[ Page 1113 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates. On vote 5.

Mr. Lauk –– 1113

Mr. Nicolson –– 1118

Mr. Lea –– 1119

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1122

Mr. Lauk –– 1123

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1126

Mr. Barnes –– 1127

Mr. Barrett –– 1129

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1129

Mr. Barrett –– 1131

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1135

Mr. Barrett –– 1137

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Seated in the public galleries are a group of students from Victoria's Malvern & Westerham School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Green. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the television cameras, which are there by my permission, first of all having gained the approval of House leaders on both sides of the House. The purpose of the cameras is to film a brief segment of approximately three minutes. I trust that it meets with your approval. I appreciate your confidence in allowing me to make the decision.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 5: executive council, $753,760 -continued.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this morning I want to canvass the Premier's role with respect to the British Columbia Railway, not only with some emphasis on the Fort Nelson extension but the degree to which the people of this province can look to the Premier for truthful statements of policy and direction with respect to that railway.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Order!

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Recreation and Conservation said "order" when I said we've got to discuss the degree to which the public can look to the Premier's credibility. Indeed, order, sir, because it's very much in question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The old guttersnipe is back this morning.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who withdrew yesterday as an honourable gentleman the use of the word "guttersnipe, " is using it again today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In regard to whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: The shoe evidently fits.

MR. LAUK; He says, "the old guttersnipe is back, " and I would ask the Minister of Economic Development to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I did not hear the minister make the remarks, but if the minister would like to withdraw the remarks

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I made a statement and referred to no one in particular, but evidently the shoe fits, so I'll certainly withdraw it if the member for Vancouver Centre felt it applied to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask for an unqualified withdrawal.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I am unqualifying. I mean I am withdrawing unqualifying - a complete withdrawal.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier on many, many occasions has brought into serious doubt his credibility as the First Minister of this province. I have almost every year now, in every spring session, pointed out the accumulative lists of what could only be politely called slipshod statements - that is, some healthy lack of attention to the facts in making public policy statements - either inside or outside of this House.

The real credibility problem started, I suppose, when the Premier was being inter viewed outside of his automobile at a time when there was some speculation that the province would pass laws with respect to seatbelts. The Premier left his limousine and the press came up to him and asked: "Do you wear seatbelts?" or "Were you wearing seatbelts?" He said: "No, but there are no seatbelts in this car." The camera took a close-up view of the back seat and, sure enough, there were seatbelts.

Now that's a minor point, people say. But it's of sufficient importance, Mr. Chairman, to cause us some concern and have at least one eye on the Premier and his propensity to tell little stories when there is absolutely no need in many cases to tell them.

Mr. Chairman, I'm reminded of the attack on me by the Premier in this Legislature last spring. He waited until I was absent from the Legislature before standing in his place and using figures in a totally misrepresentative way. And I had to stand in my place in the

[ Page 1114 ]

legislature in the following week and point out to the public of British Columbia that the Premier deliberately used figures that would give a totally incorrect view of the export trade in this province.

Again, Mr. Chairman, let's look at the Premier's statement to the Social Credit convention, where he claimed that the NDP had budget figures of something like $4.8 billion in their last year. It was immediately proven by the press that the papers he was using were what are commonly known as departmental requests - a total misrepresentation, and it was immediately exposed. It was a very puzzling thing for the Prime Minister of a province to do, and added again to the severe doubts that people in this province have with respect to the Premier's credibility.

Remember the blacklist statement and other statements in this Legislature, where we showed - and it was demonstrated - that the Premier's word cannot be trusted in all cases? Perhaps the most incredible breach of credibility, Mr. Chairman, had to do with the Dease Lake extension. The Premier held a press conference and told us that they were receiving $80 million from the federal government and that independently - and this was the clear representation made by the Premier - the government would close down the Dease Lake extension. He was asked: "Does the $80 million have anything to do with the shutdown - was that a requirement?" He denied that; he said: "No, this is an independent decision of government." We questioned him in the House, Mr. Chairman, time and time again: "Did it have anything to do with the shutdown of the Dease Lake extension? Did the federal government make that a prerequisite to getting the money?" He again denied it. Then federal officials directly involved in the negotiations said that it had everything to do with it, that they wouldn't have received this money had they not agreed to shut down the Dease Lake extension. When that point was put to the Premier, all he had to say and all that's on the record to this day is: "Oh, what are you going to do with the federal civil servants?" That's all he's had to say.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're telling a lie.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier just said I'm telling a lie. If the Premier could stand up and withdraw that, or prove that I'm telling a lie, and stake his seat on it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier, I must ask you to withdraw the statement that the member is telling a lie.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not even listening to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're calling yourself a liar.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm talking to my deputy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Premier, you must still withdraw the statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if my discussions with the deputy need withdrawal, I'll withdraw - unqualified - whatever I said.

MR. LAUK: This is the kind of silly misrepresentation we're getting a repeat of. Everybody knew what he was saying. He said I was talking to my deputy. He thinks it's cute to tell little fibs.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the record stands that the Premier in a press conference outside this chamber misrepresented to the people of the province of British Columbia the true nature of the arrangement between the federal and provincial government with respect to the Dease Lake extension.

MR. STRONGMAN: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I believe the first member for Vancouver Centre used the word "misrepresent" and I think he should withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We must only ask if it's a deliberate misrepresentation. Please continue.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province has let the record stand. The last word on this subject is the federal officials who said a criterion of receiving $80 million was that the Dease Lake extension would be shut down.

What did the Premier describe it as during his press conference? A pause. He said: "It's only a pause in construction." The pause cost us so far $37 million alone in money that was already committed. It's cost us the loss of lead time and inflation. Already vast sections of the Dease Lake line have been washed out. If it's ever going to be started again the roadbed has to be reconstructed.

This Premier, because of that immediate desire for $80 million, which is supposed to be a loan, has thrown against the wall tens of millions of dollars and probably hundreds of millions of dollars in final cost if the Dease Lake extension is to be completed - and particularly currently, the Groundhog-Terrace connection, which is right now the most important economic link. Its abandonment is being

[ Page 1115 ]

regarded by the people of the northwest of British Columbia as an abandonment of them as people and as citizens of this province by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: Now what about the credibility of the Premier with respect to the Fort Nelson extension? A year ago we asked for the truth about MEL Paving, which is now being sold on the block. It's bankrupt. We asked for the truth. We didn't receive it. We asked for a public inquiry into the MEL Paving settlement; we didn't receive that.

The Premier could see that he had severe problem with respect to the railway and he knew that the decisions that the government would have to make, either then, a year from then or two years from then, would be politically embarrassing. But because of his ineptitude and inability to govern, he decides to appoint a royal commission to make the decisions that he and his government should have made - a royal commission appointed by a government, not elected by the people, to make political decisions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we warned at the time -and I've warned all the way through this piece - that this government knows the answers to that railway. This government knows what it has to do, and to appoint a royal commission is a copout and an unreasonable delay in the decision-making process.

What's happened with the Fort Nelson extension? They asked for a report on Railwest, they asked for a report on the Fort Nelson extension. I'll deal with them in reverse order, because I think the royal commission made a decision about the Fort Nelson extension, which this government's about to reverse by the way - everybody knows that.... The royal commission made the same mistake about Railwest, which this government didn't reverse. The same lack of information and the same economic and political thoughtlessness went into that decision as has gone into the recommendation with respect to the Fort Nelson extension. This government stands charged with gross negligence in the face of shutting down Railwest because of the McKenzie royal commission report.

If you don't accept their report on Fort Nelson, what gives you the right to accept the report on Railwest, doing away with those jobs in the community in Squamish? What gives you that right? If the royal commission isn't good enough for Fort Nelson recommendations, why is it good enough for Squamish? Why is it good enough for the Railwest complex?

Mr. Chairman, this government has painted itself into a corner by its own ineptitude and childish fear of facing up to decisions that have to be made by a government that's ready and willing and has the guts to govern. The royal commission brought down a decision at the request of the government well over three and a half months ago. They sat on that report, gave pathetic excuses why they were sitting on it and made a completely irresponsible representation to the public that it was required by statute when nothing of the kind was true. This Premier, waffling all the way through the piece, sits on this report and takes off for a Premiers' conference while the report is dropped in the Legislature. That kind of fear by the First Minister of this province should cause great alarm in the public, Mr. Chairman, and I think the public should be very anxious to have a general election in this province to get rid of that Premier and his fears.

He can be the nicest guy in the world, Mr. Chairman, and he can have the greatest sense of humour, and he can even sound good, but if he has a fear or a panic streak in him, he's the most dangerous First Minister that we can possibly have in the seat of government. He can shake his head, but a run-for-cover Premier is disastrous for this province, particularly in a time of economic recession.

So what happened? The report was dropped while he was in Saskatchewan hiding his head in the sand pretending he's a statesman, when everybody knows he's the greatest national windbag we have ever seen. Instead of producing hot air at provincial conferences, you should be back here governing this province, Mr. Premier. We all know about your armchair philosophy and that you read a book once. We don't need to hear from you all the time in the national press when there are outstanding problems in the province of British Columbia which you have deliberately delayed for a year, two years, two and a half years. The most important of them is the British Columbia Railway.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's probably watching his favourite TV programme, "The Waltons."

MRS. JORDAN: What have you got against family life?

MR. LEA: You call "The Waltons" family life? Is that where your head's at?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm just so struck by that comment

[ Page 1116 ]

from the member for North Okanagan, it's going to take me a while to recoup.

Mr. Chairman, the report was tabled in this Legislature. It recommended that the Fort Nelson extension should be closed and that trucking take its place; that's the short answer. If you look at that recommendation, you don't have to be a transportation economist to see that the commission didn't do a thorough job. Now I can say that because I didn't appoint that royal commission, but the Premier said it. What does that do to the Premier of this province, who readily admits that he has no confidence in the royal commission? It does a number of things.

First, if the royal commission has any self-respect, it has to resign; it can't continue. It's been going for a year. It filed its report. The report is not being acted upon. It's obvious it is going to be reversed by this government. It has to resign.

Secondly, the Premier must conduct an immediate inquiry into the closure of Railwest. Special financial officers of this government, together with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier, should immediately conduct an investigation into the closing of Railwest. It was a terrible mistake. It was based on wrong evidence and on contradictory testimony before the royal commission. It was a disaster.

I have carefully read the report of the royal commission on Railwest. I have been very careful in going over the figures. I read the report that was given by the distinguished chartered accountant, Mr. David Sinclair. I contrasted that with the report of Ernst & Ernst, management consultants. Both reports are public - I believe Ernst & Ernst may not be, but both were presented to the royal commission on Railwest. Based on certain premises, Sinclair recommended the closure of that plant. If you read Ernst & Ernst, you see that the margin between keeping that plant open -that is the economic viability of producing boxcars, flatbed, bulk cars and so on - could be of such a minor margin that to keep that plant open would have only involved the smallest subsidy, not the largest, and eventually no subsidy at all. Eventually it would be a viable, economic, going concern.

