|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 4, 2006 17:58:05 GMT -8
March 17, 1970 (Socred Gov't of WAC Bennett)
===========================
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard.
MR. H.J. MERILEES: I think it's high time we stopped kitten-footing on this subject of litter. This Act is a positive step forward, along with other litter control Acts and pollution Acts that the Government has introduced in the past, and is introducing during this Session.
I think it's high time we declared all out and total war on the garbage-mongers, I call them, not litter-bugs, they're garbage-mongers, and I think we ought to crack down with enforcement to follow up excellent legislation such as that which is contained in this Bill No. 33. 1 think this direction has to come from the top, it's from the Provincial authority. It should be made known clearly and unequivocally throughout the Province, through every law enforcement agency, through the cities and municipalities, and through our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, no matter how busy they may be on matters of urgency to do with crime, that at least a part of one working day per month be devoted to tracking down the garbage-mongers and those who pollute the highways and the parks throughout the Province of British Columbia. I don't think anybody's too busy that they can't afford at least one hour a week or one hour a month in this pursuit, and this is what is required to back up the legislation, as well as education.
I would suggest that we adopt a slogan and set aside one day per year to be named by the Minister or the Government, a clean-up day throughout the Province of British Columbia, and the slogan to be used would be to "Keep British Columbia Clean."
Now there are a number of organizations, commercial organizations, many of them, and I won't attempt to mention them, and they should be commended, as all people and all organizations and schools who have programmes of clean-up should be commended. One medal I would like to hand out would be to our B.C. Ferries System for their policy of not selling chewing gum on the ferries. Now, in my opinion, chewing gum is just about as bad as a broken bottle. The White Spot and Radio Station CKWX, and Macdonald's Hamburgers have a policy of cleaning up within about 100 yards of any of their locations, and these people should be encouraged all the way by this Government and the Department.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 4, 2006 18:11:31 GMT -8
- perhaps here's an example of micro-managing......as the subject of ferry food menus took up some time in Legislature debates.......... ;D
======================
February 15, 1972:
============================
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.
MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt)
Now for one of the other points that I have to express some disappointment in. When the C.P.R. ferry service buckled under they seemed to insist on sort of a silver service in the dining room and elsewhere. And I think there is some concern by the public today at the approach that is taken on the service on our ferry fleet, especially the stretched ferries. I think it's a little difficult for the employees and for the individuals who go up into the dining room and find that there are items at $1.35 but there is a minimum charge of $2.50. I think we should look at that situation, that really the ferry service gained its reputation on a service to people. It was not the plush C.P.R. service it was the service to people and this is where the public has come to expect this approach and I would ask the Minister of Highways to take a good look at that approach on the menus at the present time.
It's also somewhat difficult when they take the breakfast menu off on the 11 o'clock sailing. There are a lot of people who whip out get the ferry, they're rushing about in the morning and they'd rather sit down and have breakfast than a meal service at 11 o'clock, and I think this needs a little bit of consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 4, 2006 18:14:28 GMT -8
Mr Horn, I am curious is this what Peter Griffin would say "Grinds My Gears"? I have no idea who Peter Griffin is, but if you're asking if this is what "turns my crank", "gets me going", "stimulates my brain", etc, YES, this type of historical research is what I enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 4, 2006 18:26:00 GMT -8
February 2, 1972 (last days of WAC's Socred Gov't)
- this exchange is pretty hilarious, touching on censorship, erotica, politics, and ferries.......what more could a ferry-nerd ask for?
========================================
MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (NDP Opposition): I think that the kind of sickness that has permeated this government and some of their staff is even shown in small ways, such as on the British Columbia Ferries fleet. Even there, even there, directives come out from two members of staff in the ferry fleet who are obviously zealous employees who look at the ads in the newspaper, who check the magazines for purity of content, before they can be sold to the public that travels on the ferry fleets in the Gulf of Georgia
There is an official list, Mr. Speaker, with respect to what can be sold in the newstands on the ferries. A very short list and it starts with "A" with Air Progress and ends at "W" with Women's World. The title at the top says "Magazines authorized for sale on B.C. Ferries, list revised September 23."
