[ Page 517 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Barrett –– 517

Assistance for small business. Mr. Lea –– 518

Assistance for potato farmers. Mrs. Wallace –– 519

Salary of Ray Williston. Hon. Mr. Bennett replies –– 519

Possible assistance required for small business. Ms. Sanford –– 519

Employment of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Hon. Mr. McClelland replies –– 520

PREP co-ordinator's salary. Ms. Brown –– 520

Motions and adjourned debate on motions.

Motion 7. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 521

Mr. King –– 521

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 522

Budget debate

On the subamendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 522

Mr. Macdonald –– 526

Mr. Calder –– 529

Mr. Nicolson –– 531

Mr. Lauk –– 534

Mr. Lea –– 541

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 544

Mrs. Dailly –– 547

Mr. Smith –– 548

Mr. Skelly –– 550

Division on the subamendment –– 551

Presenting petitions

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter. Mr. Strongman –– 552

An Act Respecting the Royal Trust Company and the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

Mr. Strongman –– 552

An Act to Incorporate St. Vincent's Hospital. Mr. Strongman –– 552

Appendix –– 553

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have in the gallery today a very distinguished and special visitor to the house: Professor David Waters, the Deputy Director of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, England, and currently Visiting Professor of History at Simon Fraser University.

He is a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, of the Royal Historical Society, of the Royal Institute of Navigation, London, and of the International Academy of Portuguese Culture. Before joining the National Maritime Museum in 1960, he was for 14 years historian on the Admiralty Naval Staff, Whitehall.

Professor Waters has traveled widely throughout British Columbia lecturing on Captain James Cook and the opening of the Pacific, of which he has special knowledge, with particular reference to the bicentenary of Captain Cook's visit to Nootka Sound. He has lectured in Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Queen Charlotte City, Terrace, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Vernon, Penticton, Kamloops, Chilliwack, Burnaby, New Westminster, Vancouver and Victoria. He will be a speaker at the International Cook Conference at Simon Fraser University, being held April 26 to 30.

Professor Waters is accompanied by his friend, Commander henry Gardner of Sidney, British Columbia. Commander Gardner is known to these buildings, as he has been with our provincial vital statistics branch for 18 years.

I ask the house to join me in welcoming these two gentlemen, and thank them for their contribution to the Captain Cook Bicentennial.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to draw to your attention the presence of two people from that great constituency of North Okanagan in the members' gallery, Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Chan. Dr. Chan is a young practitioner starting up in our area and we are very grateful for his services. It's their first visit to the Legislature, and I know all members will be on their best behaviour. I would ask you to give them a warm welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, also in the gallery is a group of students from Nanaimo Senior Secondary accompanied by their teachers. This is one of the groups regularly sponsored by Crown Zellerbach. They'll be particularly interested in the debate today, I think. Several of them asked me questions about the prospects for summer employment, and I suggested they might hear something about it this afternoon.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, coming across that wide water that now separates the original capital - the royal city - from the new capital are two people who have been very interested in the House. As a matter of fact, for years they have been receiving Votes and Proceedings and other material from the House. I'd like the House to welcome Kirk Sherrott and his wife who are visiting us today.

Oral questions.

BCR FORT NELSON EXTENSION

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. My question is: have you ever made any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the B.C. Railway open?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have made a public commitment to operate the BCR to the benefit of the people of B.C. As part of that commitment I've made a commitment to the people of the north, the people of the west, the people of the east and the people of the south that this government will abandon no part of the province or its people and, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have the opportunity to reiterate that commitment.

MR. BARRETT. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I asked the Premier: have you ever made any public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension of the B.C. Railway open?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's the same question and I can give the same answer. But what I will do f or the Leader of the Opposition is send him a copy of my speech to the Social Credit convention last November in which I talked about the commitment I felt toward the people of the north of this province, and there is the public commitment I made to the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, Beauchesne provides that repetitious questions are not to be entertained in question period, not even if they are repetitious in a substantive sense.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to thank the Premier for his copy. He made a kind offer of his speech, which I did not ask f or. But if he cares to

[ Page 518 ]

send me the speech and autograph it I would be most appreciative to have it. Thank you. The supplementary is, Mr. Speaker, about the Fort Nelson extension. Did the Premier give a commitment, yes or no, to keep the Fort Nelson extension open? Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question has been asked.

MR. BARRETT: Does the Premier wish to answer?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have answered it.

MR. BARRETT: You have not answered it.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I won't tell you how to ask questions; don't tell me how to answer them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: You say one thing up north and another thing down in this House. That's what's going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is getting nonsensical again, because I haven't spoken in Fort Nelson since before the last election. He referred to a speech I made-in the north. Would he table that speech?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a report of a speech....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this in the nature of a question or is this a supplementary?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said I said one thing in the north.

MR. BARRETT: No. I asked the Premier this simple question: yes, or no, have you made a public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension open? Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: The question has been heard.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think the Leader of the Opposition is waving a report of the speech I gave to the Social Credit convention in

November, and that's the speech I promised to send him a copy of. I think you'll find the things I said to those members very illuminating, because those are the people that went to the polls in 1975 and made a choice to elect this government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it comes to light now that we are really asking for verification of reports made in the news media, and that is not permitted in question period.

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not asked for verification of reports in news media. I've asked for the Premier to answer this simple question: has he ever made a public commitment to keep the Fort Nelson extension open? Yes or no. I don't think he wants to answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the question has been heard.

ASSISTANCE FOR

SMALL BUSINESSES

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Economic Development. During the main motion it was pointed out that the kind of money that is needed for small business is not the kind of money that is going into BCDC. The kind of money needed is money to provide some working capital for small business. Seeing that the government is not making those kinds of funds available, why has the government had a falling out with Mr. Spetifore of Delta?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a silly question.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a basic assumption in the question. The minister may answer if he wishes, but the question is out of order.

MR. LEA: It's a very simple question. The minister says that there is money available to small business. Here is a small business that is asking for it; it's a Social Credit supporter. Everything seems to add up. I'm asking why the minister and his government have had a failing out with Mr. Spetifore.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's out of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just to remind the very concerned member for Prince Rupert, who seems to be so concerned about Spetifore Foods, I remember when Spetifore was trying to get an agricultural land-use contract to erect this

[ Page 519 ]

building. I think the member should go back and read their comments in Hansard - how they tried to kill this project and accused us of politically getting into bed with Spetifore at that time.

MS. BROWN: Well, you did. Now why are you out?

MR. LEA: We want to know why you fell out of the bed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

ASSISTANCE FOR

POTATO FARMERS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that the minister is considering using the Provincial Major Disaster Fund to assist potato farmers in the Fraser Valley?

HON. MR. HEWITT: If I understand your question correctly, the concern is over the growers who produce processing potatoes, but who haven't got a market if the Spetifore processing plant doesn't carry on. tie are trying to resolve that problem to ensure that growers get assistance in covering their production costs.

MRS. WALLACE. Supplementary. 'I appreciate the information that the minister has volunteered, but he has not answered my question. Is it true that he is considering using funds from the Provincial Major Disaster Fund for this purpose?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot question what may be a future performance of either the minister or the government.

MRS. WALLACE: If the minister doesn't wish to answer the question in that form, could I ask him whether or not he is considering paying the farmers something in the vicinity of $37 to $47 a ton for potatoes that they could have received $85 for from Mr. Spetifore.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the question phrased in that fashion is not in order.

MRS. WALLACE: Has he made that decision, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I tried to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. The matter is under study and the determination will be made in order to assist, hopefully, the production costs that are being incurred by the producer.

MRS. WALLACE: Would the minister care to state whether or not he feels $37 to $47 would cover the cost of production for those potatoes?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a question of policy.

SALARY OF RAY WILLISTON

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have a response to a question from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . The question was in three parts. He said: "What salary does Mr. Ray Williston receive as chairman of the British Columbia Cellulose Corporation?" The answer is that Mr. Williston receives exactly the same amount of salary that was established by the former Minister of Lands, Forests, Municipal Affairs - what-have-you - the Hon. Robert William , when he set up a $40,000 a year annual salary for this position.

The second question: "Does Mr. Williston hold shares in B.C. Cellulose?" The answer is no.

The third question: "Does Mr. Williston receive a bonus or other fees in addition to his salary?" The answer is no.

POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE REQUIRED

FOR SMALL BUSINESS

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It relates to the previous question. The Spetifore announcement that it has to close down because of government indifference means that another 125 jobs will be lost in the lower mainland with a payroll of about $1.5 million annually. What relocation assistance and/or retraining help will be offered to those who will be losing their jobs?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the arrangements which exist between the Ministry of Labour and the federal government for providing services in such circumstances are provided by agreement, and the same services will be available in this case as in all of the others that have arisen.

MS. SANFORD: Both UIC and welfare payments will be costly results of this decision that the government is not going to assist the Spetifore farm. I am wondering whether or not

[ Page 520 ]

the minister and his colleagues took into consideration these additional costs of UIC payments, or welfare payments or retraining payments when deciding not to grant the loan to save a well-known firm in British Columbia. What is the cost benefit to the taxpayers of B.C. in refusing to arrange a small-business loan to this firm?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. It involves a very extensive calculation.

EMPLOYEES OF THE

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took on notice a question from the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , which I'd like to answer today. The Liberal leader asked yesterday whether or staff members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission have been asked or required to sign a statement saying they agree with the minister's compulsory heroin treatment programme. The answer is no.

On a supplementary, the member also asked whether a rule has been put in place that no professional staff member is allowed to speak in public about the future of the programme. The answer is no.

The third supplementary was: Is it the case that certain staff members have received letters saying that, if they do not agree with the programme, attempts will be made to find them other work? The answer to that question, broadly, is no. But I might say that the Liberal leader, who isn't in the House today, is right up to date again, because he's talking about a letter that went out last September, 1977, in which we outlined the planning process for the programme, and, on the advice of the Government Employee Relations Bureau, told members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission of the ministry that, if they felt philosophically opposed to the programme and wished to move into some other area of the public service, that opportunity would be open to them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, everybody stayed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that of all of the employees, I understand that only one has taken that opportunity.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he would be willing, after question period, to table the letter that he has referred to.

MR. SPEAKER: We can't require this, and certainly not in question period.

PREP CO-ORDINATOR'S SALARY

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Last July, Mr. Ron Stew of the PREP programme had his title changed from provincial co-ordinator. Under that title he was receiving $20,304 a year. He was changed to special consultant, and with that came an increase in his salary to $24,960 a year. In February of this year, the minister announced that Mr. Stew would no longer be in charge of the PREP programme and would now only be involved in promoting jobs for the handicapped.

My question is, first of all what is Mr. Stew's present salary and, secondly, what is the salary being paid to Mr. Lorne Campbell, who was then named as the new co-ordinator for PREP?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to take that question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Did the minister have an answer to a question on notice? Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. FRASER: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) asked some questions about the B.C. Buildings Corporation two weeks ago. One question was: is any work asked for by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation put out without tender? The answer is yes, there are some low-value - less than $2,000 -requirements for which the corporation could not justify the tendering process on a cost effective or time frame basis. However, even in such cases, every effort is made to allocate such purchases among eligible suppliers on an equitable basis.

The next question was: who, in the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, would determine policy as to whether or not work would be sent out without tender? The answer is that all the procurement policies of the corporation have been carefully developed, reviewed and approved by the management committee of the corporation during the past year, and field users have been recently trained in their correct application. The management committee is made up of the

[ Page 521 ]

president of the corporation and five vice-presidents. Traditionally, the purchasing procedures have been reviewed and concurred in by the Purchasing Commission.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, during question period the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) referred to and read from a letter. He referred substantially to a letter, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you afraid to table the letter?

MR. LAUK: He appeared to be looking at the letter and referring to it. I wonder if the minister couldn't, in the spirit of the intention of the rule, file that letter now so we could have a look at it.

The second thing is, I'm sure the House would agree to allow the minister to do so. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I was not present when Mr. Speaker delivered his ruling on a past request of the hon. Minister of Economic Development (hon. Mr. Phillips) , filing such a letter. 1, with great respect, believe that the minister undertook to file such a document. So far he has failed to do so, even though he indicated he would. I wonder if the hon. Minister of Health would do the same thing, so that we can be sure that the hon. minister told us everything there was to tell.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, points of order should be stated in as brief a fashion as possible, in order to try and bring the matter to a conclusion.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would have concluded my point of order at least several seconds prior to when I did if it wasn't for the constant, petulant and excessive responses of the government side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It appears to me that there are two specific matters. The first is a matter of a ruling which the member would find readily available for him in the Blues.

The second is a question of filing, and May says at page 421 of his 18th edition that "a minister who summarizes a correspondence but does not actually quote from it is not bound to lay it upon the table." The minister may wish to lay it on the table, but he is not bound to lay it on the table.

MR. LAUK: Do you wish to lay it on the table? What are you afraid of? Does the letter exist?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move we proceed to Motion 7 standing on the orders of the day.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 7 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

In moving this motion, Mr. Speaker, it deals with the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture in carrying out its food inquiry. The chairman filed a report in this House indicating that Phase 1, which dealt with the agricultural land, was 90 per cent complete; Phases II and III were somewhat 80 per cent complete. This motion allows the committee to continue functioning to complete their report and to present it to this House. In moving the motion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment the chairman of the committee, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , and its members for the effort they have put in during the past year since they were first appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I feel quite confident as Minister of Agriculture that when this report is brought to the Legislature, it will carry recommendations which I'm sure will be of great benefit to the food industry of this province: to the producer, to the processor, to the retailer and to the consumer. I would so move the motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have two motions on the order paper dealing with the same committee. While our caucus certainly supports the continuation of this committee -provisions for it at least - I would draw to the attention of the House legal advice which I have received with respect to the authority of this new agricultural committee to take under advisement all of the documents and proceedings and evidence which have taken place heretofore and to obtain the legal authority under our Constitution Act to deal with and consider that evidence in those documents.

I am advised by legal counsel that the particular wording contained in Motion 7 does not in fact enable the new committee to continue the work that was initiated by the agricultural committee insofar as it gives authority to consider the hearings held prior to this session.

