[ Page 493 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate

On the subamendment.

Mr. Levi –– 493

Mr. Shelford –– 497

Mr. Stephens –– 498

Mrs. Jordan –– 500

Mr. King –– 501

Ms. Brown –– 503

Mr. Cocke –– 505

Mr. Stupich –– 507

Mr. Barber –– 508

Mr. Mussallem –– 511

Mr. Lloyd –– 512

Mr. Lockstead –– 514

The House met at 8:35 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Before the supper hour, what I was trying to do was to develop a basic theme in terms of the speech, -which really, I think, could be reduced to the theme of saying to the government and to all of the members in this House - in fact, to all of the people in the province who don't live in the north: "Donot let us give up the north." I think it's important that people understand haw important the north is to us.

I've had an opportunity over the supper hour to read a couple of editorials, one in tonight's Vancouver Sun and one that was in Friday's Victoria Times. One gets the impression that the press is moving towards supporting the position that we should give up the extension of the railroad. They don't go much further than that. They do not really examine the consequences. What they talk about is very much what the government is fond of talking about: just how much money it will cost and what they can afford, with no view to the future. I think one can characterize those kinds of editorials as the fat cats' riding editorials - the people who live down here in the big cities and who make observations about things that are going on up in the north without really understanding what is happening.

There is one part of the editorial in tonight's Sun which I want to quote. "What this means is that in order to keep a railway link to Fort Nelson, the province as a whole must give up very large potential investment in other public amenities. They could be hospitals, schools, recreation facilities, better social services or a corresponding reduction in taxes." One gets the impression that they are seeing it through their own eyes - the eyes of the urban areas in terms of the services that they constantly demand. That is the right of the taxpayer. After all, that's why the taxpayers pay money; they expect to get services.

But there is also another issue. There's the issue of equity in terms of service and availability of service in all of the province. We've heard time and time again from the members on the other side who represent the north, who talk about the inequities: the lack of services in the north compared to the kind of services that happen in the south.

When we examine what is going on in terms of the suggestion which is implicit in the editorial - that somehow the province is going to have to subsidize the north, and in doing that they are going to have to give up some things This happens all the time: the question of giving up. For instance, at the moment, we are wedded to the idea that we have to have large numbers of people in the universities, and we put great subsidies in to the universities. It costs about $4,500 for a student to go to university, and the fees probably don't come to anything more than about $800.

Students are coming from all over the province. Albeit there is some lack of equity in economic-socio memberships in terms of the people who go to the universities, but there is an attempt there to provide for everybody, at great expense to the taxpayer. It's the same argument that I used this afternoon on the question of transportation in the lower mainland area. They do have to examine the question of equity, not just the question of the bottom line.

The people up north are usually the last people to get service. I can recall, when I was in government, going into the north and finding that the kinds of services that we took for granted down here, didn't exist at all up there. And now we've come to the big crunch not just of the communications link in the north - north of Dawson Creek - but we are now talking about the very survival of some of those towns up there. We're not talking about large numbers of people, it's true; we're probably talking, all in all, of something like 25,000 people. One can estimate that we're probably talking about 3,000 to 4,000 wage-earners at the most. But it's a part of the province. It's a part of the province that makes a very significant contribution to the economy, to the revenues of this province.

The other question is: how wrong can people be over 60 years, in terms of the gradual development of the north? What we have as a result is the Premier appointing a commission to look into the situation in respect to the railroad, and then the decision by the commission - albeit an interim one at the moment, nevertheless one that has already created a great deal of anxiety and probably done some very serious damage to the possibilities of investment in the north for some time. If the government decides to reject the recommendation of the commission, it's going to take some time for people to recover

[ Page 494 ]

f rom the idea that there was a government toying with the idea that they would not go ahead with it. That is in spite of the fact that as recently as the end of November, the Premier himself indicated to the delegates at the Socred convention, and to the people in the north, that they were not going to discontinue the railroad.

So when we down here talk about what goes on up there, we really need to have a balance in the debate, and that balance has got to be provided by some of those members over there who can tell us, from their very intimate knowledge, just what it means to have a transportation link in the north. So far we haven't heard from them. When I looked over at the seat of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , I had to adjust my glasses, and then I realized that it was the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) . Maybe he's going to be his proxy, and he's going to stand up and talk about it, because he has a lot to say about communication and transportation links.

So the only things we can rely on at the moment, if we are not going to hear f rom the member from North Peace River are some of the observations that he made in 1975 when we were in debate on the whole question of the BCR, particularly as it relates to the north. I want to say that the only thing that....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: We're getting pretty tired of you too, Mr. Premier, and so is the rest of the province. What we want from you is to stick around, take the flak when the flak comes down, and answer some of the more important questions in the province, particularly in relation to the Fort Nelson extension. The member for North Peace River stated in June, 1975: "1 know from firsthand experience that a deliberate decision was made to extend the railway north from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson in as quick a time as possible." There was a deliberate decision by the directors of B.C. Rail. Why was that decision made, and on what basis? I suggested to the members of this House that this was made upon that basis - to provide a service to a new developing area, the community at Fort Nelson, which really wanted to see that railway there as quickly as possible.

We're talking about decisions that were made by the former Socred administration, Mr. Speaker. The member goes on to say:

"There is great potential in the Fort Nelson area; there always has been. The thing that was frustrating in the development of the area was the fact that everything had to come in and out by very expensive transportation methods, mainly trucks; and this is not an economical way to move freight in; and it certainly is not an economical way to move raw resources to the market."

That is the question, of course, that is before us right now. We had the representative for North Peace River talking almost three years ago about the rationale behind the extension of the railroad and why it was to be done - because it was an expanding area. And he talks about the mode of transportation that was mainly used to ship in the supplies and to ship out the raw materials, which was trucking. Now we have to know from that government, if they're going to discontinue this railroad link, how they propose to see that things are shipped in and shipped out. It's been suggested that some costing has been done. Maybe the minister of economic disaster will be able to tell us in one of his more informed speeches - it has yet to be received here - just what kind of an analysis has been done in terms of.... U we have no railroad, how are we going to truck it all in? It's been suggested by people who live in the north -particularly those in the forest industry, who are affected by this recommended cancellation of the link - that they'll need a truck every 15 minutes over 24-hour periods just to ship stuff out. Now the important thing is: How is that going to happen? Is it going to happen that the government is going to get into another form of subsidy? Are they going to go into the trucking business? Is the trucking industry able, at this time, if that railroad link is broken, to meet the demands of people, both in industry and families? Haw is it all going to happen?

This is the man, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who is fond of doing studies; he has yet to produce in this House one study on any subject. In fact, I would appreciated it if he would just produce a study on the studies, just so that we would have something to study.

But we have no information, so what we must do is to reason in a somewhat inferential way on the basis of the information we have. The question is, Mr. Speaker: What contingency plans does the government have? If it closes off the railroad, what is going to be the mode of transportation?

The Premier wasn't in the House this afternoon, and I'd just like to repeat a couple of the things that I said, because he was the one %to in January indicated that there were discussions going on among the

[ Page 495 ]

Yukon, Alaska and British Columbia on transportation links. We have some questions for him. We want to know, for instance, if it was a matter of international courtesy. Did he phone the Governor of Alaska and tell him: "Yes, there is a recommendation from the McKenzie royal commission to shut down the railroad, but don't get anxious; we're just going to continue with our discussions."? Has he actually been in touch with him? Has he said anything to them? Or has all of that work gone for naught? We have to know that kind of thing, and I'm sure that the people in the Yukon want to know that and the people in Alaska want to know that, and probably as importantly the people in Alberta want to know it. After all, this government is part of discussions and participation in planning for a northern transportation link.

Now the other option, I suppose, after the government shuts down the railroad and decides either to go into the trucking business or provide subsidies for the trucking business.... What is going to happen to the railroad? It's been suggested that they give it to the CNR. Well, we don't know. have those kinds of discussions been going on? There are reports to the effect on the feasibility of that kind of thing. Are they thinking about that kind of thing?

We have no sense at all of what they are thinking about, no sense whatsoever. We're very confused. We're confused because the Premier tells his party members and the people of the north one thing, and we have a commission telling them something else. He assured them that because of the historical nature and the economic importance of the railroad, they would never shut it down.

MR. BARRETT: Did he tell the truth?

MR. LEVI: Did he tell the truth? Was he fibbing? Well, we don't know whether he was fibbing. Obviously he's leaving the chamber to go back and consult his little crystal ball. He'll be back shortly. I'm sure he'll be back about 9:55 p.m. or 10:55 p.m.

MR. BARRETT: Speak to his daddy. He'll tell you what to do with the railroad.

MR. LEVI: His daddy already told you what to do with the railroad. He said: "Don't be so silly; keep it going."

I just want to go back, Mr. Speaker, to the earlier remarks that I made about what I find to be rather frightening editorials in the newspapers. You know, the fat cats are already making the decision: "As long as we're okay down here, to heck with the people up north." It comes to the issue that they don't want to be in the position of facing that kind of subsidy. I don't think at the moment that we have the kind of analysis that's been done in terms of the cost that has been spent on that railroad, and what the future value of that railroad would be if we are in fact prepared, if we have to provide subsidies, to provide them until the railway requires a lesser subsidy. But if we are going to suggest, as has been suggested by the group over there, that somehow we have to adopt the philosophy on a continual basis of pay as you go, there's no such thing as pay as you go, and they know it.