It's interesting to note the kind of magazines that aren't allowed, Mr. Speaker, on the ferry fleets in British Columbia. Well, Playboy isn't allowed, I guess that's to be expected. Canadian Forum – you know, that's the one that first published the Grey Report with respect to the ownership of the Canadian economy – that's not on the official list. Canadian Dimension, well that's a left-wing magazine out of Winnipeg, barely has any ads in it – that's not on the list.
What is on the list ranges from Jack and Jill to Stag to Fuddle Duddle.
I no longer buy any of my news or magazine material on the B.C. Ferries, Mr. Speaker, because most of it doesn't interest me very much. But I thought when I came over from the mainland this last weekend that I'd look a little more closely at what was available in fact on the ferry newstand.
Quite a range. One that has been officially sanctified, Mr. Speaker, is called Stag magazine. It's probably one of the worst magazines one could buy on any newstand in my judgment.
AN HON. MEMBER: No liquor ads.
MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't have any liquor ads, that's true. The stories range from "The erotic life of a nude model" to "I never slept with a cop before" and on and on and on. (Laughter).
I hesitate to mention it, since my wife is in the audience, there's even an article on wifeswapping and telephone numbers but I'll forget that. There's other magazines that are really equally as distasteful but they've got official sanction, Mr. Speaker. For the young, why there's comic books. Like this one, 52 pages for 25 cents. The title is "The Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love." That too is available.
You know, Mr. Speaker, in my own judgment the empty news racks – and they really are empty when they've got this stuff in them – on the B.C. Ferries fleet are a constant, ludicrous reminder of a man that's been in power too long. It's something just as simple as that, Mr. Speaker, that just may be the undoing of the man who's been in power for 20 years.
The arrogance of retroactive legislation, the arrogance of records, the arrogance with respect to the school statutes, the assessment statutes, in a way it can all be summed up in what's on the newstand on the ferry fleet.
==================================
(does anyone know where I can find that comic book?) - Darren, do you have a copy?? ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jun 4, 2006 18:40:51 GMT -8
Mr Horn, I am curious is this what Peter Griffin would say "Grinds My Gears"? I have no idea who Peter Griffin is, but if you're asking if this is what "turns my crank", "gets me going", "stimulates my brain", etc, YES, this type of historical research is what I enjoy. Grinds-my-gears (verb) 1. Someone or something that pisses you off; 2. Continually annoys (example George W Bush); 3. Something or someone that causes you to go on a rant. (Language of Origin: Familyguyese) |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,311
|
Post by Neil on Jun 4, 2006 18:48:05 GMT -8
'Nanaimo: I wonder if Socred MLA Agnes Kripps would have weighed in with any insights on the moral standards on BC Ferries news stands. She's the one who proposed in the Legislature that, instead of teaching 'sex education', schools should offer a chaste program called 'B.O.L.T.'- Biology of Living Today. Apparently, even the word 'sex' was too much for tender young ears, or tender old ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 4, 2006 19:58:40 GMT -8
February 19, 1970, Speech by Agnes Kripps:
(thanks for pointing this out, Mr. HornbyGuy.......I wouldn't have believed this was actually spoken by an elected MLA in our hallowed legislature, but 36 years ago.
This is the funniest thing I have read since Harry's last post....