Now if the government is confident that their motion covers all of these eventualities, fair enough. I hope, though, that they have considered both of these

[ Page 522 ]

motions, because it would be an affront to the House, it would be an embarrassment to all concerned, to proceed with this motion simply because it is a government initiative, only to f find that because of a lack of proper legal consideration the committee is circumvented from taking benefit from the work that has already been conducted prior to this session of the Legislature.

So I would ask the minister to pay very close attention to that. I offer this in terms of a serious commentary.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) for his concern. I wish to assure him that in the preparation of Motion 7, consideration was given to the motion which he placed on the orders of the day, recognizing as the member does that his motion involving the expenditure of funds would be out of order in the hands of a private member. We nonetheless took into account the specific provision that he had made in his motion in developing what is paragraph 5 in this motion. This was done in the most careful consideration with advice from the Ministry of the Attorney-General and from the distinguished Clerk of this House. The authority which this House, with this motion, will vest in this committee is, we are advised, adequate to ensure that all of the valuable work undertaken by the committee in the previous year is not lost.

Motion approved.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I would ask leave of the House to withdraw Motion 3, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that at this time I would have an opportunity to speak positively on the budget that was presented by the Hon. Evan Wolfe just a short time ago in this assembly, a budget that got its first accolades from the opposition when they immediately tabled it an election budget. That's how good it was. It has received great accolades from the citizens of the province of British Columbia that it's a positive document outlining a programme of optimism, a programme of benefit for the people of B.C.

But since that time, Mr. Speaker, after the opposition had a chance to consult with their advisers, they've been told to never compliment the government on good programme s but bring in an amendment. So they brought in an amendment, Mr. Speaker. And when that amendment didn't work, they brought in an amendment to the amendment. Today I wish to speak to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment that has been brought in by the opposition. I don't blame them, because I would rather talk about anything, if I were them, than talk about the budget.

But this amendment's subamendment, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is frivolous, it's unwarranted, it's anticipatory. Mr. Speaker, the subamendment does not relate to the budget. It does bring to mind a very important part of the economy of British Columbia, and that is the B.C. Railway. And the B.C. Railway has a glowing history in British Columbia. Controversial, yes. Trouble sometimes, yes. But it has contributed to the building of both the interior and the north of this province. And you're right, it took people of vision to plan that building. But the people who planned it did have some understanding of why that railway was being built and what purpose that railway would serve.

Yesterday we had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who is the former Premier and the former president of the railway, move the motion. I had thought that someone who had been the president of that railway for almost three and a half years would have a better understanding of what that railway did, where the lines went, and what he was supposed to be doing but apparently didn't do while he was the president of that railway. I think that his remarks, as shown in Hansard, show a shocking ignorance of where those lines were going and what they were set out to do.

The motion, Mr. Speaker, deals specifically with the Fort Nelson extension. If you want to go back to why the Fort Nelson extension was constructed, you have to realize it was part of a plan to extend a transportation system not through to Alaska, not through to the Yukon, but to the Northwest Territories. Coupled with that railway was a highway to Fort Simpson.

In 1972 when the New Democratic Party was elected in this province, when the Leader of the New Democratic Party and then Premier became the president of that railway, they suspended the agreement with the government of Canada for the construction of the Fort Simpsom [illegible] highway - the very essential part of that transportation link that was to run a transportation system north, not just for British Columbia but a combined

[ Page 523 ]

transportation system that was to give access to the Mackenzie delta, to the Mackenzie basin, to Fort Simpson, and to bring through British Columbia the resources and the cargo loading that that area, along with our own area, would provide. It was an integral part of the transportation system.

Here we have that government, that party when they were government, and that former Premier, who was president of the railway, and what did they do? They suspended the agreement that was there with the federal government to build the Laird highway to Fort Simpson. I'll tell you that it was just months after we were government that we renegotiated the construction of that highway, and it is going to take place. After six months of being government this government, understanding why those links were built and why those agreements were made, reactivated an agreement with the government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will appreciate it because you not only talk about the north, you've taken the trouble to go up north and visit those parts of British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which are very important to Canada and our province.

Yesterday and earlier in debate we have heard people who admit they have never been to that part of the country making great speeches on the railway. The member for Victoria north....

AN RON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's gone. He's gone again.

Mr. Speaker, railways and transportation systems are built to move cargoes; they are built to move resources; they are built, in the case of transit, to move people. But they must be part of a plan. You just don't have a railway and forget or wilfully cut off the rest of the transportation system, such as the Laird highway to Fort Simpson. That would impact heavily upon the very reason for that Fort Nelson railway.

Then we have those very same people who took that action stand in this Legislature, move this amendment and cry their crocodile tears. They were a large part of the trouble that happened to that railway.

Let's put aside for the moment the very ignorance that caused them to suspend or opt out of or forget their obligation with the federal government to build the Laird highway. Let's forget that, but let's remember what impacted upon not only Fort Nelson but the whole BCR line. They were running a railway and continuing construction to Dease Lake while at the same time recognizing that there had to be a compatible policy of resource development in this province. They wilfully brought in Acts against mining, with punitive taxation that prevented the exploration of mining and reduced the possibility of cargo for that railway.

Their anti-business, anti-development and anti-investment attitude in the forest industry and in petroleum exploration impacted upon those industries as well. Here they were: the Premier and president of the railway with one policy blithely going ahead playing with the train, and with another in the Legislature bringing in legislation and exhibiting attitudes that destroyed the very ability of that railway to have a cargo to carry.

The people of the north must know the nonsense that that member speaks in this Legislature, when he should know, having been the president of that railway, where it ran. But here in his statements yesterday is just the ultimate of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Here he goes, right from Hansard: "Has he been in touch?" He's referring to me.

"Has the government been in touch with the Governor of Alaska? Have they said to them: 'Yes, we have a serious problem. The commission has recommended that it's got to be closed down.'? Has he said to them: 'We don't want to close it down. Let's keep on with the studies....' "

You know, in this whole area he's referring to the recommendation of the royal commission to close down the Fort Nelson line, and he's relating it to the dream of an Alaska-Yukon-British Columbia transcontinental rail connection.

MR. BARRETT: Who are you quoting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting the former president of the railway that just happened to speak in the House yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I happen to know that the extension that was going to connect with the Yukon and with Alaska was not the Fort Nelson line; it was the Dease Lake extension.

But here's what he said, and here are the words: "Has he told the Governor of Alaska that the commission has told them to shut down the line?" The commission didn't tell us to shut down the Dease Lake extension. The commission has said: "Shut down the Fort Nelson line."

MR. BARRETT: What page?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I find that a

[ Page 524 ]

shocking statement. But it goes along. Adding it to the shutting down of the Laird Highway, adding it to the anti-resource policies when they were government, adding it to that, it paints a picture of incompetence that impacted against that railway. That is why it's so sad to see that party being so political that they would attempt in two ways to not want to talk about the budget and to stir up the pot and confuse the people, to use this amendment at this time to concern and scare the people of Fort Nelson and the people of this province.

Let them know that this is the very person who has spoken, and those are the actions they took that impacted on this railway. Everyone knows about the anti-resource policies. Everybody knows that you can't build a transportation link and then have policies against development in the very commodities that railway or that highway or whatever transportation link is going to carry. That was settled in the last election. That's understood by the people. But they don't understand, and perhaps didn't understand -except those in the north that do know - that it was that government that didn't carry on the construction of the Laird Highway in the three and a half years they were government. They know that impacted on the Fort Nelson line. Let me tell you, they know. They also know that the Fort Nelson line, Mr. Speaker, was to go to the Northwest Territories. It was the Dease Lake extension that was to go north to Alaska.

Now we've heard discussions from that party that they had this great plan, that they talked to Alaska and the Governor of Alaska. I'm going to tell you, I've talked to the government of Alaska. I said: "The former Premier and president of the railway said he's talked to you."

He said: "What was his name?"

I said: "Dave Barrett."

He said: "I've never heard of him or from him. "

I said: "Governor Hammond, this is very serious. That railway is important to us. Do you mean to tell me that he's never contacted you or you have no correspondence from him?"

He said: "None at all."

Governor Hammond was elected in 1974.

Now, I asked Governor Hammond....

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. For the information of the Premier, I met with Governor Egan here in Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a point of order, I'm sorry.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if he's not going to tell the truth, then at least he should be close to the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker...

MR. BARRETT: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... I only deal with the Governor that's there, and the Governor never heard of him.

Not only that, I asked him to look in his files for the detailed letters and studies that B.C. had probably sent. You know, Mr. Speaker, he couldn't find anything in his files from the former Premier of B.C. I said: "That's too bad, because there were no files when I cane to government; there were no files in the office waiting for me."

We've activated with Alaska, Mr. Speaker, a number of discussions and they have had studies in Alaska since we became government to do with the connecting rail extensions. On our joint initiative, we have had of public record two major meetings with the Commissioner of the Yukon, the Governor of Alaska and myself. Over and above this exchange of correspondence, we've had numerous discussions because we feel it's important not just to talk about this railway [illegible] when it might be conveniently [illegible] important that this railway was not there to play politics with or toy train with; the railway was there to try and do something for the people of this province.

I'll be fair to the former Premier. I found his railway proposal. And what does the railway proposal suggest? It doesn't suggest a connection for cargo to Alaska, it's got a line following the pipeline route, and it's called "the way out." Mr. Speaker, the route is nowhere near any studied connection that would take place for general cargo; it does not follow anything. It is only a very far-out, way-out proposal to deal with another alternative to pipelines that hasn't been accepted by any economist or any government, Mr. Speaker. For those who are interested in this as an historic document, there are numerous boxes in the buildings of these very expensively produced brochures.

Mr. Speaker, when we get to the debate on the BCR, we are seriously concerned about the development of this railway. It is an important link to British Columbia, and it does have great potential. There is a possibility, following the studies that the

[ Page 525 ]

government of Canada is doing in the Yukon, the studies that are following up studies that were done in Alaska and their approach to their federal government, and the studies that we are doing, that perhaps there is an opportunity to connect those links - the Dease Lake extension - and go north and become part of the transcontinental rail system. But, Mr. Speaker, we're a little bit behind because British Columbia has had to catch up. Because I find no record of anything being done in this area during the three and a half years that the preceding government was in office, and we're concerned about this railway.

We're also concerned about Fort Nelson and, as I say, that is why we've re-activated with the government of Canada and have an agreement to continue now the construction of the Laird highway to Fort Simpson, to tap the Northwest Territories region and Mackenzie region. That was a commitment that was part of the initial planning of that railway.

We also have done one more very important thing. We have brought in major changes to the mining taxation to encourage the exploration of mines and mining. We have encouraged - and it's there in the record - the number of explorations in the gas and oil fields, and the byproducts that would move along rail lines. We have encouraged that development to the greatest point in the history of British Columbia. We have a forest policy, an investment policy, that is bringing people back to British Columbia, and the net outflow of people that was taking place when we took office has now reversed itself, and people are coming back to British Columbia. They're bringing their talent and their money, and they've got the confidence to do the things that will give this railway something to carry.

Mr. Speaker, we have great faith in the north; we have great faith in all parts of this province. What we have before us, and what this amendment to the amendment seems to deal with, is a recommendation from the royal commission looking into the B.C. Railway. I said at the very beginning that this railway has had a controversial history. It has been a resource railway, and it has been part of the tremendous economic development that's taken place in this province. It has impacted on all of the things we have today and the fact that British Columbia has fine hospitals, fine schools, and a fine health service, expanded by our great Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , with the new extended health care. None of this could have happened had we not done the basic building of the economy using that transportation system during the growth years of British Columbia. But we have, because of the controversy, called a royal commission into it - not to destroy it, but to end the speculation; to end some of the myths and to arrive at the hard facts, and to give us the information upon which we can make choices.

We've had an interim report. That interim report recommends a course of action that would be a major step for any government. This government has been studying not only that report, but the evidence upon which they based that report plus departmental and ministerial studies - not only what has been, but what is in the embryo stage of our growth plans and our economic plans for this province in the future. Mr. Speaker, you can't make these decisions just on history, you must make them taking into account the policies of the government of the day and whether they're going to encourage development and what development is on the drawing board. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I see the enthusiastic development plans from the private sector that will be unfolding in the next number of months I'm enthusiastic, not only for that railway, but for every other transportation system in this province.

There is a feeling of optimism growing in this province, the feeling of optimism that was gone when we came to government. That feeling of expectation is back; that feeling that something can be done, that here we are in an area in which there can be growth - not uncontrolled growth, but growth that can impact for the benefit of the people in jobs, and increased programmes and benefits, Mr. Speaker. A-11 of these things must take place together. You can't play trains at the same time that you have an anti-resource policy. You can't play trains when you're cutting off the roads that connect with the trains. You can't play trains if you don't recognize that that railway must move in concert with other policy of government, transportation links, resource development, but, above all, the confidence of the people that this province still has the ability to grow, and that there is an opportunity to develop, and that railway will have goods to carry in and commodities to carry out, exporting some commodities for benefits for the people of British Columbia, creating jobs for our people. That railway still is, and always will be, a vital part of the economic policies of this province.

We don't treat the report frivolously; we treat it with respect. But we do treat this whole question of the future transportation links of this province, not just in a historical context, but in light of the great

[ Page 526 ]

economic plan we have for this province and the economic results that are starting to be felt because of the management of this government, because of the policies of development and the policies that we will continue to implement, which will impact greatly on the ability of this railway to make a further contribution.

I speak against this amendment because, as I say, in my view it was frivolous. Mr. Speaker, I speak against this amendment because it's hypocritical, in my view, in light of the performance of the mover of that motion, as former president of the railway and for r Premier. They had contrary policies which affected the very ability of that certain section of the railway to ever have a chance.

Mr. Speaker, the studies we are doing, the policies we are undertaking, will give that railway a chance. It's the only chance it's got. Thank God for the people of Fort Nelson that we were elected in 1975, or there would be no chance for many other areas of this province.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, was the Premier referring to page 597 of Hansard? No? Mr. Speaker, if he was quoting me, I must ascertain if he was quoting me correctly. I am asking the Premier if he was quoting from 597.

The quotation you read, Mr. Speaker, was either deliberately or mistakenly given to mislead this House, because the quotation is from the speech from the member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) , not from me.