The editorial in The Sun talks about the kind of cost that's going to be needed. They say: "The $70 million, it should be borne in mind, is the absolute minimum figure for the next f five years only." Well, let's presume that it is only the minimum figure and the government has to find $70 million. I could give them a suggestion on where they could find $70 million. Just bring back the succession duties and we'll have $70 million, $80 million, $90 million a year for the next five years. So it is not really, Mr. Speaker, an issue of the money. It's rather the question about how this government approaches things. It's this short-term, bottom-line approach.

After all, for a government that was elected on the basis of providing jobs, it's presided in the last two and a half years over the demise of several thousand jobs, and here we are looking at the possibility of wiping out a complete section of the economy of British Columbia. What they're going to do is to say that if it costs $60 million or $70 million a year to support the railroad, that's too high a price to pay and all of the people up there, some 25,000, will just have to make other arrangements.

We all know what those other arrangements usually are. First of all, there is the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Then there is the social assistance. Then they usually have the travel grants to other jobs by Canada Manpower. That's the kind of planning they've got in mind. Very simple: we'll close down a part of the province. It's all they want to do. That part of the province is not paying its way; let's close it down; let's disregard it.

It's interesting that the member for North Peace River has made on several occasions the analogy of the cost, for instance, of the Alaska Highway. But nobody here has ever discussed the possibility that we might close

[ Page 496 ]

down the Alaska Highway, and that's subsidized to a great extent.

But what gets me about the editorials, Mr. Speaker, is that these are the newspapers that are given to supporting governments, particularly the one in Ottawa right now, because that's the way they want to go, and that's a government that can run up $11 billion and nobody gets excited. The Premier is quite happy to walk hand in hand with that government and think they're great people.

MR. SKELLY: He's got a billion dollars.

MR. LEVI: Well, yes. You know, he'll knock the heck out of them, but as long as he gets his $800 million to $900 million next year, presumably transfer payments in this province will reach $1 billion. But he will never say that that $1 billion is part of the deficit of the $11 billion that the federal government is going to run up.

When is it going to be, Mr. Speaker, that we can have some frank statements from the government in respect to the northern rail link - as to what they're really thinking? That's what we need. It is not as important that we get it here, but it's more important that they get it up north, and that they don't have to wait two, three or four months f or that kind of an answer. That answer should be forthcoming now. Because if that is what's happened, that the government in the final analysis decides that it cannot politically or economically stop the railroad, then we might well ask what we have had the royal commission for and why we have spent a couple of million dollars. What have we had it for?

Well, we know that the commission was set up in order to take some heat of f the Premier, and he got them going on it. Like all commissions they took them elves very seriously, and they went around the province and received a large number of briefs. And now they've come up with a decision. I'm just wondering what position the Premier finds himself in when he sits down quietly by himself and figures: "Well, I created a monster. I asked them to go out and look at it. Unfortunately, they took themselves far too seriously and they came back and they've handed me on a platter perhaps the biggest political problem I've had to date." Because in order to make a decision about the continuing of the railroad in the north, that government is going to have to take one heck of a good look at itself ; it's going to have to exercise some intestinal fortitude that up to now it has not demonstrated that it's capable of doing.

They have manufactured the problem for them elves in terms of appointing the commission. There has, in fact, been an undermining of the commission when the Premier goes around at the beginning of the year promising everybody that he will not shut down the railroad, and now he's faced with the consequences of all of those actions. We have to see what kind of decision is needed, and we need to see it now, immediately, both from the point of view of the people who live up north, and for our interest as the legislators in this house.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding where most of the people work within the city, you find many of them have been to the north. After all, for a lot of people that's where you go to make some kind of a stake. You get some exposure to that kind of thing, and then you come back and you settle down in the lower mainland area. But there's a sympathy that exists; there's an understanding that exists with far more people, far more than the people who write editorials like this understand, in terms of what the north means to people in the south. People do not sit down and calculate that they should have something and the people up north should not have something. That's not the way that people who work for a living.... They don't think that way. What we have here is only the fat-cat kind of syndrome - the people who think about why we should let all that money go out only to support an area where there aren't too many people.

I just want to cover one other area, which is in respect to the development of the north and its impact in terms of revenues, and what is happening in all of the province. It's interesting to see in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at the projected revenues for 1978 in terms of the taxation revenues, we find the continuing gap, the ever-widening gap between those who pay personal income tax.... In 1977 the total personal income tax paid in this province was $810 million, and when you look at the corporate tax, you find it's $236 million.

We must question the disparity between those two figures - the ever-widening gap between those people who work for a living and pay taxes and those people who operate the corporate sector and pay taxes. If their concern over there is the issue of revenue in order to pay for the subsidies that are required to operate certain services in the north, then they'd better change their mode of collecting taxes. Because that's what we've seen over the past 20 years in the whole country - the ever-widening gap between those who work for a living and pay taxes, and their

[ Page 497 ]

contribution to the general revenue, and the corporate contribution. At the moment, it's almost four to one. Now if we were to make adjustments in terms of those kinds of taxes, we would be in a position to have more revenue - the kind of revenue that we need to meet the kind of demands that are in the north.

We've already got the message from the government - that it's not their intention to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots at all. It's to make it wider, exemplified by their succession duties. I'm waiting with great wonderment for one day when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) will stand up and say: "You see, we took of f the succession duties, and look how much money has poured into the province in investment as a result of that." And when that day comes, I think that pigs will fly over the moon.

Mr. Speaker, I started a theme, and the theme was: let's not shut down the north. It's too important to all of this province. Let's disregard the kind of fat-cat thinking that goes on down here that somehow we can't afford to keep it on, because it will deprive us of some of the services we need. Those f at cats have to think about how little services those people have up there anyway. But the most essential service is the continuation of the northern link of the BCR.

MR. SHELFORD: I don't intend to speak long this evening. First of all I'd like to say that the motion doesn't make too much sense to me, for the simple reason that it's trying to out-guess what the government might do. And I would say that we could carry on discussions like this forever, trying to out-guess what any government might do in the future.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: Even you. I've always supported the north, and certainly always intend to; and I would say that there is no question, in my opinion, that the government will not let us down.

MR. BARRETT: What if they do, Cyril?

MR. SHELFORD: This does leave, I would say, the members of this Legislature - and I just want to congratulate you, Mr. Leader, on a tricky little bit of wording - in a bit of a dilemma because most of us over here - I'm quite sure I can speak for most of them, anyway - are against your amendment. And if we were to support your amendment to the amendment, then of course it would not make much sense, unless we supported both.

MR. BARRETT: Now you're being swift.

MR. SHELFORD: I'd have a hard time beating you, my friend.

If this subamendment did pass, it would be meaningless unless, as I said before, the members supported both.

Now the potential of this northern area, in my opinion, is very great. It may be long-term, but for all that, I certainly have great faith in this northern part, and especially the Fort Nelson area. The agricultural potential alone, in my opinion, is equal and above that at Fort St. John. There are approximately 500,000 acres of about the best land in Canada, only second to that in the Red River Valley around Winnipeg. And there are a further one million acres equal to most of the land in the Fort St. John region.

I would point out that we had plans for developing a model farm in Fort Nelson in the latter years while I was minister. In fact, we planned on clearing 3,000 acres as a model farm to show what could be grown in that particular region. Now it seems odd that the group which is supporting the north - or talking about supporting the north tonight -forgot about this plan when they got elected. The plan for the model farm at Fort Nelson never got off the ground after I left office in 1972. 1 would say: where was their faith in northern development at that particular time?

I would point out to the members that the world-record alfalfa seed camp from the Fort Nelson area during the late 1960s. I have a picture in my home of a 48-pound cabbage being held by three little girls...

MR. BARRETT: Which cabinet minister was that?

MR. SHELFORD: ... who won the prize at the fair at Fort Nelson, along with the best carrots you can grow anywhere. This area - no question - has the potential of growing the world's best cold-loving vegetables, which include cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, lettuce, Brussels sprouts, turnips, parsnips et cetera. The only question, of course, is: when will the market demand the products from this area? The potential is there, and this area could feed the whole of North America, for those types of vegetables that I just mentioned. It's a tremendous potential.

I would point out that the Social Credit Party has done very well for the north over the years. When you look back at the Peace River Dam, we had no power for industry at that time. The highway system watch was built

[ Page 498 ]

right through the north country, right up into the Peace River area, and from McBride to Prince Rupert. And the power from the Peace River Dam supplied industry with power, which made the pulp mills in Prince George and Quesnel possible. So I think the record of support in the north by the Social Credit government has been extremely good.

Now the Premier stated very clearly at the Social Credit convention that he wouldn't abandon the Fort Nelson line. I have to believe his word, and I'm confident that he will live up to this promise.

MR. BARRETT: Then why the royal commission?

MR. SHELFORD: For that reason I will not support the amendment to the amendment or, for that matter, the amendment itself. I have faith in the north country and some day, I'm confident, this line will go clear through to Alaska. And I would urge the government to do its best to get the U.S. government, and that of Alaska, to help build this line.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't been here very long, so I can take some chances and I can make some mistakes and be wrong and probably still be forgiven.

AN RON. MEMBER: Only one.

MR. STEPHENS: And though I haven't been here very long, I smell a con job; in fact, I smell two con jobs going on in this chamber tonight.