Why is it the McKenzie royal commission put Ernst & Ernst aside and accepted David Sinclair, whose premises were based on a number of wrong assumptions? Why? It was an unthorough, slipshod way to do it, Mr. Chairman. There's no question about it.

If this Premier is willing to say that about the report on the Fort Nelson extension, let him have the guts to say that about Railwest, admit a mistake and open it up again. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. You can't say they are right about Railwest and they are wrong about Fort Nelson. What kind of gobbledegook is that?

This is funded by the British Columbia Railway, June, 1977. "Analysis of railcar lease by alternatives." The issue about keeping that plant open was: What are the BCR demands? Is it more economical for the BCR to buy cars, lease cars, lease old cars, or lease new cars? It's that kind of thing. Ernst & Ernst - once you get through all of their accountant jargonese and so on - I'm convinced is saying this very important thing: that BCR should take new cars - and many of them - from the new Railwest plant and make it, in the initial stages, a viable unit.

Did this government even take a second look at the McKenzie commission report on Railwest? No. Were they worried about Squamish? No, and I'll tell you why. Here is the essential difference, and the government stands condemned for it. Railwest is in the town of Squamish, which has a strong NDP vote. Railwest was an NDP project. That's why it was shut down. It was pure and utter political revenge and vindictiveness.

The Fort Nelson extension is a Social Credit project. The Fort Nelson extension is in Social Credit constituencies, and that's why the second look. This government stands condemned for the cheapest, grossest political act in the history of this province. It's political revenge against the NDP and the people of this province in the stupid decision of closing down Railwest simply because it was NDP. What pettiness, Mr. Chairman; what absolute pettiness. It'll go down in history, I say to you, as the cheapest political decision ever made. It's a sellout, simply for political jiggery-pokery.

There is absolutely no conceivable reason for accepting a recommendation of this royal commission on one issue and yet not accepting it on the other, except for the grossest political evaluation of the decisions made. What is the lam excuse given by the Premier? What does he say? He says: "Well, we're negotiating with the federal government for a contribution." Let me just refer to the facts.

This is a letter from the mayor of Fort Nelson, Mr. Chairman. I'll refer to parts of it.

"We've been in contact with certain people in Ottawa who advised that the provincial government did not present its package to the federal government in regard to the Alcan pipeline and the B.C. Rail road, Fort Nelson extension, until Friday,

[ Page 1117 ]

April 21,1978."

Shall I repeat that? I asked this question of the Premier of this province when he first proposed an Ottawa subsidy for the Alcan pipeline. He said he would take the question as notice. But here's the answer - Friday, April 21,1978. That's shocking negligence - absolute shocking negligence. The man is unfit for public office, if he can stand in this House and pretend that it's a criterion for the Alcan pipeline to receive a contribution from the federal government for the Fort Nelson extension. It's sheer hypocrisy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The term "unfit for public office" is unparliamentary and I must ask you to withdraw it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it is premature. I think at the next general election it will be proved without a doubt. I withdraw it in this chamber. It'll be proved in the next general election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are well a ware that we must have this as a straight, unequivocal withdrawal of the phrase. So please could we have that?

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

"It is to be noted that the government had had the McKenzie commission report in its possession for more than three and a half months, and then it was only after the demonstration held by Fort Nelson residents in Victoria on Thursday, April 20, that any proposal was made to the federal government concerning federal contribution to the Fort Nelson extension. The sequence of events would confirm that the Premier has been drifting on this issue of the Fort Nelson extension and after pressure, had increased to an uncontrollable degree what he considered his ploy of negotiations with Ottawa. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that in the March 1 edition of the Province newspaper, a copy of which is enclosed, Jack Davis indicated that studies were being done on a number of items including the upgrading of the Alaska Highway, but no mention was made of any contribution for the Fort Nelson extension or the BGR - none."

"This article is extremely important" -and it's dated Wednesday, March 1st, Mr. Chairman - "as it indicates that on March I the province of British Columbia did not consider negotiations to be an urgent matter, and further, that the government wants to be sure the United States consumer pays his share of the cost of giving up 500 miles of right-of-way through B.C.

"Frank Oberle, Member of Parliament for the area, has indicated that as the agreement between Canada and the United States has been ratified, it is now too late for any additional cost to be added to the cost of the pipeline and thereby ensure that the U.S. consumer would ultimately pay for any such costs. The fact seems to be that British Columbia has left it too late and now is knocking on Ottawa's door after it has been closed by the agreement. Surely Premier Bennett was aware of this situation when he established his ploy on April 21."

And I say there is no doubt that there was just a sheer bit of theatre for the people of Fort Nelson, just theatre, because the agreement is closed; there is no chance of any further money. The Premier knew that; it's just game-playing. It's a shell game on the part of the Premier and it's sheer manipulation. He needs an excuse to defy the recommendation of the royal commission in one case and not the other. He's creating a political smokescreen that everybody and his dog can see through, and he ought to be ashamed.

"In short, if Victoria wishes to obtain any benefit, they cannot now come at the expense of the Americans, as such was the case in the Yukon, but must come from direct grants from Ottawa, and such grants seem 'highly unlikely.' There seems reason to believe that Victoria's miscalculation is a mistake of the gravest order and you may wish to investigate this matter further."

Well, indeed we shall, Mr. Chairman. We cannot allow the First Minister and his government to defy common sense. We cannot allow them to deceive the people of this province any further and we must demand a complete disclosure of the Premier's intentions with respect to the Fort Nelson extension. This waffling is causing grave disorder in Fort Nelson and the areas that are being served by that railway. And I'll have more to say about the economics of the Fort Nelson extension and how inept this Premier and his government have been with respect to the McKenzie commission. I'll have figures with respect to the disastrous recommendation of using trucking for lumber and wood products, and other matters that have been suggested as alternatives by this government.

And for the Prime Minister to stand up in this Legislature and around the province and claim that he is developing an overall stray

[ Page 1118 ]

tegy for transit in the province is absolute hogwash. You don't have to delay the decision on the Fort Nelson extension because you're going to work out a transportation rationalization for the province. That's fantasy world, Mr. Chairman, that's pipe-dreaming, that's Wenner-Gren nonsense, and the Premier should know that. If I have more to say later on, Mr. Chairman, about the ineptitude of the Prime Minister with respect to the B.C. Railway.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the ruse which the Premier is engaging in is very transparent.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, I think I can handle it. It's a very transparent action on behalf of the Premier, and just to make it understandable, even to the Social Credit back bench which allows itself to be dominated by a Liberal cabinet, I'd like to explain it in terms which even they can understand - hopefully. Mr. Chairman, what the Premier is doing with the Fort Nelson extension of the B.C. Railway at this particular time would be very much analogous to saying that we're going to have to close down the ferry routes between Vancouver Island and the mainland and it's Ottawa's fault.

Of course they've been operating for years and years, ever since the previous Social Credit government took them over from the Black Ball Ferry. But suddenly they say: "We're going to close down major transportation links and we'll turn this over perhaps to private enterprise, and we'll allow the continuation of this service which has existed for years and years only if Ottawa comes to the rescue. Isn't it convenient that there is so much talk of a federal election going on at this time? That is the way in which this Premier is willing to play with the livelihood of the people of British Columbia.

Everywhere the Premier goes, every time this comes up, he tries to give reassurances. Quite frankly, I feel that he's not going to close down the extension. It's my understanding that people are not taking out building permits, development has been put into a holding pattern, and what the Premier might not understand about that part of the province is that an early start is absolutely essential if construction is to take place this year. It's not like working in Victoria or even in some parts of the Okanagan where, with special new types of concrete and such, foundations can indeed be laid right through the winter. In fact some of the problems up there are so great that even specially treated wooden foundations are found to be a more desirable type of technology for that type of environment. So there is a delay and there is a slow strangulation taking place even if there is a decision to continue the B.C. Railway extension up to Fort Nelson.

It is this kind of delay that has been strangling various parts of this province by inches. The Premier came first of all to Nelson as the leader of the opposition, and he led the people there to believe, and had his candidate in the Nelson area saying, that if Social Credit came to government Notre Dame University would become a full degree-granting public university, and that was advertised. Then he came up later on and he said: "Well, there are going to be some changes, but don't worry." And the mayor came down here and he said: "Don't worry." They were reassured by this Premier, and what's happened to that university?

What's happened to the community of Squamish, in spite of the reassurances of that Premier? Railwest has been shut down. It was a disastrous decision, and what we have done is export jobs from British Columbia. We've said that this government, this Liberal cabinet over here has no facilities and services that are required in this very extensive province.

Mr. Chairman, if there is not a need, if there isn't an absolute natural link and a natural type of an industry in which we should get involved with this far-flung province and this very expansive country, we should be engaged in the building of our own transportation facilities. But they've shut down the Railwest plant and they've done it on very conflicting information. What they might have done was shut it down on the basis of what is going to put this Crown corporation into a profit or loss situation. But this is not a free enterprise service, and the total decision should have been based upon the total good for the people of the province as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, when decisions are made to alienate parcels of land from agriculture such as in the Creston Valley wildlife management area, it was done not on the basis of what was good for the people in that immediate region, but on the basis of what is in the best interests of the province. Similarly, the decision to run a B.C. Railway was made in the best interests of the people of the province, and to the measure that it is possible that that railway can serve all parts of the province. Obviously, it does not serve portions of the province served by the CPR. It does not have running rights in those areas, but it does have a mandate very obviously to serve the

[ Page 1119 ]

north, to serve particularly where a tremendous amount of money has been invested, and that is one of the points.

Mr. Chairman, one of the parts of this stupid decision which has led to the recommendation that the Fort Nelson railway be shut down is that they are transferring the cost of debt on expenses already made, as if by shutting down the railway suddenly those debts will be forgiven. Well, the debts will still be there. The money was spent. The decision was made not by the previous government, but by the one be fore that. The railway was built, the money has been spent, and to charge those costs against that extension is absolute folly. What are you going to charge those debt costs against after it is shut down?

If one looks at the viability of the railway in those terms, one forgets about those capital costs which have already been expended and upon which no decision is going to have any effect, and one will bear in mind that the money is spent and will not be recovered. You won't get your money back, Mr. Chairman, from the banks, from the trust companies and the bond markets by shutting down the extension. Based on what lies ahead in expenditures and then the on-going capital costs, and based not only on the profit and loss of the B.C. Railway itself, but on the total service to the people of this country, the government has been making a terrible mistake. And it's been trying to cover its tracks by leading us to believe that there were some negotiations going on with the federal government - which never came to pass until after April 20, which you can almost still see on your calendar watch, it's such recent history.