SOME HUN. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

MR. BARRETT: Now if the Premier was deliberately misleading the House, say so. If he wasn't, I want an apology. You get the quote.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. Member. Even though it appeared to you that what you have accused may have taken place, we cannot say that in this House; therefore I must ask you to withdraw, even on a point of order. I must ask you to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the allegation of deliberate misleading. I would correct the record, Mr. Speaker. The statements attributed to me - that formed the substance of the Premier's argument and the only basis of the attack - were not statements made by me at all. The rest of his argument was therefore false.

MR. SPEAKER: Statement stands corrected.

MR. BARRETT: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask a withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: Ron. members, the Chair is powerless to ask for a withdrawal. The matter stands corrected. We are looking at the words of hon. members, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition has corrected a statement made, and the item stands corrected. The matter is concluded on the same point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would only say that I have lost my place here, and I would stand corrected if what the member says is true; but I will look it up. And, quite frankly, I was appalled by the quotation in there.

MR. BARRETT: I will give the Premier time to withdraw. Thank you very much.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm rather surprised that a debate on the future of the northeast sector of British Columbia, and the future of the BCR in that area, should be treated as the Premier has done, with the delivery of cheap political shots. Neither one was true; you made a quotation that you said was said by the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true, that's not true.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh yes, it is. Neither one was true. You made a quotation that you said was said of the railway by the Premier....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter is corrected.

MR. MACDONALD: It is corrected. But I have a right to say in this House that that is a cheap political shot; I have a right to say....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a right to say that the reference that the railway extension to Fort Nelson was developed - as the Premier said - because of the plans for a highway from Fort Nelson to Port Simpson is totally unfounded. And I ask the Premier, if that's the case: why is it not referred to in the report of Mr. Justice McKenzie?

I'm absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, when I see, throughout the province of British Columbia, the Premier of this province, supported by powerful press lords, rewriting the history of the province and giving fiction

[ Page 527 ]

instead of fact, time after time.

Interjections.

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

MR. MACDONALD: I know, Mr. Speaker, we're debating the railway. But, you know, point by point there is a falsification of the record on the part of that Premier. The Premier talked about how the NDP were against resources. Look at the records, at the annual report of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources for 1976, and see how, year after year, the resources revenues under the NDP government grew from 1972 to 1975-76. It's right in the record.

But I want to discuss the railway, because it is a serious matter, and the Premier has three choices. He can accept the report of the royal commission under Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie. That's number one. You can say yes to the report.

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

MR. MACDONALD: That Laird highway. thing, that Port Simpson highway, was dead as a dodo at the time we came into off ice, and the federal money had been re-allocated to the Mackenzie.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we cannot carry on orderly debate in this House unless order is restored when called for. Therefore I'll ask all hon. members that, when the Chairman stands or the Speaker of this House stands, all debate, all interjection will cease immediately and he who has the floor, according to the standing orders, will take his seat. Unless we have orderly debate the Chair will have no alternative but to declare recess. Now let the House decide whether or not it wishes to progress in an orderly fashion.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I contribute to the atmosphere because I do get inflamed when some of these things are said from across the House. I think it's being very unfair to this province to - I think - falsify the record.

But I was saying that the Premier has three choices. He can say yes to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie; that's number 1. Or he can reject the recommendations; that's number 2. Or, number 3, the Premier can stall or dither. And I ask the hon. m ers, Mr. Speaker, which course the Premier of the province of British Columbia has embarked upon. Since this report cane down on December 30,1977, the Premier has stalled and failed to show any leadership, as he's gone into a prolonged dither in terms of the. recommendation that was made by the commission he set up himself. And that's a total want of leadership.

Consider what was said by Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie about the importance of leadership and urgency in this matter. On November 18,1977, he said this: "An emergency report on whether to that it was in the hands of the government dated December 30. And Mr. Justice McKenzie said: "It is now a high priority matter." He also said: "Upgrading the line is going to be very, very expensive and, if it is going to proceed, then it must begin next year." And yet we're now in the middle of April, Mr. Speaker, and there has been no decision whatsoever on the part of this government, except a policy of drift and lack of leadership. Mr. Justice Mackenzie also said this in January:

"We considered there was some urgency in respect to the Fort Nelson extension, just as we considered there was urgency in respect to the Railwest matter."

Urgency - and lack of decision and decisiveness and leadership upon the part of the Premier who roused his troops with a speech this afternoon but gave no hint, except that he was going to re-study the very facts that had already been found by his royal commission. There is no policy while the matter continues to drift; and there is a want of leadership. Instead of that leadership the Premier attacks the commission.

The Premier is quoted in these words in the Vancouver Province, April 18 - the Premier was asked if he thought the commission had done a thorough job. He replied: "Not at all "Not at all" the Premier said to a royal commission that he himself appointed and that is going to cost the taxpayers possibly $1 million before that commission is wound up. Now that is an insult to the chairman of the royal commission.

Just as it was an insult to the commission for the Premier to go into Fort Nelson.... It wasn't in Fort Nelson, but he said last November, as reported in the Fort Nelson News: 11I am committed .......

Interjection.

[ Page 528 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I wish the Premier would stop chattering and get on with the important business of this province.

Having appointed a royal commission, this is what the Premier had to say: "I am committed to the people of the north of the province who depend on that transportation system to build their economy, and we will not abandon the very vehicle that built the prosperity of B.C." Those are your exact words. Were they liar's words, that that didn't necessarily mean what the listeners expected them to mean, that you were supporting the railway but not the immediate question under consideration? There was a careful reservation in those words, was there? You wanted the people who you were speaking to to believe that you were supporting the continued operation of the Fort Nelson link, but there was a hidden reservation in there. But why should the Premier be commenting when he has assigned this matter to a royal commission, which is then studying the matter? I said that, coupled with the later remark.... Three things, Mr. Speaker.

First there was that statement that he made to the Social Credit convention while the commission was sitting, but more particularly, his statement that the commission was not doing a thorough job, not at all.

MR. BARRETT: That's what he said this morning.

MR. MACDONALD: And thirdly, the refusal to respond to the urgent requests of the chairman of that royal commission that you treat this as a priority matter and let.... Mr. Speaker, the Premier is chattering away and making perfectly irrelevant remarks in terms of a very serious matter.

Mr. Speaker, the three things ... and I will go over them again because the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Ron Mr. Mair) interrupts and is getting very excited about it.

The three reasons why the Premier has not shown a proper respect for that commission are the statement that I quoted, the statement, secondly, that when asked whether it was doing a thorough job, he says "Not at all." And finally, in response to the urgent pleas of the chairman of that commission that it be treated as a priority matter and some leadership be shown and a decision made, the Premier has waited and dithered and stalled through January, February, March and now we're more than halfway through April.

That is showing a lack of respect, Mr. Speaker, for the royal commission that the Premier set up and which, as I say, is going to cost possibly $1 million to the taxpayers of this province.

You know, I wonder how the chairman of that royal commission can carry on when his recommendations are treated and his commission is treated in that fashion by a Premier who refuses to show leadership and make a decision to get the economy going and get that link extended and make a firm commitment to the people that that Fort Nelson extension will operate.

Now I said, and I think it should be put on the record, that we're having a rewriting of the history of this province on the part of the Social Credit government. The Premier talked about this Port Simpson road as if that was the rationale of the extension to Fort Nelson. I want to put on the record just what the commission said in a damning indictment of the previous Social Credit government. I turn to the report on page 10, where the first reference is made by the commission, and it says: "...and that the province must get there first and tap the resources before others did. Little effort was made to find out precisely what those resources amounted to and where they were. There was little consultation with professionals."

So no consultation, no attempt when the decision to embark upon that railway was made in the early 1970s by the then-Premier of the Social Credit Party. No attempt to find out what resources they were to tap. A blunder of the first magnitude. Then we turn to page 11 of the report and the commission says: "So far as the Fort Nelson extension is concerned, we have no evidence of any detailed analysis of potential traffic having been made before the decision to build. The decision was certainly not based on any visible prospect of return from compensatory traffic."

So there was no study as to what traffic might be generated on that line when the Social Credit government of that day embarked upon this decision. In terms of planning, not in terms of whether the extension should be built, it was blunder number two.

Then on page 13 of the report it says:

"This developmental railroad philosophy dominated in the planning and the building of the Fort Nelson line. Professional engineers were not given an opportunity, inevitably involving delay and expense, to provide recognized pre-engineering - that is to say, soil tests, location studies and reasonably precise measurement in advance of quantities of materials to be moved."

There was no pre-engineering, no survey of

[ Page 529 ]

the resources to be tapped - No. 1; no survey of what traffic might be generated - No. 2; no pre-engineering - No. 3. That is a record of blundering in this province of British Columbia which I lay at the door of the Social Credit government of those days, and which is unparalleled and inexcusable. It's inexcusable when $47 million of public money was being expended on a railway.

While I'm just talking about the extension, Mr. Speaker, let me say that exactly the same thing happened with the Dease extension - a total want of pre-engineering, a total want of planning with respect to the Dease extension to the extent that apart from the economic factors, discussions weren't even held with the Indians, whose reservation was being trespassed upon. Yet this government, Mr. Speaker, wants to rewrite the history of this province and the Premier gets up and makes a petty speech attacking the problems of the BCR and trying to tax the NDP with those problems. It is pure fiction and falsification of the record of history. The damning indictment of the lack of planning that took place in 1970-71 is spread out from the pages of the McKenzie report.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The report also refers to the fact - and I think with some sadness - that the Ron. Ray Williston, as he then was, was a director of the B.C. Railway at the time both of these extensions were embarked upon. Yet this government, notwithstanding these damning indictments which I have cited, sees fit to appoint Mr. Williston now -as the head of Can-Cel - the same man, after that particular record.

So, Mr. Speaker, while the coalition has formed and they've got some new people, we're really dealing with the same bunch that perpetrated such a blunder in terms of planning, the same bunch that did not have the foresight to make sure that there would be industrial help through a B.C. Development Corporation and other ways to develop new industries so that there would be adequate traffic upon that railway. It was one of the most colossal, costly blunders that ever occurred in any of the provinces of Canada, if you leave aside, as I might reasonably do, some of the early things that happened back in the days of John A. MacDonald, where I must admit that there was a lack of planning but lots of vision.

It was a colossal, costly blunder to embark upon a railway and not see fit at the same time to develop the industry and to tap and inventory the resources so that the extension would be a success and we would not be left with the situation we're in today.

I think it's very sad. I think this debate has been very important. I think the social and economic considerations, and what can be done with proper planning - to plan for industry along the route up to Fort Nelson, and to generate additional traffic upon that line - can be done with a government that's willing to embark upon support for primary industry particularly, and, to some extent, secondary industry in that part of that province. The Fort Nelson link can be made successful. It can only be made successful over f five or 10 years. But the decision to build it was pure politics to win one election.

The speech the Premier made a few minutes ago in this House was pure politics...

MR. BARRETT: And fiction.

MR. MACDONALD: ... and nothing else. Those backbenchers of the Social Credit coalition movement, Mr. Speaker, who have been standing up and urging that that link to Fort Nelson be maintained and that we do some of the economic planning necessary to make it a success, are going to be tested on this amendment. There is no justification for any of them not to stand up and support the position the loyal opposition is taking in this debate - that the north is important, that the link should be preserved, that industry should be generated up in that area and to vote against the amendment. That would be putting politics ahead of the interests of their province; that would be politics ahead of their conscience; that would be allowing in public that they are voting on the decree and under the discipline of a Premier who had made politics of this question this afternoon - and it's one of the most important questions ever to face this province; he's just made politics of it - and has ordered them to vote against this amendment. If they do that, I say that it will be a stain upon their conscience.

They should leave aside partisan considerations and, on this sub-amendment, stand up for a proper, sane, logical development of the north and indicate, not just by words but by your vote, as you are bound to do in conscience, that you support the amendment because the amendment supports the railway.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I have four observations to make in relation to this subamendment by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

[ Page 530 ]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the advocates of northern development, I wish first of all to support the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in his request that the provincial government consider the advisability of retaining the operation of the B.C. Railway to Fort Nelson. I think it is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker - or I hope it is - that it is the vision of this government to develop northern British Columbia. It is common knowledge that it was the vision of the Social Credit government, under W.A.C. Bennett, to develop northern British Columbia. I have to be fair. I believe many past governments in this province made every attempt to deal with the north; some have run into certain obstacles, of course.

On this basis, Mr. Speaker, the BCR extensions began from Quesnel. I remember when the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, took office that one of the first things he did was to take this great enterprise and go northward to Prince George. Later, he proceeded to go to Fort St. John, and then on to Fort Nelson. Similarly, from Prince George, he took it northwestward and beyond Takla Lake. Of course, we all know what happened in the recent extensions to Dease Lake, which is located almost dead centre in the constituency of Atlin.

We have great hopes for these extensions, Mr. Speaker, because we do know that there are many untapped natural resources in the north, and that the construction of roads, and the building of railways mean a great deal to the people in the far north.

We go beyond this. I say this, Mr. Speaker: the vision of which I speak does not terminate at Dease Lake and at Fort Nelson. Because of what knowledge I have about developing the north, I have supported the view that under any favourable economic situation, we should continue the railway construction beyond Fort Nelson and, of course, beyond Dease Lake. I am referring to going beyond Fort Nelson and then over to the Northwest Territories, which needs the provincial government's co-operation to develop their natural resources. The same thing applies by going beyond Dease Lake and into the Yukon and all the way into the state of Alaska, because this also means a great deal to the transport and communication plans of people in the Yukon and in the state of Alaska. These northern territories, Mr. Speaker, represent a lot of action, and I think only the extension of the highways and the railways will see to it that something is done about being involved in the action that exists in the far north.

I would say this in conclusion to this first aspect of my contribution: under the good management of this government, under a favourable situation, I am more than hopeful that we can reach a reality towards these developments.

Secondly, I wish to say this - and this is in reference to the subamendment - I honestly do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP opposition is that interested in supporting the operation of the B.C. Railway Fort Nelson extension. Likewise, I did not believe that they were that interested in railway extensions and retaining railroad operations when the members opposite were in government.

The New Democratic Party election in 1972 was indeed a surprise to its members and its leader. It was a surprise victory. Because they had not expected to win an election they had made many wild promises. Some of these promises involved northern development. One of them was to continue the extension to Dease Lake. Of course, I was one of the happy ones when I heard this promise. The New Democratic Party came to power in 1972i and I do not suppose it was very long afterwards that they saw that the railway was in trouble. With the operation costs so high it became a concern to the government regarding continuing the operation. Construction costs were high, and I believe the government of that day was very concerned. But they had to continue the extension, and why not? They had promised it. They were stuck with the promise. Even with the knowledge of the high costs, they had to continue the commitment to go north.

