[ Page 767 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reappointment of Mckim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 767

Sabotage at Riverview Hospital. Mr. Reynolds –– 768

Pornographic filmmaking in Victoria. Ms. Brown –– 768

Privatization of provincial campsites. Mr. Mitchell –– 768

Human rights. Mr. Gabelmann –– 769

Export of power to U.S. Mr. Lauk –– 769

Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions

Motion 2 (Hon. A. Fraser)

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 770

Mr. Hanson –– 772

Mr. Michael –– 774

Mr. Lauk –– 777

Mr. Segarty –– 781

Mr. Rose –– 786

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 789

Hon. A. Fraser –– 790

Division –– 791

Appendix –– 791

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like all hon. members to bid a special welcome to two visitors to what we consider the best part of Canada and the Pacific Northwest: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph J. Schipp of New South Wales, Australia. Mr. Schipp was elected to the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in 1975, and is opposition spokesman on local government and lands. I'd like all members to bid them a very cordial welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I introduce to this House members of the Social Credit Party, so when I do, it is a moment of great occasion. Today I would like the House to welcome the unsuccessful nominee for a Social Credit nomination in the great Vancouver–Point Grey riding. Had she been successful, things would've been different here. I would like the House to welcome someone who still uses the ferry as she does her community work: Diane Hartwick.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have some distinguished visitors: first of all, Mayor Gordon Feyer from the community of Masset on the lovely Queen Charlotte Islands; we have as well Hon. Jim Garner from the great province of Saskatchewan, Minister of Highways and Transportation, and his executive assistant, Ms. Nicholas. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. HOWARD: We all in this chamber know how valuable and helpful constituency secretaries are. We have the pleasure today of having a constituency secretary visit us from Terrace, Mrs. Norma Randle, and her husband Croft Randle. I'd like the House to give them an especially appreciative welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: I wouldn't want the Leader of the Opposition to be accused of being against motherhood. I have a guest in the members' gallery, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Nan Hartwick, the mother of Diane Hartwick. I wish the members would make her welcome. Nan's son Warren is also in the gallery, and I'd like you to make him welcome. Just to let the Leader of the Opposition know, it was the election before that Diane ran in; this election she helped me and got me elected and did a very good job.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today are eight Scouts and three leaders from the 1st Dallas-Kamloops troop, who are attending the Sooke jamboree. They are led by their troop Scouter Mr. Ric Laidlaw and troop leaders Fran Laidlaw and Margaret Antenbring, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mrs. Anne Chauvel and party from Port Coquitlam. She's a longtime hard worker in my constituency organization — for the best party in my riding.

HON. MRS, McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a very good community worker from the city of Vancouver. He has been elected to city council and the school board, and served both bodies extremely well. I would like the House to welcome a professor of mathematics from the University of British Columbia, Nathan Divinsky.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: I have a number of guests to introduce today. The first guest that I would like to introduce is one whom I'm sure all of us on each side of the House can heartily welcome: a Social Credit organizer and the mayor of the community of Masset on the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Gordon Feyer. Secondly, some young friends of mine are here: from the city of Victoria, Chris Dorsey; and from Kamloops, Candice Digeso and Ron Lepin. I would ask the House to make all of these people welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: I would like to introduce to the House today three people sitting in the gallery. The first is the most attractive girl in the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke, my wife Dilys. With her are two U.S. citizens who are spending some time in the beautiful city off Victoria, and spending those valuable U.S. tourist dollars: Paul and Nellie Skidmore from Mt. Vernon, Illinois.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Would the members please welcome the Hon. Dan Lang, the minister responsible for mines in the Yukon Territories, who is with us today.

Oral Questions

REAPPOINTMENT OF McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if McKim, the notorious advertising agency, has been reappointed recently to the government service as agent of record for all government service.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, I'd like to take issue with the first statement, the word "notorious." It might be notorious in your own narrow view, but not in the broad concept. I want to say that that matter is a matter that would have to be investigated. I can't say at this time. I'll have to examine it to see whether contractual arrangements have been established with McKim Advertising.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Attorney-General. In view of what we've just heard, will you please call the police on this matter?