The Premier of this province is showing that lie is going from crisis to crisis. He's been described as a workaholic by the press. I think, Mr. Chairman, that that leads to a very frantic type of behaviour, in which a person cannot stick with any one problem long enough to come to grips with it, and in which simple, expedient, flip comments and straight-from the-hip decisions are made, which are in the absolutely worst interests of this province. The sooner, perhaps, that there is some sort of a political shake-up, whether it be through an election or through some kind of a shake-up at a convention of the Social Credit Party, and the sooner some leadership - if they can find the material - is put into the chair of the Premier, the sooner and the better for this province.

MR. LEA: This morning, for the main part, we are going to be talking about the lack of decision by government regarding rail transportation in this province. There are other decisions that are not being made, which are causing chaos in terms of transportation, and which we'll be dealing with later in the Premier's estimates. One of those areas, of course, is the fiasco that has been brought about in regard to marine transportation along the coast of this province.

Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with during the Premier's estimates - because he is the president of the executive council and is in charge of all of government; he is the boss of cabinet - is the man who is not taking these responsibilities and dealing with them in a responsible way. We're talking about a Premier who makes decisions by panic. We're talking about a Premier who doesn't understand the basic function of government, and I'd like to discuss that a bit, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to tell a story of an incident that happened to me when I was the Minister of Highways, to show you what can happen to a cabinet minister or to a government if they don't understand the function of cabinet and don't understand the function of government. What I'm talking about is the role of cabinet ministers and the role of government.

I contend, Mr. Chairman, that the role of government and the role of a cabinet minister is to represent the people in that office, not to become the person who says: "I will make the technical decisions." The cabinet is the group of people who should make the policies and then direct the civil service and other agencies of government to carry out that policy.

To use the example I told you about a little earlier, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Department of Highways staff, when I was minister.... First of all I said: "It is the desire of government to build a road from point A to point B; that is the policy of government." I asked the staff to go out and bring back to me possible routings for that road, costs and technical recommendations.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the technical staff did their job. They went out and took a look from an engineering point of view at the different routes that could be made available for the people of this province. They costed out each one of those routes and did a comparative cost and a comparative engineering study, one after the other, on different routes that they had said it would be possible to build. They then, at the end of that report, recommended that I implement Route B. Route B, according to the staff, was the best route to take from an engineering point of view; it was the best route to take from a cost point of view, and they recommended that 1, as minister, go back

[ Page 1120 ]

to my cabinet room and recommend that route B be the one adopted.

Everything was fine except that I was there to represent the people, not the technicians of that department. And the only problem was that route B went through a park. When you get a government that is the tool of their civil service and not the tool of the people, you will find that oftentimes decisions are made by government, on behalf of the people of the province, that are not their best interests socially or economically. Mr. Chairman, the role that this Premier has decided he will take unto himself is not the people's representative in government, but the representative of a technocracy. He's proved that time after time. There's an awful lot of difference between a government that is businesslike and a government that makes decisions based upon the same motivations as private enterprise. It has a greater role to play than a very narrow interpretation, and it is the narrow interpretation which has had this Premier in problem after problem and panic after panic for the last two years.

The ferries are a perfect example. They say that everything should be run in a business manner, but what they don't understand is the difference between good administration and decisions based on the [illegible] motivations as the private sector. They took a look at the ferries and they said: "The Ferry Corporation must pay its own way." They raised the fares. They are so narrow that they didn't understand that by raising those fares, they were going to affect the economy and the social fabric of our community in a more widespread way than just the ferry-rate raise. Later on they understood, hopefully, that they made a mistake, but they don't come out and say they made a mistake, because it's not within the nature of the Premier or his government to ever own up to making a mistake - a stubborn, stubborn Premier and a stubborn, stubborn government. We don't need that kind of government in this province, Mr. Chairman.

Every decision that this government has made it has made through its Premier. And we all know that that Premier is the same as his father in only one way - that he has decided that he will be the cabinet minister for every portfolio. This Premier has worked the structure of his cabinet so that he has put himself in the position of being a one-man band, and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if he is a one-man band, he is conducting himself improperly. He is conducting his office improperly.

That Premier has no idea whatsoever of what it means to be the representative of the people in government. Let's go back to rail transportation and look at the northwestern part of this province and the fiasco that has happened because of his kowtowing and sycophantic attitude to the government of Canada in his first term. What did they do? The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) should be taking his place in this debate and imploring the Premier to reverse his decision on taking an $80 million loan from Ottawa to shut down the Groundhog-to-Terrace extension, because without that extension, Terrace, Kitimat and Prince Rupert are in economically bad shape. And the future will be bleak indeed - and the member for Skeena knows it - unless the government and the Premier reverse their decision and get on with the job of supplying the rail infrastructure that is needed if the port of Prince Rupert is ever to thrive, and if the economy is ever to thrive in the northwestern part of this province.

Mr. Chairman, there are people in this province who will say that the Premier is acting out of cowardice. I don't agree with that. I don't believe that the Premier is a coward. I believe that you can judge the measure of a man, though, by the way that man acts under s tress. We have seen time after time after time not acts of cowardice but acts of absolute panic under stress in office. We don't need that in this province. More than any other time, we need a cool head at the rudder of this province. I'm going to tell you, we have a man who panics, panics, panics, and we've seen it time after time.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) comes into this House and asks a question about airlines, completely unrelated to the former Minister of Transport, and what happens? The Premier panics and stands up and makes a decision on the floor of this House, and even misspells his message - panic, panic, time and time again.

If the Premier is serious about governing this province on behalf of the people - not serious about being stubborn, not serious about trying to be a big one-man band conducting himself improperly - then there may be some hope for the remainder of his term and some hope for the people in this province. But to make decision after decision based on panic is going to lead this province into social and economic ruin.

The Fort Nelson extension. Yes, as the member for Vancouver Centre pointed out that the decision to appoint the royal commission in the first place was one of panic because the Premier knew that the opposition was on to a pretty unsavoury practice going on at that time of paying contractors out of court, not giving those contractors their day in court.

[ Page 1121 ]

In order to get out of the political heat of the moment over a year ago, he appointed a royal commission to look into all aspects of the railway. It was a decision of policy. What is government for, if the government isn't there in their offices to set policy? What are they there for? What is the Premier there for if he and his cabinet are not there to set policy for this province - not to run away from decisions, not to run away from responsibility, but to face up to it and to face up to it in a responsible way and in a cool way, not in a state of panic?

We talk about the Fort Nelson line. We say:. what about the royal commission's recommendation to close it down? Everybody in this Legislature knows that in the final analysis, the Premier has to keep that line open. If he were not in a state of political panic, he would make that decision now. It's a decision he's going to make anyway, but why should the people in Fort Nelson - the working people, the investors-to-be who are thinking of going into Fort Nelson and the people who have already invested in Fort Nelson - suffer this uncertainty of not knowing what they should do next? The Premier knows full well that when the political time comes that he feels is most opportune, he will announce to the people of this province and to the people of Fort Nelson that yes, the line is going to remain open.

If the Premier has some doubt that he's going to make that decision, nobody in this Legislature, and I doubt anybody in Fort Nelson, believes that. But you cannot invest your money or keep your money invested when you don't know for sure. The Premier is absolutely forgetting the responsibility of the First Minister's office by allowing the city of Fort Nelson and the surrounding community to sit there in doubt and uncertainty, not knowing what to do, whether to stay there, whether to sell their house, whether to buy a house, whether to invest money, whether to take their investment out of the community or whether they should do what the Premier is doing - run for their lives.

Would the Premier build a hardware store in Fort Nelson today? Under these terms, I doubt very much. Well, the Premier might, but his father wouldn't, that's for sure.

Mr. Chairman, that Premier has let this province down. He let them down from the time he was elected to office. Almost every promise they made during that campaign they have not kept. They have not kept the promises to ordinary people.

They have kept their promises to the millionaires; that's what they have done. They know and that Premier knows that when he goes back to an election, the ordinary people in this province will not be giving him a dime. He is going to have to go back to the millionaires and say: "Please support me because I supported you. I gave you tax breaks; I gave the ordinary people of this province no break whatsoever. It's up to you as millionaires and to the wealthy in this province to support me because my legislative programme has always supported you." But he needs the vote of the ordinary people. So out of one side of his mouth he supports rhetoric designed to bring those people into line, but in fact the Acts that he personally supports and the Acts that he brings into this Legislature support the wealthy and the people who already have. That's what the panic is all about.

The Premier says that he has had one public meeting in Delta in the evening. He came to Terrace, where there's 30 per cent unemployment, where business after business is closing down because of lack of business.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It is true. I'll bring you the list. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be there and you should get out of politics. But I believe you do know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Premier came to Terrace and had a select group of people invited to meet with him - and still no question period. He was even afraid to face the people who had been selectively invited. But he said he had one public meeting in Delta. Let me tell you he has had one other meeting that he's not going around bragging about. That was at the Union Club about a week ago in this city, where for the first time the Premier stood up and answered some questions. We heard all about it. In the privacy of his own little rich clique he did admit that he had made couple of mistakes. What we would like to know is which two did he admit to? There's a long list.

Did he admit that he panics? Did he admit that in the course of his time he has ruined reputations beyond repair in this province because of that panic? Has he admitted that he has left people in Fort Nelson with an uncertain future when there is no excuse for it, and that he knows that he's going to make the decision to keep that line open? He knows it as he sits there. He knows that he is going to announce that that line will be kept open. He knows it, and yet he will not let the people in Fort Nelson know. Is that an act of panic?

[ Page 1122 ]

Is that the act of cowardice? No, it's not the act of cowardice; it's the act of absolute panic in time of stress.

He is not ' emotionally capable of dealing with the problems in this province. He is not equipped to deal with the kind of group he put together in order to gain power. It's enough that a Premier has to face the problems that any Premier has to face in this province, but to have to face the problems internally within his own cabinet, within his own caucus and within his own party is too much for any man. A Socred back bench and a Liberal cabinet is something that no Premier can deal with.

But at least the Premier should be able to say to the people of this province: "I am going to quit dealing with the problems of this province in a panic-stricken way. I am going to quit running away from problems as they come up. And I'm going to, for once, settle down in my office and make some decisions with a certain amount of coolness." The Premier has to get his own house in order within that cabinet. He has to get his own house in order within that party and within that caucus or he will never be able to make decisions on behalf of the people of this province that are not based on panic.

If you see the record of that Premier you see him making decisions and then, when there's a little bit of heat from the press, reversing those decisions. You see that Premier making decisions and when there's a little bit of heat from any segment of the population, reversing those decisions, then reversing it back, and then reversing it and then flipping and then flopping, as with the coal policy that doesn't exist for this province. That's a perfect example of a Premier in panic.

Mr. Chairman, we have in this province a Premier who has shown by example that he is not fit to lead. We have a Premier in this province who should do one final act that would be decisive and that would be responsible: he should call an election in this province and put the people of this province back on the road to prosperity. Even the act of calling an election, that Premier will not make.