The first one, which really astonishes me, is that this group here in official opposition, with their background and experience, are being so badly sucked into this particular debate. I have no doubt at all that the decision to keep the Fort Nelson line open has been made. I have little doubt at all that this debate is simply putting the opposition in the position where a little farther down the line, if they ever had any justification for complaining about the high-spending government - and they never had any justification about that to begin with because of their own performance - they are certainly not going to have much to complain about in the future

I say that the decision to keep the Fort Nelson line open, Mr. Speaker, has already been made, if you will look at the evidence.

First of all, this report of the royal commission has been in the hands of the government for three months. Now I'm sure that if a decision to close the line was going to be made, we would have heard about it by now, because the report says that the line must be closed before spring breakup. Well, we're into spring breakup now.

MR. BARRETT: That's next year'

MR. STEPHENS: Now that we're into spring breakup, I think that we can be quite sure that there will be no decision made at this time. There are a few other things that point to this decision, Mr. Speaker. There's $70 million set aside in this years budget for B.C. Rail. The government is not prepared to tell anybody what that $70 million is for, but....

MR. BARRETT: That's $150 million short of last year!

MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I know. You've done your share to contribute to the mishandling of the taxpayers' money. You should have no difficulty in recognizing it.

MR. BARRETT: Are you for the subamendment or against it?

MR. STEPHENS: I wonder also, Mr. Speaker, if there isn't some deal already cooked up and arranged between this government and the federal government concerning the railroad in the north end of this province. I'm going to be looking forward to seeing whether in fact this government is selling or leasing or finding some other way to dispose of some of the assets of this railroad, in order to pass the losses on to the federal government so that it can, a little farther down the line, continue to balance its budget.

And what about the second con job? This is the most important one and this is the most serious one. This government and this official opposition, for years, for three successive governments, have used and abused the taxpayers' money in connection with this railroad, like something that we probably have never seen before and probably will never see again.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Nobody's after my job.

This debate is directed towards hiding the true facts from the public. Get the public all up in arms, get the people in Fort Nelson excited, get them agitated, get them worried, keep them upset, change the direction and the thinking of the people in the province. The real issue is simply this: this government, and you when you were in government, and the government before that, continued to borrow

[ Page 499 ]

money from the pension plans of this province and invest it - and I use that term loosely -in a railroad which will never make a prof it for this province. When the day of reckoning comes, when this government has got to find that $650 million or $700 million or $800 million, it's going to have great difficulty in those days in balancing its budget.

This government that claims fiscal responsibility now borrows money, continues to borrow money for the sole purpose of paying interest on the loans that it made previously - these financial geniuses who are balancing the budget of this province. That's the issue here. That's what is facing the people of British Columbia, this huge, gigantic debt that they won't talk about, that they just keep increasing. But sooner or later they're going to have to face it, and we the taxpayers are going to have to pay it.

Let's just review the history of this. During the government of W.A.C. Bennett, the Fort Nelson line was conceived and built. When it was built, there was a 47 per cent overrun. Can you imagine that? Way back in 1971, an overrun, of all things. I don't think they called it overruns in those days; that was something that was invented when the money was being spent for the good of the people of the province who needed it the most.

When this opposition was in government, we invented overruns because they were spending money on people who needed it. It was started prior to their appearance on the scene, so we were off to a flying start. Between 1972 and 1976, another $23 million of the taxpayers' money was pumped into this railway line. It brought the capital cost up to over $70 million by the end of 1976.

Then along came the present government. It. of course, will pump another $36 million in.

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: Now don't you worry about that. I'll be up making speeches in the north, and we're the only ones in this House who are not politicking for one seat in the north country. We don't have to politic for it. We've got a candidate in the curtains up there that will strike terror into your heart when he comes out. We don't need politics to win the North Peace or the South Peace, as far as that goes. All we need is candidates, and we've got them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. STEPHENS: Let's just review the money that's been taken from the pension plans of this province and pumped into this rail line. In 1971, it was $35 million; in 1972, $65 million; 1973, $45 million; 1974, $60 million - oh, my Lord!

AN HON. MEMBER: NDP.

MR. STEPHENS: In 1975, $55 million. What did you say - NDP? How about this - 1976, $185

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. STEPHENS: Was that NDP?

AN HON. MEMBER: What Year?

MR. STEPHENS: In 1976. Can you remember that far back? (Laughter.)

In 1977, it was $140 million. Now where did this money come from? Well, just look at the.... If I had money in one of the pension plans in this province, I'd be a little concerned.

MR. ROGERS: You do.

MR. STEPHENS: Not yet; I haven't been paid yet. I just discovered I don't get paid for three months. (Laughter.) What a lousy job this is. The lawyers here know we get paid more often than that in the law business.

But this money - where did it come from? In round figures $144 million came from the Canada Pension Plan; $189 million from civil service, municipal and public service pension plans; the teachers' pension fund provided $80 million; B.C. Hydro pension plan, $28.5 million; B.C. Rail pension fund, $6 million. Hey, that's just great. Borrow the money from the pension plan of the B.C. Rail and use it to f finance itself out - marvellous! - to pay the interest on the loans to repay the other pension plans. Great stuff!

College pension fund contributed $6 million; B.C. Power Commission, $2 million; Workers' Compensation Board, $1.5 million. When we add these together with the other investments, we've got over $650 million invested in this railway, Mr. Speaker, and we're told by the financial advisers of this railway: "Well, let's write it off." We don't hear either the government or the opposition talking about this kind of money and this kind of investment and where it's coming from. Perhaps not this t time around, but maybe after the next election, if you on the other side are still here, you'll have to face that. Or maybe you're looking forward to the day of one more term of the NDP so that they'll have to face

[ Page 500 ]

the problem. Who knows? But sooner or later the people of British Columbia are going to have to face it.

MR. LOEWEN: Are you for the railroad or against it?

MR. BARRETT:Do you support the subamendment?

MR. STEPHENS: I'm getting to that. Just hold your shirt.

These moneys have been spent in a very, very irresponsible fashion, Mr. Speaker, due to primarily one thing, and that is that governments interfere in the affairs of these corporations, that the politicians play their games...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STEPHENS: ... and the great inefficient.... Oh, did that hurt? Oh, boy.

They interfered in the proper management of these corporations. Now Crown corporations, even at their best, aren't much to brag about. But when the politicians stick their nose into them and stir the pot, we get this result -total and complete waste of the taxpayers' money.

Now you ask me if I'm going to support this amendment. No way am I going to support this amendment. I'm not going to support this amendment because I believe that your record -now that you're in opposition - in government is not worth supporting. I'm not supporting this amendment, not because I'm enamored with the government, because they're not doing any better than you did. But I'm not going to support it because I simply do not believe for one minute that that Fort Nelson line is going to be shut down.

I call upon the Premier of this province, Mr. Speaker, wherever he is, to come into this House right now and stand up and settle the matter once and for all. Tell the people of Fort Nelson that the railway line is going to be there and let's put this debate aside. There's no reason why this should be delayed any longer. Let's get busy with the main problem of this province. Let's put this debate to sleep right away. If the Premier won't do that, perhaps the Minister of Economic Development if he would see fit, could get up and do that for us.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry -through you, to the hon. hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) - the Premier is busy. I wonder if I would do.

MR. BARRETT: No.

MRS. JORDAN: I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Oak Bay. He suggested that the real germ of debate in the amendment to the amendment was dollars, and he reeled off, with accuracy and hindsight rivaled solely by his wit, the past problem of the B.C. Railway. he didn't happen to mention the benefits that have accrued to this province through the years by the development of that railway, in terms of moving resource wealth to the lower mainland and the rest of the province, in terms of assistance to developing other parts of this unique and difficult to develop province, in terms of encouraging people into other parts of the country so we avoid, in part, the over-congestion of the lower mainland, and a number of other factors. I suggest that he is missing the point.

One of the questions that must be weighed very carefully in this debate, after we have examined all the economic facts, the long-term potential and the long-term costs that seem most likely to accrue, is the value of a social decision. I suggest social thinking, in terms of the benefits to this province as a whole and to the north, must be weighed very carefully in the decision.

When one looks at the potential in the north, from an economic point of view, for the use of this railway, I suppose you could suggest that perhaps in 20 years, when the food production situation in the world is quite different from what we see today, and when perhaps we will have protective tariffs for agricultural production in Canada and perhaps in B.C., there would be a potential for aiding the agricultural industry in the north and there would be a major food cargo on the northern railway. The land is there and the weather capability is there. If the market was there and if the return from that market was there.... One sees very little real resource return in terms of mineral potential or little timber potential as far as economic returns to the railway are concerned, until we find a more extensive use for soft wood.

We can weigh the alternates such as have been mentioned: the feasibility of entering into an agreement with the Northwest Territories and Alaska to develop adjoining railways systems so that their rich resources could be brought through this railway system, both in the mineral area and the timber area.

I believe we have to weigh very carefully those jobs that are directly dependent upon the operation of this line at this time and over the next few years, and the allied jobs which go with this particular industry. I

[ Page 501 ]

think we also have to weigh what alternatives would be available in order to keep those three major mills surviving. Also, I believe we have to weigh the life in the north.

We recognize that we largely depend, and are going to depend more, on the tourist industry for economic flow in this province. What are their problems when we relate their area to the tourist industry? If the hon. member for Oak Bay is concerned about the Vancouver Island tourist situation, I wonder how he would feel if he lived in the Peace River area and he had to work three times as hard as anywhere else in this province to sell ice to the Eskimos, if you will. It is beautiful country, yes, but how do you encourage people from Tokyo, California or Europe to spend the type of money that is needed to visit a land that is often 64 degrees below zero? Their tourist potential is very limited at this time and it requires a greater degree of effort than any of us have to put forth in the rest of the province to develop that potential.