HON. MR. SMITH: Whether in view of what I've just heard or in view of anything else, I've said in the House many times that the matter of the auditor-general's report is being investigated by an official — not a political person but an official in my ministry; not by a partisan person — and that the resources of the criminal justice system will be totally utilized as the facts and circumstances point to. That will be done. Day after day and week after week the question keeps being asked. There is no tardiness or slowness to investigate this matter at all, just an unwillingness to build it into a matter such as the gentlemen opposite wish to build it into, until the facts warrant a further phase of the investigation.

[ Page 768 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the minister's attention that this is day 23. The shredders can be working for 23 days. It's not good enough. Will the minister rethink this question?

SABOTAGE AT RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

MR. REYNOLDS: My question is for the Attorney-General also, Mr. Speaker. This morning's Province reports that $100,000 damage has been done to the laundry which serves the Riverview Hospital for the mentally disabled, and the supply and services administrator, Mr. Don Thomson, is reported as saying: "It was deliberately set up; it was no accident; those hoses were pulled out of the racks and turned on. They have fairly heavy valves." He is also reported to have said that none of the 65 unionized laundry workers showed up for work in the morning. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate this absolutely disgusting and contemptible assault on the mentally handicapped, with a view to ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice and that appropriate criminal charges are laid?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound for his question, and the answer is yes, I've asked for a report on....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Call the police.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I guess the gentleman opposite would like the police brought into every occurrence.

MR. BARRETT: No, just the things you pick.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have asked for a report on the damage at Riverview. I will bring the information to the member, and the answer back to the House. I thank the member for the question.

MR. REYNOLDS: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting how the NDP like to put businessmen in jail, but don't like it when we ask questions about union leaders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Name names!

MR. REYNOLDS: You're just a bunch of gutless hypocrites.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Point of order.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before I entertain the point of order, I am asking for the member to withdraw the remark. I must ask that member to withdraw that remark made in this chamber.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I can't withdraw it. It's the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, failure to withdraw the remark leaves me with no alternative. I ask the member for the final time to withdraw the remark made in this chamber. Will the member so withdraw?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member at this time to leave the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

PORNOGRAPHIC FILMMAKING IN VICTORIA

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Attorney-General. It has to do with a report that pornographic films are being made in the city of Victoria. Under section 159 of the Criminal Code, it says: "Everyone commits an offence who makes, prints or publishes any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph or any other thing whatsoever." In view of this, has the Attorney-General decided to investigate the matter of making a pornographic film in Victoria?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, if I had a few more details in that question I might be able to give a more definitive answer. But honestly, Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no idea what the member is specifically talking about. She may be talking about a press report of the manufacture of a film, but if she would bring me the information on the allegation I will certainly have it looked into. I'm not aware of what she's specifically referring to.

MS. BROWN: The police were asked about this report. They indicated that they have in fact opened a file. However, they are not prepared to do anything about it until the film is in distribution. Under the Criminal Code the very making of the film is an offence. That's what I'm asking the minister. Has he contacted the police to look at their files? Has he instructed them to proceed against this particular company? Is there any investigation at all going on through his own department as to this film which is now being made in Victoria?

HON. MR. SMITH: All I can do is to take the question as notice and give a report back.

MS. BROWN: When the minister takes that question as notice, I wonder if he would also investigate the person who is putting up the funding for this particular film, to see whether there is any profit being made on the exploitation of women through this act.

PRIVATIZATION OF CAMPSITES

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Yesterday the minister stated that the government has been open and upfront about the privatization of facilities in provincial parks. I'd also like to say that I like to be upfront too. Since his statement I have received a number of phone calls, and because of that I would like to ask: can the minister assure the House that the government has decided not to privatize any of the public campsites within the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

[ Page 769 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Could I have a clarification, Mr. Speaker? Is the answer no, they will not or do not intend to privatize campsites, or is the answer that he will not give his assurance to the House and to the people of B.C. that they will or may privatize the campsites in the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My answer was to the question the member asked, which was, I believe: can the minister assure the House that there is no intent of any more privatization? And I said no.

HUMAN RIGHTS

MR. GABELMANN: Can the Minister of Labour cite any occasion on which he or any authorized spokesperson for the Social Credit Party revealed the government's plans to destroy the apparatus of human rights administration and gut the Human Rights Code during or before the 1983 election campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: Part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not sure I understand the question, but if it is whether I have had any advice....