As odd as it may seem, there is one poll in this province that has always been accurate, and that is the hamburger poll. I don't know whether it says something for the hamburgers or the people of this province or the politicians in this province, but it has been, over the years, the most accurate poll. That poll today shows the Premier at 28 points and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) at 56. Could that be the reason for panic? The Premier, if he has panicked about that, should call the election so that either he or the Leader of the Opposition could get on with governing, because he is a panic Premier for a number of reasons. Probably one of them is -we have it on pretty good information - that the hamburger poll is pretty accurate because it matches one that the Premier just had taken himself. Could that be the reason? It matches the one the Premier had taken, and probably at taxpayers' expense.

As a matter of fact I believe with all my heart that the Premier had a political poll taken at the taxpayers' expense, and he could have saved it and bought himself a hamburger. But, in effect, what his poll showed him is that he's so far behind in the hamburger poll that his poll said he's a hot dog. No relish, no mustard - just a plain hot dog that is in a panic-stricken state, and that will not make decisions while in office and will not make a decision as to whether the people in this province may have a choice of putting someone else in that office. He deals in hamburgers, he deals in hot dogs, but really that Premier should buy exclusively from Chicken on the Run.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know if I'm supposed to answer that junk.

MR. LAUK: Don't get petulant, just resign!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we've heard speeches that have reached the usual standards from the members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who have not disappointed me in the content, style and brilliance of their speeches. They have remained consistent in this Legislature, and I compliment them for not deviating from the course and the standards that they set for themselves since I have witnessed them in this chamber. I believe that the public, reading Hansard and viewing the tremendous contribution that they make to British Columbia life with their statements, and the tremendous positive suggestions they make for improving and working in this province and this country will certainly be helped to make a personal decision on them as individuals and as worthy public representatives. I compliment them on maintaining their usual standards - standards set by their leader for content and similar style.

Mr. Chairman, now to questions that were asked of a significant nature. Yesterday the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was concerned about the safety of the new trucking weight regulations, and I'd like to answer the member who was concerned and say that the com

[ Page 1123 ]

mercial. transport regulations prescribe the maximum weights that can be carried on individual axles and groups of axles within a spacing of 28 feet.

The only adjustments made in the recent amendments to these limits were to accommodate metric conversion and were less than 5 per cent in magnitude. The change referred to by the hon. member now allows these group limits to apply to all axles on a vehicle combination without any specifically stated upper limit on the total weight. No significant change has been made to the overall lengths of the vehicles and combinations, so the operating configurations will not materially change.

The regulations pursuant to the Motorvehicle Act require that all load-carrying axles be properly equipped with brakes, and the 300-to-l weight to power ratio must be met so there will be no deterioration in performance. In other words, the braking system will still be adequate and to the same standards it was before, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, and I know his concern for the danger of not having adequate braking systems on these trucks.

That was the only question that can be answered. It wasn't related to some personal political attack, Mr. Chairman, so I await more questions.

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to answer the Fort Nelson extension?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Members must be recognized by the Chair before they can speak.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says by his remarks that he expects us to make some constructive suggestions. All right, after careful consideration and going through the programme of this government and carefully analysing the content of the Premier's speeches, I have decided that the most constructive suggestion we could possibly make as a responsible opposition is to ask for his resignation.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: But we can always live in hope, you and I, Mr. Member for Vancouver South.

One of the things that the Premier did mention in one of his speeches was the tremendous help he was giving to small business in the province.

MR. LEA: Yes, helping them to move out.

MR. LAUK: Well, I don't have the access to taxpayer-paid transportation that he has, but once in a while I get out into the valley, the Fraser River, the north Island, and up north. I was at Fort Nelson a week or so ago; I was talking to motel owners up there. It's just crocodile tears that the Premier is shedding for small business. The Development Corporation of British Columbia had a programme of advancing loan to motels and hotels that particularly catered to the summertime tourist trade. These were low-cost loans, Mr. Chairman, and what happened when that Premier took office and Waldo Skillings took the portfolio of the Minister of Economic Development - Sancho Panza - over there? They cut it off. It was the back of the hand treatment to the little motel owners in the province of British Columbia. And he has the nerve to stand in this House and shed crocodile tears and tell us what a great job he and his cabinet are doing for the little motel and hotel owners in the province of British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am saddened and very, very angry as well, not for myself.... I went into a little motel in Nelson. They got a partial loan from the Development Corporation to expand their motel. Sure, they're holding on by the skin of their teeth; sure, they're a marginal ma-and-pa operation. But that's what this province is made of - little family operations, not these big-time, cigar-smoking enterprises that Sancho Panza and the First Minister are interested in. Big deals, big sellouts like the coal industry - that's all they're interested in.

It makes me ill when the Premier has the nerve to stand in this House and tell us what he is doing for small business when they cut off that loan programme to little motel operators. It was the only chance they had to get cheap money for their own expansion, and they cut it off, callously, with the back of the hand. A stroke-of-the-pen Premier, that's all he is. Boy, he can handle the little people. 'He can isolate a cabinet minister and savage him when he's helpless. He can handle the little people in this province. He can make decisions about them and cut their heads off, but when it comes to big decisions he runs and hides. It just makes me ill to think he has the nerve to stand in this House and tell us what he's doing for the small businessman in this province.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.)

For example, this shows you the attitude and the arrogance of this Premier. My colleague, the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) , was giving a list of all those jobs that were

[ Page 1124 ]

lost. He was just giving the list he had. Every member on this side has their own list. The jobs that have been lost under this administration have been reaching breakneck records, Mr. Chairman. This Premier couldn't have lost more jobs had his government spent 24 hours a day designing it as a plan.

MR. LEA: If they had planned it wouldn't have happened.

MR. LAUK: You know, there's a small operation in my riding, Mr. Chairman, called Bonar and Bemis. They make sacks and paper goods and so on. It's a small operation with about 50 employees. Do you know some of those people have been working for more than 35 years in that plant - 35 with a job? These aren't the people that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is talking about, the welfare bum . These aren't the people who work for six weeks and go out and collect UIC. They worked 35 years in that plant, and got no severance pay. I think the 35-year men get five weeks' severance, but none in comparison to their years of duty.

MR. LEA: None compared to Ozard.

MR. LAUK: Yes, someone with 90 minutes gets $4,300; someone with 35 years get six weeks.

Bonar & Bemis paper bag plant, Mr. Chairman - now what did I do about that? Well, as a responsible MLA - and the Premier has motioned over here about responsible [illegible] - I wrote a letter thinking, well, we still have chance. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and he kindly sent me a reply, but I think the only relevance of his reply was that he did refer to Bonar & Bemis in the first paragraph. The rest was a bunch of gobbledegook and absolutely no commitment to the ordinary people of that plant.

Yes, there is the "A" right there, and the thumb print. It's in peanut butter, though.

Mr. Chairman, the letter that I sent out was on March 13 and included copies of correspondence, and on March the 21 1 got a reply from Nina Grey. Nina Grey is the executive assistant to the assistant to the assistant to the executive director of the office of the Premier of the province of British Columbia, file 19-3, and she says: "On behalf of the Premier I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letters of March 13 and 14 which arrived during the Premier's absence." I'll add: in Palm Springs. "Please be assured your letters have been brought to the Premier's attention."

Well, Nina Grey must have Telexed the text of the letters down to Palm Springs if the letters were brought to his attention, but I still have not received a reply from the Premier with respect to the closure of this plant.

I called upon other things, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Premier whether he would not consider, under the circumstances of the Bonar & Bemis situation and many other situations, employment security legislation for job security in this province. These people have to have some defence against the ravages of the inept policies of this government and back-of the-hand treatment by their own employers.

I received no reply, Mr. Chairman. This is the man who sheds crocodile tears for the little people of this province; this is the man who can make great speeches at national conferences. But he hasn't got enough time to answer a letter when there is a real problem he can do something about. He hasn't got that kind of time, he hasn't got that kind of commitment nor has he got that kind of sincerity, Mr. Chairman.

I'm still waiting for a reply on those letters. The Minister of Economic Development replied and he said: "Our Vancouver office was aware of the plant closure of the Bonar & Bemis plant for some time and has had several discussions with the officials of both the Canadian paperworkers' union and the company. The principal reason for the closure...." And then he gives the company's reason, by the way, Mr. Chairman, for why it's closing. We knew that: they built a plant in Calgary to shut down their two plants in Vancouver and Winnipeg. You know why? There is no union in Calgary; you can get cheap labour in Calgary. I know that will fall on deaf ears for Waldo Skillings over there; he doesn't care.

He says: "We're working very closely with Canada Manpower to ensure that they receive as much assistance as possible." And this is a gas. Is everybody ready for the last line from Sancho Panza? "Please be assured that my ministry is doing everything possible to assist the existing secondary manufacturing industries and encourage the establishment of new industries in our province." What a sad admission of total failure. The letter said nothing and he said "...we're doing everything possible." According to the record that my colleague, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , read out, "everything possible" so far is 5,200 jobs lost - gone, gone with the wind, and in your case, Mr. Prime Minister, gone with the hot air.

All you seem to be able to do is to show up to national conferences and make grandiose statements about John. A. Macdonald and the

[ Page 1125 ]

national economic plan. The last time I heard about the national economic plan, it was Lenin who was talking about a national economic plan. And pretty soon he is going to unveil the 10-year transportation subsidy plan for the government.

Boy, this guy! You weren't elected President of the United States, I say to the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. You're not a czar; you're not the king. You're the head of a small province, so have some humility, roll up your sleeves and, do some work. There is a petition, I know, being circulated now to move the capital to Palm Springs in the hope that the Premier will address his mind to some of these problems. They are just little problem . worthy of some attention by the Prime Minister. Fifty employees may not be much in your view, Mr. Prime Minister, but they are important to us. Fifty employees, Bonar & Bemis paper bag plant - it's about one of the smallest numbers on the list, but each one of those figures represents a human being, flesh and blood, a family.

I thought that when an MLA would make an inquiry of the Premier or a cabinet minister, he'd receive better attention for the problem in his constituency than that. Is it because, Mr. Chairman, he has this grandiose delusion of grandeur about himself that he's a great national leader who is going to save the country from itself? Well, you know, when I listen to some guy making a great speech about how things should be changed, I have a look at his own homestead to see whether the fence is painted and the grass is cut. If the grass is overgrown and the fence is shabby and the roof needs shingling, then I know the guy is full of hot air. He can go to all the national conferences he likes, but if his own house is a shambles, who is going to take him seriously? If he can't do one job at home, he can't do another in the community, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LOEWEN: Who cleans out your basement?

MR. LAUK: I always enjoy the comments from the second member for Vancouver South. He should be in the cabinet. I can understand why he's very, very frustrated.

MR. LOEWEN: Does your housekeeper clean up your basement?