Mr. Speaker, they are almost the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, in my view, for British Columbia. We must weigh the value of their efforts very realistically in terms of generating wealth for the other parts of the province. The money that is needed to provide the services in the lower mainland, the Okanagan or in the Kootenays, I suggest, is substantial. This too must weigh heavily in the social decision.

The hon. member for Oak Bay reeled off facts and figures of deficit financing over the years or deficits incurred by the railway, and I would ask him if he is going to reel off the deficits incurred through Hydro transit in the lower mainland. Is he opposed to that? I would ask him haw he f eels about the deficit incurred by the Princess Marguerite. Is he opposed to those deficits? It was $100,000, 1 believe, under the NDP.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Pardon me, it was $100 million under the NDP.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN; Under the very careful management of the current minister....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Pardon me. It was $1 million under the NDP, down to $500,000 this year - a $500,000 subsidy to run an attractive tourist addition from Seattle to Victoria, to the member's own riding. Is he opposed to that subsidy? I wonder about the subsidy that is this year outlined in the budget for the B.C. ferry system. Is the hon. member f or Oak Bay opposed to that subsidy? Or does the hon. member have an equation that allows certain subsidies for certain areas, but not for others

I'm not going to support this amendment to the amendment, because I believe it's frivolous; and I believe it doesn't reflect the efforts put forth by the opposition party when they were in government. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. But I do suggest, on behalf of the people in the Okanagan, that we wish the government to weigh very carefully, before any decision is made, not only the economic factors which are directly related to the railway, but the long-term economic benefits that can develop and accrue to this province, and the potential of the development of the joint railway to the Northwest Territories - and to Alaska - and above all, the social consequences if this railway line is discontinued.

MR. KING: I'd just like to say to the member f or Oak Bay, who opened his remarks by referring to con jobs in the Legislature, that he comes well equipped to analyse those con jobs, when he admits that Scotty Wallace didn't even tell him that he didn't stand to draw his pay cheque for three months. So he comes well equipped to understand con jobs; now we know how he got here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to congratulate the previous speaker, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) . I think that the member has, given wise advice to the government with respect to this amendment - and that is to weigh very carefully the destiny of the Fort Nelson line, because there's certainly more than the bottom line in financial terms to the decision affecting that line. It is, indeed, the lifeline to Fort Nelson, and it has a tremendous impact on the potential of the forest industry, which is our primary industry in the whole north.

I'd just like to make a couple of comments about the dilemma that forest companies are placed in during the time that this government's indecisiveness on the destiny of the railway holds sway in this province. Unfortunately, those firms that now rely on the railway to transport their product to the market still have to go on in business day to day. And I want to ask the government - those people on that side who claim to be shrewd businessmen, who claim to understand business needs in this province - if they can imagine what is happening to the customers of those

[ Page 502 ]

sawmills and those forest companies in the north, who are asking questions today - and have been for the last number of months -about the reliability of the product, the transportation system to get that product to market. What is happening in terms of those companies' ability to engage in long-term capital financing? They don't know what the ground rules are going to be. They don't know whether they're going to have a lifeline for their product to market at reasonable rates. And it's those very concerns, and the indecisiveness of this government, which are the shame of this whole thing, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the members on all sides of the House talk tonight about the needs of the north, and suggest that this is not simply a financial decision, that it has social and industrial consequences for the north and the whole province. That's certainly true. How is it then that this government, after recognizing that a political decision needed to be made with respect to what it is and always has been - a resource railway - felt it necessary to appoint a royal commission, which took months upon months of study and travel and use of taxpayers' dollars to study a question that is admittedly a political question for the government to decide? Lo and behold, when the report of the royal commission comes in, Mr. Speaker, we find that the government sits on that for a number of months, and then finally tables it, but still maintains their silence. Talk about indecision, talk about fomenting a complete and total apprehension in the north country with respect to industry's ability to function and plan ahead - this is the very stuff that it's made of-. We've listened to backbenchers on the government side make this very point, in other debates, and they've stressed it time after time after time.

This is not a frivolous amendment, Mr. Speaker. This is not a con game; this is a very serious amendment. We believe - and I certainly believe, personally - that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not seek every opportunity to get this important and very fundamental question to debate in this Legislative Assembly, where it should be resolved. To say that it's frivolous, to try and sidestep it because it may bring some political embarrassment -to- some of - the insecure members from the north - who are not sure whether they're going to run again next time or not, anyway - is unfortunate, and that grieves me greatly. But I suggest- to you that the destiny Of the northern part of our province, and the destiny of a railway, which the taxpayers have already invested exceedingly heavily in, is more fundamental than political concerns.

I'm not trying to be as apolitical as my friend, the Conservative leader (Mr. Stephens) . He's so squeaky clean when it comes to politics that I wonder what he's doing in this Legislature. I'm surprised he'd even deign to enter the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You wouldn't say that . if he were in here.

MR. KING: No, that's true, Mr. Attorney-General.

There's another important point in this debate, and I would not be true to my normal vocation unless I voiced it, Mr. Speaker. I'm a railroader and I believe in keeping bulk commodities on the rails, not on the highways of the province of British Columbia. Lord knows, we have enough heavy trucks on the highway, congesting traffic, competing for space in a time when the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is spending the taxpayers' money heavily to attract tourists. We have heavy trucks impeding that traffic, creating hazards, and now they want to bring more trucks on the highways to bring the bulk commodities from the north. I think it's shameful.

There is a serious consideration here, quite frankly. I doubt that the royal commission has made any serious analysis of what any alternative system of transportation would mean in terms of dollars. I don't think it's possible to do that. I suggest that it's very difficult to estimate the cost of upgrading and widening highways to accommodate large trucks that would be necessary. I suggest that it is very difficult to determine whether a rate structure that would allow our forest industry to remain competitive could be developed without subsidy from government. And under those circumstances, I think that the suggestions of the royal commission are certainly less than complete in terms'of the total economic picture.

Now I disagree with the Conservative leader that a decision was already made. I do not believe that to be the case. Mr. Speaker, I think that the-Premier sometimes goes to ridiculous extremes to try to demonstrate his independence from his predecessor, the former Social Credit leader, W.A.C. Bennett, the father. I think it's very important to the Premier today to demonstrate that he's at arms' length and he's his own man. I think he's willing at times to play with the destiny and economic security of this province to prove that point. I think that's probably

[ Page 503 ]

what's happening here. I think he actually was seriously considering abandoning the Fort Nelson line, if, for nothing else, to indicate to the province: "Just because my father was committed to it, certainly I am not."

I believe that the motion moved by the official opposition has already served its purpose. I think the government has received a strong indication tonight from their timid backbenchers that there would be enough initiative and enough courage left, that there would be a back-bench revolt against the abandonment of the northern Fort Nelson line. I believe that as a result of this amendment on the books here tonight in this debate, we are going to see the Fort Nelson line preserved and I am willing to predict that.

But I am not at all convinced, as my Conservative friend was, that this is simply a ruse by the government to justify additional financing. That's not the history of the railway and it's not the history of this government. After all, Mr. Speaker, any gang that could run up a $215 million overrun in one year is not going to be timid about coming back to the Legislature for financing for the railway. I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it's important that the railway be maintained. I think that particularly the northern MLAs, whether they be on the government side or on the opposition side....

MR. KEMPF: You have not got any.

MR. KING: Yes, we do. We have a member in Prince Rupert, Mr. Speaker, and that's certainly part of the north.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that a message be given to the government tonight on this particular vote, or whenever it comes to a vote. That message should be: look, we have not a captive, subservient bunch of people here who are going to stick to the party line, even when sticking to the party line jeopardizes the interests of the northern part of the province. I hope that not only the northern MLAs but MLAs in the back bench will send that message to the government in sufficient strength to persuade this government that, after all, has indicated in the past that the bottom line is their main concern. In case there is any lingering doubt in their own minds as to what direction they should take, send them a message. Support the amendment. It is the lifeblood of the north. You owe it to the constituencies you represent.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker. Really', I just want to relate a conversation that I had with the women from the Fort Nelson Women's Centre, with whom I have been in contact, because they are certainly very upset about what they anticipate is going to be the decision by the government to terminate the railway line. They put a number of issues forward.

One of the things they talked about, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of impact this is going to have on the family in terms of the massive unemployment which is going to result from this decision on the part of the government. Some of the things they talked about was what happens to the family when suddenly all the men are thrown out of work. They talk about separation while some of these fathers travel all across Canada looking for other jobs, and how demoralizing this is on the mother as well as on the children who are left behind.

They really are asking the government to start thinking about some of the social consequences of the decision. Mr. Speaker, if I can quote from a letter from one of the women, it says: "Throughout history women and children have borne the brunt of social and economic upheavals. Some have survived easier than others, but the emotional and social scars have never been recorded for posterity, at least not from the women's point of view."

Mr. Speaker, the other point that they raised, aside from the impact on the family of the father having to leave and look elsewhere for work, is the tension of not knowing whether they are going to be laid off or not, the tension that this creates in terms of the increase of violence in the family. Unhappy and insecure members in the family are very difficult to live with, and the result from this is an increase in the amount of violence directed against the children in the family as well as violence directed between the adults themselves. The women at the Fort Nelson Women's Centre are talking about this, and beginning to find signs of this already. They're planning on presenting a brief to the government in the very near future, asking them to seriously think about the social implications of any decision that they have to make.