We know the story of the debt. We know the story of poor management. It has been debated on the floor of this House on many occasions, and I'm not going to keep reminding people. All I know is that this whole operation went into deep debt and we're still debating whether or not we should proceed with it.

As the third point I wish to raise, what about this subamendment? To begin with, I suggest that it is only a diversion tactic. I say this because up to now Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has had nothing to say in opposition to the budget. I believe that the members opposite are highly embarrassed because of its lack of constructive contribution to the budget debate. As a matter of fact, it's the first time during my term of office that I have witnessed a complete collapse of an opposition under the people's good budget. The members have very little, if anything, to say about the good management of this government.

Further, the NDP laxity in this operation on the floor of the House is evident in their continual waste of the time of the House

[ Page 531 ]

during question period. There has been absolutely no question of public interest asked since the opening of this present session in regard to these questions. The questions have been complete failures; they have very little in the way of public interest. This is a waste of time to the point that question period has been more of a disgraceful period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: order, please. I trust you will relate this to the amendment. We are on the subamendment.

MR. CALDER: So what do they do? They divert from the budget by the introduction of these amendments and subamendments, which means very little indeed. As a matter of fact, these diversion tactics do not show any interest in the Fort Nelson BCR operation - absolutely none whatsoever. In my view these diversionary tactics are an insult to the people of Fort Nelson and Dease Lake. I think we should return as soon as possible to discussing the budget, which, I believe, the people are more interested in.

Lastly, I wish to say something about the interim report. The interim report of the royal commission is just that - an interim report. I certainly don't wish to support anything that relates to any aspect of this interim report until I have seen, read and fully understand what is involved in the final report, because in the final report the whole question of railway construction relates to the whole north, to the extension to Dease Lake and even beyond.

I want to see the whole general policy of a government that would provide these policies, accruing of course from the final report. And therefore, on this basis, I just cannot support this motion based on this interim report. I would rather see, first of all, the whole report, and study it in terms of what it means to the constituency of Atlin, the constituency of Skeena, Omineca, South Peace and North Peace before I can faithfully cast a vote on this. And so I say, I think the quicker we oust this motion, the better it will be for the northern people.

MR. NICOLSON: I thought the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) or some member of cabinet was going to get up and speak on this.

Mr. Speaker, this subamendment is contrary to what is being expressed, and I'm quite shocked to hear it expressed by members from the north who, one would believe, would be fighting to get fair treatment for their area, just as I fight to right some of the injustices and what I see as the parochial interest of the Kootenay area. To see them pass this off and not have the determination and the commitment to stand up and tell the government, of which they are back-bench supporters, what they really think on this issue, Mr. Speaker, I find really appalling. We should be elected to this House not to speak as partisan spokespersons of a party right or wrong, but when we disagree with what is being done we should have the nerve to stand up and be counted and to put the people in our area first and foremost, particularly those of us who come from rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but think of how this decision is affecting people and how the aims and aspirations of pioneers up in the Peace River country, people such as Bill Carter, a man who came in there first with the Northwest Mounted Police in 1904, went throughout that area bringing law and order and who passed away just a few years ago, must think to see the representative from his area giving such a weak and such half-hearted excuses for why he is going to get up and vote against this amendment.

Yes, and I think of Uncle Dudley and people from Hudson's Hope and people that tramped up to Fort Nelson, the early pioneers, not the latecomers, not the ones who pioneered selling used cars in the Peace River, but the people who were the real pioneers of that area. What a sense of great disappointment. These were the real men of the north, and these are the men who could have certainly, come down here and added to this debate, had they not passed away only within the last f five and 10 years. And, maybe, if they have any influence up there, I hope that they'll whisper something in the ears of those members before breakfast.

I do know something of the history of the North Peace River. Lest any person challenge me on that area, I've also been up to Fort Nelson; I've looked at the difficult terrain. I think the thing that must be running through the minds of business people in Fort Nelson and people who are teaching in the schools up there, people who are working in the mills up there ... what must be running through their minds? They have investments in business; they have investments in their homes. When we were government, because of the expansion of Fort Nelson, there was a shortage of homes. We were building new homes; we were pioneering new types of home construction in that area. We were pioneering the idea in conjunction with Central Mortgage and Housing, and through rural and remote housing of even using such things as specially treated wooden foundations

[ Page 532 ]

because of the demand and because of the tremendous demands being made by growth in that area.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the area deserves better than to be left with such uncertainty, the tremendous uncertainty going back to November. There was a headline in The Vancouver Sun: "$100 Million BCR Link Could Get Axed Next Year." And "Secret Report on BCR Line." "The commission was pressed into filing a separate report on the $190-million Fort Nelson extension by December 31 because the BCR plans to upgrade the 400-kilometer line. Tenders for the work must be let soon or all 1978 work will have to wait for another year, adding $4 million to the projected cost of the $35-million upgrading project.

"Commission counsel Martin Taylor said Friday that the commission's recommendation had been filed, but would not comment further."

Mr. Speaker, if you were living in Fort Nelson and if you had an offer of 50 cents on the dollar for your retail business in the main street of Fort Nelson, would you not be tempted to take 50 cents on the dollar, to cut and run because of the uncertainty which has been created by the tabling of this report and by the indecisiveness of this government?

This government has been repeatedly asked a very simple question and that is: Do you concur with the recommendation of Mr. Justice Lloyd McKenzie or do you believe in the continuation of the Fort Nelson line? It's a very simple question but we have seen evasiveness from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and we've seen evasiveness by the Premier. They have shrouded the whole matter of decision - a clear-cut decision, which could tell people: if you're offered $20,000 for your $35,000 home, don't cut and run; you can stay, there is a future for Fort Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, this is just symptomatic of this government. This government has become so indecisive, they've become indecisive in their decisions about the forest industry, and many others. They've been hiding things in reports and I really find it rather remarkable that, after someone has taken on a task - and for whichever reason we don't know....

We have to think about how these reports came about, how this commission came about being struck. Go back to the latter part of 1976, when the Social Credit government settled a law case out of court with MEL Paving, which has since filed bankruptcy. In other words, they pumped the money out and paid off MEL before it went into bankruptcy in order that somebody could get some money out of it. And because of the embarrassment of that Christmas Eve decision they sought to hide up the whole matter of the B.C. Railway by creating a royal commission. The only thing, I imagine, that this commission has not considered is the scandal of the overpayments and the out-of-court settlement to MEL Paving. The scandal of the system of bidding that went on - and then the cost overruns that went on as a matter of policy procedure - is one thing that was not dug into by this commission.

What they did come up with, in search of something to report, was to look a little bit further, to consolidate the information that had become public knowledge in this House, under the NDP government, when we tabled the Swan-Wooster report on the engineering studies - or the non-engineering studies - that preceded both the Dease Lake and the Fort Nelson extension. They told us that surveys were done by just flying over by helicopter and airplane; that soil tests were not taken; that centigrade surveys were taken and not complete profiles; that the cut-and-fill was under- and over-estimated by as much as 300 per cent; and that the various other types of superficial and slipshod management that went on under the previous Social Credit government had led into this financial morass.

Mr. Speaker, there were charges of civil fraud which were settled out of court; and the directors of the railway were the former Premier and the present director of B.C. Cellulose, Mr. Ray Williston - charges of civil fraud. And if civil fraud had been proven, one can only ask if it might not have led to further charges.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ron. member, I would not like to interrupt you, but when we're dealing with the matter of civil fraud on the railway, it doesn't really speak to the subamendment. The subamendment is that motion 6 be amended by adding, after the words $125 million, the following: "And that no clear-cut commitment has been made to continue the operation of the British Columbia Railway Fort Nelson extension." Would you please bring your debate into relevance to that subamendment? Thank you.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I promise not to criticize the question period, but it is because of the coverup, which really went beyond the MEL Paving case. That was but one construction company, but the same principle could have been equally applied to

[ Page 533 ]

contracts which were let on the Fort Nelson extension. It was in an effort to cover up this that the whole matter of the B.C. Railway was placed before the royal commission on the British Columbia Railway. There has been a failure to address, to call witnesses before that commission to look into that matter.

But the one thing that has come out of this is that they have looked over the Swan-Wooster report, which was made available to this government even when they were opposition, and also the Peat Marwick report on the accounting procedures of the B.C. Railway. What we see here is no advancement over the knowledge which existed at that time. What this government has done is stall and stall and stall, just as they have been stalling with the forest industry and leaving it absolutely paralyzed. This government has been stalling any decision. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the evasiveness of the Minister of Economic Development and the evasiveness of the Premier that they intend to stall this beyond the next election. There will be no decision.

There will be no decision on this unless that back bench gets up and registers their strong disappointment; at least unless the northern MLAs in that back bench get up and vote for this amendment. That is the only thing that is going to bring some kind of decisiveness that might get the attention of the Premier and the cabinet.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, it was so interesting the other day to watch the speech of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) on the main motion. He got up and he talked about the B.C. Railway. The back bench all pounded their desks and they all supported his statements. But not one member of the cabinet, save one -save the ambitious member of cabinet.... Well, I won't draw any analogies from Roman history, but let's just say that he is ambitious. That Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was pounding his desk and he was smiling and he was approving. That minister had better be watched by the Premier, because he knows how the back bench really feel about this. It just could be that one of these days that Premier will push that back bench too far, so that even they will find a little backbone.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people, particularly in Fort Nelson, find themselves with a government with a budget that has taken a dollar and given them a dime. They are facing these questions: "Should I cut and run? What is this business worth? Can I f find a buyer? Is there anybody that would buy?"

I asked some of the city members if they would buy a new house of 1,800 square feet? Would you pay $20,000 for it in Fort Nelson right now? Would you pay $30,000 for it? What effect is this indecisiveness and this procrastination having on the people?

Well, Mr. Speaker, we hear that the Fort Nelson rail link is not dead yet. The Premier has said that he indicated Monday that the B.C. Railway's Fort Nelson extension may have more life than is thought. That's a very evasive and very qualified type of encouragement for the people. "A number of studies are underway into provincially owned rail operations, " he said, "as well as development of other northern regions." But what about Fort Nelson? This is the area that is most threatened, Mr. Speaker.

The studies relate to every other aspect of transportation in B.C. I suppose that it relates to barge services up the coast, and ferries, and the cost to the public through various forms of subsidies. He was responding to a call for abandonment of the Fort Nelson line contained in the interim report of the McKenzie royal commission, which was tabled in the house while the Premier was in Saskatchewan, very conveniently.

But now that Premier is back here, Mr. Speaker. He had his chance. He got up and he spoke on this motion and he said nothing -nothing decisive, nothing which would tell the people of Fort Nelson to stay or to cut and run. The report said that the 400-kilometre line from Fort St. John will cost up to $70 million in operating losses and rebuilding costs in the next f five years and should be shut down right away. Why does it say it should be shut down right away?

In the recommendations made by the royal commission, they say that it should be shut down right away because to put off things any further would require delaying work which would have to be done this year. So that's why item 3 says: "We are accordingly compelled to the conclusion that the Fort Nelson extension ought to be terminated as soon as possible, and in any event, not later than the '78 spring breakup." They made this recommendation last December. The government has still not acted upon this recommendation and has still not said yes.

And so we are getting closer and closer to the spring breakup, and it says substantial repair work on the line will otherwise have to be commenced. I understand that if there's a procrastination in that decision, going beyond that deadline could cost a further $5 million if we decide that the Fort Nelson line should stay. To put that decision off one more year will cost the people of this province a further $5 million and Lord knows how much more.

[ Page 534 ]

The Premier, when asked if he thought the commission had done a thorough job, replied: "Not at all." The Premier has now expressed a lack of confidence in the commission. I see no other course for those commissioners but to resign, as the Premier has expressed his non-confidence in them. If I were a member of that commission I would certainly resign, because it is obvious, from the subsequent actions of this government that they do not want any decisions on the railway, that they want to stall and stall. And, while they are stalling, it is creating more and more cost to the people of British Columbia. It is undermining any shred of confidence that might have remained in this government after its treatment of the tourist industry, after its treatment of the forest industry, after its treatment of the mining industry, and now after its treatment of northern expansion and development.

We read in the Fort Nelson News for Wednesday, April 5, a very optimistic pathetic plea and expression of faith; and I quote the headline: "We Believe Bennett Will Not Betray Us." I guess they are appealing to any sense of fair play which may exist in that government. I suppose they go by an earlier statement: "Fort Nelson Line Will Stay. Feel Positive - Bennett" - "I'm committed to the people of the north of the province." If the Premier were really and truly convinced that the Fort Nelson line would stay, he would have had no hesitation in saying it.

I want to leave the members of the back bench, particularly the northern members of the back bench, with the thought that it is not the members of this House that are important; it is the ideas which collectively come from this House, and the back bench should not be held back by any one member, even though he be the Premier of this province, from expressing the true wishes of the people of the north. I would say that if those members would get up and vote for this amendment it could be the proudest moment of their political careers. It would be one for which they would be long remembered; it would be one which their grandchildren could share, and about which they could say: 1114y grandfather was the member who stood up for the people of the north, stood up when it counted, stood up at the most crucial turning point in the history of the north - the turning point when the decision was being made to either go ahead or fall backwards." I just wonder how the grandchildren of those members will feel. I'm sure we know how the grandchildren. of the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) will feel; but I'm sure they will be well enough able to handle that.

Mr. Speaker, I mean this in all sincerity. I can say that, on matters of true commitment and true principle, I never placed a cabinet appointment or anything else ahead of the expression of the people whom 1 represented; I hope that those members will be able to say the same.

MR. LAUK: I was amused to see that the member for Esquimalt was cross-counting when my colleague, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , was taking his place in this debate. If the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , and the other people who are affected by the insecurity and uncertainty of the decision with respect to the Fort Nelson line, are going to have the same performance from their MLAs as the people of Esquimalt and the southern Island had from their MIA in Esquimalt - with respect to his feeble effort to maintain the E & N rail line - then there is little hope indeed for the future of the Fort Nelson line. A couple of publicity stunts...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Very little and too late.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's just a one-termer over there talking to us. He's enjoying his time in the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK. Oh, no. let him be. He's enjoying his time. He knows he doesn't belong here, and that some competent member of any party will take his place soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member. the amendment says that no clearcut commitment has been made to continue the operation of the British Columbia Railway Fort Nelson extension.

