will be glad to look into

the matter and report back to the House.

MR. LAUK: To

the Provincial Secretary on a supplementary, is he saying that ordinary

requests from citizens for such cards may be considered by some civil

servant, or by himself, as indiscriminate? Surely he means that that

would

[ Page 3121 ]

definitely

interfere with the democratic process and disfranchise people. There

should be no limitations. The minister should stand up and say there

are no limitations.

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY'S

POLICY ON CORRESPONDENCE

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question to the Minister of Environment. Can the minister say

why he requires of all his departmental staff that all communication,

written or verbal, from MLAs should be cleared through the minister's

office?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I thank the member for the

question. I think that the member should know that because members of

this House on the opposite side ask the minister questions, it's rather

handy if the minister is given notice by his staff of the areas of

concern. I have asked that where members opposite — and I understand

that it's a policy that was in existence before I became the minister —

make inquiries, the minister be advised.

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

Leave granted.

DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER

OPEN-SPACE AGREEMENT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The question

was asked by the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes).

The February 1974 agreement was not cancelled by the province, as

charged by that member. The provincial government originally paid to

the city of Vancouver $4.6 million for the purchase of block 71 in the

city of Vancouver. The city invested that amount of money. It earned

interest of $1.2 million on that money for a total of $5.8 million.

When the provincial building, otherwise known as Robson Square, was

built in Vancouver, the province also made the decision to produce the

civic square, which enhances the city. All installation and operating

costs were home by the province of British Columbia, therefore

providing the civic square which Vancouver has long desired.

The

city of Vancouver made the decision to distribute the $5.8 million in

the following ways. They set aside $2.4 million for the art gallery in

the city of Vancouver. They used $1.3 million to purchase the property

and develop Discovery Park at Burrard and Melville Streets, and the

remaining $2.1 million they have allocated to provide public amenities,

greenspace and parkland at the waterfront development known as the Pier

B-C development or Pacific Rim Trade and Convention Centre site.

The

document to which the member referred was the agreement which was

signed in May of this year by the province and the federal government

in reference to the trade and convention centre. During the discussions

which led to the signing of the agreement, the city of Vancouver

requested that the clause the member referred to be included, as

recommended by the director of finance and the director of legal

services for the city of Vancouver.

It should be noted that

the second member for Vancouver Centre chose not to refer to a clause

in the February 5, 1974, agreement made by the former NDP

administration. Clause 11 reads as follows: "Any portion of the

purchase price of lot 71 referred to which remains after the completion

of the city's responsibilities included in this agreement would be used

by the city for the acquisition and development of downtown open space."

The

city has lived up to its agreement. When one considers that $4.6

million which was given to the city by the province has provided a very

attractive downtown park, a contribution to the art gallery, and green

space and park amenities surrounding the trade and convention centre

complex, I think the second member for Vancouver Centre — indeed, all

members in this House who are from the city of Vancouver — can feel

satisfied that the civic square, which was for many years a promise and

a controversy in Vancouver, has been more than fulfilled by the city

government, and that it has been helped immeasurably by the provincial

government of British Columbia.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARNES: Why not?

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

Leave not granted.

MR. HYNDMAN:

I rise on a matter of privilege. The matter arises from remarks

attributed to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on page A4 of the

Vancouver Province , July 3, 1980, in the course of a story

headlined "Speaker Accused in Skelly Wrangle." The reported remarks

accused Mr. Speaker of partiality in the discharge of his duties. "He

has a greater interest in the interests of the government side than he

has for the interests of propriety, rules and the fair and decent

structure of the Legislature itself....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I will table a copy of the

article at the conclusion of my

remarks. On the authority of May, eighteenth edition, page 148, these

remarks would appear to constitute a prima facie breach of the

privileges of this House or. alternately, constitute a contempt of this

House. I therefore ask Your Honour to consider this matter of privilege

which I raise at this earliest opportunity. In the event Your Honour

should find a breach of privilege or a contempt, I propose to move that

this House finds the hon. member for Skeena guilty of a breach of

privilege and in contempt of this House in that he did, on the second

day of July, 1980, as reported in the Vancouver Province on

July 3, 1980, wrongly reflect on Mr. Speaker by accusations of

partiality, impropriety and unfairness in the discharge of his duties

as Speaker of this House. In referring this matter of privilege to Your

Honour, rather than to a committee of this House, I am guided by the

practice of the Commons as reflected in Commons Journals , 1893, page 417, in respect of matters affecting Mr. Speaker, rather than a member.

[ Page 3122 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

There is no debate, hon. members. I will take the matter under

advisement, without prejudicing the member's case, and report back to

the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We had not nearly completed the debate or the questioning of the

minister yesterday and we haven't even started on Highways yet. I do

intend to spend the first part of the debate again today discussing

certain aspects of water transportation problems on the coast of

British Columbia affecting two specific communities, as will some of

the other members in our House. I know that many of the members on the

government side will be joining in this debate, but if they could

confine themselves to this topic and get it out of the way before we

delve into the many, many aspects of highways, it would be appreciated.

I am going to start quite mildly because in checking the Blues

this morning I find that I wasn't quite satisfied. I know that the

minister didn't do this intentionally, because there were so many

questions posed yesterday, but he did not quite complete some of the

answers to questions we posed yesterday. If the minister would make a

note, one of the questions which wasn't answered satisfactorily is what

the B.C. Steamship Company will be paying in rental costs for the

leasing of the Victoria Princess , the former Queen of Prince Rupert , to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What vessel does the minister intend to replace the Victoria Princess

with for the 1981 summer season — if that decision has been made — or

what vessels are they looking at? Or are they thinking about

purchasing, perhaps, a vessel from some other part of the world or

utilizing a vessel that is now in service on another route? If the

minister could answer that question it would be appreciated.

While

we are discussing that particular route, I know that other members have

a great deal to say on this aspect because we know that tourist traffic

to this city particularly is down considerably.

I heard the

minister this morning on CBC radio blaming the volcano. That is just a

little much. We can blame a lot of things. I could blame the volcano

for my getting to Victoria late yesterday afternoon. When I went to my

banker last Monday I blamed my finances on the volcano, but he didn't

accept that answer. So we can't just blame everything that happens here

in Victoria on the volcano. We attempt to blame it on "Bungle Bill" and

things like that, but the volcano.... That's stretching it a bit.

am playing the part of a responsible opposition member in putting

forward positive suggestions to that government, which they implement

and then take credit for. I'd like to give the minister another one.

The Marguerite is perfectly

capable of sailing. There's no question about it. Canadian Pacific

operates a tour vessel from the lower mainland toAlaska that is a year older. It's a sister ship, but a year older than the Marguerite . It is in perfectly good condition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten times the route miles.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's absolutely right.

They

have made a decision, and they won't take a second look at a decision

once they've made it, as the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, used to

do, to his great political advantage. Because they won't take a second

look, and there appears to be almost no hope that the Marguerite

will be put back on that particular route between Seattle and Victoria,

I'm suggesting to the minister: don't scrap that vessel. Don't give it

away. Don't let them sink it in the Vancouver harbour. Don't turn it

into a museum. That is a ridiculous waste and use of that particular

fine, fine vessel.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is

this. I'll tell you this right now, for the record. If I ever have

anything to say about it directly — and that opportunity may come

within the next year or two, hopefully — I would put that vessel on a

day route between Victoria, the Gulf Islands, Vancouver or somewhere in

that area. It would be extremely popular over the five- or six-month

tourist season. You would have to accept reservations months in

advance, I kid you not. It would be that popular. It's a good use for

that very fine vessel. If you're thinking of selling that particular

boat for $50,000, as you did with a previous vessel.... The person you

sold it to sold the engines out of it for $54,000 and still had the

vessel. That was another bad bungle by this government. Okay, if the

minister could discuss that for a minute, I would appreciate it.

have another positive suggestion. I've raised this in the House before.

I do it every year, but I'm going to do it again and probably next year

as well. Having visited all of the major and most of the smaller

communities on the coast of British Columbia and, in terms of

transportation, having discussed with municipal councils, regional

districts, chambers of commerce and people in the wholesale-retail

transportation business, most people agree with me that what we require

on the coast of British Columbia is a type of self propelled vessel

with lift-on, lift-off capabilities and passenger capabilities. In

fact, right now my research indicates we could use two such vessels at

the present time. I would remind the minister that the federal

government is responsible for building the type of wharf that could

accommodate this type of vessel. When we're talking about ferries and

building ferry ramps in small communities, the cost is horrendous. I'm

very much aware of that. The minister is as aware as I am that the

proposed ferry terminal in Bella Coola, for example.... The studies

indicate, as I recall — and the person who knows is sitting right

behind you, so I'll accept the nod — that the cost is somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $1.7 million, but I suspect that with inflationary

rates and the terrain the contractor would have to work in in that area

to build a proper ferry ramp, it would probably end up in the

neighbourhood of $2.5 million.

The point I'm making is that

to properly service the smaller communities and the inlets on the coast

of British Columbia and the cast coast of Vancouver Island and to

provide proper transportation services and rational economic growth for

these areas, this positive proposal I'm putting forward is, in my view,

a good suggestion. Should the opportunity arise, Mr. Chairman, I would

make every effort to implement this on the coast of British Columbia.

[ Page 3123 ]

have one last item on this particular topic. This is what the people of

this province who have to live on this coast are asking for. This is

the type of service they want. You realize, Mr. Chairman, that at one

time, up to five years ago, we had this kind of service on the coast of

British Columbia — partially, not fully. We had this type of service on

the coast of British Columbia, and it worked reasonably well. Because

the federal government would not go along with a subsidy to Northland

Navigation at that time, Northland Navigation pulled out. They quit.

They threatened they would. They were requesting a $4 million subsidy

at that time.