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what the question is.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I don't.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll put it in different words. Can the minister tell us on what occasion or occasions the public was advised prior to May 5, 1983, that the Human Rights Code and administration would be gutted? What days and by whom?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, first of all, there is no gutting of the human rights programs in this province. As I've said before, we will have the strongest human rights legislation in Canada once this new program is put in place. Secondly, I'm sorry, perhaps it's just that I'm not listening that carefully or that the member isn't explaining himself, but I don't understand the question at all.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm attempting to determine the basis on which the government feels it has a mandate to have taken the actions it has taken in respect of human rights in this province. What is the basis of that mandate? When were those promises made before May 5?

[2:30]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There were no promises made before May 5 — not by me or by any authorized member of my government that I'm aware of. The first part of the question is much more easily understandable — now. The member asked, in effect, why we've taken the action we've taken. Since becoming the minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission about a year ago I've done an exhaustive review of the operation of both the commission and the human rights branch, as I have with every other operation under the control of the Ministry of Labour, and I came to the conclusion, as I've said publicly on a number of occasions, that the system was not working, that justice wasn't being served, that justice delayed was justice denied, and that a totally new system was necessary in order that we could move in a very meaningful way towards the day when we wouldn't have to worry about discrimination in this province.

EXPORT OF POWER TO U.S.

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mr. Speaker. Sometime in the last few weeks the minister has, I believe, indicated that he may abandon long-standing provincial policy that spans several administrations and allow B.C. Hydro to export power to the United States under long-term contract. In view of the fact that such contracts could not be easily broken and that long-term contracts would thus be a permanent alienation of that renewable energy resource, has the government decided before making that policy change final to have a public hearing to receive submissions and information as to the long-term effect of such permanent alienation?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's very early on in the game even to consider such matters. Therefore the answer to your question is no.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply, and on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), I adjourn debate until the next sitting after today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 30

NAYS — 18

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would call Motion 1 standing in my name on the order paper, and adjourn debate until the next sitting after today.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 770 ]

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 18

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would call Motion 2 standing on the order paper in the name of my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser).

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SEGARTY: It is my privilege to introduce to you Doug McDonald from Grasmere Industries, Grasmere, British Columbia. He's in your gallery today and I would like the House to welcome him.

[2:45]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, before the debate adjourned prior to the morning break I was making the point about the British Columbia Railway and how it will be affected by changes to the Crow rate, but before I get into my further deliberations and the couple of more points I'd like to make, I'd like to apologize to the people in the gallery for the little games which are being played by the leaderless opposition wasting the taxpayers' time and money. This is just an indication of what normally goes on in the Legislature.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister, while you were momentarily distracted on business of the House, I'm sure, was reflecting upon a past vote — as a matter of fact, two past votes — and reflecting upon my right under standing orders to call for divisions. Those remarks are totally out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when we're discussing a motion before us we are limited to certain debate, and reflecting on a vote, as pointed out by the member, certainly is not appropriate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw my remarks about the actions of the little leaderless group opposite and just let the gallery see. Their actions, I guess, speak for themselves, so I'll withdraw because I certainly wouldn't want, in any way, to take away the rights of the second member for Vancouver Centre — a member of this Legislature — to play his silly little games.

I was very interested in watching the actions this morning of the socialists opposite in standing in this Legislature and saying that they were against the Crow rate because they think it's going to hurt the farmers. The truth of the matter is that if there are not vast sums of money spent on the western Canada transportation system, it will be not only the farmers in British Columbia who will suffer but the farmers of all western Canada. So as usual, because the socialists opposite are in bed with all the union leaders, and the union leaders really don't cotton to the work with the agricultural community, I suppose they're taking the stand as some little sop to try and say they're supporting the agricultural community here in British Columbia.

But again, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that the Crow rate affects more than the grain farmer. I want to stand here this afternoon and support the hog producer for a better transportation system and fairer rates. I want to speak on behalf of the cattle producers in western Canada, in the Okanagan Valley, in the Peace River area and all over British Columbia, because when I support changes in the Crow rate I speak for those other commodity producers in our agricultural community who have been subject to higher freight rates because of the ancient Crow rate and the special rate given to the wheat farmers in western Canada. I want to speak to the poultry producers....