====================================
MRS. KRIPPS:
Another area of concern to me, Mr. Speaker, is that of the little community known as the family. Today's family seems to be passing through a series of crises resulting from certain profound changes in modem man's way of life. Although the structure of a civilization may change and at times emphasis may be placed on different values, yet one thing remains - the family. Human nature will always urge man and woman to found a home, and the home, Mr. Speaker, is the cornerstone of our democracy. The development of wholesome values and aspirations in an individual is dependent on stable and harmonious family and community life, especially during a child's formative years. So, Mr. Speaker, we must direct our efforts in such a way that the family continues in the future to hold its unique place in society with its human values and ideals.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I believe sex education should be taught in our schools as a supplement to what our children receive in the home. Unfortunately, our sex education programme is inadequate. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, since 1970 is international education year, that our Minister of Education takes a bold step forward and initiates action for a sex education programme in our schools. However, before such a programme can be implemented, I would suggest that we solve some of the problems concerning introduction of such a programme. These problems, Mr. Speaker, are not related to the problem of the education or the teaching part of the programme but rather to the word itself - that nasty little three-letter word, Sex, which carries with it a stigma and a distorted connotation. That word, Mr. Speaker, can have one hundred different meanings to one hundred different people, and while we all spell it the same way, there the similarity ends. The Oxford Dictionary defines sex as, "either of two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively; the male or the female, especially of the human race, viewed collectively." In 1631 it was thought of as the class of phenomena with which these differences are concerned. In 1675 it was used, by confusion, in senses of sect, s-e-c-t, and in 1884 to determine the sex of by anatomical examination.
Today sex is still a confused word. If I ask any one of you to define "sex education" each one of you undoubtedly would have a different version. Some would coyly refuse to discuss it, thinking of it as something vulgar. Others would say that this was no place for a discussion of sex education. And some, yes, even adults like my friend from CKWX would blush. (laughter)
Because so many shades of meaning have been written, because so many shades of meaning have been written into the word, I have come to hate it, and I propose (laughter) I hate the word sex, and I propose that we throw it out of the vocabulary of education - let's find a substitute and start all over again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No!
MRS. KRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't know I was going to be the one blushing. Mr. Speaker, let's standardize the word so that it means the same to everybody. Let's call it .... Listen carefully now, let's call it, for example Bolt. That stands for B for Biology on Life Today - B-O-L-T - Biology on Life Today. That's the first initial of each. That's just an example. (laughter) Now listen. That's just an example. You may have other words that you would like to use (applause and laughter)
Now, to carry on, Mr. Speaker. I am serious - listen! Let's call it the word Bolt. Then we can tackle the problem afresh so that when we talk about bolt education in schools we're not going to become involved in moral or religious aspects of its meaning. We will face bolt education with a fresh, open mind. Mr. Speaker, this is a Canada-wide appeal for universal - this is a Canada-wide appeal for universal acceptance of a new word to replace that prejudiced, archaic, misused and misinterpreted word, sex. By eliminating the word sex and replacing it with Bolt or any other word - any other word, we will remove the blindfolds, the smirks, the embarrassment and, above all, the ignorance.
AN HON. MEMBER: Call it Social Credit (laughter)
MRS. KRIPPS: Then we will be able to teach our boys and girls in school how and why they are different (laughter). Mr. Speaker, then we will be able to teach our boys and girls in a refreshing way and with the same frankness and freedom from inhibition with which we tackle ordinary conversations of life.
MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st, Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us I would certainly welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to our bolt new world (laughter) and I will certainly say, that if nothing else, she had everyone bolt upright in their chairs. I would point out to the honourable member, however, in reference to words alone, that there is a rather interesting statement about the word Sex, and there is a little poem that says, "It makes me wonder, Mr. Member - And indeed it takes much telling - Why a word that's so much fun - Is so dirty in the spelling."
============================
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 2, 2006 17:31:28 GMT -8
Some 1984 Legislature Debate:
(this talks about Powell River service, the possibility of a Sunshine Coast circle route, the purchase of the Princess of Vancouver, and ferry service to Ocean Falls, Bella Bella and Bella Coola. If you're interested in the history of these services, please read on....)
===============================
MR. LOCKSTEAD (NDP Opposition member, from Powell River):
I don't think we've received this year's annual report in terms of the B.C. Ferry Corporation or Highways. But as you know, I'm the one in our caucus responsible for the water transportation aspect - B.C. Ferries and so forth - of the minister's portfolio. So I'd like to start with that in view and ask the minister a few questions.
The effect of the increased ferry fares on people on the Sunshine Coast, the Gulf Islands, Bowen Island and Vancouver Island . . . . I must say that we in the opposition didn't get that much flak on the 6 percent fare increases to Vancouver Island. In these times of inflation and recession and increased costs, people will accept a 6 percent increase in those kinds of services from time to time. However, the fare increases, coupled with the reduction in service to other parts of coastal British Columbia particularly - I'll talk about the interior after a bit - has had and will have a severe effect in these areas.