As a result of all this — to make a long

boring story into a short boring story — there was a lack of

transportation services for some time to many points on the coast, and

there still is. I've mentioned Bella Coola — I'll mention that

community again — which still has no decent water transportation

service since Northland left. One of the results has been that the

costs of moving and transporting goods, needed materials, food supplies

and normal living supplies have increased tremendously. I won't go

through the wealth of figures I have here, because I know the minister

has them. In fact, what I received was a copy of comparative costs of

water transportation to these coastal communities. The original copies

went to the minister's office. In general, costs of transportation of

these goods, whatever they may be — foodstuffs primarily, but anything

that people need to live — has literally tripled. The minister is aware

of this. There's been an inflationary rate. Certain companies

attempting to provide a reasonably good service — and I'm not knocking

these private companies — perhaps in order to survive, do have a

monopoly.

The minister may not be aware that because the

community of Prince Rupert has alternative transportation services —

railroads, a fairly decent aircraft service, and a highway into the

community — the same company.... I won't name it here, because I'm not

going to pick on any particular company; there are several involved. On

the journey from Vancouver to the north coast, when they're making

their regular stop, for example at Bella Bella, the freight rates into

Bella Bella are double what they are in Prince Rupert, which is almost

twice as far as Bella Bella. The reason is that there's no competition

into Bella Bella, but in Prince Rupert there is competition, so they

lower their freight rates accordingly. That's not fair. It's one of the

reasons I asked the minister yesterday to give us a firm....

Mr.

Minister, I hope you're listening to this. You answered this question

yesterday, but you said nothing. Your government promised to bring in

an overall transportation policy for this province. The question was

very clear: is that study in progress, and when can we expect the

results of that study to be made public? That's all I'm asking. I don't

want to hear all this other gobbledegook about this, that and the other

thing. It doesn't mean anything to the people up there, and it sure as

heck doesn't mean anything to me. It is a very straightforward

question, and I hope the minister will answer it.

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

This

is what I started on a while ago, but I got off the track a bit. The

federal government came across with a subsidy based on a very

complicated formula of subsidizing coast transportation services. I've

charged in this House before, and I'm charging again today, that the

government, in my view, is accepting that federal government subsidy

under false pretences. That subsidy is not going directly....

The

agreement, of which the minister and I and many of my colleagues and

many of my federal colleagues have a copy — I believe it's under

section 2 of paragraph 4 — clearly indicates that the provincial

government will assume sole responsibility and maintain adequate

transportation policies on the coast of British Columbia. Those funds

are going into general revenues. I talked to our federal counterparts,

Mr. Pépin, and to our unelected representative from British Columbia in

the cabinet, Senator Perrault, just three or four weeks ago. They

agreed with the concept, and they understand the situation very well.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that those federal funds

specifically earmarked for coast transportation problem matters should

at least be put in that particular direction.

One last

question on that item, if the minister could indicate.... These are my

own figures, because I haven't received the precise figures from the

government. I'm anticipating that the federal government's subsidy this

year — which is a five-year contract, up for renewal for another five

years — is going to be about $9.6 million. Perhaps the minister could

give us the exact figure, or a reasonable figure, on that amount. I'd

like to know — something close, it doesn't have to be right on to the

last dime. When we're dealing in hundreds of millions, and sometimes

billions, I guess 50 cents one way or the other doesn't matter much,

unless you're buying half a pack of smokes.

Mr. Chairman,

while we're on the subject of answers to questions that weren't

answered satisfactorily, the minister was confused in his answer, I

believe. I was reading the Blues

this morning. It was not through his fault, because I don't think I

phrased the question correctly yesterday about a certain study that I

referred to. I wasn't referring to the internal study on the Active

Pass disaster; I was referring to an internal study being conducted by

the B.C. Ferry Corporation on management practices within that

corporation. I don't recall offhand, because I don't have his name here

— no, I'd best not get into names — but I know that study, if it's not

completed, is nearing completion. I wonder if the general manager of

the corporation is on the floor of the House today. Would he be good

enough to advise the minister if that study has been completed and if

that study will be made public? If it is not going to be made public,

I'd like to know the reason why. If he is not going to make it public,

I serve notice to the House right now that I will. I really think it's

more proper that it should come from the government side, Mr. Chairman.

I think that's the route....

Interjection.

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

Mr.

Chairman, I have one more item of a positive nature. I suggested this

to the minister in writing and certainly to the general manager of the

B.C. Ferry Corporation. It's an item that makes a great deal of sense

and it can be implemented, but perhaps not this year. I can understand,

to some extent, your problem with the deployment of vessels on various

routes this year. If you had taken my advice earlier, you wouldn't have

been in all this trouble, but you didn't. That's fair enough. You're

the government and we ain't. I hate to admit that, but that's the way

it is these days — just for a little while longer.

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

[ Page

3124 ]

you to the minister, that a direct ferry link

between Vancouver and the lower mainland, at least Horseshoe Bay to

Powell River, makes eminent sense. It would leave the present Powell River Queen

serving route 7 on that run year-round over the winter schedule, so

that tourists and people having business between those two regional

areas and whatever have the option of travelling that way. A direct

ferry link utilizing a vessel of the class of the Sidney or Tsawwassen

would be a three hour and 15 minute trip each way. I've checked this

out very carefully with senior people within your ministry, and it

works out quite well. It takes three hours and 15 minutes or seven

hours each way, two trips a day. The commercial people in the community

and even your chamber of commerce — I should say "your" chamber of

commerce, because I think we've got two members on there and you've got

88 — agree with the concept.

What it would do is negate the

need for putting a second vessel on route 7 over the busy five-month

summer period and relieve the pressure of the traffic congestion we

have on that route at the moment. But more than that, if you served

decent food and had a reasonable crew on that type of operation, aside

from the economic advantages to the commercial people, it would be so

popular with the tourists in the summer, Mr. Chairman, you would not

believe it. I think a three hour and 15 minute pleasant voyage up one

of the most beautiful parts of British Columbia into an area where you

have all the types of recreation that you can possibly imagine would be

great. I think it would be a great idea.

I should tell the

minister that I did take the trouble to check with a couple of the

major terminals in Vancouver city. The vessel would not necessarily

have to leave from Horseshoe Bay. It could leave from downtown

Vancouver for a modest rental fee with one of the private companies at

one of those terminals to the ferry terminal in Powell River. It makes

absolute sense.

Now the minister's reply will be.... Once

again I've discussed this with some senior management people within the

corporation and with people on theSunshine Coast. They say that all these people travelling down to the heavily populated area of Powell River through the Sun

shine Coast would hurt their businesses. But we did a little bit of a

study on that. I don't know if the minister is aware of it. We asked

people at the terminal how many of them actually stopped. We found that

of people travelling from the populated regional area of Powell River

to the terminal at Langdale, only 8 percent stopped en route for any

reason — for a pack of smokes, a beer, a meal or whatever. Usually the

items they wanted were very small, so it would have very little

economic effect on theSun shine Coast itself. So I won't accept that

answer, if that is the answer you are going to give me. It would

greatly increase the economic opportunities for the business community,

and certainly for the residents of that populated regional area of

Powell River. I hope the minister will consider that.

have another question. It was not posed yesterday, so that is the

reason I didn't get an answer. We will pose the question today.

Interjection.

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not serious?

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

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I was wondering if the minister could indicate to this House the cost

of the ferry service from Sandspit to Queen Charlotte — the cost of the

terminals and the overall transportation costs, including the

construction or redeployment of the vessel.

That pretty well

does it on that score. I have received a great deal of correspondence

which I was going to go into. I should say that about half the

correspondence I have received has been received by the minister or

someone in his ministry as well. I suppose it would be wasting the time

of this House to read the 400 or 500 pieces of correspondence just

relating to water transportation services that I have received within

the last eight months. I know that the minister and his staff have

received much of this correspondence.

I received an

interesting one this morning. I won't read it; I'll just refer to it in

a general way. It's not a horrendous problem, but it's the kind of

thing that bugs the people who utilize the highways and ferries on the

coast of this province. This particular item deals with the actual

printing of the schedules. The way it is now on some routes, if you are

travelling on a B.C. Ferry Corporation vessel, you can only see a

certain portion of the ferry schedules. All the schedules are not

printed together. If you must take a B.C. Ferry to make a connecting

link with a B.C. Highways–operated ferry, that

schedule is, in some

cases, not printed on the schedules. It's no big deal. I'm not going to

filibuster the House about it for the next three weeks. I've got other

things to do that about. What I am saying is, look, rationalize those

schedules and accommodate people. After all, the service is there to

serve the people of this province, and it's a small thing.

Mr.

Chairman, while I've got the floor, I want to discuss a topic I raised

under the spending estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), who is on the board of directors of ICBC. The reply I received

at that time from that minister was that while he would look into it,

it was sort of a grey area and there was not much he could do about it,

and the topic would more properly be raised under the spending

estimates of the Minister of Highways and Transportation, so I am going

to do it now and see what happens.

This relates — I'd best

have the minister's attention — to people who suffer automobile or

vehicle damage while boarding or departing a B.C. ferry. I have reams

of correspondence on this issue. I've forwarded most of the pertinent

correspondence to ICBC, to various management people within the B.C.

Ferry Corporation, and one or two of the more serious items to the

minister's office. I have received no suitable reply from anyone on

this.

Here is what happens, Mr. Chairman. When people have

suffered fender-benders, usually not serious accidents, although I have

copies here of some quite serious accidents — expensive, but no

injuries — ICBC refuses to accept the

[ Page 3125 ]

claim

because the incident occurred aboard a B.C. ferry. We have testimony

from people from the B.C. Ferry Corporation who happened to be present

on the deck at the time. Yet various people in management positions of

the corporation will not accept responsibility and say it's an ICBC

responsibility. Now your colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who is

responsible for ICBC, has finally agreed that this is a grey area that

should be looked at, and we'll have to do something about it. But while

you're looking and thinking, and while we have all of this grey stuff

hanging around, what happens is that the people who've actually

suffered the damage — and I've got one or two really sad cases here of

individuals.... In fact, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I

have gone personally and looked at the damage and I verify that the

incident did occur aboard a B.C. ferry, where no compensation has

ever.... Oh, I'm sorry. I'll only be a second. I didn't mean to be this

long, actually. All I'm requesting from the minister now — because

that's all I can do.... I can't demand and I can't change the

regulations. But it involves a lot of people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Demand!