MR. MITCHELL: Talk about the land grant, too.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk to you about the land grant in just a moment, my friend. I'll talk to you about anything you wish to talk about in this Legislature. I'll prove just how right this little government is and why we're government and how wrong you are and why you're in opposition. I'd be happy to talk about anything you want to talk about, my friend.

There are a number of other commodity producers in our agricultural community who have been suffering, not having the same freight rates as the grain producers. What the changes to this Crow rate will do is put all agricultural producers on an even economic footing.

We used to bring pork sides from Red Deer, Alberta, down to Fletcher's in the lower mainland here, process them and ship them into the overseas market. They didn't have any special ancient Crow rate; they used a trucking system. We all paid for it. So the changes to the Crow rate are going to put all agricultural commodity producers on an even footing.

What bothers me about the Crow debate, which has been taking place now for some eight years, is the fact that what should be a commonsense economic decision has become a political football. As a long-time Canadian, it bothers me that politicians would use something that is so obvious, so natural and something that indeed has to be changed. That they would use that commonsense decision.... By the way, that commonsense decision is supported by a large number of grain producers in the western provinces. It's supported by a large number of ones whom I have personally talked to.

I'll tell you, my friends, I have talked to politicians who have told me confidentially: "Oh, we know the Crow rate has got to go, but we don't dare support it." That's not being a

[ Page 771 ]

good Canadian, and that's a disgrace to being a politician. I'll tell you, that is why this government made a decision in 1976 that the Crow rate must go and has stood firmly and solidly behind that decision. That is why this little member here from the South Peace area, one of the great grain producing areas in the world, opposed by the farmers' union, stood solidly during the election campaign in the heat of the battle and said: "I'm a Canadian. The Crow rate must go in spite of all opposition." That's the way politicians should act. That's the way this government acts: make the decision and follow through because it's good, not get on a little short-term political bandwagon.

I guess when you're a member of a party — like the socialists are — that is declining in popularity from 26 to 19 to 16, and going down every day, you'll hitch your little hat on any little star to try....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's very interesting for me to listen to those leaderless socialists over there. I listened with a great deal of interest during the election campaign when that lame-duck leader was down in the southeast part of the province. He was talking to the coal producers down there and telling them what a bad bunch the Social Credit government was because we were opening up a new transportation system and new markets to the world and putting together new.... And he said: " Oh, that Social Credit government are going to kill you southeast producers." He didn't seem to realize that without some changes in the Crow rate the transportation system that serves those southeast coal producers will not be able to get their coal to market. The system is overloaded now. As a matter of fact, mining companies have come to me during the last two or three years and said: "Look, we would like to put a new mine together. We know we can sell the coal. We would like to put the capital investment in the mine. We would like to hire the people, make the jobs, but we can't do it because we've gone to the Canadian Pacific Railway and they've said that they will not be able to accommodate our additional shipments." Without changes in the Crow rate, that is what will happen. So I fail to see how the socialists opposite can be against the changes to the Crow rate. But they're being their typical selves, because they didn't come up with an alternative.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, typical old socialists. Just be against everything. Never come up with a viable alternative. Never come up with another proposal. Never say how it could or should be done. Just negative harping, carping critics. That's all they are.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Before closing, I want to make a couple of points with regard to the British Columbia Railway and how it will be affected by the Crow rate. The act as it is written gives no recognition to the role played by the British Columbia Railway in supporting the agricultural industry of northeastern British Columbia. I think that is wrong. I think there should be some accommodation, and before I sit down I will explain how this could be done.

I outlined this morning at some length the value of the great British Columbia Railway and how it could play a major role in moving the products of both northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta into those new facilities presently being built at Prince Rupert. I also want to remind you that the B.C. Railway can also accommodate the movement of grain from other parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan through the Prince George exchange, and down on the B.C. Railway to the elevators on the North Shore. As you know, I'm very proud of that great little British Columbia Railway, owned by the people of British Columbia, and run by an independent board of directors, and making a profit. But the railway was told, and people said.... Even the Canadian National didn't think we could accommodate those unit trains. But when the bridge was knocked out over the Second Narrows three years ago, I believe, the British Columbia Railway indeed did move those heavy hopper cars and unit trains from Prince George over their system, down to the elevators on the west side. They did a good job. Some 688,000 tons of grain were delivered over the British Columbia Railway line in 1978 and 1979.