I'll talk about the Sunshine Coast in particular, where at the moment we have 36 percent unemployment, where the number of people receiving assistance from Human Resources has doubled in less than two years and these kinds of things. I mention that because the ferries into these areas -to the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, Texada and all of those islands - are our highways. We have no other means, except air transportation - if you can afford it. A large portion of our economy in these areas depends on the type of service and the fares charged on those vessels.
I've often said that horrendous fare increases of that nature are counterproductive. Less people are going to use those vessels. Therefore the whole economy of these areas suffer. I'm thinking particularly of areas like Gibsons, Sechelt and Powell River. As the number of people using the ferry service is reduced and fares are increased, obviously fewer people will use the ferry services. What you get as a result of that is . . . . When I go to senior people within the corporation to discuss these situations - and I would like to put on record that they've been very good in supplying me with facts and information; I've never been refused a meeting or a request for information by the senior people within the corporation; that is not my problem or my quarrel here this morning . . . . What I'm saying is that as the number of passengers using the vessels, because of fare increases, is reduced, we have a situation . . . . When I go to the corporation to complain on behalf of my constituents that service is being reduced - and I want to talk about that a bit later as well, Mr. Chairman - the people at the corporation can easily - and I have many of the statistics here, by month, by year, by day and the whole thing . . . . I'm not going to go through all that, but the overview is that as the number of people using the vessels is reduced, that justifies the corporation - from the corporation's point of view at least, and the minister's - in cutting back on service. So it is counterproductive.
1 admit that I did appreciate it when the chairman of the board and the general manager, sitting on the floor of the House here today, met with our people in Powell River. A major concession was made. Resident commuter cards were removed from all the residents - all forty-some-odd thousand people living in the Sunshine Coast-Powell River area. We lost that - gone forever. I'm not sure about forever, but gone anyway. That was something introduced by a former Social Credit government. I guess the government giveth and the government taketh away. A concession was made which is proving beneficial to at least some of the residents; I'll tell you in a minute whom it is not helping. The senior people and the corporation went back to the board of directors and on the commuter-type ticket, which was only good . . . . At the time, if you bought a block of ten tickets for $148, or something like that - I'm just going from memory here; I don't have the figure in front of me - you got a reduced fare, but you had to use those tickets within that month or they were useless to you. Consequently, prior to the meeting in the spring of this year, I think the corporation had sold only four sets of tickets to people living in Powell River. Because the tickets are now good all year round, people are taking advantage of that. We still don't have preferred loading on routes 3 and 7. Nonetheless, the tickets are good all year round, and people are purchasing them. Those who can't and won't purchase those tickets, and who consequently have to pay the higher fares, are the many people on unemployment in the area at the time. These people simply cannot afford to put out the money up front to take advantage of the reduced fares, so those who have the least are paying the most.
This brings me to subsidies. I notice that the subsidy from the government to the corporation this year has not increased by $1. It’s exactly the same this year as it was last year. We know that costs have gone up. Fuel costs are up, and labour costs marginally. I don't think labour costs have really gone up that much in terms of overall payroll because of the cutbacks in the number of personnel on many of the vessels. You may not know this, Mr. Chairman, but some of the vessels have been reclassified in line with the Canadian Steamship Act and the Canadian Coast Guard. Many of the vessels have been recertified, resulting in fewer people employed on those vessels, so there must have been some savings to the corporation in that regard. There have been complaints because of the reduced number of people. I know that the minister and the corporation have received a letter from the masters of some of the vessels; certainly there's one that I'm personally aware of. I've seen the letter, although I don't have a copy, complaining about the potential danger -this is route 7, Mr. Chairman - on that particular vessel because of the cutback in number of employees. Should there be some kind of problem or catastrophe on that vessel, they feel that they don't have enough crew members to handle a situation of that sort.