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

My colleague says: "Demand." Okay, I demand that somebody talk to your

colleague who represents ICBC in this Legislature and talk to whoever

runs the B.C. Ferry Corporation and is ultimately responsible. I don't

care how you do it, but somehow these people should be compensated for

these vehicle accidents — collisions, fender benders or whatever.

One

particular case which really bothered me involved an elderly lady. It

was totally not her fault. I personally spoke to the deckhand on this

one. She didn't have the financial resources to get the thing fixed

properly, and nobody would take responsibility. I personally went to

ICBC and the B.C. Ferry Corporation on this one and pleaded her case

and got absolutely nowhere with anyone. So this is the kind of thing

that happens and it's going to happen again and again. I'm not placing

the blame on the.... Because these things happen. It happened to me

once — just a slight thing, nothing big. The fact is, occasionally and

from time to time there are going to be vehicle accidents aboard the

B.C. ferries.

So if the minister, along with his colleagues

from ICBC, could work this thing out, perhaps even a bit retroactively,

where there is a legitimate case, I certainly would appreciate it and I

know the people utilizing the service would.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and the member for

Mackenzie. I don't know how long it took to ask those questions, but

I'm not going to take as long to answer them. Now I'll try to answer,

although I realize they won't suffice, and then I'll try again.

First

of all, I'll start from the first of the member's questions and try to

attempt to answer. Regarding the leased cost of the Flying Princess , formerly the Queen of Prince Rupert ,

a committee from B.C. Ferries and B.C. Steamships is working on it, but

they haven't arrived at a cost and so there is no reply to that as yet.

Regarding

what vessel is going to operate on the.... I think your question

concerned the Victoria-Seattle run, B.C. Steamships, 1981. I believe I

answered that yesterday and said we were trying to come to a resolution

of that by the end of July 1980, so we won't have the problems at the

last minute in the spring of 1981. The answer I gave was that we're

looking at the ships we have in the fleets and we're looking at a lot

of options but, again, no decisions. The senior staff have been told to

make recommendations to us, the board of directors, by the end of July,

so we can get on and make a decision.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The other thing I want to say is just to remark that in your opinion — and I appreciate that — the Princess Marguerite is capable of operating. Well, of course, there are other people that have different opinions. That's why the Princess Marguerite is not operating. Regarding scrapping the Marguerite , we've never said that we'd scrap the Marguerite . There's been no decision made on that. but one offer has been made by the Premier of the province regarding the Princess Marguerite

and the offer was that if a community group wanted to organize it for

Victoria, the government would consider donating the vessel as a

maritime museum. As far as I'm concerned, they haven't accepted that

offer. That's the only type of commitment — if you want to look at

disposal of the Marguerite — that I'm aware of, and it hasn't been responded to at this time.

I'll

go on to a lift-on, lift-off vessel, regarding the water transport on

the Pacific coast, and I have things to tell the committee here. Yes,

we, the board of directors of the B.C. Ferries, have looked into this

lift-on, lift-off vessel, and what is going on at the present time on

that is we're actively looking, with a naval architect process and

design, and testing by naval architects, at a class of vessel that will

combine passenger and vehicle capacity. We have not yet received the

completed approved design, but it is very close.

So what I'm

saying, Mr. Chairman, to the House and specifically to the member is

that we're looking at a vessel that, if I recall the specs, would be

roughly a 350-ton vessel. It is not specifically of the type that you

are referring to — the lift-on. lift-off type, it's roll-on, roll-off,

a smaller variety.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, I might need to clarify that, but I would like to emphasize this,

regarding the policy of B.C. Ferries: it could well be and probably

will be, if we decide to go ahead, built in British Columbia. But we

might put that out on a charter to an operator. We might not

necessarily operate that ourselves. We could make an arrangement. But

again, none of the decisions have been made. I think we are getting

fairly close. What I have in mind are areas that are very difficult for

us to give transportation to. Hartley Bay is one area that we don't go

to at all. We think this vessel would give service to that area that is

very difficult to serve, and other smaller communities. We don't intend

to replace the Queen of the North

at Bella Bella, for example, but the smaller.... And we're looking at

that. I think I could safely say, on behalf of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, that we'll be making a decision along this line when we

get the architecture, which is due any day now, to expand the service

further and get on with it, make the decisions, and start calling

tender calls still in 1980 for this vessel. I don't know how long

that'll take. It might be safe to say that if all decisions are made in

the affirmative, about a year from now we will probably have this type

of service in for the smaller communities.

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

[ Page 3126 ]

water.

I'll try, and be as accurate as I can from memory, but as the committee

are aware, Northland Navigation pulled out in 1976. I've never heard in

the province of British Columbia more respect paid a company than was

paid them for the service they gave over a long period of time to the

citizens of the coast of British Columbia. They got into an argument or

subsidized $4 million a year. Maybe that's correct, but in any case

they couldn't make an agreement and they pulled out because they

couldn't operate. They ceased operations. At that point, of course,

British Columbia was left with really no reliable service other than

isolated runs, as I understand it. Northland certainly gave a lot of

service to a lot of places, including the Queen Charlotte Islands. As I

say, that was in 1976.

With that happening, our government

Pacific coast — I would like to emphasize this — at the sole discretion

of the province, and it started in 1977 at a value of $8 million per

annum. It has an escalator clause in it tied to the cost of living

index. I believe it's for Vancouver, but I'm not sure of that. Yes,

that money goes into the provincial treasury. That's completely

into the provincial treasury. In the year 1979-1980 the subsidy to the

B.C. Ferry Corporation going out of the provincial treasury after all

fares were collected was $53 million. So I don't really think you're

trying to make a point that we're stealing the $8 million that's coming

from Ottawa. What I'm saying is that it does go into the treasury, but

out of the treasury $53 million is paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation,

or was, making a net — if you want to look at it that way — cost to the

taxpayers of British Columbia for the operation of B.C. Ferries of $45

million. That's based on the 1979 operating year, and I believe in

1980, if my records are correct, the subsidy from Ottawa will escalate

to $9.6 million. I think you wanted to know that, and that's the

information I have.

I was trying to deal with the water

service on the entire Pacific coast here first. Apart from all the

direct costs and the total cost of docks that we have to build, I can

deal again with the Queen Charlotte Islands. As I related, they were

left with no reliable marine service to the island. I think they had

charter service and so on. The decision was made a year ago to expand

the service of the B.C. Ferry Corporation from Prince Rupert to the

Queen Charlotte Islands.

I might say that we have 6,000

citizens on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I know there has been a lot of

debate for and against ferry service on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

But I would say that 80 percent of the 6,000 people on the islands are

anxiously awaiting the start of ferry service for those islands.

have awarded a contract for $4.7 million for the dock to accommodate

our boat, which we hope will arrive there in October. The dock is being

built at Skidegate. The reason the dock is being built at Skidegate is

that marine engineers advised that that was the best place for our

larger vessels to go into. There was a lot of controversy, and rightly

so — they wanted it to go into Masset, a community with about 3,000

citizens at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands. But because

of harbours, tides and so on the decision was made, after being advised

by the board of directors, that our service would go into Skidegate —

and it's well on the way.

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

They

have air services, which are very expensive, I might say. Pacific

Western Airlines has a regularly scheduled flight into Sandspit from

Prince Rupert; I believe it's on a daily basis. That's the way people

can get in and out; it's about the only way unless they swim across

Hecate Strait. The other service they have in there — I think that the

government and B.C. Ferry Corporation didn't forget them — is a tug and

barge service. It operates from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlotte

Islands, and they land at Masset. That's been in operation for some two

years. As a matter of fact, the contractor, RivTow Straits, a large

company which operates on the Pacific coast, does an excellent job.

They haul trucks and cars and loaded trailers. They operate a closed

barge, towed by a very powerful tug. Hecate Strait is the worst piece

of water in the western world, I understand. They operate this freight

service into Masset three times a week; I believe it's reduced to twice

a week in the wintertime. If you have a car, you have to take it onto

the barge, and it's all chained down for the rough trip across. When it

gets to the other side, you have to either swim or get an airplane to

catch up with your vehicle.

Speaking now for the Ferries

board of directors, the policy decision has not been made as to whether

we will eliminate the tug and barge service when we put on our own

roll-on, roll-off boat. I would like to add that in October the former Queen of Prince Rupert , now the Victoria Princess ,

is designated to go into service from Prince Rupert to the Queen

Charlottes. I'd like to point out to the committee that there's nothing

stopping the Queen of the North going there either. I'd like you to think of that: the Queen of the North

can also operate. For the information of the committee, they are the

only two boats we have that can operate in that difficult water. So we

have some options there. The decision made so far is that the Victoria Princess , formerly the Queen of Prince Rupert ,

when it's through down here, will take over that run in October. But a

decision has not been made whether to run the boat on a roll-on,

roll-off basis plus the tug and barge.

It is my information

that the tug and barge contract.... After the revenues are collected

from the cartage of cars and commercial vehicles, the net cost to the

B.C. Ferry Corporation for this service from Prince Rupert to Masset on

Queen Charlotte Islands is approximately $500,000 a year. So they are

getting some service. What I am really saying is that we plan to

upgrade it in 1980.

You latterly referred to brochures and

schedules and so on and so forth. I have an interesting comment here. I

don't know whether it answers your question, but it looks to me like

the B.C. Ferry Corporation already has enough brochures and schedules

to keep about two pulpmills in operation. It says here that in 1979

they produced and put out 5,750,000 brochures and schedules. That is

being increased this year by 150,000 to 5,900,000 — almost six million

pieces. We will soon have to buy an extra boat just to haul the

brochures.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: I see.