MR. LAUK: I know there isn't, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that you have re-emphasized the point.

I think it should be said that the history of this railway - and particularly the Fort Nelson line - is a patchy one, to put it very generously. On this subamendment my colleagues in this chamber have already stated the very doubtful planning mechanisms that were in place during the time of the previous Social Credit administration.

I don't think it serves any useful purpose

[ Page 535 ]

for the good people of the North Peace region to canvass those in detail today, but I think it is useful, Mr. Speaker, because of the very confused statements made by the Premier this afternoon, to canvass the history of the Fort Nelson line, at least briefly, because there's every danger that not only does he misunderstand that history, but that others may be confused and misled by his statements, or will misunderstand the history of the Fort Nelson line.

Yes, the line was established as a political ploy of the previous Social Credit administration. Yes, there were no proper engineering studies done. There was not a proper survey and no proper construction plans laid and so on.

MR. SMITH: That's the same speech the NDP were making about the extension from Prince George to Fort St. John. It's 20 years old now.

MR. LAUK: Wait 'till I'm finished, I say to the hon. member for North Peace River. I'm glad that the hon. member for North Peace River agrees with and understands what I'm saying, and I believe he does. That's another historical moment.

But let me put it to you this way, Mr. Speaker: irrespective of the slipshod way in which the line was planned, it nevertheless was built. Economic development occurred. Growth in Fort Nelson and the northern communities grew as a result of the Fort Nelson line, as a result of the line from Prince George north as well.

MR. SMITH: Read some of your colleagues' statements about the Fort Nelson extension.

MR. LAUK: The dependence on this rail line is no longer speculative; it is a fact. But what has happened? The NDP administration saw the difficulties with the Fort Nelson line. They brought the information that they had. For the first time in the history of the railroad, the government imposed a standard for the quality of the construction of our railway in this province. We commissioned the Swan-Wooster report. We commissioned other investigations, as a government and as a railway board, to determine what proper course of action the government, the board and the corporation should take to retrieve the railway from disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member for North Peace is upset during this debate, and I'll deal with that in a moment. If I were he, I'd be very upset too. I would take a slightly different approach, however. I'd perhaps exercise a bit more political courage. I'd perhaps think a bit more about the people in Fort Nelson rather than the people in my caucus. I would think I would be a responsible member to the people who elected me and put me in this chamber, not to the people I sit beside. You don't owe the people you sit beside in this chamber anything. You owe the people of your constituency everything.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even after the shabby way that this government has treated the hon. member for North Peace River, he's still willing to sit there against the fundamental, paramount principle of every member of this assembly to represent his constituency, and he has indicated his intention not to vote for this subamendment. That's a shocking statement from the member for North Peace River. It shows a complete misunderstanding of his role as a member of this chamber. For him to be chatting now about legitimate opposition attempts to achieve a resolution of this very unfortunate problem, of our legitimate attempts, in his cynical way.... He's looking over here and shaking his head. Don't we have a right to speak on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia? Isn't it our greater responsibility to call upon the government to decide, and decide now, when the member for North Peace River will not do so? I think we have that responsibility, and I think it's cynical indeed for the hon. members opposite to say that the opposition is playing politics with this serious issue. I think he knows better, but it's his responsibility and he has to live with his conscience, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you, if he doesn't have political courage in this chamber, he's going to have to have an awful lot of political courage to muster when he goes back to Fort Nelson and faces the people up there, particularly during the next general election.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. It's not the purpose of this debate to discuss the behaviour, good or otherwise, of any member of this House. We are debating the resolution before us.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was only pointing out to the hon. member for North Peace River that his responsibility under this subamendment is to vote with the opposition side. He has steadfastly indicated he will not do so. I'm calling upon him again to fulfill his true and paramount responsibility. I have drawn that point to a close.

Now with respect to the Fort Nelson line, the NDP administration commissioned the report

[ Page 536 ]

of Swan-Wooster, the engineers. That report indicated to us that yes, indeed, the plan was sloppy, the construction was slipshod, that it became something of a joke because of derailments several times a week - the hon. member knows this. There was a great danger to person and property, Mr. Speaker.

Now we laid it before the chamber. I might say it received only passing attention from our great Fourth Estate, the press and media. But we know that sometimes in the hurly-burly of the speed in which events happen in Victoria, important matters slip by them.

I will not, as other uncharitable politicians suggested, say that the press is semi-literate in matters of state and great moment in this province. I'm sure they file stories on these important subjects, but, as 1 say, when the Swan-Wooster report was tabled in this House, and the government of the day clearly indicated what the problems were, it received less than passing attention by the press.

Did the government of the day say: "Well, we're seeking other reports before we do anything."? Did the government of the day say: "Well, we're going to abandon or not abandon the Fort Nelson line."? Did the Premier of the day say: "I can't make up my mind. I'm going to appoint a judge and maybe he can make it up for me."? No. We brought in a bill to bring about the proper funding to upgrade that line. That's what we did.

We did not cry and point fingers to the previous Social Credit administration and say: "Oh, what a terrible mess! It's going to take us 10 years to solve it." That would have been the political thing to do, Mr. Speaker. We could have gone around the province and blamed it all on the previous Social Credit administration, the way this administration is doing to us, but we chose to do the responsible thing, Mr. Speaker. We chose to act, and act immediately on upgrading the Fort Nelson line.

Now contrast that, if you will, Mr. Speaker, with the actions of the f first minister and this government with respect to the Fort Nelson line and, really, on every other important economic and political issue that has faced this administration - procrastination, stalling, inability to decide. Wasn't it T.S. Eliot, Mr. Speaker, who said: "Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow."? The hollow men, the people who are f frozen in fear and who have an incapacity to make the kinds of decisions that the people, when they elected them, expected them to make. That is the Premier of this province. Oh, he can savage a helpless colleague in the cabinet on nickel and dime affairs, but can he make a decision that will substantially help the people of this province? Can he make any kind of major political decision? The answer is that he hasn't.

Again, the previous administration, the NDP administration, Mr. Speaker, conducted an investigation into the finances of the railway and a report was given. We found that for a number of years the real costs of running the British Columbia Railway were deliberately hidden by the previous Social Credit administration - deliberately hidden, using accounting principles that were totally unacceptable to the profession in North America. So much were these principles a breach of ethics that the auditors of the railway resigned and were disciplined by their own profession because of them.

This government did not spend its time appointing royal commissions into the financing of the railway. It stated clearly that the finances of the railway would be supported by the government. We would support even the bad decisions of the previous administration to avoid economic chaos in the regional areas of this province, because to do otherwise would be playing politics. And the net losers of a government that plays politics is not the opposition, it's the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, we brought in a new bill. We asked the Legislature to pass funds again for the railway, to make up for the tremendous losses that were hidden during the time of the previous Social Credit administration.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell the truth!

MR. LAUK: I'm glad the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is asking me to tell the truth. He knows I always tell the truth, but I'm glad he's reinforcing that. You've arrived in time. I'm surprised. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is seldom in his office. He's always here, and I'm glad to see him. But why the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has not risen and spoken in this debate is a surprise to me.

The Minister of Forests (Ron. Mr. Waterland) , with two mills that are going to close down, hundreds of jobs are going to be lost....

AN HON. MEMBER: Three mills.

MR. LAUK: Three mills. he hasn't said a word. There is a conspiracy of silence from the treasury benches, from the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. There is fear that grips that government, and they have no will to govern.

[ Page 537 ]

There is no cabinet minister who has spoken in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm waiting patiently for the member to debate the subject at hand.

MR. LAUK: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you may not have heard what I've been saying for the last 10 or 15 minutes, because I have been talking about the Fort Nelson line. I just paused for a moment to point out that the responsible ministers of cabinet have not taken their place in this debate. That is showing a contempt not only for this chamber but for the people of the North Peace region. Get up and stutter, but take your place. The Minister of Economic Development (Ron. Mr. Phillips) , oh, he's great on bombast. He couldn't answer a simple question yesterday on this very topic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I'm speaking on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I want these people to be responsible and take their place in the debate and speak out on this amendment. Surely to goodness, by now, after a 90-day stall on the Fort Nelson report, they've got something other to say than flim-flam.

MR. LEA: You're the only Social Credit minister, Jim. You've got to say something.

MR. LAUK: Now as I say, the previous NDP administration stated, when they filed the report on the finances of the railway, that the railway cannot continue to operate with this heavy debt burden that's upon them. The interest charges alone eat up their revenues to the extent where they're going to show a net loss position every year. Now we didn't spend time running around the countryside and appointing royal commissions to make decisions for us. The plan in the 1976-77 fiscal year was to write off the debt of the British Columbia Railway, and it should have been done. The Treasury Board of the NDP administration was perfectly prepared to write off that debt and give that railway a chance. I don't think I'm being heard, because this is the first time it has been said and I want everybody to get it straight. The Treasury Board of the New Democratic Party administration made the decision for the fiscal year 1976-77 to write off the debt of the railway to give it a chance for life. It wasn't our debt....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You've got all the cabinet documents; don't play that game with me.

SOME RON. MEMBERS: Table the document.

MR. LAUK: Look who is calling for tabling the document - the Minister of Health (Ron. Mr. McClelland) . This afternoon, he had a letter he refused to table.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Because he knows what the letter said, and so do 1. You're too scared. You're a scaredy-cat; you won't put it on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You don't have a document. You're dreaming again.

MR. LAUK: 1 wasn't referring to a document, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) please come to order?

MR. LAUK: Now it's only in that way, Mr. Speaker, that the railway can survive. We said it again in the spring: "When are you going to write off the debt of the railway? You don't need further investigations; the NDP did them all for you. They're all on the table for you. 11

MR. MUSSALLEM: They fixed everything.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes, here's the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , saying: "They fixed everything." Where was he when we showed that the previous Social Credit administration, which he was a part of, deliberately hid the losses of that railway for 15 years? He should come here and apologize to this chamber. I'm sure he didn't know. But now that he does know, why doesn't he stand up and have the guts to say: "I'm sorry I was a part of that previous administration."? No, he sits there folding his arms.

MR. SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, did he not see the news reports all over the province of British Columbia and in The Citizen in Ottawa, Saturday, January 21,1978? By the way, we

[ Page 538 ]

have to go to Ottawa to get good press these days. Vancouver, CP. My compliments to Canadian Press and to the Ottawa Citizen:

"The accounting system used by British Columbia Railway under the presidency of former Premier W.A.C. Bennett was designed to conceal its true losses, the royal commission investigating the railways affairs was told Thursday."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is not relevant to the amendment before us.

MR. LAUK: It certainly is, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry, with great respect, I'm referring to the losses of the BCR as it's related to the commission's report and the subamendment before us.

"David Sinclair, financial adviser to the commission, said the extent of the accumulated losses was concealed until 1974, when the New Democratic Party government revised the railway's accounting policies."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's proof positive by one of the most distinguished chartered accountants in British Columbia, an officer of The Institute of Chartered Accountants and a major managing partner of one of the most major chartered accounting firms in the country, who has given evidence before the royal commission of the deliberate concealment of the tremendous losses of the railway.

Now what was this government prepared to do about it? Appoint a royal commission. We told them in 1976, we told them in the spring of 1977, that what you have to with this railway is refinance it. You don't need a royal commission. We called for a public inquiry into the MEL settlement. Did they face that issue? Did they come clean and give us the evidence? No. They appointed this royal commission that was totally unnecessary and that they're obviously not listening to anyway, and it still hasn't come up with the facts on the MEL Paving settlement. This government would rather cover up. "Get another year, get a day so I don't have to make a decision, " says the Premier. He doesn't think about the future. And today is the watershed, today is his judgment day, today he has to make a decision. Even faced with the interim report he run and hides.

The same with the Dease Lake line, Mr. Speaker; look at the contrast there. He needed $80 million for the budget. What did he do?

MR. SPEAKER: order, please. Ron. member, is the member aware that in a subamendment the scope of debate is much more restricted than it is on an amendment and that is much more restricted than it is on the main question? I must remind the hon. member that the amendment before us talks about continued operation, which has some futuristic aspect. I perhaps would remind the hon. member to keep his remarks relevant to that aspect.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm only pointing out that on the Dease Lake line the same process of decision-making occurred that occurred on the Fort Nelson line, and that was no decision at all. What happened was that the federal government offered this government $80 million, and they needed it during that fiscal year; otherwise they'd go broke. It was $80 million on the understanding that they shut down the Dease Lake line permanently. We put it to the First Minister right in this chamber. He denied it. The federal government confirmed that that was the deal and he had to eat crow. He had to take it back; he had to change his story.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be back; I'll tell you the facts.

MR. LAUK: Not after the next election, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: You'd better get yourself a calendar and count the days.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: This is the process that's been going on: "Get a day; give me some breathing space, " he says to himself. "I can't make a decision; I need more facts, more professional reports."

MR. BARBER: More excuses.

MR. LAU: More excuses; exactly, Mr. Member. Exactly it's like the Minister of Economic Development the other day crying in the hall about a steel mill. All we want is some action, not excuses. He was crying about what the Japanese told him. Well, I'll deal with that in his estimates, and I've got certain statements he'll have to retract too. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, a year ago this opposition called for a public inquiry into the MEL Paving settlement, and what did we get? We've got a government that says: "I

[ Page 539 ]

don't know what to do. I'm going to give it into the hands of a judge; maybe he can tell me what to do." And that's substantially what it is. You know, most governments, when they appoint royal commissions - [illegible] for long-range policy, not on the current problems of a going concern like a railway. You never appoint a royal commission to do the day-to-day decision-making of a government. That's what the governments supposed to do. But as my colleague says, excuses after excuses, delay after delay, no decisions, uncertainty and fear compounds itself because of this gross negligence on the part of the government.

I believe it's got something to do with the Premieres inability to read. I think that when he looks at these professional reports he gets frightened. He gets frightened by them, or whoever is reading him the reports. But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, he's got to face reality, and reality is that the delay he's caused by appointing this needless commission has cost not only the taxpayer the direct cost of a commission bounding around the countryside, a group of lawyers and experts trying to tell us what we should do when political economy should prevail, but millions of dollars in interest charges, delay, a lowering of property values in the North Peace River, a lack of investment, loss of jobs have all occurred because the Premieres too chicken to do what he's supposed to do.