So we do have the alternative to assist western farmers in getting their grain to market should there be an outage in one of the other lines, either through the Fraser Canyon or through the Rogers Pass. I just wanted to put that into the record.

I said I would outline to the House how changes could be made in the act to accommodate the British Columbia Railway. At the present time, the Minister of Transport has indicated that the railways will be required to meet performance guarantees for grain traffic. Certainly the British Columbia Railway can stand up to that scrutiny. If they would change the bill just a little to accommodate the minister in being able to deal with independent railways, then he would have the flexibility to assist the British Columbia Railway. However, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Mr. Fraser) and myself will be having further deliberations and negotiations with the Ottawa government.

I want to say that I think Jean-Luc Pepin has done a really good job in bringing this bill forward. You can say what you want, but the Minister of Transportation and Highways and myself have had a number of negotiations with Mr. Pepin over the last number of years. We negotiated with him on Roberts Bank, at Duke Point and Prince Rupert. I've told Mr. Pepin personally — and I'll say it in this Legislature today — that if he gets this through the legislature he will probably go down in history as the greatest Minister of Transport Canada's ever had. This isn't to say that I agree with Liberal policies at all, or that I'm necessarily a Liberal supporter, but I do want to say that I have a great deal of respect for Jean-Luc Pepin and what he has done in transportation for western Canada. I don't think he went as far as he could and should have gone in giving autonomy to the control of our western ports, but again, he took a subject which had been mired down, had stewed in internal and external politics, and finally put it in a form that he could sell to the House in Ottawa, and he did get it through. So I just want to say that when all the shots are being fired about the Crow rate, I'll stand publicly with Jean Luc Pepin any day, because I think he's done an excellent job.

MR. REID: Too bad he's a Liberal.

[ Page 772 ]

[3:00]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, at least as a Liberal he's come out in the face of controversy and is doing what he really feels should be done for Canada. That's a hell of a lot more than some of the Conservative members representing British Columbia are doing, including the one who represents the great Peace River–Prince George riding, who has waffled and been all over the place. That's about all I'll say on that. I don't know what he's saying in Ottawa, but I certainly know what he's saying in the local press. He's waffled all over the place. I would like him to come out and say he's in favour of changes to the Crow. I suppose he's playing a great deal of politics.

My personal feeling is that the Liberals can do enough damage to themselves; they don't need the Crow rate. I think the Crow rate has such a long-term implication on the economy of western Canada that we should all stand tall in our seats and put politics aside. If you fellows over there had a free vote, I'm sure some of you, with your conscience, would vote for changes to the Crow rate.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that my time is up. Certainly I've enjoyed being able to talk here in the Legislature about my feelings on the Crow rate: how it affects the great British Columbia Railway, how it will affect all the industries in western Canada and give jobs to the construction industry. After we get through with northeast coal, there will be a lot of them around. A lot of them will be able to move, doing the same type of work building tunnels down on the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. Those jobs will be available just as soon as we get this Crow rate and the railways start building. Those jobs are going to be finished up there very shortly. As I said in the House yesterday, we're just about to tunnel through on the last tunnel. That very excellent Canadian workforce that built those tunnels could move immediately down to start on the CPR tunnels, but they won't do it as long as the socialist opposition opposes jobs in this province and tries to get in bed with the NDP and Broadbent. The same deal on the....

Oh, I'd love to have time to debate that, Mr. Speaker, but I realize my time is up. Thank you very much.

MR. HANSON: In the stampede to embrace the federal Liberals' changes to the Crow rate, we haven't heard much from that side of the House about the incredible sellout of the Dominion coal block. That is something that is going to go down in history as one of the blackest days in British Columbia's history. I think there are many people in the gallery today and many members of this House who are not aware of the implications of the Dominion coal block. What are we talking about when we say "the Dominion coal block?" We're referring to 50,000 acres of land in the Kootenay area which contains coal deposits. These particular coal parcels were a part of the original agreement between the provincial government, the federal government and the railways. We in this House are being asked to support a resolution advocating changes to the Crow rate, which will not return this historic coal block to the ownership of British Columbia.