These women have just completed one brief, which they want to present to the federal government, asking to have some kind of input in any decisions about the development of the northern pipeline. They say women always end up dealing with the social turmoil which inevitably is created by many of these decisions, and they feel it is now important that they get a say in the beginning, rather than have to clean up the mess at the end.

[ Page 504 ]

They talk about things like suicide month, Mr. Speaker, which is what they call February, and talk about the fact that in Fort Nelson this year was no exception. Indeed, three women succeeded in committing suicide in February of this year in what they refer to as "the isolated community of under 5,000 population." There were three successful suicides among the married women in the Fort Nelson area during the month of February.

These are some of the facts Mr. Speaker, that governments don't take into account, and indeed even royal commissions don't take into account when they make economic decisions. They said that women are gravely concerned about the already insufficient services which are presently in existence in Fort Nelson. They say the social services, for one, are being stretched beyond any usefulness to meet the housing and service needs of the families that are there, and they're really concerned about what is going to result from this government's decision, if that decision is made to terminate the rail line.

Now maybe the member for Oak Bay is correct. Maybe the government has decided not to go through with this and the Premier is just playing games with the people of the north. But if that is the case, it's a very cruel way in which to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, another issue raised by the women had to do with the support jobs, because it's not just a matter of the mills closing down and the people involved in those mills being thrown out of work. But they say that all of the support industries and the support jobs in the c unity are usually the kinds of jobs where the women work. They also talk, of course, about native employment. Everyone in Fort Nelson, everyone in the north, is beginning to sense the insecurity and to have some feeling of panic, Mr. Speaker, about what the future will hold for them if this government decision goes through.

It is really difficult to understand why the government would make this kind of decision when some of their own members feel so very strongly about this rail line. I want to quote from the member for North Peace River who, on June 10,1975, speaking in this House, told us:

" The railway is a vital lifeline to the north. Regardless of the problems that may be experienced in building the line, in retaining it because of slides and unpredictable weather and soil conditions, it is still there to serve the people of British Columbia. It will require capital expenditure from time to time, and it will require new rolling stock, provided we retain the outlook that the resources of the north must be developed."

Mr. Speaker, he went on for 40 minutes talking about the importance of that line. He talked about the jobs which it created. He talked about the fact that it was a link which prevented the entire area from being completely isolated.

He said, Mr. Speaker, that the railway was extended to Fort Nelson, a market developed for all of its products, and that this was the most inexpensive means of transportation. And, like the member for Revel stoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , he opposed the whole idea of trucks being used as a substitute. And it was interesting that one of the women from the women's centre, in talking about the trucks, said that at present there are three to four loaded trains each week going out of that area, and she asked whether I could imagine haw many trucks would be needed to replace those trains. She also pointed out that this is not a beautiful, well-paved super-highway in fact for most of the way it's two-lane, dirt and gravel, with just a few miles paved here and there. She said that there is a study out which says that, if trucks were used instead of the train, we could anticipate in that area at least one fatality every three days. She said, quite frankly, the highway could not handle the truck traffic. Moreover, there is no truth to the statement that it would be cheaper than train. She points out, for example, that every truck would need to have at least two men on it, whereas the trains are four men per train and four trains per week. In fact, it would end up being much more expensive than at present the train is.

She talked about the jobs which would be lost if we stopped upgrading the railroads; about the support industries that would go under when the two large mills closed down; and about the support jobs at both of the mills as well.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there has to be some kind of reason, and I know that the government keeps talking about expenses, and keeps talking abouts costs, and keeps talking about balance in its books. But for the government to make a decision that is going to place an extra burden on the human resource and on the social services of the north, at a time when the Ministry of Human Resources is cutting back on services - when the Ministry of Human Resources is insisting that the ministry is only interested in delivering services that

[ Page 505 ]

can pay for themselves - it seem to me....

Mr. Speaker, I want to read from a draft dated March 29,1978, which says:

"The philosophy of the department: we believe that the Ministry of Human Resources...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. I've been very tolerant, hon. member. I will read the subamendment. And the amendment is that Motion 6 be amended by adding the following words after $125 million: "And that no clear commitment has been made to continue the operation of the British Columbia Railway Fort Nelson extension."

Your relation of women's problems in Fort Nelson has been acceptable, but now you're getting into an area - the Ministry of Human Resources - which perhaps could be better canvassed at another time.

MS. BROWN: I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was not discussing women's problems, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the problem of people living in the Fort Nelson area.

The fact that they happen to be women doesn't make them any different. If the line is not continued, they have problems. So I cannot see haw you have difficulty relating that to the subamendment. And the human resources and the social services in that area will be affected if this line is not continued, so there shouldn't be any difficulty in relating that to the subamendment too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you're getting a long way off the subject, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: But in any event, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying that when the Ministry of Human Resources is cutting back on its services, that is precisely the time when there is going to be a greater need for those services as a result of the government’s pending decision to terminate the rail line to the Fort Nelson area.

The minister obviously doesn't know what's coming down in his ministry, so I'll be very happy to deal with that at some other time. But I certainly would like to repeat my statement that to make a decision at this time, when another department is pulling in its horns, is a particularly cruel thing to do for the people living in the north, especially for those people who happen to be female.

Mr. Speaker, 1 want to quote again from the statement by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) when he spoke in the House on June 10,1975. He said that the railway will be the key to a vast development beyond Fort Nelson, and into the Arctic via river transportation. And he goes on to rationalize and to explain the importance of this railway. Now what has changed between that time and now to cause the government to suddenly decide that the recommendation brought down by the royal commission may in fact be a valid one, to even entertain the possibility of trying to implement that kind of recommendation?

I am sorry that the member for North Peace River is not in the House tonight - and that is the only reason why I'm reading from the speech which he gave in 1975 - because I'm sure that if he were here, he would be taking his place in this debate and repeating some of the statements made at that time, because nothing has changed. In fact the railway is as important now and as necessary now - maybe even more so - than it was at that time, and I'm sure that he would join in supporting this subamendment and I certainly intend to support it.

MR. COCKE: The first surprise I have, of course - at least that I'm surprised about -is the fact that not one solitary member of the government - and I'm talking about the government supporters - has stood in this House to take issue with this particular amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that tell you something?

MR. COCKE: It tells me a lot. I just want to announce to the House that this evening in Fort Nelson, 550 people met - the largest meeting ever held in Fort Nelson in its history - and they voted unanimously on requesting that this line be continued, and Mr. Speaker, with good reason. I can't imagine why the government is afraid to stand up in this debate and defend, one way or another, their position that they've obviously taken. If they haven't, Mr. Speaker, I would wonder why, because they have had a report in their hands for three months , telling them the position of the royal commission respecting this matter.

Mr. Speaker, if they have a nerve at all, and if they have a sense of responsibility at all, they're going to stand up tonight and put it clearly to the people in this province as to what happens to that line. I particularly point my finger at the member from South Peace River because the member for North Peace River is conveniently absent. Maybe I'm being unfair, because there was no announcement that we were going to come up with this particular

[ Page 506 ]

subamendment. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development has two responsibilities: the responsibility for economic development and certainly economic maintenance of the north; the fact that he's a member for that general area.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I suggest that the people up there are quite within their rights. They know perfectly well that a highway by comparison is inadequate, that if there's to be continued development in that area, it must be maintained by a railroad.

Mr. Speaker, I say with a certain amount of humility that I know a little bit about the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a first.

MR. COCKE: That's right, it is a first. And of all people, you would recognize that more than anybody. As a matter of fact, I spent the first 17 years of my life in the Peace River area, having been born and brought up in Athabaska, Alberta, having been subjected to the kind of climate and the kind of situation that I'm sure is prevalent all through that area. I do not think the Alberta-B.C. border makes very much distinction as to how one lives up there. I think I know a little bit about it. As a matter of fact, we were at the end of the CNR line in those days.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes. So I think that I have some sort of empathy, at least if nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, the best way, the easiest way and the cheapest way on land to move goods -I'm talking about on land - is by railroad. It really is. Oh, yes, I can feel for the truckers because, as a matter of fact, my father was in the trucking business from 1924 until 1974. It's a fair number of years, and in the same country, all the way from Slave Lake to Edmonton. So I think I have that kind of feeling as well. But, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the basic transportation system for the people in Fort Nelson and its environs is the railroad. Certainly the former Premier of the province saw that and certainly both former Premiers of the province gave this the priority it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, there is a wider feeling abroad, and that feeling is this: if Fort Nelson is let down, who's next? Who's next in terms of transportation, in terms of providing the basic infrastructure that everybody loves to talk about around this House, that people require.

I listened tonight and I was surprised at the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . He says that he trusts the Premier. He trusts the Premier to make the right decision, the right decision being the positive decision. If he was to make the positive decision, why in the name of heaven didn't he make it? He's had three months to make it. As a matter of fact, he had one of his ministers drop the report in the House when he was away buried in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, so that he wouldn't have to answer any immediate questions. Oh, Mr. Speaker, it's a funny game they are playing.

I suggest that if the Premier wishes to make the right decision, he should make that decision tonight. He should get up in the House and suggest precisely what he feels should be the fate of that line.