I was shocked indeed, Mr. Speaker, when this cynical Premier appointed a commission to look into all aspects of the railway when he had all of the expert reports he needed already on his desk. It was a cheap political trick on the people of this province to divert their attention from the real issues of the day. But, you see, it had a time limit on it. When you appoint a royal commission, eventually the commission reports. He didn't think about that at the time; he just needed that extra breathing space.

So right now he says to the press: "I've got the interim report and, well, I need other reports and I need further professional advice before I make a decision on the Fort Nelson line." Can you imagine that? We've had all the professional reports on his desk when he took office. It takes him a year to appoint a royal commission, which we don't need, and he ends up: "Well, it's not adequate." Then he has the audacity, already involving a distinguished supreme court judge in this political nonsense, to say that the commission did an inadequate job. Well, I'll tell you, if I was that commissioner - as would every self-respecting citizen of this province would be appointed to such a commission - I'd resign immediately and I'd tell that Premier where to go.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're at the watershed again. The report was called the interim report on the Fort Nelson line.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The watershed. You know what the watershed is. That's the one with the. moon on it.

MR. LEA: That's where the Premier makes his important decisions.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get your undivided attention, because if you're not listening to me you won't know when I stray off the point.

We're at this decision-making process again. What happened last fall? He said to the McKenzie commission: "We need an urgent, immediate report on the Fort Nelson line. We can't keep these people waiting. We want your immediate response, and we're going to act because we're a businesslike government." And there he was, tripping down the street, jogging away and looking very efficient.

Well, the report was given to the government on December 30. They could have released it the day after with the government's decision. Let's say they even took a month. Why not? They get the report and they say: "Well, look, it's Christmastime. We can settle cases at Christmastime under the table, like MEL Paving, but a serious report like this we've got to consider for a couple of weeks." Okay, let's say they took two, three or four weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: He took it to Hawaii with him.

MR. LAUK: I don't even know whether he's read it. But I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. We know that the Premier and this government demonstrated insincerity when they called for a fast report from the commission and then sat on it for 90 days. Again they have demonstrated insincerity when, after calling for a speedy interim report on the Fort Nelson line, they table it on the day that the Premier hops a plane for Saskatchewan. You know what the great thinking of Mr. Moustache and all the rest of his experts in the office were? The great thinking is: "Well, look, Mr. Premier, we'll dump this report in the Legislature when you're in Saskatchewan and I'm sure nobody will notice. It'll blow over by the time you get back."

[ Page 540 ]

Well, you know, I don't think it has. I think the issue is still there, and I think it was gross negligence on the part of the Premier, who personally called for the interim report, to leave the jurisdiction when it came up for debate

Well: now he's back. He still has time to demonstrate some credibility by stating: "I reject this report, " or "I accept it." He should state one or the other. Yet he has the audacity and the lack of intestinal fortitude to state to this chamber and to the press that he needs to make further study of the report. He needs to make no such thing. He wants to stall. That's what he wants to do, because he is incapable of making a serious decision and he has not got the will to govern. It's the saddest thing in the world to see a government, duly elected by the people of this province or any other, that lacks the will to govern. They appear to the people to lack the will to govern, and it creates insecurity not only in the regions affected by the Fort Nelson line, but in the whole population. Because a government that has no will to govern is no government at all, and people become fearful when they know there is no government sitting in office.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it should be put clearly to this government, particularly to the cabinet ministers. I see the Minister of Forests (Ron. Mr. Waterland) is here. There are three mills along the Fort Nelson line. You would think that the Minister of Forests would understand his responsibility in this debate and stand up and give his comments on the subamendment. Again he's the victim of a conspiracy of silence. Where are you, Mr. Minister? Why don't you speak out in this debate? This is an important decision to make. What are your views? The people of Fort Nelson are waiting to hear them.

The Minister of Economic Development - has he got any views on this debate? No other cabinet minister has spoken in this debate and I predict that they probably won't, because there's a split. It's my suspicion that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier want to close the line and a great number of other ministers do not.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There's the ward heeler from Delta (Mr. Davidson) over there, Mr. Speaker. My friend, the ward. heeler wants to build a bridge. I'll deal with that. I'll deal with that bridge in the hon. member for Delta's estimates, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Look at this. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) ....

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm working while you're playing.

MR. LAUK: You've never worked a day in your life. There's the hon. minister who, prior to the election in 1975, impersonated a lawyer. Mr. Speaker, at least I can make a living practising law; I didn't have to go into land speculation. I can make an honest living.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province are sick to death of a government that is incapable of governing. Now I know I'm being repetitious, but I have to reinforce this very important point. A government must present itself to the people in a way that they can have faith in its capacity to govern and they can feel that they will make the proper decisions and make decisions in the first place. This is what has happened with the Fort Nelson line.

Look at what has happened, Mr. Speaker. The people had great hope in Fort Nelson when the interim report was called for - great hope. They waited patiently. The report was delivered and they have waited again for 90 days. During that period of time, there have been reports of economic insecurity, lack of investment and great fear. Any government should have the sensitivity to that very, very sad situation. What is the response? A decision will again be postponed. I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government can postpone a decision for any length of time. This afternoon, the Premier was asked by the press: "Mr. Premier, can you give the people of Fort Nelson a time frame? When will you decide? Will it be four or five weeks?" The Premier said: "I can't say that. 1 don't know when it's going to be."

He's a Premier on the run, Mr. Speaker. He's a Premier who is so indecisive and afraid to make decisions, he's on the run.

This report has routed the government. As the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has stated, there are only three decisions this government can make. One, to accept the report; two, to reject it, and three, to stall.

If they accept the report, they betray the people of the northeast. If they reject the report, they've got a lot to answer to, for appointing a royal commission they are not even going to listen to. They've wasted money and we told them they would waste money by

[ Page 541 ]

appointing the royal commission. The decision that I think they have made is to stall. That's a callous and cynical attitude on the part of a government - to stall and maintain this kind of insecurity in the great Peace River region.

Mr. Speaker, I call again upon the members of cabinet and the members of back bench, particularly the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , to speak out in this debate, and particularly cabinet ministers. I call upon the member for North Peace River. If he has a right to hold that seat, he only has that right if he supports this subamendment, and I call upon him to do so.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering whether I may have permission to introduce a guest.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there is a social studies class from Carson Graham visiting the Legislature today, accompanied by their teacher. One of the students, Lou Gobble, who is with that class, I've known since she was a gleam in her father's eye. I would like to House to join me in welcoming her and the other students.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think just prior to making some of the main points I'd like to make on this subamendment, I'd like to deal with two points that the Premier raised as the government's decision to do nothing. The first point that the Premier raised was the fact that he wasn't very happy with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) said. He quoted Hansard, then it turns out he quoted the wrong member, and so we can take that bit of information and say the Premier, I suppose, made an honest mistake in looking through Hansard. But he based half of his speech on why this subamendment shouldn't pass on that misinformation that he had gleaned.

Now the other half of his speech was also based on false information, and if you add up both halves of his speech, you find that there was nothing to the speech that would indicate that the Premier himself shouldn't vote for this amendment against his own government.

The Premier said that one of the reasons that the BCR line to Fort Nelson was not successful was because the NDP, while in government, had dragged its feet on construction of a highway from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. I think that should be cleared up, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier raised it as one of the reasons that the Fort Nelson line was not a happy economic line today.

Shortly after I took office as Minister of Highways, I met with residents of the Peace River, the Peace River-Laird Regional District, along with the council from Fort Nelson, along with the council from Dawson Creek and along with the council from Fort St. John. Each one of those bodies, together and separately, urged that the government complete that highway to help with the Fort Nelson line, to carry economic goods over that line, and to help in the economic well-being and the social advancement of the Peace River area in its entirety.

I called in the officials of the Highways department and asked why this highway hadn't gone ahead sooner. I was told by the officials of the Highways department that there had been no order from the previous government to go ahead with that highway.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Mines says: "Nonsense." You listen, Mr. Minister.

I then took staff, whom I suppose could be classed as witnesses, down to Ottawa and met with the Hon. John Chretien, who at that time was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There were also members of his staff present at that meeting. I asked the minister why money that had been allocated to build the line from Fort Simpson to the border had been pulled back and highway construction stopped. The hon. federal minister told me at that time - and I believe the ex-Minister of Transport, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) , was in that cabinet at the time; he was - that they could not go ahead with the top part, which was the federal responsibility, because the government of W.A.C. Bennett would not meet a commitment to build their end of the highway. So they had pulled out the money allocated and re-allocated that money to the Mackenzie highway. That's what I was told by a f federal minister, who is now the federal Minister of Finance. I have no reason to disbelieve that story, Mr. Speaker, because it also tied in with what the senior officials of the Highways department had told me - that they had no orders from the present government of W.A.C. Bennett to go ahead with that highway. Now the Premier comes in here, and his reasoning why he won't vote for this amendment is because the NDP killed that highway.

The federal minister asked me at that time if I would give the federal government a year

[ Page 542 ]

to see whether they couldn't relocate that money back down to the Fort Simpson-Fort Nelson Highway line, and then we could look at a time schedule. I told that minister - and I said publicly at the time in the North Peace River and in the South Peace River, and it is on record - that whatever time frame the federal government puts forward as their commitment to get to that border, the B.C. government through the NDP would meet it for the people. All documented, Mr. Speaker.

And in comes the Premier and says he won't vote for this amendment because we killed the highway from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson -both parts of his speech together making 100 per cent of his speech completely and utterly false.

Those members down there, Mr. Speaker, the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) , is he going to stand on his feet and take part in this debate? Is he going to do that? The answer is no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, by this amendment not passing, what sort of hardship is going to be inflicted on the people of Fort Nelson and the North Peace? What sort of faith do they have in this government to deliver to them? I can tell you that there are people there who had lots of faith in this government and lots of faith in this Premier up until now. If this government and its back bench do not vote for this amendment, they are not only abandoning a rail line; they are abandoning the whole social and economic advancement of the north of this province. That's what they're doing.

What do they say? Quoting from an editorial from The Fort Nelson New's on the need for this subamendment to pass - this is an editorial, April 5,1978:

"One report we heard is that the recommendations on the line by the royal commission advocates keeping the line, and this might be one of the reasons for the delay in the decision and the veil of secrecy that the cabinet has pulled over it. The recommendation to keep the line but pay substantial upgrading costs can be seen as something of a bargaining point with the federal government, especially at this time of its pipeline negotiations and the interest Alaska has shown in a continental rail link. Our bet is that federal funding is what B.C. is after at this point. Think of the political value of such a manoeuvre, turning a loss into a profitable deal.

Bottom-lining is the best tradition."

An editorial from Fort Nelson. Don't they understand, Mr. Speaker, that the northwestern part of this province has already been sold out by a deal between Canada and the province - an $81 million loan from the federal government to the provincial government to stop rail development in the northwest?

But there will be no deal from the federal government on the Fort Nelson line because the Premier and the Minister of Finance went around through the corridors of Ottawa and Victoria and accepted money from Ottawa in terms of the sales tax, and now have attacked the government that they made the deal with.

MR. SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

MR. LEA: That is to the amendment. How can this government expect to get any money from the federal government for the Fort Nelson line when they make a deal with Ottawa to take money, and then turn around and attack Ottawa? Is that what we call co-operation between the province and the federal government - to make a deal to borrow money from the federal government to balance their books and stop the Dease Lake extension, and the Groundhog-to-Terrace extension, and to literally kill economic development in the northwestern part of this province? Now they're going the same route with the northeast part of the province. This amendment must pass. I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, there are backbenchers on that side of the House who agree with me, but don't have what it takes to stand up and blow that chance to go in cabinet. The only member back there, Mr. Speaker, who has the opportunity to speak up and will never blow his chance of going in cabinet is the member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) , and even he won't take his chance.

MR. SPEAKER: To the amendment, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we have a government over there that is headed up by a Premier who runs away from every problem, as he has run away from this amendment. on every major decision that comes up for this government to make, the Premier is unavailable. He's run away every time. This royal commission itself was a runaway decision by a runaway Premier. As someone else has pointed out, why do we have the royal commission? We have it because, prior to the last spring session of the Legislature, that government was politically in trouble with its under-the-table dealings in paying off contractors in this province and

[ Page 543 ]

pulling it out of court. That's what we were involved in. It was going to be politically embarrassing for that government to come in this House and face the music for dealing out of court when it was before the courts. They were afraid to come in this House, and the only way they could come in here with any feeling of comfort was to take the heat off. One way you take the heat of f is to put a royal commission in place so that it can't be discussed in the House or anywhere else.

And that's what they did: they took the immediate heat off by putting the royal commission in place to look into the BCR. Then they got pressured. Let's remember history. All of the terms of reference for that royal commission weren't in the first load; they were broadened and broadened because they felt there was still room for political heat on the main issue of the day.

But what they didn't know, and could not know - but should've known - was that somewhere down the line they were going to have to stand in this House and face the recommendations of the royal commission. And those recommendations may not be to their liking, either economically, socially, philosophically, or any other way. And now we have the commission's interim report, and it does not meet the needs of this province. It does not meet the needs of that movement of political opportunists over there. So what can they do now? If they vote for this amendment, they're going to be scorched through the editorial pages of the lower mainland, as they are being now.

So what is the reason for the split, Mr. Speaker? There are rural members who know full well that that commission report should not be followed, and that the government should make a decision right now, that this amendment should pass. And there are the city m ers, afraid of the editorials in the urban parts of this province, afraid that, if they don't follow the recommendations of the royal commission, they may lose a few seats in the lower mainland. Between the devil and the deep blue sea they sit, rural and city slickers, not knowing which way to go, torn, pulled, indecisive - and a Premier who cannot even face the conflict within his own ranks. He did not run away only to hide from the rest of the province; he ran because he could not face the two conflicting areas within his own caucus -the rural and the city, and those rural members who had already sold them elves out to the city to be in the cabinet. That's where we are today.