What is at stake in this 50,000-acre parcel that represents 10 percent of the coal of western Canada? It belonged to British Columbia. About 1897 it was transferred to the federal government. To ensure that the CPR did not get total control of coal deposits, various provisions were put on to that coal block. The historic reasons for that transfer will no longer exist once the Crow rate has changed. What is the value of that particular block of coal to British Columbia? In 1973 dollars the value was appraised at $450 billion. There are 8.6 billion short ton of low- and medium-bituminous coal in those two deposits. We are relinquishing title of $450 billion worth of coal to the federal government. This government is so inept in its negotiations with the federal government that they could not retrieve it and gain sovereignty over it. Since British Columbians are entitled to sovereignty over natural resources, that $450 billion worth of coal should be returned to British Columbia.

Fleeting reference was made to it by that minister who stood up earlier today and said that the Attorney-General had written a memo in May, saying, "Please return $450 billion of coal," and "Gee whiz, we really do hope that maybe that management and ownership will at some point and that some voice will be given to people in British Columbia." How timid!

It's larger than the downstream benefits we sold on the Columbia River — $450 billion. In one parcel of 5,000 acres, there are 110 million tonnes right on the surface — large enough for a coal-mining operation at any time on a strip-mining basis. Yet in their negotiations this cabinet was unable to make that a part of any Crowsnest change, which surely should have been done. It is an absolute tragedy.

I'd like to read into the record a little of the history of that particular contract between the railroads, the federal government and the government of the province of British Columbia. I think all citizens should pay attention to this particular transfer of ownership of a non-renewable resource. This could benefit our children and our children's children for generations to come. They are called the Dominion government coal blocks.

"The government of Canada holds the mineral and surface rights on two tracts of land in the Crowsnest Pass coalfield in the Kootenay district in British Columbia.

"These two tracts comprise parcel 73 consisting of 5,000 acres and parcel 82 of 45,000 acres for a total of 50,000 acres of coal-bearing lands. The government of Canada holds these rights under the terms of the Crows Nest Pass Act which was assented to on June 29, 1897."

The debate that is occurring in this House today is a historic debate, because we are talking about a contract that was entered into by our province, the federal government and the CPR. We know what kind of benefits the CPR accrued from that contract and how they did not live up to their contractual obligations to the people of this province. We know every day with the E&N Railway how the CPR has attempted to renege on their responsibilities there.

But again, back to the Dominion coal block.

"Historical background. In 1888 British Columbia chartered the Crows Nest and Kootenay Lake Railway Co. (subsequently named the British Columbia Southern Railway Co.) to construct a railway line from the Alberta border across British Columbia to Nelson. To promote this, British Columbia passed its Railway Subsidy Act in 1890 providing for a land grant of 20,000 acres for each mile of railway constructed."

Can you imagine? The railway got 20,000 acres for every mile that they constructed. They got the minerals under the land, they got the timber and they got all of those future

[ Page 773 ]

opportunities. It makes one wonder why they weren't able to live up to their contractual obligations to the citizens when that particular arrangement was such a generous one.

"On June 29, 1897, the Crows Nest Pass Act was assented to. Under this act the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. was required to carry certain products (including coal and grain) at the rates fixed in the agreement...."

The discussion we are having today is about changes to those rates.

"...to grant certain running rights on its rail way lines subject to control of the Governor-in-Council, and to convey to the federal government a portion up to the extent of 50,000 acres of any lands granted as a subsidy for the construction of the railway by the British Columbia government."

Now this is the Dominion coal block we are referring to, and it is an inextricable part of the arrangement we are discussing today.

"...this portion to consist of lands which in the opinion of the director of the Geological Survey of Canada were coal-bearing lands. In return the railway received a federal subsidy of $11,000 per mile" — that's for every mile constructed in addition to the 20,000 acres that they received — "but not exceeding $3,630,000 to assist in the construction of the Crowsnest Pass line from Lethbridge, Alberta to Nelson, British Columbia."

On July 30, 1897, a tripartite agreement was entered into between the companies, the federal government and the provincial government. The provincial government's role was to provide that coal land to the federal government.

"...tripartite agreement was entered into between the CPR, B.C. Southern Railway (which was fully purchased by the CPR in August 1897) and the Kootenay Coal Co. (later renamed Crowsnest Pass Coal Co.) under which British Columbia Southern Railway undertook to build the railway and to convey to the government of Canada 50,000 acres of land from the land to be received from British Columbia under the 1890 Railway Subsidy Act.