Mr. Speaker, I get back to the member for Skeena and I say, based on what I've seen and what he's seen, his speech was nonsense in terms of the Premier. How can he have so much trust? As a matter of fact, he's quitting because he lacks faith, lacks trust and he's totally frustrated. And I don't blame him. Incidentally, I don't buy the arguments that he raised in his announcement. I would be frustrated too if I had to work with people who lacked vision the way he has to work with people who lack vision.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if the Premier hasn't made a decision, it's incompetence, and if he has, it's inhumane, his not announcing what that decision might be. He's failed as Premier of this province. One way or the other he has failed. If he has made a decision, then he should announce it; if he hasn't made a decision, it's gross incompetence because of the fact that he's held this information for the past three months. How long does it take to make up your mind about something so serious?

I suggest that the member for Skeena is rationalizing. Iove seen him do that before. It's not that I haven't got the greatest respect f or that hon. member and not that I won't continue to respect that hon. member. But I realize that when one has had a commitment to a cause for 23 years and wakes up one day and says, "My heavenly days, I've been on the wrong course for all these years!" then I guess he has no alternative but to suggest that things must be okay in the garden, except that he doesn't want to be in the garden any more.

I suggest that if this is a fact accomplished - and that is the closure of that line - then it's utter foolishness. The senior

[ Page 507 ]

Bennett knew better. We can fault him. We can talk in terms of all the problems on the line. Maybe there were some inconsistencies; maybe the engineering wasn't right. But, for heaven's sake, the line is now a fact accomplished. Isn't it better to deal with that fact accomplished? Can't we bring it up to an operating status that is required? I suggest we can a lot more easily than we could engineer a brand new line, and it's needed.

That is marvellous country. That's the one thing the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) did: he outlined the fact that country is important. We in this province and in this country seem to feel that the only area of significance is the area within 100 miles of the United States border. It's not true. It's not true only for forests; it's not true only for mining; it is not true also for agriculture.

You get a lot of sun hours in the north, a lot more than anybody can imagine. I can remember playing ball up until 12 o'clock at night. Yes, that's right.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I could hit it and I could catch it, Mr. Attorney-General. I wonder what you could say about that kind of expertise.

In any event, it was quite light enough to play baseball. It also grows vegetables. It also grows crops very quickly in that country.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You just struck out.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that marvellous? I love the wit and I love the snappy answers that you get from that government.

MR. SPEAKER: Back to the amendment, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the amendment. I just suggest to you that if the son has not the vision of the father, the son should resign. He should either resign or get up tonight and tell us what he's going to do about that north, tell us what he's going to do about Fort Nelson and tell us what he's going to do about the rest of the north in this province.

We've heard very little and I think that it's time that we began to hear something very, very definitive in terms of the development of the north. If he lacks vision, Mr. Speaker, let's hear about it. Let's let him fess up. I would hope that one of them, either the First Minister or his designate, will stand up tonight and tell us where they stand. Tell those 550 people in Fort Nelson. Tell those thousands of other people in this province who are worried about their destiny. Tell those people in Omineca who are prejudiced under these kinds of circumstances. Tell those people in all the rest of the north and the northwest of our province just precisely where they stand. Do they have a government that supports them or don't they?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That member is talking outside of his seat, outside of his corral. They told us, but you know, they were answering a call that to this day has not shown any reason. They were answering the same kind of question that we're talking about tonight. The people in Fort Nelson voted for them because they felt that they were going to get support, but they didn't. The people in Omineca voted for him because they thought they were going to get support, but they didn't. That's the way it's going on.

Mr. Speaker, I call on one of the members of the cabinet to get up tonight and tell us where they stand on the Fort Nelson extension - nothing more, nothing less.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment to the amendment. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) suggested we were trying to second-guess the government. It's not that at all. The government is saying nothing at all about this report. The fact that they have had it in their hands for three months, presumably studying it, waiting to make up their mind as to just what they were going to do, but have announced nothing yet.... It makes us afraid that the government has made up its mind. Had it made up its mind to continue with the Dease Lake extension and to maintain the Fort Nelson line, there would have been absolutely no need for this discussion. There would have been no need for the discussion that has been going on in the province, no need for the very large meeting that was held in Fort Nelson this evening.

So it seems to me that it is not a case of second-guessing the government. It's a matter of trying to persuade the government that it is important for the development of British Columbia that this railroad be maintained, that the line to Fort Nelson be maintained and that the railroad be extended. That's important. We feel it's important. It's not a matter of trying to second-guess; it's a matter of trying to persuade the government that this has to go on.

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission reported

[ Page 508 ]

to the effect that it was going to cost something like $60 million over a period of five years to maintain that line. I don't know of a single railroad on the North American continent that was built to make money operating as a railroad. Every one of them had huge land grants given to the railroad, given to the people who were building that railroad. It was out of the operation and the selling of the land associated with building that railroad that the railroads were able to continue operating and to continue providing the service that was necessary to open up the whole North American continent.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: E & N had a tremendous land grant, Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) points out - one-third of Vancouver Island, and the best third. But that history is repeated not just on Vancouver Island. The land grants the CPR got; the CNR didn't get as much land and had to be taken over by the government; American railroads -every one of them with huge land grants were able to sell off these lands. They were able to make money out of the resources associated with them and they were able to provide the service that was necessary to open up the country.

Two former Premiers of this province recognized the importance of the railroad in opening up the country and in maintaining it. They weren't prepared to make the land grants that would have made it possible for the BCR to make money to run the railroad. They decided that rather than do that, the government would be responsible for managing the land - for selling land in some cases, for opening up resources - but the railroad itself would be stuck with the responsibility of providing that service, and the government would make up the deficiency that has been made up for every other railroad by making massive land grants. That hasn't been done in this case; we're not suggesting it be done. But we are very strongly urging the government and we're strongly urging the members opposite to consider supporting this subamendment so that the government will recognize the importance of maintaining that railroad to promote the development of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: Among the many problems with the recommendation of this commission, to which our subamendment addresses itself, is the inconsistency and illogic of the proposition that a subsidy be granted in lieu of the ordinary moneys that would have to be spent on the railway for the purpose of transport to Fort Nelson.

Let me talk about that inconsistency for a minute, because I very much hope that the government, in the last three months that it has been keeping the report secret and discussing it in cabinet, has given it some attention too.

If the commission can justify, in the light of its proposal to close down the rail extension to Fort Nelson, a massive subsidy -if I am correct, the figure is $60 million, over presumably a period of five years; I stand to be corrected on that, but that's my recollection - then surely a new principle is being instituted in the transport systems of goods and services in British Columbia, and it is this: if ever you were a community so unfortunate as to be served by B.C. Rail and the government turns around and cuts the service back, you are therefore entitled to a subsidy in place of it.

To say the least, there are problems with that proposition. I attended a meeting celebrating the birthday of the arrival of the E & N Railway, at which the Premier made a very effective speech and a very important promise, and I congratulate him for it. The promise that he made to those of us down at the terminus of the E & N on the Island was that he wished, as the government and as the Premier of it, to guarantee the continuity of that service forever. And he took a very literal, and I think appropriate, interpretation of that particular railway Act.

Now if the government, following the recommendation of the commission, could somehow justify a massive subsidy to guarantee the transport of goods to Fort Nelson, then surely by that logic the government could also, in the face of a similar dilemma - the closing of the E & N by the CPR - turn around and justify a massive subsidy to the people served by the E & N on Vancouver Island.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, and that's one of the principal problems with the commission's recommendation, and the obvious conclusion of it. If this service is to be withdrawn from Fort Nelson and a cash subsidy to be given in its stead, then every community in the province that has been threatened, or is threatened with rail closure - and I think of many communities on the Island - can legitimately demand the same subsidy because the same principle is at stake. There are residents of the Island who depend on the E & N for their goods. We wish there were more. The railway line, were there more, would be more successful. There are residents who depend on that particular

[ Page 509 ]

service for transit. We wish there were more. Were there, the railway would be more successful.

What is important, Mr. Speaker, is that if the government accepts the recommendation of the commission to close the Fort Nelson line, they are accepting as well a most remarkable series of future subsidies. If you can justify subsidizing freight to Fort Nelson, you will shortly hear us justifying a subsidy of freight to Nanaimo, Courtenay and Alberni. I promise you, you'll hear it.

If , on the other hand, it is your choice to close down that rail line and grant no subsidy, you'll hear it from them, too. If , further, you begin to hear from them that the rail line is to be continued, the absurd and impossible position that this coalition has taken, the bottom line position they take to everything, will be seriously endangered, because clearly, at the moment, the rail itself is not a viable economic proposition.

So the government is caught any which way you look at it, and that's one of the reasons, we presume, why, in secret for the last three months they've been debating this in cabinet, why in secret they have presumably come to a recommendation, and now, like the meteorologists that most coalition politicians are at heart - no principle, just meteorology - the finger's to the wind and they're seeing which way it is blowing.

If the commission can justify a subsidy to Fort Nelson, if that subsidy itself is required due to the apparent necessity of the economic shipping of goods to the town of Fort Nelson, what they are establishing is a precedent of enormously costly proportions. Why shouldn't, for instance, the people of Kamloops who are served, if I understand it correctly, by two rail lines, CP and CN, demand as well a subsidy through the CP and the CN to their particular community? Are they not worth as much in terms of the need f or subsidy as are the people of Fort Nelson? Why can't the people of Prince George demand a further subsidy to the BC Rail leading to their community?