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

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

[ Page 3127 ]

HON. MR. FRASER:

We certainly will. Wait a minute, we've already looked at it and there

has been one change made. I don't mind informing the committee that the

Highways ministry has a claims office and officer and have had for

years. They have been looking after the claims of B.C. Ferries. That

has changed, effective April 1 of this year. B.C. Ferries, I

understand, now have their own claims officer, so that responsibility

has been transferred from Highways. Whether this will resolve the

claimants' problems, we will have to see. I will just remind the

committee that there are accidents on the ferries when they are coming

off and going on and so on. In a lot of cases it's not the ferry

operation's problem; maybe there's a little problem with some of the

drivers. What I am really saying is that all claims aren't going to be

satisfied. They try to establish cause and so on and so forth.

The

other one I haven't had time to find out about, but I missed it when I

was trying to deal with the coast. Just in conclusion of that, we have

almost doubled the capacity of the up-coast service. While the opposite

side are quick to find fault — and that is good and fine — I wish

they'd ask me a question about the Queen of the North ,

that starter which will almost double the capacity. We are now booked

solid on that run and it is turning out to be a very real success

story. I understand from some analysis that our B.C. people are really

taking advantage of that circular trip. That is to drive up Vancouver

Island for the first time ever on a new and decent road through to Port

Hardy, get on the Queen of the North

and land at Prince Rupert and then take Highway 16 through, if they

want, to Alberta. I wanted to emphasize for the benefit of the member

for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that they have a decent highway — Highway

16. It is one of our better highways across the province from east to

west and from west to east to the Alberta boundary. Then it joins with

another good highway at the small community of Prince George. It

connects with Highway 97, and you can go north to the Peace River or

back down to the great Pacific coast at Vancouver. I highly recommend

it. It is a great trip, and if our B.C. citizens haven't taken it they

haven't lived yet, and I recommend they take it as soon as they can.

You

were suggesting service from downtown Vancouver to Powell River direct,

as I understand it. I will have to check with senior staff as to

whether they've looked at this or not. I really don't know whether they

have. You say you've talked with them, but I know from the board of

directors' level that we're not imminently planning to put that type of

service on there. I know the member doesn't like to hear this, but I

don't want the impression left in the Legislature that we have stood

still in trying to improve the service on route 7 on theSunshine Coast.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Last year the B.C. Ferry Corporation stretched the Powell River Queen

from a 50-car to a 70-car vessel. It was re-engined, and it didn't at

the start perform the way it was planned, but now I understand it's

performing excellently. What I'm trying to say is that there has been

more capacity put on that run. Sure, it'll have difficulties on long

weekends, but I remind the Legislature and the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) that on an overall yearly basis it's operating at 50

percent of its capacity.

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

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

Finally,

Mr. Chairman, on that run, I personally told the superintendent of

operations to go to Powell River and try and adjust schedules that

conflicted with the local people.

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

That happened on my birthday, June 21 — that's why I know that date. I

understand that helped somewhat, so we are trying to accommodate....

But

the one thing we have on that run that is a concern to the member for

that area and to the Ferry Corporation is that because of the booming

economy in our province Macmillan Bloedel are spending $500 million, I

believe it is, on upgrading their pulpmill at Powell River, and it's

adding a lot of extra problems for all our transportation systems. But

we're sure glad to see that, as we're the government that generated the

climate for this to happen, and we're going to accommodate the

increased economic activity to the best of our ability. But it will. as

the member knows, drop off a certain amount at the end of 1980 or maybe

mid-1981 when the construction is really peaking. I know that with our

government the economic activity will keep up and, of course, we're

glad to cope with these growing pains that we've really created

ourselves.

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

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

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

First of all, just to correct an impression with the minister, Mr. Chairman, on the stretching of the Queen of Powell River

on route 7, that vessel was stretched last year. With that plus a

supplementary vessel we still had overloads. This year we have a

stretched vessel and no overloads, with two extra sailings daily. The

minister was good enough to meet with the municipal council and other

representatives from the community. He did adjust the

schedule

accordingly, and I publicly thank the minister for making those

adjustments. However, it is still totally inadequate at the present

time. I think most people who travel that route and people in ferry

management who know about these things will agree with that.

Just

for the minister's own personal knowledge, for example, if the vessel

on route 3 from Horseshoe Bay to Langdale is even 10 minutes late

there's no way, on some connecting schedules, without breaking your

neck and getting picked up by the police for speeding, that you can

make that vessel at Earls Cove on route 7. Secondly, that vessel does

not run promptly all the time. We had an engine failure on that vessel

last week. There's no reason the minister should be aware of it, but

you can expect that because of the speed, the capacity and other

factors there is going to be the occasional vessel failure on that

route. I hope that when that

[ Page 3128 ]

vessel,

sometime during the course of summer — and hopefully not a holiday

weekend — breaks down for two or three days, you will have a vessel to

put in there on an emergency basis.

What I really got up to

mention to, you, Mr. Chairman, were two items very quickly. When I was

discussing the federal subsidy — I'm very much familiar, as are many

people in this House, with the transfer of funds and subsidies to the

B.C. Ferry Corporation, subsidies to Highways operated ferries and all

that thing — what I was discussing specifically was that it was my

understanding from that agreement that the provincial government would

take up and provide services to the communities that Northland

Navigation and other companies provided services to when that service

was terminated.

What I'm saying to you now — and I can give

you the names of all the communities right now, if you wish — is that

the provincial government, over the last four- to five-year period, has

simply not done that, in my view. You know, it's quite obvious when

there's no boat coming into your community that the service that was

previously being, provided is not being provided. This was the point I

was attempting to make.

Last but not least — and I want to

leave this with the minister — I would like the minister to go to the

government, his own cabinet, and recommend, and bring in a motion on

the order paper, that the committee on transportation and highways be

convened to look into the sordid and sad state of water transportation

in the province of British Columbia today. Let's take a legislative

committee in the people of this province. Let's get out in the field

after this session is over — around the 24th of next December — and

let's get on with that committee work. I would strongly suggest and

recommend that the minister convene a legislative committee.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

We'll give the mouth of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) one

day off; we'll give him Christmas Day off; we'll give his mouth a rest,

and we'll convene that committee. We'll look at the water

transportation system in this province, which has gone to the dogs

since the minister has assumed responsibility and this government has

come to power, because there's no way you can have rational economic

development on the coast of this province under the present policies of

this government.

MR. BARBER: The member for Cariboo

is a nice guy and well regarded in the House, but he has an unfortunate

and impossible job. He has to carry the can for his own government's

incompetent marine transportation policies. The success of those

policies is measured by the fact that in the last provincial election

in the ten ridings of Vancouver Island, eight of them returned New

Democrats — thus the overwhelming popularity of Social Credit marine

policies as enunciated clearly by the voters on May 10 of last year.

The people of Vancouver Island reject the incompetent policies of

Social Credit in regard to marine transport. We reject as well the lame

and absurd excuses that have been proffered by this minister and his

predecessors.

I have in my life an eight-year-old, Mr.

Chairman, and when he gets into trouble from time to time he likes to

blame his misfortunes on someone or something else. If, for instance,

Dustin knocks something over in the house, he might, if he's in enough

trouble, blame it on the cats. If rain comes in his window because he

left it open and gets his schoolwork wet, he might blame that on the

window itself for magically. popping open. For eight-year-olds it is, I

suppose, acceptable, to find some external source to which to attach

blame. Social Credit has been doing this, and the minister has been

doing it as well. Now I understand why eight-year-olds might, but I

don't accept it when governments attempt to.

When this

government doubled the ferry rates in 1976 and drove home all the

tourists, and hurt small business on Vancouver Island, they blamed the

mistake of that policy on the American Bicentennial, and they pretended

that they had no notice, for the previous 200 years, that it was coming

up and would affect tourist traffic. Nonetheless, they blamed the

failure of that particularly stupid and mistaken policy on the American

Bicentennial.

When they managed to screw up the legislation

involving the Seaboard Life Insurance Co., they blamed that on a

teenage clerk. Now that they're in the business of botching the coal

deal, they find some means of blaming that on a party which hasn't been

in power for five years. Today they blame the volcano for the failure

of the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess .

They blame the volcano, and they find any other laughable, absurd and

insupportable excuse they can for the fact that last fall they made a

series of errors — errors of judgment, errors of policy, and errors of

politics, as it's turned out, as well.

Now I have some

figures regarding revenue losses, which I propose to release to the

committee today. The minister received these figures yesterday

afternoon. We received them a short time thereafter. We propose to

demonstrate in the committee today, Mr. Chairman, that not only has the

government lost popularity on Vancouver Island — that's easy enough to

prove; not only have they damaged the tourist economy of Vancouver

Island — that's easy enough to postulate; but as well, they will be

significantly in the hole by the end of the operating fiscal year for

the Victoria-to-Seattle run. In a few moments I will be releasing

figures which I had hoped the minister might release. But I guess,

because of the embarrassment they may imply for his government, he

chooses to keep them in his desk.

The government has a very

serious problem. It's not simply the fact that Social Credit is giving

cry-babies a bad name; they've been doing that for months. Cry-babies

will continue to get a bad name under Social Credit until they are

responsible and mature enough to own up to their mistakes. Mistake

number one: they were persuaded that the Marguerite

was not fit for babies and tourists, as John Plul said; was a floating

coffin, as the then Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) said; and was generally something that no one could be

trusted on, even though May Bennett, the mother of the Premier, sailed

on it on October 12 of last year, together with the Skillings family.

Apparently it wasn't unsafe then, because surely if the vessel were,

the mother of the very Premier would have been told to stay off this

floating coffin. But no, May Bennett was on the vessel on October 12 of

last year.