These are some of the things that are happening. As I said, I know it's easy for people to say: "Well, we're subsidizing that ferry service at taxpayers' expense. They don't require a bigger subsidy or shouldn't receive it. If people choose to live on Texada Island or wherever, that's their problem." But that's not the right approach. We don't say that about highway construction up in the interior. We don't put toll gates on the highway to Prince George or Kamloops or Kelowna or anywhere else. In fact, not only do those people depend on water transportation for travel of any kind, but certainly our whole economy in many areas is practically based on the service we receive from the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We're paying a toll. It's as simple as that. I know that the corporation does receive a subsidy of $47 million a year, which I don't think is enough. It forced the board of directors and senior management people of the Ferry Corporation into a situation where they have had to reduce services and personnel. I don't think that's been good for the economy of most of the coast of British Columbia or for government revenues. I think that whole move has been counterproductive. That is not only the language that I use in this House but is a position that has been put forward by many groups serviced by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I'd like to think I understand some of the problems that the corporation faces. As I said, I've received good cooperation and a great deal of information, and I understand their problem. In my view, the problem is not the management or the board of directors of the corporation; it is government policy which emits from cabinet and Treasury Board. Because it is so vital to the economy of these areas, these matters and problems will hopefully be looked at.
I know the answer to this question, because I ask it every year, but I am again going to raise the matter of the federal contribution to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. In 1977 the federal contribution was $5 million, after Northland Navigation withdrew its services on the coast and the B.C. Ferry Corporation took up the slack by going into Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands, with stops at Bella Bella, Port Hardy and so on. There was rather complicated formula, which I understand is no longer in existence, but the fact is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be getting nearly $12 million in subsidies from the federal government this year.
You are not going to believe this, Mr. Chairman, but this $12 million doesn't go into the coffers of the B.C. Ferry Corporation; it goes into general revenue. Although the subsidy was reduced by 25.1 percent two years ago, I maintain that on top of the subsidy being paid to the B.C. Ferry Corporation that $12 million should go directly into the B.C. Ferries account, not into general revenue, which I suspect is subsidizing northeast coal, or whatever. The minister has answered this question before when I've raised it, and I know the answer, but I want it on record again this year, just to remind the minister.
I've got some highway problems too, but we'll get to that in a few minutes. Everybody's got highway problems, except perhaps Vancouver Centre; I'm not sure.
Interjection.
MR. LOCKSTEAD: I want to ask the minister, because the general manager is on the floor of the House . . . . The general manager will remember that he and Mr. Hodgson did agree, probably with one or two members of the board of directors - I'm talking to the minister, just relax - to consult with. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, you are pretty quick to call me to order. I'm a little suspicious of you; you get me twitchy.
Prior to the new summer schedule going into effect for the Sunshine Coast, Powell River and Texada Island, that consultation would take place. I am asking at this time and reminding the minister and the corporation . . . . I pose the question at this time because I was asked this weekend by a group of people from Texada Island if I had heard from the corporation and whether the general manager, the chairman of the board and whoever would keep that promise - I think they will; they haven't broken a promise to us yet, so I don't see why they should now - to consult with the people of Texada Island, the municipal council and the concerned citizens of Powell River, and very particularly, the municipality and the concerned citizens' group of the Sunshine Coast area at Gibsons. It has to be soon, because it is getting to that time of year when these schedules are going to have to be drawn up fairly quickly. We would very much like to avoid the dislocation that we've had at every schedule change. Every summer, every spring and every fall we get a ferry schedule that is totally out of whack, unconnected; in fact, this spring it almost cut off any reasonable access to Vancouver for people living on Texada Island. There was no consultation at all. That situation has improved tremendously over the past year, and I hope it will continue.