If the government accepts the proposition of subsidy to the town of Fort Nelson as recommended by the royal commission it appointed, the government opens many, many costly doors. We'd like to hear, if not tonight, perhaps sometime later - the debate will be with us for a while - the government's response to that. I think it's an important question.

There's a second important question as well. B.C. Rail could be, and is in some places still, a means of transit for some people. As the Speaker knows, I act, among other things, as the transit critic for the opposition, dealing with the portfolio of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . We have waited through three consecutive throne speeches and two and a half years of debate for this government to honour a promise to create an urban transit authority. I am reliably informed that the 14th draft is on the floor, and presumably this draft will get through cabinet. I'm also reliably informed that the principal reason they've been unable to bring it - I'm sure the Premier will agree - is that they can't agree on a financing formula. The closest approximation they can f find is the one in Ontario, which is itself under increasing attack from municipalities because it's not generous enough. The government Will remember.... The Premier especially because I heard him on Jack Webster say that what they propose is a 50-50 subsidy in regard to capital costs, and 75-25 in regard to operating. The minister know. as well.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You have it backwards.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry, the Premier says I have it backwards. It doesn't matter, it's not in place yet. And it won't be either, because it is as unacceptable now as it was then when you promised it, Mr. Premier, and you know it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've got it backwards, which is better than usual.

MR. BARBER: And the subsidy itself, as proposed, is no good at all. The municipalities and the cities and the great urban areas of Ontario have rejected a comparable subsidy. Hopefully, this government has rejected it as well and has thrown out the window the costly and embarrassing proposal made by the Premier, sitting here to my right, on the Jack Webster show in December, 1975.

In any case, the principal difficulties that this government is having with an urban transit authority is that of determining the fair and appropriate share to be paid by municipalities to be served by such an authority. That's a reasonable question. How much should the people of Prince Rupert pay for their new service? How much should the people of Victoria pay for their old service?

Now the same logical problem applies here as well, to the extent to which B.C. Rail is also the provider of rural transit. You might ask: should not B.C. Rail also be subsidized along comparable lines? If you can look at the government's proposal for an urban transit

[ Page 510 ]

authority, and somehow justify it because of the population needs of greater Vancouver, greater Victoria, and the several other areas which B.C. Hydro presently serves, can you not also look at B.C. Rail, or at least at its potential, as a kind of rural transit authority, responsible as well, in a far more long-range and, at present, more costly way, for assisting those people with transit from community to community in the far more spread-out districts in the north and the east of this province? Well, I suppose one could, because indeed that's precisely how rail is organized in the United States through Amtrak. That's precisely how they have been able to justify financially the enormous capital and operating outlays required for that. Because they've discovered that in the remote and less populated areas of the United States of America, rail acts as a kind of rural transit authority for their people. They count on it. The planes are too expensive and the weather, sometimes, too difficult. Automobiles are unreliable and highways themselves too expensive as well. For them, in a number of places, train increasingly and recurringly is the acceptable and the inexpensive mode of transit approved and chosen by a lot of people.

Well, we still don't have the same population, densities and the same rules of thumb need not apply, but the principle is basically sound. B.C. Rail could and should, as well as a development railway, be responsible for connecting more effectively, and, over a period of time, more cheaply, the developing communities of the north for human beings as well as for their goods and services. If the people of the north view B.C. Rail in that context, real and promising, then they have the right to call on this government for the same kinds of subsidies in the north that urban transit presently enjoys in the south, and will hopefully, in the near future, increasingly, approvingly, and appreciatingly enjoy in the north.

I know the Premier's listening because his head is turned away. I've got the attention of his g good ear which is on the left.

If the people of the north have in their vision that role of BCR as increasingly in the future and into the 21st century, serving those transit as well as those economic purposes, then they have every right to call on the same benefits that the people of the south presently enjoy because we happen to live in Victoria or Vancouver and take transit for granted. Now that's the second logical problem with the commission's recommendation.

The third problem with the whole matter is that in our judgment, Mr. Speaker, the government has been enormously cowardly in its approach to this problem. For three months they've been discussing this in cabinet. For three months they have had at hand the far-reaching and politically repercussive effects of this particular proposal by the commission. I don't believe for a moment that in the three months and more that this report has been in the hands of the cabinet that they've never once discussed it. I can't believe that they're that lazy. They are sometimes that lazy, but not this lazy in this case. They have in fact been discussing it. Even the Premier, when he was in Palm Springs for the umpteenth time this season, surely was thinking about it once or twice at the poolside sipping banana daiquiris.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wasn't there.

MR. BARBER: He tells us he wasn't there. In another room.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this cabinet has, in a very cowardly and frightened way, been unwilling to take the people of British Columbia, and particularly those in the north, into its confidence.

For three months they've known; for three months they've been debating. We presumed, for some time now, stage-managed, so that the Premier was out of town when the report was dropped. They have, in fact, reached a decision. Tonight they are taking meteorology lessons. Tonight they are testing the wind. Tonight they are making the decision of political opportunity as to when they shall announce that they have, in fact, done what the report advised them to do. Will they announce it before the next political election? If it's a snap, presumably not. Is it going to be on Thursday? Or if it's after the provincial election, how quickly can they announce it before they get into trouble with those of us who have memories longer than they would occasionally like us to have.

Those, therefore, in my judgment anyway, Mr. Speaker, at least are three of the principal problems associated with the recommendation of the royal commission and three very good reasons to support the subamendment. Let me restate them.

First of all, the commission has established a dangerous, in regard to the potential cost of it, precedent, suggesting that the Fort Nelson line, separate from all of the other lines, be they rail or road, in the province, is somehow worthy of subsidy. If Fort Nelson is good enough, so is the rest of the province. That, surely, is a very costly

[ Page 511 ]

principle indeed. I would remind the government that on Vancouver Island, if they approve that, will be coming very quickly the future and permanent subsidy of the E & N.

Secondly, rail could, with vision and wit and sensitivity to the needs of the people it serves, act as a transit vehicle as well as a vehicle for the conduct of goods across the province of British Columbia. There is no reason it couldn't. It could have been done with the E & N and the dayliner. It could be done with similar equipment in other parts of the province. It could and should be done. The extent to which the B.C. Rail could also function as a rural transit authority is the extent to which the people of the north have the right to call for themselves on the same resources which, in the field of transit, the people of the south presently enjoy.

Thirdly.... I see you're counting. You're on your fourth finger, though. Look up!

The government has chosen a very cowardly and ill-advised option. They have chosen to sit on the report f or three months, to draw their conclusions, to cleverly time its release so that the Premier is out of town when it comes down, and now to assess the political result of a decision which, clearly, they have already taken - the decision to allow the railway to continue as long, if necessary, as shall be required in order to do the least possible political damage.

Already one member, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , has been driven out because of such lack of principle. Others will be driven out at the next election by the voters because of such lack of planning.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the subamendment and proud, as well, to have persuaded the Premier to join us here on the good side of the House.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it's almost essential to admit that this subamendment has a phony ring to it.

SOME RON. MEMBERS: Uh, Oh!

MR. MUSSALLEM: It really means nothing at all. Why was it brought in at this late hour? It looks to me as if it is just an effort of desperation from an opposition that is looking for something to complain about. The budget was hailed the length and the breadth of the province of British Columbia as the greatest budget ever brought down in British Columbia, by everyone in this House. Even the opposition could not find a solid basis of argument against it, but the debate had to go on somehow, so we have an amendment and we have a subamendment.

I ask the Speaker: why was it necessary to bring in a subamendment when the BCR report was well known to them? Why was it necessary to bring in a subamendment? Why couldn't it have been included in the amendment? But, no. One day's debate, and we're stalled again. This phony amendment has no purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , a long-time member of the House, is debating not the amendment but whether or not an amendment should have been brought in. That's obviously a point of order or something along that line. He is certainly not debating the subamendment. I wonder if he could get on the track.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair was following very closely the remarks of the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and was waiting for him to come to his conclusion.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you for your support, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much. How my hon. friend could take the position that I was out of order after hearing the debate tonight, certainly must be stretching the facts a great deal of length.

Can the opposition or anyone in this House imagine, after all, who suggested that the Fort Nelson was going to be closed anyway? Who said so? Where did you get this idea?

MR. BARBER: A certain commission, George -yours.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Did the commission say it should be closed? The royal commission was brought out to give a report. Who said it was going to be closed? No one from the government.

The BCR line is a lifeline of the province of British Columbia, a man artery of its trade. here we are, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that this government is going to close the line. Who sad so? Why this amendment? I tell you, it is a waste of the time of this House.

The royal commission has suggested that financially it is not a paying proposition. Very few railways are. A resource railway rarely is. And it should not be. It's a railroad for bringing the lifeblood of British Columbia spread into and all through the province. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) spoke about the tremendous agricultural potential in that area. I'm told

[ Page 512 ]

that that area of Skeena, the Fort St. John area - wherever that huge, 500,000 acres is -can grow the vegetables for all of North America. The Fort Nelson area. For all of North America. Hear that? The only ones who are suggesting it....

MR. COCKE: Why isn't he saying it?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Why don't you keep quiet and listen? (Laughter.) One day you'll hear. But it was not necessary to bring in this amendment. Bide your time, wait awhile, because this great country will not be let down by this government.

I ask no one. It's obvious: the north country is the greatest resource in this province, from Prince George north. That's the country, the greatest country. Lumber, minerals, mines yet untapped, oil yet unfound.