It should also be pointed out that the Princess Patricia ,

a duplicate vessel in every aspect except for the fact that it has

nearly ten times as many nautical miles on it and is one year older

than the Marguerite , is still

running this year in service in good condition, because the owners of

that vessel chose to look after her properly, chose to pay for the

refit and maintenance work and chose to keep the vessel in service.

Neither

[ Page 3129 ]

the Pat nor the Marguerite

have ever had a significant accident or a collision with another

vessel, to the best of my knowledge. Neither of them has ever had a

problem meeting the requirements of Lloyd's of London for insurance or

the requirements of the American or the Canadian Coast Guard for

safety. Nonetheless the Princess Patricia — the sister ship to the Marguerite

— with many more nautical miles and effective years of service and one

year older, continues in service perfectly safely. But the government

would have us believe that the Marguerite was unsafe.

There

are only two possible reasons: one, the CPR is running a vessel that

they shouldn't; or, two, the government, as usual, is being less than

candid.

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

MR. BARBER:

The third reason: they could be simply stupid. There is some reason to

believe that's possible. But let me be kind and say that they were

simply ill-advised and misguided. The problem isn't simply that they

have further discredited Social Credit on Vancouver Island. They and

their solitary friend in the press gallery will continue to see that

that goes, as we trust it will, and we will have nine seats out of ten

next time. Bye, bye, Hugh Curtis!

The problem isn't simply

the political problem faced by this cry-baby coalition that will never

accept responsibility for its own mistakes. The problem is further that

they don't understand the root or the origin of those mistakes. They

don't understand how it came to be that there was a fight in cabinet

between the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. They

were fighting over who would get the Surrey ,

and the minister whose estimates we're now debating in committee won.

But you see, Mr. Chairman, not only is it difficult to govern when in

coalition, it's difficult to cover your tracks after you've had a fight

and one side won and the other lost. As the result of the loss, the

B.C. Steamship Company spent more than $50,000 to commission drawings

for the Queen of Surrey ,

which was to have been put, according to a promise communicated to Mr.

Elworthy, on the Victoria-Seattle run. We'll be getting to that in a

few minutes, and I have more vouchers which I propose to table with the

committee. I am proud of the fact that my pipeline into your

discredited administration is so able and so animated and so authentic

that we're able to produce these documents from time to time. I know it

annoys the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but he has his

own problems in that ministry.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Sieg heil!

MR. BARBER: The loyalty of the workers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARBER:

It has always been the case that discredited and unpopular governments

are leaky as sieves, because they command no respect. They win no

respect and they gain no respect, because they're incompetent. Thus it

is with the marine transport policies. Thus it comes to be that we

receive so many documents.

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

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

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

They had a fight in cabinet, and the current minister won, and the Surrey is now the Queen of the North ,

and it appears to be succeeding, and we're glad for that. Mind you, it

could have been put there six years ago when it was purchased for the

purpose, and then would have been succeeding for the last six as well

as this year, but nonetheless, better late — six years late — than not

at all. However, because the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development lost, he was caught in a bind, because he had made a

commitment to Mr. Elworthy, late of B.C. Steamships, that they could

have the Surrey , and Mr.

Elworthy, on the same day that he received this promise from the now

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, went ahead and

commissioned the drawings from Ian Smart. Now we're going to get on in

a moment to the question of the duplicate drawings and the strange

similarities between the drawings Mr. Smart sold to B.C. Steamships and

those he later sold to B.C. Ferries. However, we will have more

documents in a moment.

Let me return to the original point, though, which is this: this government, stupidly and wrongly, scuttled the Marguerite .

Why they did that is a matter of some conjecture and some amusement, as

it turns out. But compounding that original mistake, they then went on

to accept the witless advice of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis). Why was it witless? Because he didn't have his wits about him.

If he did, he would surely realize the mess they would get into if they

followed his own advice, which was, as chairman of the cabinet

committee created by the Premier to reconcile the fight between the two

ministers we've named, to find some way out of this latest mess in

marine transport policies. So the Minister of Finance came up with a

novel proposal. He proposed that they forget about the Marguerite ,

ignore the counterclaims as to its safety and reliability, put it in

mothballs, waste $5,000 a month storing it in mothballs at

Burrard-Yarrows, and instead we will give the good people of Seattle

and Victoria two replacement vessels — one that was never previously

successful on any northwest run in North America, and the second a

vessel of half the capacity, lesser speed, lesser draft and lesser

ability to deliver the goods.

The Minister of Finance, who

shall long be remembered for this particularly foolish piece of advice,

thus announced at the end of January of this year that the Marguerite was going no matter what and would be replaced by a jetfoil and the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Well, what's happened? Several things have happened. First of all, the

new service has been a flop. The minister himself admitted yesterday

that it is down 30 percent in passengers so far. I have figures that

are almost entirely up to date and indicate that it's 30 percent and

slipping. I'll table those in a few minutes, if the minister wishes,

and I'll read them shortly. So not only is the new service, by any

yardstick, wholly inadequate in comparison with the previously and

admirably popular Princess Marguerite , but it's also costing the Crown money every day that it continues to lose passenger revenues.

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

[ Page 3130 ]

the Princess Marguerite

and once again they have taken any stand they possibly could to get rid

of another successful New Democratic venture, which the Princess Marguerite

certainly was. We expect next year, as my colleague from Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) said yesterday, that they will announce that they are

scrapping the Royal Hudson

because it's obsolete and replacing it with a Budd car. You see, that's

another successful NDP venture that they don't want to be reminded of.

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

Now

we get into the cry-baby routine. You see, a volcano exploded on May

18. The volcano exploded and suddenly the problem doesn't lie with the

jetfoil, the Prince Rupert , the stupid decision to get rid of the Marguerite , or the fact that they fundamentally misjudged the nature of the service from Seattle to Victoria, and that's why no one takes the replacement vessels — you botched the service and have replaced the Princess Marguerite

with vessels that lack all charm, character, nostalgia and tradition.

The government blew it, because they seem to think the purpose of the

trip was to get from Seattle to Victoria. Nonsense! The purpose of the

trip was the pleasure of the trip and the pleasure taken by the people

who enjoyed it. That's why they took an old, slow, charming, absolutely

character-ridden vessel called the Princess Marguerite . If they want to get here faster, they'll fly PWA,

if they want to get here cheaper they'll drive, and if they want to get

here at all, it appears they'll take anything other than the

replacement vessels you've offered, because the passenger revenues are

down by 30 percent and more.

The people of Seattle

apparently will do almost anything to avoid the replacement vessels

you've offered. Why is that? Well, because we have some Canada Customs

figures which demonstrate it quite clearly. As well, I should point

out, we have the word of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).

There's

a problem with the government's latest cry-baby excuse. They say that

the reason the run is flopping is because tourism is flopping and

that's because of the volcano. Unfortunately, the minister did not

appear to consult in advance with his colleague, the Minister of

Tourism, who tells us that tourism is up everywhere. She tells us that

the hotels and motels are full. They have "no vacancy" signs wherever

you look. The Minister of Tourism, taking credit for all of this

personally, tells us that tourism has never had it so good.

I recall a front-page story in the Vancouver Sun

three and a half weeks ago which said that the hotels in Vancouver were

so full that they were turning people away 10 and 20 miles distant to

find alternative accommodation. When was all of this happening, Mr.

Chairman? Why, to and behold, it was after the volcano had exploded.

The

problem with the exploding volcano is that the theory explodes when you

look at the Canada Customs figures, because you find that at every

major border crossing, except one, all the tourist figures are up.

What's the one exception?

MR. LEA: Make them guess.

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

or Victoria via Seattle?

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

MR. BARBER: Well, I'm afraid it is. Do you know Victoria airport, Swartz Bay, Nanaimo, and the Coho , the vessel from Port Angeles, are all up — that's our advice — but the Flying Princess and the Victoria Princess

are down, because you goofed. You fundamentally misjudged the nature of

the service; you were wrong from day one and your replacement vessels

are grossly and provably inadequate.

Now, if the volcano

were a real reason why this particular crossing were down in numbers,

might not you also assume that all the other crossings afflicted by the

volcano would also be down? After all, surely the tourists wouldn't be

selective and merely stay away from Seattle-to-Victoria; they would

stay away from all of the crossings. Wouldn't you think so? Well,

unfortunately for the government's lame excuse-making, Canada Customs

contradicts them completely, as does the no doubt soon to be

embarrassed Minister of Tourism when her remarks are read into the

record.

Mount St. Helens exploded on May 18. Figures

provided by Canada Customs show an increase of 26 percent for May auto

crossings — the entire month, including after the 18th — over April

crossings at the Peace Arch. At the Pacific Highway crossing, often

referred to as the Douglas Crossing, there was an increase of 38

percent from May auto crossings by car.

Now let's talk about overnight visitors because those are the kind who are ordinarily found on the former Princess Marguerite

and now on the flop service, Seattle to Victoria. When you examine more

closely the Canada Customs figures, you also find there is an increase

of 20 percent in day and overnight visitors at the Peace Arch,

comparing May to April. At the Pacific highway crossing, 37 percent

more people came as day or overnight visitors only. We are comparing

day visitors at the two principal lower mainland crossings with day

visitors here in Victoria coming up from the Seattle run. We will

shortly be producing the figures for June, as soon as our research

office has finished compiling them. I am advised they contain the very

same information, which is no surprise, because every year, thanks to

tourism and sunny weather, May auto crossings at all the borders are up

and in June they are up again over May. That is how it works except at

one crossing this year. Where is that? We have already surprised the

minister once. It is the Seattle-Victoria run, the Flying Princess and the Victoria Princess .

Let's

talk about how much this is going to cost the people of Victoria. We

know that this businesslike government has so far failed to name a

price for the lease of the Queen of Prince Rupert .