We are at a place where, if this amendment does not pass, the whole future of the north

Peace River is at stake. Mr. Speaker, how would you like to be sitting in Fort Nelson today with a business and not knowing whether, within four months, there is going to be anybody there in Fort Nelson to buy any goods from your business? Would you order stock under those circumstances? How would you like to be sitting in Fort Nelson today - as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) pointed out - with a house that may be worth $40,000 and, four months from now, may be worth $10,000, or nothing? How would you like to be sitting in Fort Nelson today and be the owner of a lumber mill and not know whether, four months from today, you're going to be in operation because a decision of government has not been made? How would you like to be in any one of those positions? How would you like to be a taxi-driver in Fort Nelson and be going to make a decision whether or not you're going to buy your own car and not know, four months down the line, whether that decision will be sound?

Fort Nelson has come to a social and economic standstill because we have a Premier and a government who run from every major decision; and on this decision, they're running so fast they can't even see what they have left behind - chaos throughout the northern part of this province. And do they care, except politically? I doubt it. Look at them, Mr. Speaker. The member for Burnaby says it won't affect his riding. He doesn't care. He hasn't spoken. The Minister for Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) reads a magazine. Does he feel that the Socreds are so strong in that riding that he can't take his place in this debate and defend his riding and the northeastern part of this province? he had a lot to say about coal. That fell through too. That government is in a state of utter moral collapse.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You wouldn't know what that word means.

MR. LEA: Until that Premier and that government stand up and make a decision, this government is going to stay in that state of moral collapse, and the people of Fort Nelson and the people of the north will be sitting there not knowing exactly which way to turn, who to turn to and what to do next. Every member in this House knows that, but only members on this side speak out. Why? Because when they appointed that royal commission, a year ago, they weren't reckoning on this. And now they haven't got the guts, as a government, to stand up and face the music and make a decision they should have made a year

[ Page 544 ]

ago. They put it off for a year, and they would like to put it off for another year, until we have another election out of the way, Mr. Speaker. I guarantee you that rather than face the press editorials in the lower mainland of this province, they will wait until after the next election. They will then cancel the Fort Nelson line. That's what they will do. I guarantee it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're guaranteeing people that we're going to be re-elected.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, finally I would like to say that, if ever there has been a government that can be likened to electricity, this is it. It always takes the easiest path of resistance and, at the end of every one of those easy paths of resistance, they find a trap, because with weakness comes traps like the Prince Rupert pulp mill that the Premier said he would not close down, and did right after the election.

Mr. Speaker, it would be different if you could believe the Premier, but how can you believe the Premier? You can't. His record does not allow for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have told it all. And if the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) wants to stand up in his place and tell about it - because it affects his riding - if he'd like to stand up in his place and dispute one word that I've said about that Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson Road, one word.... he's not going to dispute that. That's right. It's the truth. If it's the truth, then the Premier was not telling it as it is. His whole speech - both points, quoting Hansard from the wrong page and the wrong m her, and absolutely wrong on the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson highway - the whole speech by the Premier was nothing but bombast so he could maybe run away and come back to live another day.

MR. SPEAKER: Ron. members, the question is that motion No. 6 be amended by adding after the words....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak against this amendment to the amendment, and to say that I think it is just a little bit ridiculous for that group over there all of a sudden to turn their eyes to the north and say: "We are great supporters of the north."

I remember, Mr. Speaker, that it wasn't too many years ago when the railway was going into the great north - although very few of the members over there at the present time were in politics at that time - it was the policy of the NDP to be against the development of the north. They thought the north should remain, I guess, forever a pioneering area, and they fought against the north. I happen to be quoting f rom a very vivid memory that I have as a long-time resident of that north country. I can recall very vividly....

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) telling me that you were for the extension of the British Columbia Railway north to Prince George? Are you telling me that you were for the great power-dam development in the Peace River country? Are you telling me you were for all of that? I say to that: hogwash! You're using this as a political football.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Mr. Minister, you'll assist me greatly if you will address the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now I remember in Fort Nelson, not too long ago -under the policies of the great NDP government, who are bringing in this amendment to the amendment today - that Fort Nelson was brought to its economic knees by the policies of the NDP. They literally drove the petroleum industry out of the Fort Nelson area - out of the entire Peace River area, as a matter of fact - and during their rule, during their term of office, Fort Nelson almost became a ghost town.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when they were government, there were two copper mines operating on the Alaska Highway, just north of Fort Nelson. What happened during their term of office? Those copper mines closed down because of their policies and their punitive taxation measures. Now they stand so piously in this House and talk about the north. There are two industries they drove out of Fort Nelson when they were government, with the loss of many hundreds and hundreds of jobs. They closed out the petroleum industry and drove them back to Alberta, and they closed Churchill Copper and Davis Keen.

Interjection.

[ Page 545 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I've been in there, my friend. I traveled those dusty roads into those mines. I saw the people working in there, and I also saw the effects on Fort Nelson when those mines were closed down because of the policies of the party that you happen to be a member of.

MR. NICOLSON: Why did Fort Nelson grow and grow?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Will the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) please cite the standing order under which he feels he can interrupt this member who now has the floor?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, that's one of the reasons that I f find this particular amendment so absolutely ridiculous, coming f rom that group over there who have continually been against any development in the northern part of this province.

Now let's talk about the lumber industry. The lumber industry has had some difficult times in the north, but they have grown to the point they're at today with no thanks to that group over there. When a lumber industry, Tackama Forest Products, was trying to establish in Fort Nelson, that group over there would not facilitate some simple rules and regulations to ensure that the plant that they had started prior to 1972 could receive the title to that plant. They retarded the development of that particular lumber operation during their three and a half years.

Tackama Forest Products tried to get title to the land - a fairly simple operation. Due to the policies of that government they had to operate without a lease and without any title to their land.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not nonsense at all. That's factual, my friend, that's factual. You go in your basement and dig through those files. Maybe somebody wrote you a letter, but maybe they did not, because you never did anything for the north anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: City slickers. You stand up here piously and tell me you fight for the north. You've been against everything in the north, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. minister, would you please address the Chair and please keep your remarks relevant to the amendment?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons for the extension of the railway into Fort Nelson, north of Fort St. John, was to be a splitting point. Fort Nelson would be a division point whereby we would build a highway to tap the riches of the Mackenzie Delta to help the people in the Northwest Territories, to go through the agricultural land, to tap the lumber stands in that area. That's one of the reasons that the extension to Fort Nelson was built.

I remember standing in this Legislature back in 1967 and fighting for the development of the Laird highway. Indeed, we made some progress, and it was started. And for the ex-Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea) to stand here and say that nothing was done, or that we couldn't get together with Ottawa, is a little amazing to roe, because the facts are that the federal government did start construction of the Laird highway and the provincial government in 1972 - remember the year of the election? - actually cleared 18 miles of the Laird highway and built 13 miles. That ex-Minister of Highways stands in this Legislature and says that we never made a commitment.

But the f acts of the matter are this, Mr. Speaker: that government stopped the construction of the Laird highway when they were government, and they are so pious now that they stand up in this Legislature and start talking about northern development and about building Fort Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, under this government - and they say we haven't got any faith in the north - within nine months of being government we made a commitment and laid out a construction schedule to build the Laird highway. We sent it down to Ottawa....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and your friendly Mayor Schuck up there, the guy who ran for the NDP and got defeated and is so bitter, when I made the announcement in Fort Nelson, what did he say? He said: "So much gobbledegook!"

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Look at them over there. They sound like a bunch of children.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They sound like a bunch of turkeys. What has happened? We are today in

[ Page 546 ]

British Columbia building our section of the Laird highway. We have ordered a hovercraft to go over the Fort Nelson River. We've put our money where our mouth is, and for those guys over there to stand up and talk about northern development....

Mr. Speaker, what has the federal government done?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You had your chance to stand up and say your nothing speech. You'd better watch your back because there are other people who have got the knife in it over there. You're fighting for your life, and using this as a political football. You think you're going to make big time up there.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Hon. member, we have about 45 minutes before the normal time of adjournment. We would like to proceed with orderly debate at least for the next 45 minutes. Perhaps all hon. members would assist us.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say one more thing about the Laird highway. Because of the leadership shown by this government, the federal government, on January 23,1978, got a commitment from their Treasury Board to finish building their section of the Laird highway. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because of the leadership that we took, because of our devotion to the northern part of this province, because of our devotion to Fort Nelson, we have shown leadership and the federal government has gone along.

The reason I bring this up is.... I say again that it is so ridiculous for that group over there to stand up and be so pious about the north when.... What did they do? The first three things they did were: they moved the petroleum industry out of Fort Nelson; they stopped two copper mines from production, which had a big effect on the economy of Fort Nelson; and they closed down construction of the Laird highway, which would have put Fort Nelson in line with Fort Simpson, so that merchandise could flow up and Fort Nelson would be able to reap some of the benefits of the development in the Mackenzie basin.

Mr. Speaker, the Laird highway will give Fort Nelson access to new timber stands. It will pass through undeveloped agricultural land. It will put a lead-zinc operation north of the Nahanni National Park on Prairie Creek in a position to be developed in the near future. Mr. Speaker, if that is not for the benefit of Fort Nelson, if that doesn't show us some of the faith this government has in the northern part of the province, I'm very badly mistaken.

I would just like to say a couple more words about the Fort Nelson railway. You know, when that group over there and the ex-Premier was president of the great British Columbia Railway, the railway was hardly ever in Fort Nelson because it was out on strike all the time. I hate to say this, but if he had continued to be in charge of running the railway, I want to tell you, the railway wouldn't even be running into Fort Nelson today. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be running anywhere in the province.

Mr. Speaker, just recently there has been a deal made in the world markets to sell 100,000 long tons of Canadian sulphur. Do you know where that sulphur will come from, Mr. Speaker? That sulphur will come from Fort Nelson. Of that, 50,000 tons will go to New Zealand and 50,000 tons will go to Australia.

AN HON. MEMBER: By truck or rail?

AN HON. MEMBER: What company?

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let's look at the record and find out what that group over there thinks about the great British Columbia Railway.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , If he intends to be in order for the remainder of this session or would he rather be excused? Does the member wish to make an expression? I've called the hon. member to order several times and I will insist that between now and 6 o'clock he have at least some regard for the call to order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, it should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that you have been calling me to order during my speech and while I've been sitting down. Do I gather this to mean that I'm a very, very badly behaved member or could it mean that we're not keeping the minister in order? I haven't heard him say very much about the Fort Nelson line and what his intentions are as a government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Otherwise, why did he stand up and take his place in this debate except to bombast?

[ Page 547 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was that the expression that we were'looking for?

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. I would like to know under what standing orders better behaviour from members is called for on a time limit by the Speaker. This is not a schoolroom where members are chastised. I would think that if they're chewing gum and sticking it under the chairs there would be some limit to that, but there is nothing in the rules that deals with a member's future behaviour, only to draw his attention to his present behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. members are aware that the standing orders provide quite clearly that after having repeatedly called the House to order, if members do not come to order, that is contempt, really, of the House. The standing orders provide that the Speaker in such instances takes whatever measures are deemed necessary, including naming members, which is a practice that I would not like to resort to.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the prerogative is that of the Chair. If you wish to name a member, name him. If you just wish to warn him, warn him, but time frames are not standard within our standing orders. If he's been a bad boy far enough to throw him out, throw him out. If you want to warn him, warn him. But there is no such thing as time limits.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's always interesting for me to note how the opposition members seem to squirm when they hear the real facts. They squirm and they squeal. Oh, I can understand that, because they don't want to hear the facts.

Mr. Speaker, another reason that I think this subamendment is so ridiculous is that in the records we will f find that when they were government, they used to bring in, from time to time, bills dealing with the British Columbia Railway. In 1973,1974 and 1975, when they were government, they brought in a measure dealing with the British Columbia Railway, and for the good of all the province and the good of Fort Nelson. We were in opposition at that time and we supported the British Columbia Railway. But last year, when we brought in a bill, the British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977, so that moneys could be made available for the operation of the BCR, what did that group over there do? They voted against it. I'll tell you, if that had not gone through, the extension to Fort Nelson would have been closed down months ago. Now they stand piously in the house and bring in an amendment and talk about the Fort Nelson extension when last year they voted against the Fort Nelson extension and voted against the British Columbia Railway - period.

So it's a sorry lot that we see over there, Mr. Speaker. When we start talking about Fort Nelson.... I just want to summarize. They practically brought the economy of Fort Nelson to its knees when, through their policies, they drove the petroleum industry out of Fort Nelson. During their term of office, two functioning copper mines north of Fort Nelson were closed down due to their policy. When they were government, they closed down any further construction on the Laird Highway which, when built, will be of great benefit to the city of Fort Nelson. When we asked for a bill to be passed through this House to supply much-needed moneys for the British Columbia Railway, they voted against it.

Now they stand up in this House and shout and scream for the Fort Nelson extension. Well, I just have to say that the people of the north will get the message eventually and they will know that this government and its policies have always been devoted to the north, will continue to be policies that will develop the north, and not just a bunch of political poppycock like they're trying to talk in this Legislature in the last two days.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to vote against this subamendment.

MRS. DAILLY: I have been listening to most of this debate. From the time the subamendment was first proposed, it's been pretty hard actually, at times, particularly when exposed to the kind of rhetoric we have to hear f rom the last member who spoke.

Mr. Speaker, because I have sat here and because I have listened to both sides, I do wish to make an observation before the vote is called, and that is that this motion was presented, this subamendment, in all good faith by the members of the New Democratic Party.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: No, we would have been remiss as an opposition if we had not set a debate forward in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we accuse this government of leaving a climate of uncertainty and confusion and fear and insecurity over the people of the north. It's a shameful thing that has been done by the Premier and by his government. I

[ Page 548 ]

listened to the Premier very carefully today. At no time did he say anything in his talk which could alleviate the insecurity and the apprehension of the people of the north. This is not the time for this Premier and his government to be playing games with the future of the people of the north.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that we have presented in all good conscience the reasons for this government to take their full responsibility and come forward now with some answer to the people of the north. Those members from that area who have taken their place in this debate - and there have been very few of them - I hope that you realize the seriousness of your position. If you stand up here today and vote for a government which has no concern for the people you represent.... Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party, may I say that we certainly hope some of those members will reconsider their vote before you call it.