MR. LAUK: I didn't mean the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) . I think all 34 members of that side would have to die before he gets in the cabinet, and he would get all the business. (Laughter.) He's already nervously handling his tape measure there. There is a rumour though - and I want it confirmed -that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) secretly borrowed the member for Burnaby-Edmonds's tape measure. I want to know why. I've been seeing him trying to edge towards the Premier's chair with this tape measure in his hand. (Laughter.)

But you know, he's a fine man, this cornflakes-box minister. There are a lot of people in this province who happen to think that the member for Surrey should be the leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with the First Minister of this province, not the Hon. Minister of Human Resources. I would appreciate it if you would return to the estimates.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but because of the ambition of the member for Surrey, I thought I was dealing with his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are not, and I would appreciate it if you would return to them.

MR. LAUK: You're saying, Mr. Chairman, that it's premature? (Laughter.)

I notice a local tailor is busy designing a new jacket for the Premier. It has a steel back. I think he's going to need it with the member for Surrey circulating in this province, particularly among Social Credit members, and exposing his tremendous talents as a fine leader and a person that will take this province to greater and lower heights.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now, back to the Premier's estimates.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I have another question with respect to the debate on coal and the tremendous giveaway that's being presided over by the Marie Antoinette of coal policy, the First Minister of this province. We have one Coal Task Force report. We know that there's a second volume; it's circulated the departments. We have some of the information in the second volume; we don't have it all. I wonder if the Premier, as presiding member of the executive council, could indicate to this chamber.... I wonder if the Premier could just look at this volume here with the steam shovel on the top. That's the first volume: "Coal in British Columbia." Okay? The second volume you've got on your desk.

Can we have it? I realize that you started reading it last fall, Mr. Premier, and you should be finished it by now. I sympathize

[ Page 1126 ]

with the fact that your lips may get tired around Christmas. But in all seriousness, the second volume has a great deal of information. Now that I've got the Premier's attention, we'd like it tabled in the House. I wonder if you could table this in the House. I mean, you're not afraid to table it in the House. It wouldn't contain a lot of information about a new coal policy that this government is currently ignoring. Is that what it ... ? Oh, you see? I caught him. He's smiling there. Oh, he's cleaning his teeth.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, the second volume, I happen to think, really embarrasses this government. But that's not the reason I want it on the table. Don't get me wrong. My purpose is not to embarrass this government. I've been doing my best for two and a half years to try and keep you on the straight and narrow. I've been doing my best to try and give you ideas of new economic development policy.

MR. LOEWEN: You're an embarrassment to your own opposition.

MR. LAUK: Good Lord! The member for Burnaby Edmonds has the lowest rates in town. I understand it is a special group rate, with no holds barred.

But I would appreciate having received the technical appraisal. If we can receive the final Coal Task Force report The names of the Coal Task Force are interesting. Someone shouted over - I think it was the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , the minister of mine closures, and mine closures can be spelled in two ways there, with particular reference to that minister.... But you know, Dr. Bill Armstrong one of the most internationally famous engineers and academics. Mr. Fyles, the deputy minister of the Minister of Mines' own department.... Do you know what the Minister of Mines shouted across the floor? He said that the Coal Task Force was a bunch of NDP hacks. That's what he shouted across the floor. Where is he today? Is he taking a cold shower?

Who else? The Deputy Minister of Economic Development - maybe Sancho, Panza can confirm whether or not Sandy Peel is an NDP hack. I think the Premier should have a word with his Minister of Mines.

The Coal Task Force report was obviously prepared by independent experts and highly placed civil servants and the government should be proud to bring in that report and table it in the House. I just received in the handwriting of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that "it's free for you." I'm going to keep that and pass it on to my heirs and assigns forever.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that I asked the Premier. I think that if he could stagger to his feet and reply, I would be much obliged.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it's hard to find a question in that member's speech, but he asked about studies in the government. Studies, I'm sure, will be made available in due course by the Minister of Mines to the assembly. So I'm sure when it's finished being studied....

MR. LAUK: This session?

HON. MR. BENNETT: In due course.

Earlier the member quoted the former NDP candidate, Andrew Shuck from Fort Nelson, as phoning some secretary in Ottawa and taking that as a statement. I want to assure him that the negotiations on the Alcan pipeline have been going forth between officials and on the political level with the responsible minister, Hon. Allan MacEachen, and ministers in this government.

Quoting from a speech of the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, the Alcan highway is part of one of the components of a negotiation that's been going on for some time. In fact, the province of British Columbia was the only province to file an exception with the government of Canada before they signed an agreement with the United States of America concerning the pipeline. We're the only area that has put on the table a number of areas for negotiation, and those negotiations, I'm happy to say, are proceeding well. We're very confident of those negotiations.

MR. LAUK: You haven't mentioned the railway. You're playing games.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, statements have been made on the railway previously concerning its relationship to a transportation policy and concerning studies that are taking place, and also the negotiations. The negotiations are still taking place. The studies are still taking place. The statement of the royal commission that many decisions in the past may have been made in haste is well accepted by this government, and the studies of responsible public officials, both relating it to a transport policy that's under review, under discussion, and other events such as Alcan that are under negotiation.... All of these studies will be undertaken and I hope they will be concluded quickly and a statement

[ Page 1127 ]

made.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, the government will not be rushed or panicked into making a statement in haste, as maybe that member did when he was a minister - the member for Vancouver Centre, the former government. We will make them after due study, careful consideration. The cost that may be borne by the people of British Columbia and the value that would be there in human and economic terms - both are being taken into consideration.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Premier a very few brief questions.

I note in the most recent issue of the B.C. News .... Of course B.C. News has been discussed already, but I don't think anyone has made specific reference to what's on page 5: "Small Business To Get Much-needed Aid." It goes on to state: "Small business, individual enterprise, is the basis for a strong economy. It is creative and adaptable, able to move quickly to seize on and make the most of opportunities. This is why the government is providing incentives to enlist small business in the fight against unemployment in British Columbia." These were the remarks attributed to the Minister of Finance.

The other day I tried to get some answers out of the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , and he was unable to provide the information I wanted. I was going to ask him, Mr. Premier, about a letter from the Housing Corporation of British Columbia to a Mr. Warren Seibeck, Nicola Street, in the West End:

"Sir,

"Termination of tenancy notice...."

It gives the legal description of the property, which is better known as the B.T. Rogers heritage site, which has a coach house and the Angus garage and a number of stalls, in addition to the old Gabriola House.

He goes on to state:

"Please be advised that in view of our upcoming development plans your commercial monthly tenancy agreement for the above mentioned property will terminate on May 31,1978. Therefore you are hereby given one month's notice as required, and the effective date of this notice is April 25,1978. The notice period will expire on May 31,1978, and vacant possession is required on or before this date."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe this has been canvassed previously, and has to do with the city of Vancouver and not with this particular jurisdiction.

MR. BARNES: No, it does not, Mr. Chairman. I beg to differ with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARNES: It has to do with the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, an agency of the Crown, I believe. Maybe I'm wrong. The minister can stand up and correct me if I am. I'll carry on.

"All existing subleasing agreements are similarly terminated and accordingly we require that you give to all your subtenants notice of termination. A copy of this notice is being sent to all subtenants to allow them more time to make alternate arrangements."

Now those subtenants - who are they? They consist of a service station, a photographer, a carpenter, a picture framing establishment, a motor-cycle repair shop, an insulation company, a buy and sell, a gym supply, a moving and storage company, a shake and shingle and firewood manufacturer, and it involves some 20 people who are self-employed. Mr. Premier, I'd like to ask you who you are kidding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Kindly address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I thought I was being quite polite and being very courteous. I think of this as something to be pretty excited about. On the one hand the Premier is talking about helping the ordinary person - we've got a serious unemployment situation - and he's going to throw people out on the streets who are self-employed, who are not asking for handouts, who are trying to put their noses to the grindstone, as we would say, and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. They're going to be thrown out with 30 days' notice, businesses that are operating on their own, so that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can call them welfare bums. That's all I have to say. I wanted to ask what this government is doing for the people who are trying to help themselves. Look who's up on his feet!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is the second time this morning that these people have stood in their places and made reference to welfare bums, and made it sound as if that was a quote on my part.

MR. BARNES: Oh, and where did the phrase come from?

[ Page 1128 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I have not used that term. That term has been used by both members for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk and Mr. Barnes) and I would like them to table some documentation that will indicate this. I take objection to that term, and they're constantly using it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the objection could be made in your own speech, standing on the floor of this House at any point in time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order....

MS. BROWN: That is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman must hear the statement of the minister in order to know whether there is a new point of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I take exception to them constantly calling people welfare bums. Now when do I make that point - at the end of their speech?

MR. CHAIRMAN: At any time you wish during debate on the First Minister's estimates.

MR. BARNES: I merely pose a question. I asked the Premier if he would stand and explain to this House why the Housing Corporation of British Columbia - a people's agency working on behalf of the people, apparently providing housing within the planning schemes of the various municipalities in this province, to enhance, to better the community, to take an interest in the community and to consult with local interests, and not moving high-handed as though it was a private enterprise with no responsibilities to the public -would give notice to 20 operations without any consultation or any opportunity for any input into their future.

I've talked to one of the tenants who happens to have been operating in that place for nine years, and he had to wait until the provincial government came in to get notice. The owners before w-ere far more considerate than the so-called people's government.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'd like the Premier to stand up and explain what's going to happen to those people. What consultation has taken place? What does this government really care about the guy who is hanging on, who has a marginal operation, who has pride in what he is trying to do, who needs a little stimulation and encouragement?

Instead, he's getting the boot by an insensitive, rather autocratic body that is not considering the finer aspects of community life. Most of those people provide a service in the community. Most of the people they are providing services for live in the area. They are not people who live at some other point in the province; they are people who live in the West End.

A guy wants to get his car fixed or have a place to park, so he goes to this local garage. The price is low; the man takes an interest and pride in providing a service for those people who have been living there over the years. The Housing Corporation comes in and says: "Well, you know, you can always go down to a self-serve, because we've got plans; we're going to knock this place down and put up some middle-class housing."

Why hasn't there been any consultation with those tenants? Why hasn't there been some consideration for what's going to happen to them? Most of them are people who believed in the concept of individual enterprise, and believed in the concept of standing on their own.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you suggesting there's been no consultation?

MR. BARNES: I'm suggesting that there's been no consultation, Mr. Chairman. Can you stand up here and say that there has been? There has been no consultation. The Housing Corporation has done nothing for those people except give them notice. You had an opportunity to stand up a few days ago, Mr. Minister of Housing but you took my questions as notice when I asked what was going on. I said: "What did it cost? The Housing Corporation purchased the land. What did it cost? Who did we purchase it from? How long have we had it? What are your plans? Are you going to be in a joint venture with the owners of the property?" I got nothing. And now he's getting twitchy. We've given you every opportunity to explain what you intend to do. What are the alternatives? Now you have an opportunity to stand up.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to clarify this matter because it's only an inquiry. I'm making no accusations.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it says quite clearly in the rules of this House that that's the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A question has already been asked in the House and taken as notice. I am sure the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre knows that the minister is an

[ Page 1129 ]

hon. member and will be looking into the situation and his questions.