Can you imagine what would have happened if two months into the

operation of such a scheme a New Democrat administration had to stand

up and admit they hadn't even arranged a lease price yet for the vessel

that's now in service? When will they have arranged it? Well, we don't

know about that, but I can promise you that it'll likely be announced

after the Legislature rises. It will be another totally unnecessary and

entirely indefensible charge to the taxpayer. They scrapped the Marguerite and they shouldn't have. Now they are paying $5,000 a month to store the Marguerite

out here in Esquimalt for no good purpose when the vessel could be

used. They will be paying X thousands of dollars a month to lease the Rupert .

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

[ Page 3131 ]

MR. BARBER: No doubt, because you bet the revenue losses aboard the Rupert

Victoria to Seattle will be calculated when this government tells B.C.

Ferries what the charge is for the lease of that same vessel. One way

or another they will try again to cover their tracks. However, we have

some figures about revenue losses. Here we go.

As the minister may be aware or will now certainly be made aware, B.C. Steamships keeps a daily report aboard the Victoria Princess .

The report makes comparisons of this year's passenger totals and

absolute revenue — revenue listed as one-way, return, combination,

dining-room, food bar, cafeteria, news-stand, duty free, state rooms

and others. B.C. Steamships keeps a very close record of the actual

revenues this year and has the nerve to compare them to last year's

revenue in a little column right beside it. All I need to do is read

it. It is the simplest thing. There is hardly anything to it. They also

make comparisons. What they do is compare dates and weekdays in order

that you can look at the third Friday in April of last year and the

third Friday in April of this year because it is appropriate to compare

apples with apples and days of the week with days of the week when you

make annual comparisons in the general sense. That is fair. You

shouldn't compare Friday the 18th with Monday the 18th in two different

years. Fridays clearly have more revenue and more people, or at least

they used to travel on that day from Seattle to Victoria. Let's make

those comparisons. I have a few days to read into the record. The

minister may or may not be shocked.

In 1979 May 18 was a Friday. This year May 16 was the comparable Friday. This year the Victoria Princess , a supposedly adequate replacement vessel, obtained in passenger revenues for tickets only $7,446.35. Last year the Marguerite

on the same day of the week: $14,376. Clearly a loss in passenger

revenue on that aspect of the trip of $7,000. There were further losses

for this day, the 18th of 1979 as compared with the 16th of 1980, both

of which were Fridays. This year on the same date the dining-room took

in, including the bar; $1,828; last year $3,087. There is a separate

bar item because there is a separate bar — this year $1,264, last year

$1,840; the cafeteria — this year $413, last year $845; the news-stand

— this year $898, last year $1,178; the duty-free shop — this year

$728, last year $1,414; state rooms — this year $180, last year $682.

The total Victoria Princess

revenue, May 16, 1980, for instance — we have others and we will be

getting to them in a minute — was $12,759.63. Last year it was

$25,209.85. That is less than half. The minister will tell us: "But

wait a minute. It's not down 50 percent. It's only down 30 percent. He

will shortly produce — maybe even before we do — jetfoil revenue

figures. However, we'll get to that in a little while.

Let

me talk about another day. This was a Saturday. It was even worse. Last

year the Saturday in question was May 19; this year the same Saturday

was May 17, comparing as best we can apples with apples and the likely

travel dates for tourists. Let me read the gross figures. This year the

total passenger revenue for May 17 was $9,300. Last year it was

$25,056. How much more can they lose? Well, they managed to lose more

that day. All the other passenger revenues totalled $2,577. Last year

it was $10,889. Can they lose more? You bet — on all the other days for

which we have figures. But on that comparison basis, May 17 of this

year compared to May 19 of last year, both Saturdays, the Victoria Princess grossed $11,904.17. The Princess Marguerite

grossed $37,794.34. What more proof do people need of the grossly

incompetent and totally unbusinesslike abilities of this administration

than these figures? They are incompetents, Mr. Chairman; they blew it.

They're losing money hand over fist; they're shovelling it out of the

back of a jetfoil.

I have more figures, more proof and more evidence. Let's compare the Sunday: May 20 last year and May 18 this year. Again these figures are Victoria Princess compared to Princess Marguerite ; they do not include the Flying Princess

jetfoil, where the losses have been even greater. We'll get to those

losses in a minute. Total passenger revenue on May 18 this year was

$7,294 from tickets. Last year it was $18,829. This is a decline of

$11,000 in one day in passenger ticket sales alone. However, there was

a further loss. This loss is only $5,000; that's when you include the

dining room, food, bar, cafeteria, news-stand, duty-free, staterooms

and other. On May 18 this year they managed the grand sum of $4,670.

Last year, on the same date for the purposes, on the Marguerite it was $9,732. The gross figures: last year on the same relative date the Marguerite brought in $30,152.43; the Victoria Princess brought in $11,965.12.

you want more proof of their incompetence? Let me read you a few more

figures. I know my colleagues are interested in this. They enjoyed it

in caucus, and I think they're enjoying it even more now. Why? It is

more evidence of a totally incompetent aptitude on the part of the

coalition, which will shortly be tossed out of office.

Let's

compare Mondays: May 21, 1979, with May 19 this year. Passenger ticket

sales this year were $9,944. Last year they were $16,458. Passenger

revenue from other sources this year was $4,058. Last year it was

$9,561. This year the total revenue of the Victoria Princess

on that date was $14,002. Last year it was $27,649. It is down by half.

But the minister will tell us: "Don't worry; the losses on the Flying Princess will make up for the losses on the Victoria Princess ."

That's their only defence. No matter how they turn the tables, they're

still talking about losses. Shortly we are going to be talking about

who will pay for those losses: it's the people in the galleries today,

the taxpayers of British Columbia, who will have to pay to make up for

the stupid and unnecessary mistakes of the coalition.

Let's

talk about another day. This is a casual Tuesday, May 22 last year and

May 20 this year. Total passenger revenue from ticket sales this year

was $6,900. Last year it was $13,300. Revenue from all other sources

this year was $4,063. Last year it was $7,794. Total Victoria Princess revenue on this date this year was $11,027. Last year with the Marguerite it was $22,551.

Loss

after loss and deficit after deficit is what we can expect from you as

long as you are in power, because you don't seem to understand yet the

fundamental economic requirements of a successful run from Victoria to

Seattle. Because you don't comprehend it, you can’t act correctly;

rather you act as you have acted, wasting money on new designs for a

ship that B.C. Steamship Company never got, wasting $5,000 a month to

store the Marguerite when you could be using it, wasting God knows how much more to calculate the loss on the Victoria Princess and to charge that back to B.C. Ferries when you determine what the lease cost will be.

There

has been waste after waste. But the greatest waste and loss is now

being suffered by the tourist industry of Victoria, which has to put up

with an incompetent govern-

[ Page 3132 ]

ment

that has managed to waste 30 percent of the potential tourist revenues

that otherwise would have come to the city. You have somehow managed to

make the Seattle-Victoria run unpopular. Mr. Chairman, even the CPR

couldn't do that, and if ever there was a corporation in this country

that could make something unpopular, it was surely the CPR. Well, the

Socreds have done them one better. Even the CPR made the Princess Marguerite

work almost throughout its whole period, except at the very end when

they lost interest, and when, fortunately, Mr. Barrett and the New

Democrat administration of the day bought the Princess Marguerite and saved the day for tourism.

have other figures, which I will be releasing in just a few minutes,

which talk about the loss in passengers; they include figures for the

jetfoil. Meanwhile, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to

answer any of the questions I raised yesterday about the meetings that

took place in the fall, about the commitments made regarding a subsidy

for the jetfoil, and about the possibility that if the jetfoil turned a

profit — which it clearly is not going to at this stage — the jetfoil

would itself be turned over to private enterprise so that, the

government having paved the way, private enterprise could now make a

buck. Yesterday I asked a number of questions about that. I hope the

minister has an answer at this time.

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

Let's

talk about losses for a minute. I'm not going to take a loss statement

from you or anybody else, I'll tell you that; I'll take it from

chartered accountants when the season is over. I'll answer you there

right now.

Let's talk about the losses on the famous

Victoria-Seattle run. In 1975, $61,700; 1976, $1,073,730; 1977,

$561,941; 1978, $274,056 — the Princess Marguerite

is what I'm talking about. Don't try to create the impression in here,

Mr. Member, that this is the first time this run had losses. Those are

the facts from the balance sheets. They're not from a member who

probably inveigled the figures that you used here today. They're

certainly not from balance sheets by chartered accountants, but these

figures are. I'll look at your figures, but I don't accept them until I

see a balance sheet from a bona fide accountant. As far as I know, this

member hasn't got those qualifications.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, I have some information for you. I realize that you don't want the

answers, but I'll try to give them to you. Yesterday you continued on

with a lot of talk, but you didn't go as long as you did today. I don't

know in what sequence these were asked, but I have some answers here.

Yesterday

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) mentioned revenue lost to

the city of Victoria. I would certainly appreciate it if he would take

the time to provide me with some of that information in a factual

manner rather than just trying to make an issue of everything. However,

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the president of the Victoria

Visitors Information Centre stated that it would be better for the

tourist industry if they had half the number of people coming here and

they stayed twice as long. You don't mention these things.

have two-thirds of the people coming, and they are staying much longer

than ever before — I understand that this is from the tourism side of

it. They are eating more in downtown Victoria, and they are using

hotels more this year than they ever have before. I am also told by

local business people that their business is up as a result of the new

scheduling of these ferries that you seem to want to sink and run down

as best you can, to the detriment of the community which you represent.

You

should be absolutely ashamed of yourself! Do you know that it is this

community service...? You're the member for it, and you're getting up

here and deriding the government that is trying to help this community

— I emphasize, this community. You should hang your head in shame;

there'll be a time and a place that you will, I can assure you. By

running down a public service which has been given to your

constituents, you're trying to make sure that it doesn't operate any

more. It's a great display by a public servant, I might say.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

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

MR. BARBER: Now for the answers.