The next question I have relates to a matter which I know the minister and the general manager of the board of the corporation are familiar with, because I corresponded with them very recently on this matter. Ocean Falls has been pretty well isolated. There are not too many people living there, I'll grant you that, but they deserve some service. Up to December of last year a subsidy was paid to various private firms to supplement the service to Ocean Falls when the ferry was withdrawn - the Queen of the North or the Queen of Prince Rupert. About two or three weeks ago I met with some people from Ocean Falls who have requested - and they can guarantee a payload - to have one more trip of the Queen of the North call in to that community to get people and vehicles in or out before the summer schedule goes into effect. I approached the ferry corporation, I spoke with Mr. Hodgson and was informed by him that because of tariff changes, which I don't quite understand, the board of directors could not make the decision and that the decision would have to be made at the ministerial level. I wonder if the minister would have an answer for me on that today. Will they take one more sailing into that community? As I said, the representatives I met with from Ocean Falls can guarantee a no-loss trip to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I hope the government will undertake to assist the people still living in that community.
While I'm on the subject of Ocean Falls, I would like to ask if the government is currently subsidizing any carrier -air or sea - to assist in serving the people in that community. While we're up in the central coast area of my riding, I'd like once again to ask the minister and the B.C. Ferry Corporation to consider the construction of a ferry-docking facility at Bella Bella. The Queen of the North and the Queen of Prince Rupert do stop at that community of about 1, 100 people, but it's rather a focal point of the central coast; they pick up people at Bella Bella from other communities and the immediate area as well. The problem is, there is no docking facility. A federal government wharf, which is quite old and needs replacement, provides passenger service only - not vehicles. You can't load or unload vehicles from this point. I know part of the problem is that because Bella Bella happens to be a native Indian reserve, the provincial government says: "This is a federal government responsibility, so they can put up the bucks to build a proper ferry loading ramp." And the federal government says: "The B.C. Ferry Corporation is a British Columbia Crown corporation and why should we build them a ferry ramp?" So it's catch-22. In the meantime, the type of service required there is not being provided. I think there are solutions to the problem. I might add as well that the band council stated two or three years ago that the portion of the land, although it's on the reserve, where the ferry terminal should be constructed would be turned over to provincial jurisdiction so there would be no problem of sometime down the road saying, "This is native Indian land and we're going to forbid you to cross, " or whatever. I don't think that would happen anyway, but it's a concern that has been expressed by some people in government. So they've made that offer,
Last but not least, some years ago the ministry undertook a study to see if we could provide some kind of water transportation service - a feeder service, if you will - to Bella Coola. A lot of studies were done, soundings were done, and in fact the provincial government at one point - when the wharf burned down there, about two years ago, and prior to the federal government constructing the new wharf in the area - had the opportunity of participating in that construction by contributing some funds. The contractor at that time, while they were there and construction was taking place, would have constructed a roll on, roll off ferry ramp at Bella Coola. Of course the offer, I guess because of restraint or whatever, was rejected. Consequently, the federal government constructed their wharf, and if and when the provincial government now ever decides to put in a ferry ramp in that community, it's going to cost a great deal more money. The residents up there in that community have been asking for this service for many years. So perhaps the minister would care to comment on that.
Just one or two more items, very quickly - it's quite obvious we're not going to get through this before lunch. It's my view that, particularly during the week and particularly during the months from September or October to March or April, many of these sailings - in fact the majority, except perhaps on busy weekends - are not fully utilized. Sometimes it's 25 percent or 30 percent capacity, and this kind of thing. I know there are group rates in existence. For many of the Gulf Islands and areas where your only means of communication are by B.C. Ferries or Highways-operated ferries . . . . Quite frankly, I'm suggesting to the minister and the corporation at this time that school groups, school bands, sports groups, minor-league hockey teams, Guides, Brownies, Scouts, Cubs, church groups and so on should at that time, with prior notice, be able to travel free on those ferries. I don't see why they should not. The ferries are underused during those hours of the day anyway. I see no reason why those kinds of groups should not be able to travel free during the week to attend those sports and school functions. It wouldn't cost the Ferry Corporation a dime - with prior notice.
I have one or two more questions. I wonder if the minister is still considering the possibility of the Ferry Corporation acquiring the Princess of Vancouver for the Powell River-Comox and Texada routes. I know this has been under consideration for some time; it's no secret. The Ferry Corporation has an idea of a one-fare, circle tour from Vancouver, up the Sunshine Coast to Courtenay, down Vancouver Island and back to Vancouver on one ticket at a reduced rate. It's a good idea, as a matter of fact. It would probably assist tourism in the area, which is badly depressed at the present time. But I wonder if this is still under consideration. Where is that particular proposal at this time?