Can we talk about closing it down? It was only a short while ago that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) wanted to run some tank cars down there to bring all the oil from Prudhoe Bay, or was it BCR?

They're just so inconsistent. I say again, this makes no sense. What can you debate? What am I to say standing here? The motion is very confined. I must read it again. I can't believe it. This is the motion: "And that no clear-cut commitment has been made to continue the operation of the B.C. Railway Fort Nelson extension." I do not know what I'm doing standing here. This is such a totally senseless, uncalled-for subamendment. It means nothing; it says nothing. There is no call for debate except for one purpose: to waste the time of this House. It has no other motive, because had they waited for a day, the Premier or a member of the cabinet in due time would give a report on this and would say what is to be done. But I tell you, f ram my position at Dewdney, it would be unthinkable for a government with the background and the foresight of this government to ever consider closing the Fort Nelson line.

MR. LLOYD: I also rise to speak against this subamendment to an amendment. I also share the member for Dewdney's wonder about all this sudden concern by the opposition about closing down a line. How could they possibly close that line down? I just agree with my good friend from Dewdney over here. Prince George north - that's where it all happens then. To close that down, Prince George would no longer be the spoke on the inside of the wheel. We'd have a flat side, so it's unthinkable that that could be closed down.

Interjection.

MR. LLOYD: Well, it's a little different from the pointed ends we have over in the opposition.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite surprised. Ever since the beginning of this session the NDP have seemed to be quite anxious to debate the Fort Nelson line. They're quite anxious to see the BCR continue operating. I think I mentioned in my original answer to the throne speech in March, 1976, what I thought of the BCR, what I thought it had done for the province, and what I thought of the previous Social Credit track-laying record. It's certainly quite a lot different from the track-laying record of the opposition when they were in power. How much railway did you lay? In any event, Mr. Speaker, between the years 1952 and 1968, there was some 700 miles of rail construction, more than anywhere else in North America, practically more than anywhere else in the world.

Not only the track-laying record, Mr. Speaker, but also the operation. That rail line had the best morale of any rail line in North America. It was the first one to use microwave telecommunications. It was also the key, as the member for Omineca stressed, to what the Social Credit government has done for the north, it was the key to the development of the north, linking Prince George to the resources farther north. It really showed what a resource railway could do for a province and it really showed why you couldn't possibly turn this over to a national line - the CPR or CNR - because the province has to control that resource rail.

I think I also indicated, Mr. Speaker, what I thought of the last government's performance record. They were terrible in many critical areas, but in the management and the operation of the British Columbia Railway, they destroyed in three short years the morale, the reliability, the efficiency, and even the credibility of the province's greatest asset -the BCR.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite surprised there is all this sudden concern about the operation of the BCR. They did not seem to have that concern when they were in power.

In 1973 they lost 4,414 man-days in operations because of strikes; in 1974 they lost 18,150; in 1975, they practically had a record there - they must have locked then in, because 1,876 days is all they lost. But when they ordered them back to work and all the labour problems pi-led up, in 1976 there were 47,429 days lost. Compare that to 1977 where

[ Page 512 ]

you can see the operation is getting back on the tracks - only 441 days were lost that year.

I can't understand the NDP concern. I really wonder where it was in 1975 when all the mayors and members of councils cam down to Victoria to meet with that member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) . I wonder where it was that night. Do you know what he told us that night? He said that the delicate process of bargaining is more important than the BCR service to the interior and northern communities. "Go home, boys, you are wasting my time." That's how important the operation of the BCR was to the former minister.

Even in 1976, Mr. Speaker, I'll show how concerned they were. The NDP provincial convention was more important than debating the Essential Services Act and restoring the services of a railway, not only to Fort Nelson but to all the lines along the interior community. Their convention was more important. They wouldn't stay in the House and debate the Essential Services Act. So I just can't understand this sudden concern about the operations of the BCR.

MR. KEMPF: Instant experts on the north.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I join the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , who thinks the BCR royal commission, in three weeks, didn't really fully address the problem . I think particularly of the logistical problem of trucking over the Fort Nelson to Fort St. John Alaska Highway. The report mentions that they could rebuild it. Well, 1 don't know. I was driving in the Hart Highway area when they were trying to rebuild it and haul pipe aver it. I say it is impossible.

I think they also said that it wasn't really their job to assess whether it could be done viably, it wasn't part of the report; and I feel it is part of the report. Before you can recommend closing down one form of rail, I think you very definitely have to assess the costs of another form.

They also stressed in the report that there were only 350 jobs in the saw mills, 250 in logging, and I find that a little surprising for a royal commission to come out with. I'm sure anyone else would have used a multiplier of at least three or four, so you'd be looking at at least 2400 jobs; and again, room for expansion still exists. So I find that report lacking in credibility. Not only is the room for expansion in forestry there, but there's also the drilling, the pipeline construction and, as has already been mentioned, the agricultural potential. So I think there are a good many more jobs there than they're looking at.

One of the things they did stress in the report, though, was the logistics of building a resource railway through the country in which that railway was built - 250 miles of muskeg, some of the worst slough conditions and water conditions. Rather than criticize the former government, I think they deserve full credit for getting 250 miles of resource railway pushed through in the short period of three years - it was an engineering marvel. Certainly, it's quite a bit different from the NDP when they took over and started putting the Dease Lake extension on to national rail standards. How many miles did they build? How many miles did they get finished? What happened to the cost overruns on that particular project? Some track-laying record compared to the Social Credit track laying.

AN HON. MEMBER: They thought it was a track meet.

MR. LLOYD: The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) indicated earlier tonight that he felt the commitment by the Premier and the government, to continue operating the line, had been given. As the member for Fort George, I share his optimism. I think the BCR's extension is too important to future development to even consider closing it. I think it's not only important to the Fort Nelson area, but also to Fort St. John, Prince George, and indeed, the rest of the province, including the lower mainland. And again, I share the concerns of the northern members when they're talking about the subsidies that are involved. I think it's a relatively small subsidy compared to the B.C. Hydro Transit subsidies, the ferry subsidies and the other subsidies we pay in the lower mainland.

I think we can all see the record of this government on the better operation of the BCR so far; I would think with continued development and even better operation that line could well come close to breaking even in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I speak against this negative amendment but I fully support the continued operation of the Fort Nelson line.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just for the sake of keeping the record straight - I wish to correct remarks which were attributed to me by the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , with respect to his allegation....

SOME RON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 514 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The standing orders only provide that corrections are made when the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has been misquoted in a part of a speech that he himself made. Is that the case?

MR. KING: Well, I'd like to ask the member for Fort George, then, if he was presuming to quote from a document, if he would table that document with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member for Fort George was quoting from a document, he's not bound by the same rule as when members of the cabinet are quoting from a document.

MR. KING: In any event, it was untrue.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought I would apply myself to a few remarks on this very important subamendment and this very important transportation link in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How are you going to vote?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I an voting in favour of the people of northern British Columbia, and I suspect that's more than you'll be doing, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks, I would like to suggest though that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was a bit disturbed, Mr. Speaker, about one remark by the member for Dewdney about the democratic process. I know that the democratic process can be cumbersome, but these subamendments and amendments to these motions that we're making are not frivolous; they're in the best interests, in my view, of the people of this province. That's the difference between that party's thinking and our party's thinking. We believe in consensus. We believe in discussing these items with the people instead of just pushing things....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Back to the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's hear the member who has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items about this recommendation, this report that was tabled just last week, that bothered me a bit. I think the biggest item has to be, if this railway line is abandoned, the number of jobs that will be lost in the north and job opportunities not only for working people but business opportunities for small business and for big business. I'm sure that the major logging and mining operations in the province would be aghast at the possible closure of this line. It's at a time when we have 152,000 people in this province unemployed, and there will be more as that minister of mine closures continues to close down mines around the province. There will be more and more unemployed.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, that certainly has to be the concern of all of us in this House. This is the reason that we are here, representing our constituents all through this province. it occurs to me, after redistribution, that part of that railway may be in my riding, so I'm very interested in the operation of that railway, Mr. Speaker.

Another item that concerns me is this government's policies on transportation, or lack of transportation policy. I am pleased to see that at least some of the people in the back bench are supporting this motion; they probably have orders to vote against it but they are supporting the motion. The past record of this government in transportation matters is probably the worst record of any government in Canada - no question about that. Look what they have done to the coastal transportation policies here on the coast. They've wrecked the economy of many of the small communities of this British Columbia coast; they almost wrecked the economy of Vancouver Island, which is just starting to recover now. They signed an agreement with Ottawa regarding coast transportation which surely must be one of the worst agreements that was ever signed between a federal and a provincial government. We're saddled with that agreement for five years. Even though we will be elected in the next year or so, we'll still be stuck with that agreement for about three and a half years. So the lack of policy by these people concern me.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that government will abandon that rail line. I don't think they will abandon it. I think the decision has already been made, frankly. The reason that decision has been made is because this little opposition over here forced those people to keep that line open.

For political reasons, they don't dare acknowledge that. Of course, they wouldn't acknowledge it. I want you to remember, Mr.

[ Page 515 ]

Speaker, when the Premier gets up in this House at some date, probably later this week or in the near future - perhaps he will do it in the hall, 1 don't know - but wherever he makes that announcement, I want the people of this province to remember it was this little loyal opposition that kept that line open. For political reasons, they don't dare acknowledge that. Of course, they wouldn't acknowledge it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:46 p.m.