Our commitment to people and our concern for them are there, and this company he asks about is one that we did have some concerns about. I'm glad to see he's concerned about the former Dunhill company, bought by your colleague when you were government - a private company that constructs houses. I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has already taken that question as notice in this House and will be responding.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask some questions of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Premier, have you made your mind up yet on whether the Fort Nelson extension is to remain open or to be closed? Is that still an open matter in your mind?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have you got a number of questions?

MR. BARRETT: That's the first one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ask them all.

MR. BARRETT: No, the rest depend on the answer to that. I want to know. If you've made up your mind one way or the other, then the rest of the questions become irrelevant.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition would listen and stay in the House, we've already said the matter is being studied in a number of areas, such as the report from the royal commission, but also other areas concerning the British Columbia Railway. Also negotiations may have a bearing on this, and transportation systems or links that may be necessary to the construction of the Alcan pipeline, Mr. Chairman. Those are part of the equation and part of the complexity of the study that's taking place, and other factors are being taken into consideration by responsible public servants whose advice we seek on many issues.

I want to say again to this House: I have full confidence in the royal commission. I have said it before and I will say it again that I've confidence in the royal commission. They're continuing, and I look forward to their final report. They ve given us interim recommendations which have been studied and are under study.

I want to say further that the negotiations concerning the Alcan pipeline are very important to the province, and those are underway and have been underway since the matter first came up. In fact, British Columbia started studying aspects of the impact of this before the federal government had actually come to a conclusion concerning that as a possibility of a joint carrier of gas with the United States - that is, gas from both Canadian territory and American territory.

It's significant that the government of British Columbia was the first government to look into which proposals before the two Council tries were the most acceptable. It is well known that our early action in enlisting support from our counterparts, the governors in the affected territories of the United States, and exerting a type of pressure ultimately resulted in both the FPC in the United States and the NEB in Canada hearing those proposals. There was opposition to it being heard in the first instance because it was beyond the original deadline for proposals for this energy source.

Our discussions with the legislature of the Yukon and enlisting their support for our position that this proposal be heard was a major factor in affecting the Canadian government and the National Energy Board. As a result of the initiatives taken by the government of British Columbia there was unanimous approval of the Yukon legislature.

I've been quite aware for a long time of the importance the Alcan pipeline could have to our country as a whole. While we have gas reserves in British Columbia and there are major gas reserves in Alberta, the rest of the country does not have the benefit of reserves and are looking for a more consistent and reliable source of energy. Rather than Canada building a pipeline of its own to tap its northern energy supplies or the United States building a pipeline alone or, more expensively than that, taking liquefied gas down the coast with what hazards we are not sure, but there would be tanker traffic nevertheless, we were convinced that a pipeline acting as a land bridge to the benefit of both countries was the proper course of action. The uncertainty of tanker traffic being unacceptable to us, we were therefore pleased that this ultimate decision was made.

We looked at the impact on our northern communities and we've had discussions with the Yukon. We've also had discussions with the government of Alaska on what they went through in the construction of the Alyeska line and major pipeline construction in their area, as well as transportation systems, infrastructure, schools, hospitals and services that had to be provided. We talked particularly about

[ Page 1130 ]

transportation systems. We talked about the labour factor. All of these, as well as roads, railways and others have been discussed as part of the transportation systems available which should be used in transporting pipe for the Alcan pipeline. The decision to go to a larger dimension pipe was very significant in what transportation systems may carry. That's a decision of the government of Canada in sizing. Some discussions are being held with the companies involved. It's been difficult to get all the information on their routings, their supplies and their timetables.

As you know, the Alcan pipeline has been delayed; the timetable has been changed. All of this is in discussion with Ottawa. Both the Alcan Highway and other feeder highways and B.C. Rail could play a very important part, and they have been part of our discussions with Ottawa. We have had discussions going on both at the officials level and at the ministerial level. The minister responsible for the Alcan negotiations has been the Hon. Allan MacEachen for the government of Canada. The direct negotiations for this government are being carried out by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , who have had discussions with Mr. MacEachen. We recognize that that is where the decision will be made. It will ultimately be a political decision because the government of Canada signed the agreement with the United States, with British Columbia's exception as part of it -the only province. The government of Canada was able to make an agreement for the Yukon because the Yukon does not have provincial status and as such was being treated as an area of responsibility where the government of Canada made some commitments. Also, those commitments and guidelines in other areas have been studied by us in relation to how we are treating our negotiations. The government of Canada recognizes that. And I look forward to a successful conclusion. It may be timely now for other ministers in the federal cabinet to be involved, although it wasn't timely earlier.

Today Senator Perrault is in the precincts, and I hope that I'll have an opportunity to discuss this matter more fully with him. He's also discussing some other areas with ministers. That may help us make some successful conclusions of significance to British Columbia, and I'm hoping that today, in those discussions, we can move a little farther along toward a conclusion in those negotiations.

Yes, Fort Nelson is very much under discussion and under study in a number of ways. I've tried to make that clear a number of times, both during my estimates and outside the House. I made it clear to the people of B.C., but particularly the people of the north, in discussing with them the possibilities. I discussed the whole BCR line with a number of interested communities and citizens. BGR has been a major part of British Columbia's economy, but it also brings people in contact, and that's the human factor I mentioned earlier, which is always coupled with the economic equation. Thus, Mr. Chairman, BCR must be looked at as part of an overall transportation policy as well.

1 mentioned earlier that the government will be announcing an overall, all-encompassing transportation policy that deals with how much of transportation may be covered by rate or fare and how much will be paid by an identifiable subsidy - because you have various cases where the subsidy is not easily identified, as in the case of transit from your hydro bills. You have an identifiable subsidy to B.C. Ferries of about $45 million with an automatic cost-price rise on a per annum basis to allow the Ferry Corporation to have the management capacity in discussing routes, knowing that there is a predictable subsidy and that they don't have to wait on government whim for money - and that subsidy pays a large part of each passenger and each vehicle that uses that system.

Highways. We no longer have any toll structures in the province, toll-bridges and toll-highways, as they do in other areas. They have a number of toll-highways in Quebec, where they do not have a total subsidy on their highways and part of it is paid by tolls. I would not advocate that for British Columbia. Before anybody expresses concern, our highways, as far as I'm concerned, will continue to be totally subsidized both in construction cost and maintenance - bridges being part of those highways.

Railways. The rail line in B.C. has never had an identifiable subsidy in moving the products it carries. Such an identifiable subsidy could be part of that transportation policy. Now again, an identifiable subsidy could be available in transit, that is in moving people in urban areas. All of these will be part of an overall policy that may have great cost impact for the people of British Columbia - a cost impact which is already there, but is not seen to be there because of subsidies, although they are there as in the case of Hydro, buried in the hydro costs.

So that makes up part of our decision. That study has been going on and, in some way, some

[ Page 1131 ]

parts have been undertaken in a number of areas of government. And in my own office we have for some time been trying to rationalize the transportation systems that people use in this province, and what part government should pay over and above the part the user will pay, whether it's freight or people. So those are all part of this decision, and it would be folly then, in a rush, to not consider all of those aspects.

I know the people of the north - many of them waited many years, as I said earlier, for promises to be met there. Many of them came there originally because of the great promises of land tracts in the Peace River for veterans of the First World War. That's how my own father come out to the Peace River with his father. Nobody could survive up there in those days without transportation. That's why they understand so well. Many of them stayed for many years. But many communities and many homesteads didn't survive and the people ended up in the cities, in Edmonton and elsewhere -as in the case of my grandfather who spent some time trying to prepare a homestead. They recognized then, 1 feel, the need, and just how much transportation is important to remote communities, some of which have waited sixty odd years.

That's why the push north of roads, railroads and air transport - air transport as a more modem way of moving people, not freight - is very important. That is why our policy of supplementing and moving into areas where the federal government hasn't responded - again, into small airports - is a very important part of our transportation policy. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, have a great interest in the movement of people by air and have some understanding of this.

So all of this is going into the consideration of rail transport and particularly the Fort Nelson line. I said to the people of Fort Nelson when I was up there, as people well know, that I am confident that the studies which I had hoped would have been concluded by the time we tabled the report of the royal commission in the Legislature - within what I understood to be the statutory time, within 10 days of a session - would have been completed, but they weren't. I'm hopeful - and I told them when I was there that I was hopeful -that, at the outside, the decision could be made within six weeks, and I hope much earlier. I have asked those involved in these studies and in the negotiations to proceed with all haste, because I too know that, although they are used to waiting in the north, the people would appreciate an early answer. It's encouraging to me to see the support from the opposition for that railway which has long been controversial. I've taken note of their position. I appreciate their support for that railway.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I gleaned through all of that, including the toll policy on Quebec, that you will not be making any changes in the toll-bridge policy of Quebec. I want to thank the Premier for making that announcement on behalf of the people of Quebec. I want to assure the people of Quebec that the Premier, if he changes his mind, will notify them that he'll be changing the tolls. For all those people who get on the transit who don't know about the indirect subsidy, the indirect subsidy will be continued, but somehow we will have a study to separate the indirect study from the....

I asked the Premier not a single question about the toll-bridges in Quebec. That's not on the order paper. But I do glean through all of that - and I'd like just a simple acknowledgement of my gleaning as correct - that the government has not yet made up its mind about whether or not it will continue the Fort Nelson extension. Am I correct in saying that? okay.

The Premier has indicated that, at the outside, a definitive answer will be given within six weeks from the date he gave that six-weeks deadline to the people of Fort Nelson.

MR. LAUK: Vander Zalm for leader.

MR. BARRETT: That's in the future; I want to deal with the present. Now the Premier has used these words and perhaps, rather than having to go to Hansard, I could just roughly recall them as I made notes. At the outside, six weeks, and you hope sooner than six weeks. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay.

Now, Mr. Chairman, for people who are waiting for investments or bankers who are making decisions on mortgages or loans or anything else in the Fort Nelson area, the Premier has this morning reiterated his commitment that a definite answer would be available to them within six weeks or sooner. Two weeks will be up this Monday.

I respect the Premier's commitment on the six-week deadline. I urge and hope that those people who are working on the studies will be able to complete them sooner, as the Premier has indicated a desire that they do so, and that we would have the answer within the six weeks. It means, however, that, regardless of what the federal government's negotiations are, the province of British Columbia will make a commitment on their own - whether they

[ Page 1132 ]

get an answer out of the federal government or not - within that six-week period. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier' has added that he anticipates that the federal government's negotiations will be completed within that time frame.