I have a few more questions here, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the minister would have time to answer one or two of my questions before the noon-hour break.
HON. A. FRASER: To the member, I'll start with that last question and go back. I didn't get that quite straight, but I think you were talking about acquisition of vessels. I can assure you that we're not acquiring any vessels, because we've got non-working vessels running out of our ears. Maybe I got the wrong version of that.
Regarding the wharf at Bella Coola, I'm not sure what discussion took place, but whatever it was, the lack of interest would be shown because we aren't prepared to run a service in there even if we did have a wharf. It's as simple as that. We can't afford to.
The Bella Bella dock: that goes on all the time. We stop there all the time, You're correct - we can't get vehicles on or off. It's a federal dock located on Indian land, and I don't know whether we'll ever get that resolved. We would like to see that happen - a roll on, roll off - so that we could freight and the whole bit. But I'm afraid we're in a three-way discussion with the band, the federal government and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, or the government of British Columbia. I don't know where that discussion is at the moment.
Regarding Ocean Falls service, we recently got a letter asking for a call into Ocean Falls. We withdrew service from there last fall. We don't call there anymore on the trip from Port Hardy to Rupert, for several reasons. At the present time I think there are 80 citizens left in Ocean Falls. The other thing was that our captains were telling us that we're going to get into trouble getting in and out of Ocean Falls because of the sedimenting up of the dock area. Those were all, I guess, excuses, but the business wasn't there. We're out of there now, and they've asked for one more trip for the spring. Possibly that can be accommodated. We'll be making a decision on that shortly. We've just received that request, really. I might add that in the central coast, which Ocean Falls is a part of, we have an agreement with coastal ferries. They haul freight and passengers for the areas in the central coast area. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is subsidizing them for, I believe, $145, 000 or $150, 000; otherwise, they wouldn't be in there at all. It would not be economical for them to operate, and they were going to fold up. We haven't deserted the central coast. When B.C. Ferries went out of Ocean Falls, this would be one of the ports of call for coastal ferries.
I understand from Mr. Baldwin that he or his senior people are going to Powell River and Texada Island in April to discuss summer schedules. I am advised that passenger utilization is very low during the winter months on route 7, and for this reason the crew has been reduced from nine to seven for the winter service.
I loved the comments of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) on the subsidy. I don't think he should be discussing those sorts of things, because he is not an accountant -and neither am I - and so whatever we contribute will only mix it up further. My version of it is that due to the arrangement made with the government of Canada in 1977 the subsidy started out at about $8 million, and is up to $12 million, or almost $13 million now, I think, and is tied into the Vancouver cost of living. One thing that I want to emphasize, Mr. Member, which is something that bothers you, is that the agreement was made between the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. It had nothing to do with the B.C. Ferry Corporation. So I don't know why you want to sidetrack the money directly into the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The subsidy money properly comes into the provincial treasury from the treasury of the government of Canada, and then the provincial government, as you know, takes that money and puts another $30 million of provincial tax money with it to subsidize the B.C. Ferry Corporation.
MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got a copy of the agreement, Alex.
HON. A. FRASER: I've got a copy of the agreement too, and I can have my interpretation of the agreement just as well as you can. What I am emphasizing is that B.C. Ferries aren't in the agreement at all. The agreement is with the government of the province of British Columbia. They receive the money, and we're quite happy about that. We made the agreement, it's been escalating and that's fine. Under that, and this is where another discussion takes place, we the government of British Columbia agree that we will serve the Pacific coast, We don't serve entirely with B.C. Ferries. I guess you could say that the $150, 000 which goes to coastal ferries in the private sector could be debited to that as well, because they are helping serve the central coast.
I noted your remarks regarding the ferry fares. I think that has generally settled down now. There were no real increases in B.C. Ferry fares when, as you pointed out, the commuter tickets were expanded from 30 days to . . . . I think the B.C. Ferries do get a little additional income, but not a great deal. They'll get by in 1984.
===================
|
|