Interjection.

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

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

This

member for Victoria is an expert on everything. Yesterday he made

statements regarding the operation — engines, fuel lines and so on —

and I want to answer that.

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, I just want to tell you that I have a letter here from the

engineering manager of B.C. Ferries. Again, I'll accept his advice on

engineering and on boats any time before I'll ever listen to your

verbiage, I can assure you of that. This is what he says in reply to

you:

"Re Victoria Princess operation.

"On

the Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert run, with calls at Bella Bella, this

ship would have almost 48 hours of continuous service exceeding present

requirements. The fuel consumption on the northern run would be in

excess of 6,000 gallons per day. The present fuel consumption is only

4,700 gallons per day. The ship has never been late due to propulsion

problems, only due to waiting for the hydrofoil to dock. On the last

run at night, the ship actually only has to run on two out of four

engines. The ship's propulsion was completely refitted before coming

onto this run, and there is ample time to do routine maintenance. There

is no problem with time to fuel the ship, and additionally it is in

port all of Tuesday afternoon when all tanks can be brought to maximum

capacity if required."

So, Mr. Chairman, to this member: go

and take a course in engineering and then you'll know what you're

talking about. Until you do, you don't know what you're talking about.

My adviser is the boss of engineering.

[ Page 3133 ]

While

we're on costs and so on, I think the committee might be interested to

know about a few other things. This member wants to smear everything

regarding the operations into his own city. I think we should point out

a few other things. The Princess Marguerite used a different type of fuel than the Victoria Princess ; therefore the consumption has been brought into dollars rather than gallons for a comparison here. The Princess Marguerite cost per day for fuel was $3,400 for one round trip. The Victoria Princess costs $3,900 per day for two round trips.

MR. BARBER: And the Flying Princess ?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to do with the Flying Princess , but we own the Princess Marguerite and the Victoria Princess ,

and therefore I'm telling you that operation. I realize again that you

don't want to accept any answers from me, but I want to give our side

of it because there isn't only one side. The first member for Victoria

gets himself on a pedestal in this House on everything, and his opinion

is the only one to be considered. I'm suggesting there is another side,

and in this case I'm trying to give that.

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

You're very concerned about that. I'm trying to find some answers for

all the rest of the questions you asked yesterday. The question in

regard to the meeting was only one of about 50, and I'm not going to

answer them all, but here's another one that I want to answer to put

the record completely straight, Mr. Chairman. It came from this member

again. He asked yesterday regarding the B.C. Steamship Company and the

Flying Princess Transportation Corp. fare structures.

He was

correct in saying that tickets sold in the U.S. are in U.S. funds

compared to the same rate being charged in B.C. In Canadian funds. For

the member's information, this has been the case ever since this

government initiated the service in 1975. The justification for this

action at that time was, I understand, that all terminal facilities and

other expenses on the U.S., side were paid in American dollars. You

might wish to check back to see how our dollar compared to the American

dollar in 1975. You might even find that at that time the

discrimination was against our own citizens, because of the variance in

dollar value. I fully appreciate the fact that the exchange rate has

changed drastically over the years, but possibly the same justification

exists in that the companies are still paying their American expenses

in American dollars. I am also informed that it is not felt that the

exchange rate is an issue at all in the United States, but only one

raised here in the House which is further damaging the traffic figures

in Victoria. Again it's raised in this House, Mr. Chairman, by the

first member for Victoria to further downgrade this service that is

trying to help his city of Victoria with additional assistance to

tourism.

I want to repeat what I said yesterday. He has a

great delight in having his little giggle, but I want to repeat that

there are four reasons for a decrease in the traffic: Mount St. Helens

is one; the weather is another; the U.S. recession is probably one of

the biggest reasons. I notice, Mr. Chairman, when this member talks he

never even refers to that. You gladly slid over that one; you didn't

want to have that at all. Of course, the last and most important is the

adverse publicity generated by that member right over there.

Now

dealing again with the figures that he tossed around regarding border

crossings. They're as stale as can be. Mr. Chairman, he didn't tell the

Legislature that. I have different figures. I can also tell you when

they are. I notice you didn't say when your figures were good for.

The

first member for Victoria yesterday talked about the passenger count

being down on the Seattle to Victoria service; that it was the only

border crossing where that was the case.

I'd like to pass

along some facts that I'm sure you'll be interested in and I think

reflect some of the real conditions that we're faced with. Firstly, on

B.C. Ferries' route 1, last year to June 15 we experienced an increase

in traffic of 10 percent. This year our projections have not reached

what we thought they would and route I experienced only a 2 percent

increase over last year. I think that has to be quite indicative of

what is happening. I was also informed this morning that at the Douglas

crossing in May, traffic coming into our province increased 54 percent

over the previous year. But what happened in June, at the same

crossing, is quite amazing. The crossings dropped from a 54 percent

increase to a 9 percent increase. That is even with all the people

travelling to B.C. — you know why, and never mentioned it — to purchase

gasoline in the province of British Columbia. That's a condition we

haven't had — something unusual to affect border crossings. I'm also

informed that Johansen Royal Tours of Seattle have informed the B.C.

Ferry Corporation that they have had to cancel tours on the Queen of the North because of tours being cancelled as a result of the Mount St. Helens disaster.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Even

closer to Victoria, I was informed this morning that customs in Sidney,

at yet another border crossing from the U.S. into our province,

reported a decrease in traffic for June this year. The figures that I

have been provided with indicate that in June 1979, some 2,562 vehicles

and 1,695 foot passengers entered at this crossing. In the same period

in 1980, some 2,252 vehicles and 1,375 foot passengers used the same

service.

Mr. Chairman, to that member: it's rather misleading to this House

to indicate, as you already have, that all traffic to the Island is up

except for the Seattle-to-Victoria sailing. Again, I think you should

use the right figures. Don't use April and March; try on for size the

current figures for May and June, then you might be a little more

accurate in your wild statements.

MR. BARBER: Now to answer the questions.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Oh, you just sit still. I'm still answering your questions. I'm

answering your questions from yesterday, and by Tuesday I'll get to all

the silly charges you made today. I'm in no hurry.

Mr.

Chairman, this is the one that really excites the opposition, and

specifically this member. I'll attempt to answer in very detailed

fashion.

MR. BARBER: Table it.

[ Page 3134 ]

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

MR. BARBER: Then will you table it?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, I'll consider it. I think it's in the record if I read it. Are

you suggesting that there is some way you can seek between this here

and the written record? What's the matter with Hansard ? You use it all the time.

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

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

Thanks very much for your help, Mr. Chairman; that's a great assist. I

thought I'd seen that in my rule book, but I haven't read it for a

couple of days.

The first member for Victoria asked

yesterday who attended the meeting last year to discuss the possibility

of jetfoil service for the Victoria to Seattle route. I would like to

state that I was one participant among many, and I don't know if a

formal list of participants was kept. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty

sure it wasn't, because it wasn't necessary. They were all honourable,

decent people. Why do we have to have everything down? We aren't

suspicious socialists; we trust people. When you're a suspicious

socialist, you not only want it written down, you want it in affidavit

form as well. We don't operate that way.

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

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

I said, I was one. It was an informal affair where our Premier and

leader of our province discussed the problem of providing additional

capacity for the Seattle to Victoria service, and was looking for

suggestions from members of the community.

MR. LEA: At large.

HON. MR. FRASER:

The member for Prince Rupert interjects that. I said "from the

community." They are honourable and decent citizens of our province. I

realize the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) wants to assassinate

their character. He is a great past master at that, but I resent him

doing that. They are citizens of our province.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, I will accept some of that, but not that. The

member suggests that I'm in the business of assassinating the

characters of people, businessmen or others. The charge is, of course,

false, groundless, an offence to the rules, and must be withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) please come to order. If the Minister of Transportation

and Highways has said anything unparliamentary, the Chair would ask the minister

to withdraw.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. At this point I'd also like to remind all members of our

standing orders with respect to relevancy in debate. It is always

courteous and within the rules of our House that when we debate, we

direct the speech to the question under discussion. The question under

discussion is vote 193.

HON. MR. FRASER: Our good

Premier and leader was there at the meeting. The meeting was called for

the purpose of getting additional service into, the Seattle-Victoria

transportation service to help with tourism for the city of Victoria.

You

realize, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure the member realizes — that this is

a community problem to a large extent. As far as we are concerned, we

don't consider it part of our transportation system but more of a

tourism generator for Vancouver Island and particularly for the

Victoria area.

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

I was there as the newly appointed member of the B.C. Steamships board.

My colleague, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), attended as a member of the board of the same

company, which he still is. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) attended as members of a

committee struck to delve into the situation revolving around the

Seattle to Victoria service. There is quite a difference, where this

member has done everything in his power since January to tear down....

insists on this Negative Nelly attitude that he has about his own

riding. Here are two other MLAs from Vancouver Island. They were at

this meeting and they were there in the interest of citizens of

Vancouver Island and your riding.

Interjection.

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because he went on with a diatribe for half an

hour and I never moved in my seat, so you can do the same thing while

I'm doing the same thing.

MR. BARBER: Who else was there?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I indicated to you yesterday that I really didn't know the people who

were there other than that they were local people, and I don't know all

the local people. I didn't know all the people in that room. Quite

frankly, not being a socialist, I didn't ask for their name and have

them sign a document and an affidavit. I didn't go that far but, as a

matter of fact, I am pretty sure that one man whom I have seen once

before in my life was there. I think his name is Cedric Steele. I

believe he's the hard-working president of the Victoria Chamber of

Commerce, and I believe there were other members of that chamber there

but, quite frankly, I don't know who they were. They were interested in

the welfare of Victoria from a tourism standpoint and they were

[ Page 3135 ]

trying to help resolve their problem in discussion with government.