The next question that comes up - what I would like to ask - is: if the federal government in their slowness does not complete their end of your negotiations, does the six-week period still hold in terms of your own studies? Obviously, as you have indicated to the people in the north and in this Legislature, your own studies are the basis of your own decision, regardless of and separate and distinct from the federal negotiation. So we're definitely getting an absolute commitment here today from the Premier when he says: "At the outside, six weeks, one way or the other."

Now if I'm wrong in saying that, I want the Premier to tell me that I'm wrong, because I want to be able to quote the Premier of this province accurately when I travel to the north or any of my colleagues travel to the north. When I'm asked a question about the Fort Nelson extension specifically, I'm now going to be able to say that, two weeks ago this Monday, the Premier made a commitment that there would be an answer to the people of Fort Nelson within six weeks. There are four weeks left. Today, this day in the Legislature, the Premier said that lie hoped that the reports he's waiting for would be completed before that six-weeks deadline. But he said: "At the outside, six weeks, " and that at that time a decision would be announced. Now am I correct in saying that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not going to be responsible for what you say. I'll be responsible for what I say. What I've said is that I anticipate that the negotiations with Ottawa and the studies will be completed within that time frame and that we can make our decision.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, by leave, I would like to introduce a group of students who have just come into the gallery.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we have in the gallery 110 students, divided between West Vancouver and Gaspe in Quebec, who are participating in the Open House Canada programme which involved the exchange of students between British Columbia and the province of Quebec. I would like the members of the committee to welcome those students.

MR. BARRETT: I, too, would like to add my welcome to the students from Quebec, and tell them that I hope they enjoy their stay in British Columbia. They need have no fear; the Premier of British Columbia is not going to change the toll-bridge policy in the province of Quebec. He announced that this morning.

Mr. Premier, you're being slippery. It is a matter of great importance beyond the life of the Social Credit administration or the New Democratic Party administration. It's the life of this province. It is of extreme importance that people be able to plan personally for their own lives. Now whether or not you want to be selective in terms of what I can quote from you, I want to be fairly accurate in what I'm saying, and I hope that what I'm saying is a reflection of what you're saying.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You can take what I've just said.

MR. BARRETT: All right. You anticipate that the federal negotiations will be over in that six-week period, and the provincial studies will be completed, and at the outside you will be giving a decision within that six-week period.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, he did. He said earlier.... Now look, I'm having enough difficulty with him.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, just a minute, now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier has said to this House that at the outside a decision will be made within six weeks. He hopes it will be sooner. Two factors are conditioning that time frame: (1) their own internal studies, and (2) the negotiations with Ottawa. The Premier anticipates that the negotiations with Ottawa will be over within that six-week time frame.

My question is to the Premier: what if the negotiations with Ottawa are not completed within that six-week frame? Would you still be giving a decision based on your internal studies in any event?

[ Page 1133 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that question is anticipatory. I anticipate, though, that they will be concluded.

MR. BARRETT: If they're not, would you give a decision in any event, or has that six-week deadline got a condition on it that hasn't been told to the people of the north? Supposing we go into a federal election within six weeks and Ottawa doesn't make any decision. Then is that six weeks down the tube?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to keep getting up, but I expect a decision and negotiations to be completed. I expect it to be completed. The Leader of the Opposition may think Ottawa is insensitive and would leave it dangling, but I expect it to be completed.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please allow the Chair to recognize the members when they stand. The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I agree this is the way the committee should function. I appreciate your guidance.

I agree that the federal government may be insensitive, but that's all the more reason for the provincial government not to be insensitive. If the Premier is logical enough to extend that touch of criticism about anticipating, hoping that the federal government won't be insensitive, I want to know whether or not the Premier will be insensitive.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Never!

MR. BARRETT: Okay. That means that no matter what Ottawa does, you will give them a definite yes or no within that six-week time frame. Yes or no. It does not matter what Ottawa does.

MR. CHAIRMAN Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wish the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't tell me how to answer questions. I made a statement directly to the people of Fort Nelson. I know he wants the opportunity to play Perry Mason. I've made my statement. The fact that he has difficulty comprehending it is his problem. I've made a statement to the people of Fort Nelson and I'm not going to continually try to help you with whether you can understand or not.

Mr. Chairman, I took the opportunity to talk to the people of Fort Nelson, hot just those who had the time or the funds to come to the buildings before that happened. I told them I would go up and talk to them directly, both outside and to as many as could get into a very crowded luncheon meeting where we had an opportunity to hold some discussion surrounding the topic. Since that time I've had communication from the people of Fort Nelson. But I made my statement very clear to them and they understand what it is. I made it again today and I expect that all of the things I've said will be completed within that time frame and that we will be able to make a decision with enough background to tell why that decision is being made.

MR. BARRETT. The Premier has said: "I expect that we will be able to make a decision within six weeks." That is not the same as saying that a decision will be given within six weeks. But if the Premier, in his gentle yawn, indicates that he interprets it that he will give the people of Fort Nelson a decision with a six-week period, that is the way I believe that they are interpreting it in Fort Nelson. That's the way I am interpreting it in this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They don't need you. I've talked to the people of Fort Nelson.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, that's fine. Then we will have an answer within six weeks. Will the Premier tell the people of Fort Nelson and the people of this province that if he cannot meet that six-week deadline, he'll call an election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Well, well, well. There is the member who ref uses to take his place in the debate but who is willing to say inane, loud things across the floor in a very rude fashion. Mr. Chairman, bring in the white jacket. It's unbelievable! Oh, my goodness! Bring the ones that tie in the back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. member, we could get back to vote 5.

MR. BARRETT: We certainly could and we will.

Mr. Chairman, I understand from what the Premier said today that the people of Fort Nelson will have a definite statement on whether or not that extension is to continue another four weeks from Monday. Okay, I understand that to be the case. If my understanding is incorrect, then my understanding is shared

[ Page 1134 ]

by all of the people in Fort Nelson.

We've seen the first signs today of some evasiveness around that six-week deadline. If the studies are complete and I anticipate that the negotiations with Ottawa are over, then we'll make an announcement. He- anticipates, he expects. The people of that town demand an answer, not anticipate and expect one. We are now beginning to see the first publicly admitted evasive use of words by the Premier around that six-week commitment. I, for one, will not be shocked if a definitive answer does not come within that six-week period. 1, for one, will not be shocked if an excuse will be found by the Premier not to tell those people. I, for one, expect that if a federal election is called, the Premier will say: "Well, now we'll have to wait for the outcome of the federal election."

MR. KING: What happens to Fort Nelson in the meantime?

MR. BARRETT: In the meantime, Fort Nelson will be told: "Oh well, I didn't anticipate a federal election. There may be a change of government in Ottawa."

Now if anybody in British Columbia has the nerve to suggest that the change in Ottawa is irrelevant to the government of British Columbia's commitment, they will be brushed off by the Premier saying: "Well, I did not anticipate or expect a federal election to interrupt the negotiations."

AN HON. MEMBER: There'll be no election.

MR. BARRETT: Have you got connections back there? Donot give up hope, my friend. If you cannot get into the cabinet through one Bill, you might make it through another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask if you're addressing the Chair. If so, will you please relate it to vote 5?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I, for one, am very sceptical of whether or not the people of Fort Nelson will get the answer they %want within that six-week period that only has four weeks to go. I, for one, believe that the negotiations that are going on with Ottawa did not have as a central feature the concern about the recommendation from the royal commission about closing down the Fort Nelson extension. I, for one, am sceptical enough to believe that the Fort Nelson extension was only thrown in as an afterthought in the existing negotiations between the province of British Columbia and the federal government.

But I'll leave that sit where it is with a reminder to the people of this province that on page 75 of the report of the royal commission they were told why they did it in haste. This report has been prepared in a period of less than three weeks in order to respond promptly to a series of important developments relating to the Fort Nelson extension, which culminated with the destruction last month of a sawmill of the principal shipper of the line. That sawmill has been rebuilt. The commitment was made by the owner of that sawmill, a principal factor in industrial development of that community and an employer in that town. He had faith that the line was going to be continued. The royal commission had an instruction that they must get the report in immediately, because a decision had to be made. Those decisions were made by the major employer and by the royal commission. The report was delivered, and then it was kept secret for 90 days. I tell you this: the only reason this report saw the light of day is the fact that it was required by statute to be tabled in this House 15 days after the House sat.

The Premier of this province claims to be concerned about business. Approximately $4 million of a man's lifetime and his commitment to that northern pioneering development spirit was based on the reopening of that sawmill in Fort Nelson. The Premier today indicates that perhaps, maybe, if this happens.... I anticipate; I put the challenge very bluntly to the Premier, and I want the people of this province to note when that challenge was given. Ultimately the buck stops at the Premier's desk. He can have all the input, the information, the assistance, the studies and the advice that any human being can possibly get, but ultimately the decision such as this decision with the Fort Nelson extension rests at the Premier's desk.

The Premier's fond of running away from problems. The Premier is fond of saying: "If this happens, if that happens." But the Premier has indicated that within a six-week period that decision will be made. My challenge, very calmly, to the Premier is: if he doesn't put up within that six weeks, I challenge him to call an election on that issue.

My guess, and I know it will be recorded forever in print, is that that decision will not be made within six weeks. That's my guess. My guess is that the Premier will say: "Well, I anticipated negotiations would be over with Ottawa. They're not. We're in an election, so we're not going to make the decision." That's my guess. My guess is that the people of Fort Nelson will be left dangling for months and

[ Page 1135 ]

months and months while the Premier hopes the problem will go away.

But the Premier has another Embarrassing problem. What about the royal commission you created, through you, Mr. Chairman? You created that royal commission. You said at the outset in creating that royal commission that you wanted to bring something new to political decisions. The Premier said that he wanted the royal commission to take the decisions of the railway outside of politics. That's what he said, and now that the Premier has got a recommendation from the royal commission he announces: "Well, we need new input. We need new direction and new negotiations." Why don't you save the taxpayers of this province a lot of money and just close down the royal commission?

The royal commission was set up in the first place to avoid any debate in this House about the MEL Paving case and the out-of-court settlement and that mess that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) got you into. The royal commission was used as a cover and I can remember the hours and hours of debate in this House trying to get the Premier of this province to commit the royal commission to examine the MEL Paving case and we never got that clear-cut answer. He said: "Oh, everything, everything, yes." They still haven't examined the MEL Paving payoff and I don't think they ever will examine the MEL Paving payoff. But no one anticipated that the royal commission would take the Premier's advice to act that independently, and they have done so, and they've come up with an independent decision. That is to close the Fort Nelson extension and that has become a political embarrassment to the Premier. He is embarrassed by the recommendations.

MR. LEA: He doesn't know where to run.

MR. BARRETT: Not only does he not know where to run, but he made a terrible error; he gave himself a time limit. But we're getting the first signs of the day that he's trying to get out of it. "If the studies are finished." I'I anticipate the federal government negotiations to be over." He has now given two openings to start back-pedaling, and if that decision doesn't come within six weeks, I can just see him stopping in mid step of the back-pedal, saying: "Oh, it's Ottawa's fault, " or: "Oh, my bureaucrats haven't finished the studies yet."