MR. SMITH: It's a pleasure to take my place in the traditional debate of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition expressing disapproval of the budget of the province as they do with the throne speech, and as has been done traditionally by opposition parties regardless of what their political stripe may have been f or many, many years. Whether it is by an amendment or by a subamendment, let me make it abundantly clear that the whole exercise is predicated on the same thing: it is to show displeasure with the budget which has been presented by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to this House. Let it be noted that the opposition applaud that stand. Obviously, they do not want to discuss the budget, but they want to show their displeasure with it by amendment or by subamendment. This particular part of the amendment to the amendment or the subamendment which we are discussing at this particular moment, deals with the B.C. Railway, and that is what I intend to address myself to.

There's no question that the British Columbia Railway for many, many years has been a tool of development for northern British Columbia. It became an effective tool only after the southern end of the railway was extended into Vancouver proper and the north end of the railway was extended to Prince George and from Prince George into the Peace River country. It then became an effective tool of development for the benefit of the people who live there.

It's interesting to reflect on the position of the then official opposition, who are the same group and the same party as the official opposition in this House today, when it was suggested that the railway should be extended from Prince George to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. What was the position? It was simple. They should never build a railway through such rough terrain; the railway would never support itself; it would be a disaster, a white elephant, something that would never pay for itself in terms of development. But it has proven to be an economic and stabilizing factor for the Peace River country.

The people in Fort Nelson have a right to expect the railway, hon. members, which is presently serving them every day, each day of the week. It has not closed down; it is running steadily, hauling sulphur, timber, veneer and chips to the marketplace. on return, it's hauling pipe, petroleum products, goods of commerce and trade back into northern British Columbia.

But I say to the members of the opposition that if they think the sham that they are running at the present time through this House has anything to do with the continued operation of the B.C. Railway, then that is a falsification of the fact.

The determination to continue the operation of that railway and other transportation links in the province of British Columbia will be made by the cabinet, who have a voice in the matter and who know full well, very well, the position of the members from the north and many other members of the government side of the House. I'm sure they have compassion for the position of the people in Fort Nelson, and the people from Fort Nelson will be here to speak on their own behalf later this week. They'll be here to speak with the cabinet, with the Premier and with me.

MRS. JORDAN: A good MLA! They don't have to go to a lawyer's office.

MR. SMITH: There'll be no fear tactics involved, Mr. Speaker. There'll be no flim-flam or pressure from this side of the House with respect to what they and I consider to be a legitimate problem. The facts of the matter are that the railway is operative, that the railway at the present time is operating in and out of Fort Nelson. The facts of the matter are that if a decision were made this instant that that railway were to continue, there would be no work on reconstruction of the portion of the railway that needs to be rebuilt until later this summer, at least two months down the road. There's no way that you can get in there and dig through 10 feet of frost to start a reconstruction programme on that particular area of the railway. As a matter of fact, the longer the frost stays in

[ Page 549 ]

the ground this spring, the better the track-bed will be. Eventually the frost will have to come out and at that time, as long as there's not too much rain, we can start thinking about a reconstruction programme, taking into consideration that area which must be rebuilt.

But I am told by the people who are in the management of the BCR, including the general manager and all of his top-echelon personnel, as recently as yesterday.... I wasn't in the House yesterday and perhaps some of the people noted that. I make no apologies, Mr. Speaker, because I was in Fort St. John, meeting there with the people who are as concerned about the railway as those who live in Fort Nelson. I was meeting with the management personnel of BCR who were there speaking to the chamber of commerce, to the city council and to the representatives of the business community. They will be meeting with other groups in a similar manner in the next few weeks.

The BCR tells me that with the exception of that one section of about 35 miles, the roadbed of the BCR between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson is now in comparatively good shape. In order to continue operations into the future, a decision must be made to rebuild that particular section of the line and put heavier steel in the place of the rail that is presently there. It was known, I think, for many years - as a matter of fact, from the first day that the extension started to Fort Nelson - that it would have to be upgraded and improved. There's nothing different about that, Mr. Speaker. Every railway extension, wherever it was built anywhere in the world, went through some trying times and dislocations of roadbed in the initial years of operation. There's nothing mysterious about that.

But, Mr. Speaker, the management personnel of the BGR tell me that the biggest problem that they have facing them at the present time is trying to convince the public and the industries that will use the railway and have used the railway that there is stability in the work force and in the operation of the railway in the province of British Columbia.

The greatest disaster perpetrated on the people of this province in terms of increased employment and increased employment opportunities was the shutdown and the disastrous delays on the B.C. Railway during the time that the NDP were the administrators of this province. We all have to live with that sorry record, and particularly the BCR and the people who would use the BCR to move their products to market. The first question that is asked is: what is the continuity? How long can you guarantee to continue to deliver to us the products that we are prepared to buy from you? I think it is a serious enough problem that we should all turn our minds to it on occasion.

There's a record there that we have to live with and we have to improve. Thank goodness, the record has been improved in the last two years, and the railroad has operated comparatively free from shutdowns, from slow wheels and from wildcat strikes. The management tells me that the morale on the railway was never better than it is at this present time.

I don't intend to speak at length, but I do want to make reference to a matter that was raised by the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , and that is the most recent record of the official opposition with respect to funds for the BCR. This was referred to by the hon. member when he spoke in this debate just a few minutes ago, and certainly it shows the attitude of the NDP in 1977 as official opposition, and probably spells out very clearly the position that the opposition would take today if they thought this was not a politically expedient position to take by supporting and proposing a subamendment to the resolution that's before us.

There was a request before this House to support Bill 47 in August of last year. That's not too long ago - August 31,1977.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will relate this to the amendment.

MR. SMITH: I am speaking to the amendment.

At that time, Bill 47, intituled British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977, was debated. It was voted on by the members of this House. And who were the members who supported the vote and who were those who voted against that particular proposition?

It doesn't take long to read into the record those people who said yea and those who said nay. The motion ums agreed to on the following division: Yeas - Veitch, Mussallem, Loewen, Wallace, Gibson, Jordan, Calder, Fraser, Curtis, Chabot, McGeer, Wolfe, Bennett, Gardom, Phillips, McCarthy, Lloyd, Kerster, Kempf, Kahl, Haddad, Nielsen, Williams, McClelland, Davis, Waterland. Nays - Barber, Brown, Lockstead, Skelly, Sanford, Levi, Lauk, Lea, Cocke, Dailly, King, Barrett, Macdonald.

Who voted nay in third reading? The same 13 people: Barrett, Brown, Lockstead, Skelly, Sanford, Levi, Lauk, Lea, Cocke, Dailly, King, Barrett, Macdonald.

So less than a year ago, the group who

[ Page 550 ]

prepared this subamendment said they had no confidence in the B.C. Railway or the funds that were to provide for the continued operation of that railway.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will relate this to the amendment.

MR. SMITH: Oh, I am, if you will just bear with me for one moment.

MR. LAUK: You didn't spend $1 up north on that motion and you know it.

MR. SMITH: I relate it to this amendment by saying that this is a facetious amendment. It's a complete contradiction of the actual position of the NDP with respect to the BCR and the operation of it.

Last year in August - less than a year ago -it was convenient for them, as a policy of their party, to vote against any funds for the continuation of the railway. But today, because they think it's politically expedient to do so, they do a flip-flop and propose the subamendment that is before this House this afternoon.

1 suggest to the members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that they should not be taken in by the opposition tactics. They should not be taken in by a party that one day denies the railway capital funds, and the next day turns around and cries crocodile tears for the people who are genuinely concerned, as we are, on this side of the House.

The amendment, as I've said, has nothing to do with the continued operation of the B.C. Railway. That decision will be made in good time on hard facts. It has nothing to do with anything except an amendment to show dissatisfaction with a budget which is the best that I have had the experience to read in the last five or six years, at least in this particular province. It's a good budget, Mr. Speaker. It's one well worth supporting, but the amendment and the subamendment are the type of political manoeuvring that should not be supported by the members of this House.

MR. SKELLY: I must say I was surprised at the speech just made by the member for North Peace River.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'll get to that. We did vote against that bill last year, Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you why we voted against the bill -because there was no commitment on the part of that government over there to use the funds allocated in that bill to carry on the Railwest plant and to carry on employment in the Squamish area on the B.C. Rail. That was the reason we voted against that bill. There was no commitment on the part of that government to carry on the Dease Lake extension, to carry on development of the north as enshrined in the vision of W.A.C. Bennett, the former Premier of this province, and Dave Barrett, his successor. There was no commitment to the vision of carrying on that Fort Nelson extension. That's why we voted against that bill. We could not get a commitment from this government and for that reason we voted against that bill last year.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about this amendment being nothing but a traditional motion on the part of the official opposition, expressing our dissatisfaction with the budget.

MR. LAUK: They're trying to wiggle out of it.

MR. SKELLY: Trying to wiggle out of it is right. It's not common for the official opposition to make a non-confidence amendment to the budget speech debate. It's not traditional to do that.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that when the Premier was out of the province he asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in his absence, because he did not want to face the music, to table the interim report of the royal commission. It was only when that report was tabled and it was indicated to this opposition that there were some problems with the Fort Nelson extension, and the government was considering shutting it down, that we felt it was important to the people of this province that this specific issue be brought before this Legislature in reference to this budget.

It has nothing to do with traditional motions of non-confidence. It has nothing to do with our inability to debate the present budget speech. We'll do that, Mr. Speaker, and we'll do it in good time. We'll provide constructive criticism and constructive opposition to that budget, because there's a tremendous amount we can say about the budget and about this governments economic performance over the past two years that's a disgrace to any government in this province over the past 25 years.

On this subamendment we've had nothing but hot air, bombast, selective recall and rewriting of history from the governments side. But in all the speeches made on the government side, Mr. Speaker, no commitment.

[ Page 551 ]

From the Premier we've had some diversions and red herrings, we've had statements about the Laird Highway, but no commitment to carry on the Fort Nelson extension. That is the basis of our concern as expressed in this subamendment to the traditional non-confidence amendment. That is the basis of our concern.

The member who just spoke states that he has confidence in the cabinet that they'll make a decision to carry on the Fort Nelson extension. Well, over the past two or three years we've had no confidence in that cabinet and in their activities. The people of the province have no confidence in what you're doing and in what you're about to do. What we want this Legislature to do today, Mr. Speaker, in the vote on this subamendment, is to instruct that cabinet of the wishes of the people of this province and the wish of this Legislative Assembly to carry on and to continue the operation of the Fort Nelson extension. To vote against this subamendment -and that applies to this opposition as well as to those backbenchers - is to refuse to give instructions to that cabinet that we want the Fort Nelson extension to carry on and to continue operating and to continue serving the north and the economy of the north as it was designed to do. To vote against that amendment is to vote against the economy of the north. That is the issue in this subamendment, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to vote for it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that motion 6 be amended by adding after the words "$215 million", the following: "And that no clear-cut commitment has been made to continuing the operation of the British Columbia Railway Fort Nelson extension."

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I pointed out that the Premier, in my opinion, had been incorrect, and I made the statement that he was either deliberately or mistakenly misleading the House on a quote. I understand that the Premier was taking the matter under advisement to check his statement, and I'd now like the withdrawal that I think he knows is due.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware of any of these arrangements.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, and I know he has accepted the correction, where he mentioned that I spoke in Fort Nelson and, of course, I haven't. Now what I'd like to say is that, in researching the Blues, I find that I attributed remarks made by the seconder of the motion, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , to the Leader of the Opposition and for that I extend my apologies to the Leader of the Opposition - for considering that he had the same thoughts as the second member for Vancouver-Burrard. Also I'd mention that that was an easy mistake because of the reports in the Province about what the Leader of the Opposition said in Penticton on this very same subject.

MR. BARRETT: This Province was, I understand - on the same point of order - incorrect in reporting you this morning.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we cannot enter into debate on points of order. Is there a f further opinion on the point of order?

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept the Premier's withdrawal, and I wish that half of his speech would now be struck from the record because it was totally erroneous from that point on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll table it.

Interjections.

[ Page 552 ]

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

MR. MACDONALD: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I move that this debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Presenting petitions.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is a petition of the city of Vancouver praying for the passing of an Act intituled an Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the city of Vancouver be received.

Leave granted.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is a petition of the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada praying for the passing of an Act intituled an Act Respecting the Royal Trust Company and the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada be received.

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. DAVIDSON: This is the petition of Sister Margaret O'Rourke, Sister Genevieve Hennessey, Sister Anne Backman, Sister Imelda O'Connor, Sister Frances Rooney, Sister Jean Keenan and Sister Rita Lynch, praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act To Incorporate St. Vincent's Hospital of Vancouver, British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDSON: I ask leave that the rules be suspended and the petition of Sister Margaret O'Rourke, Sister Genevieve Hennesey, Sister Anne Backman, Sister Imelda O'Connor, Sister Frances Rooney, Sister Jean Keenan and Sister Rita Lynch be received.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I'd like to introduce two important guests in the gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to introduce my wife, Sonja Alexandra Skelly, and my daughter, Susan Kathleen Skelly, who was born at or near the Western Premiers' Conference in Calgary in 1973 (laughter) and was first introduced to the House before she was one year old.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

[ Page 553 ]

APPENDIX

7 The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move-

1. That this House instructs the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to continue the examination of all segments of the British Columbia food industry undertaken by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture constituted during the Second Session of this Assembly in accordance with the resolution of this House on the 6th day of April 1977.
2. That the Committee shall consider any changes in the present food marketing system which may be beneficial to consumers, producers, and merchandisers, and shall recommend methods whereby Government may influence the adoption of such changes.
3. That the Committee be authorized to engage the services of such research staff and such facilities as it considers necessary to collect and compile the required information.
4. That the Committee shall have authority to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear presentations from such organizations and individuals at public hearings or in camera as may, at the discretion of the Committee, appear necessary, and, pursuant to section 80 of the Constitution Act, examine witnesses upon oath. The Committee shall have the authority to conduct hearings in any part of the Province.
5. That the Committee may accept and consider as evidence before it any evidence and representations made before the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture appointed and acting during the Second Session of this Assembly, and any findings, decisions, and reports made by it, and may adopt and confirm as its findings, decisions, and reports, any findings, decisions, and reports contained in the record and evidence of the proceedings of that Committee.
6. And that the Committee may sit
   (a) during a period in which the Legislative Assembly is adjourned and during a sitting of the House, and
   (b) during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session, and shall report to the House on the matters referred to it without delay at this Session, or following the adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be.