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

HON. MR. FRASER:

Well, they were all hard-working, fine citizens of this area. They

weren't from Seattle, it is my understanding, or from Ketchikan,

Alaska. They were from the city of Victoria. I might also add that to

say they represented any one organization would not be correct. You

know, I said earlier the chamber of commerce was represented; whether

they were there in their capacity as members of that or as individual

citizens, I don't know. I want to say on behalf of the government that

we appreciated their attendance and their interest.

Mr.

Chairman, the overall problem of providing the necessary capacity on

the Seattle-Victoria route was discussed. A challenge was issued to

this group to investigate and try and come up with some solutions. The

result of the meeting was the formation of a non-profit company to

enable them to initiate the jetfoil service. Certainly not all the

people who attended the meeting are involved in a non-profit company.

As a matter of fact, the head of that newly formed group, as far as I

know, was not at the meeting. I refer to a gentleman by the name of Pat

Crofton. To my knowledge he was not at the meeting. These people who

were provided with a challenge and a spirit of community effort met

that challenge head on. I think they deserve our appreciation — and

they sure have the support of the government of British Columbia —

rather than continual complaining about why things were done and so on

and so forth. They have done a fine job, in my mind, Mr. Chairman, and

they should be congratulated for the fine job they've done.

Mr.

Chairman, as for the fiscal position of the company, I can only tell

you that the B.C. Steamship Company, for which I am responsible, has

agreed to assist this newly formed non-profit company in such matters

as the sale of tickets, a combined advertising program and some docking

assistance. The Flying Princess Transportation Corp. will be charged

accordingly for the services by the B.C. Steamship Company. I might say

just in passing that great audited balanced statement that the first

member read into the records here.... I don't think this revenue would

be on that fine, great statement he made that showed revenues of the

boat, That, of course, is what's so lacking in all his observations. He

only chooses to use figures and dates that suit his purpose.

Mr.

Chairman, the only other involvement that the government or its

agencies might have would be through the British Columbia Development

Corporation. I have never attended any meeting where these arrangements

have been confirmed. Therefore I refer you to my colleague during the

debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business

Development, because it is his responsibility to report to this

Legislature for the B.C. Development Corporation. I hope, Mr. Chairman,

that the B.C. Development Corporation is involved, as they're intended

to assist in initiating new ventures and to provide appropriate

guidance and advice I hope the Development Corporation has been of

great assistance to this good body of citizens in the greater Victoria

area who are trying to do something to help themselves.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, the minister continues to make lame and absolutely

irrelevant comparisons. He tells us for instance that the fuel costs

for the Victoria Princess are down slightly in comparison to the fuel costs of the Princess Marguerite .

Of course they are. The vessel carries half as many people; it is

shorter, smaller, and has a more efficient engine plant. Of course a

shorter, smaller, less capacious vessel will use less fuel. So what?

What kind of an argument is that? He omits to mention altogether the

fact that the jetfoil is an extremely fuel-expensive operation. Working

from memory only, although I'll go to my office and get the facts, they

use something like 5,000 gallons of jet fuel Seattle to Victoria.

HON. MR. FRASER:

On a point of order, I think we should bring this member to order. He's

referring to the jetfoil, which has nothing to do with the government

at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the debate is not relevant

to the vote in front of us, then the minister's point is well taken.

The first member for Victoria continues.

MR. BARBER:

Yes, but it is relevant, and his point is no point at all. He makes

comparisons that stand no test and can withstand no scrutiny. Of

course, the Marguerite used slightly more fuel than the Victoria Princess .

It's a much bigger vessel that carried a far greater weight, has a

greater dead tonnage and carried many more passengers as well.

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

MR. BARBER:

One of the reasons we were so opposed to your foolishness is because

you introduced a ship of such lesser capacity in the first place.

However, we'll get to that in a moment.

The minister tells us that the Marguerite

lost $61,000 in 1975. That was, we might observe, Mr. Chairman, the

last year of a successful administration of that ship by the New

Democratic Party. He tells us that in the first full year of Social

Credit operation of the ship they lost $1 million. Well, some people

might draw a very different conclusion from the one the minister drew.

Some of us might think it's further proof of incompetence on the part

of that government. The minister might not think so; but if you observe

that under the New Democrats it lost $61,000 in its last year, and one

full year into Social Credit it lost $1 million, you might wonder

whether or not Social Credit hasn't bungled it just one more time.

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

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

Nonetheless,

the minister continues to make further comparisons that don't stand any

test whatever. He compares border crossings. With the exception of the

one at Sidney — and I'll examine those figures when I ask for them from

research; I didn't have them....

HON. MR. FRASER: I think you should.

[ Page 3136 ]

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

With

the exception of that one crossing at Sidney, the minister faithfully

reports that all the other crossings are up. Part of his defence is:

oh, well, some of them aren't up as much as he thought they would be.

What kind of a defence is that? The fact remains that not a single

border crossing except one has seen losses like this crossing has on

that service. The minister himself said yesterday that passengers are

down by 30 percent and slipping — Seattle to Victoria.

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

MR. BARBER:

I said "and slipping." That's absolutely correct. I don't want to do to

you what your guys did to Skelly. The minister said they're down by 30

percent. We agree they're down by 30 percent and we further observe

that they're slipping. However, that will come out shortly when we get

the next brown envelope.

Further, the minister clearly

admits that the volcano excuse is lame and insupportable, because if

the volcano were going to keep people away on the Seattle-Victoria run

by water, it would surely also keep people away on the

Seattle-Vancouver run by land, because you know Vancouver is somewhat

closer to Seattle than Victoria is. Surely on the basis of those

comparisons you might observe that the others were also down

significantly. The point is they're not; they're up. Surprise, surprise.

research office has just reminded me that one of the reasons why the

Anacortes run is down was not mentioned by the minister. Why is that?

Well, by a vote of the Washington state transportation committee three

weeks ago, it was decided that the extra sailing on the Anacortes run

would be postponed two months until mid-August. Did you know that, Mr.

Minister? The Washington state transportation committee has delayed

putting on the extra sailing for the Sidney-Anacortes run this year.

That may be the reason why the Sidney border crossing is down. We'll

inquire into that and we'll report....

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

MR. BARBER:

Well, I'll report to the committee tomorrow. However, the Anacortes

ferry crossing is down, because the Anacortes ferries have been cut by

half — in a comparison of this year over last year.

Let's

continue. The minister says that my colleague, Mr. Hanson, and I never

attended the meeting in the Oak Room to discuss the jetfoil. Now why is

that? You said we weren't there. You said that you didn't see us there.

Well, you would have if you had invited us, but you didn't. We didn't

know about it until after, and we never would have known about it

unless something hadn't gone wrong in the meeting and someone leaked

more Socred secrets to the press. We'll get to that in a moment.

The

point is that this government has deliberately excluded all but its

political friends from those meetings. Why? Because the meeting was

called to solve a problem created by Social Credit. That problem was

the foolish and unnecessary decision to scrap the Marguerite .

The meeting was held not in a buoyant good spirit, attempting to pile

success on success; the meeting was called because the government was

in desperate trouble, because 41,000 people signed a petition to keep

the Marguerite , and the

government's political fortunes were in even worse shape than they

ordinarily are, which is pretty dreadful in any case. The meeting was

called not to add creatively to tourism a strategy for Vancouver

Island, but because the government was in desperate trouble as a result

of all of these bungles and errors.

However, even knowing

that now and anticipating it then, I can certainly assure the minister

that had he bothered to invite the two MLAs from the capital city, we

would have attended, recognized most of the faces, taken notes and

contributed most charitably to the occurrence.

The minister

tells us the jetfoil is going to pay for the use of docking facilities

and services and for all of the mistakes, which are now also a matter

of public record, in regard to chartering the jetfoil and the Victoria Princess . Therefore, what the minister says is that I should have included that in the revenue count for the Victoria Princess . Fair enough, I do. Now you tell me how much more that will accrue to the Flying Princess

as a loss, because either way it's going to be paid. Just because you

charge it to one and take it from the other, it doesn't mean that the

whole picture is any brighter. To the contrary, the whole picture

remains dismal thanks to your government's incompetent marine policies.

The

minister also goes on to say, trying to excuse his government's

mistakes, that because some people have the guts to fight for the Marguerite ,

for the tradition and for the success, we are now to blame for the

government's failure. What nonsense! What absolute, lamentable,

indefensible, unbelievable nonsense from the member for Cariboo. We

fought to keep the Marguerite and were proud to do so. We fight now to reintroduce the Marguerite

because clearly your remedy is a flop. Why is that? Because you were

wrong to begin with and your remedy is getting no better as you go

along.

This government is paying $5,000 per month to keep the Marguerite

in mothballs. Who does the minister blame that on? Is there any reply

for that one? Is the NDP also to blame for that decision? There is

$5,000 per month being wasted to keep the Marguerite here in Esquimalt.

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

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

However,

I would remind the House that we have the word of the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) herself that tourism is up and booming. The

Minister of Tourism says that border crossings are up. The Minister of

Tourism herself says that hotels have never done so well. The Minister

of Tourism herself says that the ministry and the economy is in great

shape, as far as tourism is concerned. But the Minister of

Transportation and Highways says it's all down thanks to the recession,

the bad weather, the first member for Victoria, and the volcano.

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

MR. BARBER:

Oh, no, it's not all down. It's only down 30 percent in this area

because of your bungles, your foolishness, your mistakes and your

indefensible marine policies. That's why it's down.

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

[ Page 3137 ]

will not agree to table in the House all of the revenue figures for the jetfoil and the Rupert

during their period of use on the Seattle-Victoria run. Will he table,

when he receives them...? I appreciate he can't do it yet, because the

season isn't over; it's collapsing maybe, but over, no. Will he table

those figures when he gets them in this House? We may well still be

meeting in October. I wouldn't be surprised at all. If so, I hope he'll

table it then. If he does it will be an extremely interesting thing not

simply to compare the enormous success of the Princess Marguerite with the dismal failure of the jetfo