Very interesting, what we've seen today on a nice, quiet Friday afternoon, just before the Premier goes off to a nice, quiet weekend with his nice, quiet cabinet, and his nice, quiet backbenchers, and the nice, quiet Whip, who gets his questions answered by the Premier in detail.

All right, we'll leave the railroad and we'll wait our four weeks, because we'll still be in the Premier's estimates probably, in any event, and we'll wait to see what those answers are.

I want to ask the Premier a couple of other questions on a new subject. I'd like to ask the Premier if he thinks at this point that the investment in the Bank of B.C. shares by the previous Social Credit administration was a good idea for a government. I'd like to ask the Premier if he thinks that the investment by our administration in the B.C. Telephone shares was a good investment. I'd like to ask the Premier if he intends to file with the House the report that has been kept secret in his office since February 1976, prepared for him by a committee related to the Financial Institutions Act of this province. Three questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to add Swan Valley to the list?

MR. BARRETT: Swan Valley? Why did you kill Swan Valley when it was undercapitalized? I'll add a couple more questions. Will the Premier inform the House how much we purchased Panco Poultry for, and how much it's worth today?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order? Please continue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I did that little knee bend just to see what the plan was. Do you know what the plan is? George is to be the foil today. Yesterday it was to be the second member for Vancouver South, who hoped by now he would be in the cabinet, but I just ruined his chance again by mentioning that I support him for a cabinet post. Whsssht, you're down!

Mr. Chairman, I don't want the member for Dewdney to get up and defend the Premier. The Premier is in enough trouble already. The Premier doesn't know whether or not there is a Sasquatch but he'll let you know in six weeks when the studies are finished.

I asked some questions of the Premier and I would appreciate those answers from the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to comment on stock purchases or whether they are good or bad is a decision to be made at the time. But as I said in this House, this government is not going to use the people's money to play the stock market. So we'll leave that income in their hands and let them play the stock

[ Page 1136 ]

market. That will be their choice. We're not going to use the people's money to play the stock market and we took that measure out of the Revenue Act so that no Minister of Finance can do that. The people don't want the Minister of Finance of any government gambling with their money, that's all. They made that decision.

Now the Leader of the Opposition was just saying, if I can quote him correctly, in referring to the proposed decision on that Fort Nelson railway: "I guess that decision will not be made." Well, if that guess is as bad as his other guesses, then he's in bad shape. Remember When he guessed on a budget when he was Minister of Finance? Do you remember that? He guessed at the figures on revenue and couldn't achieve them.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out by $400 million.

MR. BARRETT: A $214 million overrun.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And they were $400 million out. Do you remember? They were sitting around, preparing that budget and they told them that those revenues couldn't be achieved. He said: "We'll just up the figures; we'll just guess at the figures. We'll boost the figures to make them balance with their outstanding furniture." That's what he said. He said he guessed.

MR. BARRETT: Biggest overrun in the history of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was the first guess he made, one of the first guesses that became public, Mr. Chairman. Do you remember that? Isn't that a foolish way to plan a government budget when there isn't enough revenue to cover all the money your ministers are going to spend, to say: "Put up the expenditures. I guess we'll get more from forestry, I guess we'll get more from this, I'll guess we'll get more from that." They're still chuckling about it, Mr. Chairman. But the people of B.C. cried when they saw what he did and the money he lost. And he guessed at Swan Valley and he guessed at a number of things. I guess we'll put this guess with his usual guess, and that'll end that guess, Mr. Chairman.

No, this government has no intention of playing the stock market. We've said that. We've looked into a number of areas where government responsibility lies. There is a difference in philosophy between that government and this government as to where government's role is. Ours is that government is not going to move into areas where people have the right and the opportunity to make their own investments and start their own businesses. We have already announced that.

I've asked the Leader of the Opposition and his party, with their proven record of takeovers and taking over companies from the private sector, to now or before the next election prepare his list of those industries and those companies which they intend to take over. And then when we get a chance to go to the electorate, they can make a choice. Those people who are in those companies may say: "Well, they're going to take me over. Maybe I want to sell out, because if they get in I may wan't to get out." So they can make a choice I asked him. That's his philosophy, I agree it's theirs; it's not ours. And I'd like them to once and for all publish a list of all the companies and all the towns and all the places in British Columbia that they're going to take over. Let the people know.

You see, in 1972, Mr. Chairman, they didn't publish that list. They sort of snuck around and said: "Don't be afraid of us." They didn't start taking over companies until after they got elected. But now we know by their performance, we know very well that they'll publish that list because it's a major part of their philosophy. And we know the areas into which they're going to intrude in what we believe is the private sector - individuals, little people. So they can do it, but we're not going to play the stock market with the people's money. We've said that and we have taken those opportunities out of legislation. We've done that. So we've shown clearly our intent by taking the right of the office of the Minister of Finance to do that.

Now the Leader of the Opposition can publish his list today, tomorrow or the next day - the list of companies you're going to take over and the areas you're going to move into. We know the forest area is one, so all the companies in the forest industry know that is one area in which you're going to take over companies. You've already done that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the mines.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We know that chicken picking plants are another area - so packaging, processing and agriculture is another area. The people in the agriculture industry know that's a general area that you are going to move into and take over companies.

And there are other areas that may not be

[ Page 1137 ]

clearly identified in the people's minds and in which they would want to have this information in order to make a decision. I would hope you would be able to give them that. It's not necessary today. Just do it sometime before we go to the people. That's my answer to the Leader of the Opposition's guesses. His guesses are just as good as all the guesses he's ever made before. There are no reports in the Premier's office.

MR. BARRETT: About what?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said a report commissioned by the Premier was in the Premier's office. There is no report commissioned by the Premier. The member is incorrect. I don't know who told him. It was just like when the member for Vancouver Centre said yesterday that there were secret files in my office. I invited him down to look through every drawer in my office. He wouldn't go; he went somewhere else. I'll invite the Leader of the Opposition to go down to my office and look for the report right now. Away you go! They'll let you in; I'm sure they are listening. I know they took away your key in December, 1975, but we'll let you in the front door for a while. We'll let you in now - just come during working hours, that's anywhere up to midnight. Mr. Chairman, that's in response to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am greatly amused by the Premier's defence of some embarrassing questions. I just asked you, Mr. Premier, if you thought that the Bank of B.C. shares purchased by the previous Social Credit government had turned out to be a good investment. He never did answer that. And you still haven't sold those shares off.

I asked the Premier of this province whether or not the B.C. Telephone share purchase was a good purchase. You didn't answer that, and you still haven't sold those off. I'll tell you, any free enterpriser can make a better case for purchasing B.C. Telephone shares, because it's a monopoly that has its clutches in the home of every person in this province, whereas the Bank of B.C. is a competitive enterprise with other banks. If you believe in free enterprise, why is it that the government of British Columbia has shares in only one bank? That may lead other people to believe that you give favouritism to that bank. If you're a free enterpriser and you believe that the government has no place in the marketplace, why haven't you sold off those shares in the Bank of B.C.?

I'll tell you who understands that. The Conservative leader (Mr. Stephens) understands it. He's a free-enterpriser.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you tell me how you can justify with your jingoism and your rhetoric why your previous administration bought shares in the Bank of B.C., why you espouse that you don't believe in owning those shares, and why you haven't sold those shares back to the private sector.

In the case of the B.C. Telephone Company, if you don't like the telephone you've got you can't go to another company. You can change the colour of the phone, you can change, perhaps, the number from being listed or unlisted, but there is no free enterprise in the telephone business. It is a private monopoly and the only way for the people of this province to have an opportunity to at least have a voice in that communications system is to be a part shareholder and have someone on that board of directors who speaks for British Columbia and not for Ma Bell in New York.

I tell you that a free enterprise government would not disagree with an option for the people to have a voice on that board.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's naive.

MR. BARRETT: That's naive? Baloney it's naive, my friend. Baloney's unparliamentary so call me to order.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province has not answered the questions. Are those good investments? Why hasn't this government sold of fits shares in the Bank of B.C. , if it doesn't believe in those kinds of investments?

Now the Premier talks about the question of giving us a list. I want it understood that the only expropriation of businesses that took place in this province took place under a so-called free enterprise government, a Social Credit administration, that seized the B.C. Electric.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely right!

MR. KEMPF: What do you call Plateau Mills? A $3 million difference.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm glad that my good friend, in the parliamentary sense, from Omineca has reminded me about Plateau Mills. There sits the Premier of this province, who on Monday night this week said: "I'm going to bring in Mr. Martens' quotes. It's all over British Columbia. I'll bring it in here. I'll

[ Page 1138 ]

read it to you." The next day he didn't show up with it, the day after he didn't show up with it, and the day after that he didn't show up with it. He still hasn't shown up with it.

The member for Omineca tries to help the Premier and all he does is get him more in the jam and the glue. You should be quiet up there. I want to tell the member for Omineca, the next time you go out talking to people, make sure there isn't a tape recorder around.

Mr. Chairman, I'm being rudely interrupted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's 12:52; we have eight minutes left in this week's sitting.

MR. KING: Is that railroad or airline time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's metric time.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the score or is that the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sponsored by Imperial Oil or Gillette?

MR. BARRETT: I want to deal with the report that the Premier says isn't in his office. Since the Premier wants to be absolutely correct, let me ask the Premier this question.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Would you get some order in the House? Could we have some order in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a call for order. Order, please! For the last seven minutes, could we please have order?

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Respect the Chair, Mr. Premier.

MR. BARRETT: I'm just waiting for order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your application and the stern measure of those rules.

The Premier of this province has said that there is no secret report in his office. Okay, that's fine. I asked the Premier if his government received the report from the committee working with the representatives of the B.C. Central Credit Union in February, 1976, or in the first three months or six months of 1976, related to the financial institutions legislation passed in this House, and if his government received the report, will he be prepared to table it on behalf of his government in this House. It may not be in your office, you may not have received it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said it was.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I may be incorrect. I accept your word. It's not in your office, but you acknowledge that it exists by saying it's not in your office. You just did that. Okay, I confess to the whole world that I was wrong when I said the report was in the Premier's office. I hope that I'm not struck down for making that confession. Having made that confession, I now ask the Premier of this province: Will he bring in the report kept secret by his government all these months and hand it to his government? Will you bring that report in?

I'm not through yet. I have a list of other questions.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Would you please close the door, Mr. Attendant, a terrible draught came in. Oh, my goodness! Mr. Chairman, would you please call the House to order? There is a distinct disturbance of hot air emanating from a direction close to the lady minister, the Provincial Secretary (Hon Mrs. McCarthy) , and I do not want her to be blamed for that particular behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please relate this to vote 5, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, this anxiety is too much. I move the committee rise, report progress and and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.