"On September 6, 1897, the CPR entered into the agreement with Canada as required...thereby assuring the subsidy of $11,000 per mile."

"On August 18, 1899, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of British Columbia, by order-in-council no. 539, granted to the British Columbia Southern Railway Co. an extensive tract of land comprising about 610,000 acres in the Kootenay district."

That's what they were awarded in terms of land.

"Conveyance of this land was effected by Crown grants 1165-109 and 1166-109 dated August 18, 1899, which reserved all minerals other than coal to British Columbia.

"These lands were examined by representatives of the federal government, and 50,000 acres of coalbearing lands were selected pursuant to the terms of the Crows Nest Pass Act. This selection was confirmed by order-in-council PC664 dated May 19, 1902, and a perimeter survey was carried out between 1902 and 1905. Title to the surface and coal rights was duly conveyed to the Crown in right of Canada from the British Columbia Southern Railway Co. under a deed dated September 14, 1905, and a certificate of indefeasible title 19-1 dated November 27, 1905, was issued to His Majesty in right of Canada in respect thereof by the district registrar of the land registry office in Nelson, B.C.

"The Crows Nest Pass Act has primarily to do with railway transport considerations, particularly as related to movement of grains. The coal lands are referred to in subclause 1(i) as follows, in which the name company means the Canadian Pacific Railway:

"That if the company or any other company with whom it shall have any arrangement on the subject shall, by constructing the said railway or any part of it as stipulated for in the said agreement, become entitled to and shall get any lands as a subsidy from the government of British Columbia which in the opinion of the director of the Geological Survey of Canada (expressed in writing) are coal-bearing lands, then the company will cause to be conveyed to the Crown, in the interest of Canada, a portion thereof to the extent of 50,000 acres, the same to be of equal value per acre as coal lands with the residue of such lands. The said 50,000 acres to be selected by the government in such fair and equitable manner as may be determined by the Governor-in-Council, and to be thereafter held or disposed of or otherwise dealt with by the government as it may think fit on such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by the Governor-in-Council, for the purpose of securing a sufficient and suitable supply of coal to the public at reasonable prices, not exceeding $2 per ton of 2,000 pounds free on board cars at the mines.

"And on the part of the government to pay the said subsidy by instalments as aforesaid.

"It is the stipulation in this subclause requiring the coal to be sold at $2 or less per ton, together with the possible implication that the coal cannot be exported, that prevents exploitation of the coal in these blocks."

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive challenges in the past with the federal government attempting to hold on to that coal, but it is clearly in the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia, which has sovereignty over the natural resources. The historic rights of that particular arrangement no longer obtain, and that coal block should be returned to British Columbia. This government was unable to negotiate that as a part of the Crowsnest change package. As for the current situation, up until 1973:

"The rising requirements for coal and the consequent substantial increase in mine development in western Canada have resulted in recent and stronger interest in these coal blocks by industry and the federal government.

"There has been some dispute between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia as to who controls the coal rights in these two coal blocks. The federal Department of Justice has examined the provincial arguments and has advised that the province does not have any valid claim to the ownership of coal in the lands in question.

[2:15]

"In the late 1960s and up until 1971, licences to explore this coal were granted by the government of Canada to four mining companies. Because of the above-mentioned restrictive subclause l(i), in the Crowsnest Pass agreement, and the uncertainty about

[ Page 774 ]

when such restriction might be removed, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources did not renew these non-exclusive exploration licences in 1971. The government of British Columbia also issued exploration licences in these coal blocks, which are still in effect."

Now what is the potential of these blocks, Mr. Speaker? The potential is that total reserves in the Dominion coal blocks have been estimated at 8.6 billion tons of coal. As we know, in the northeast presently.... Let's just say that at $80 to $90 a ton, multiplied by 8.6 billion, we see what the value of that commodity is.

"The 8.6 billion short tons or about 10 percent of the total resource of medium-and low-volatile bituminous coal in western Canada. This is a geological estimate, and recently (1972) the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources enlisted the services of a consultant to assess how much of the total reserves could be extracted by surface mining at economically acceptable ratios of rock overburden to coal. This consultant concluded that about 110 million tons would be recoverable from block no. 73 " — which is smaller block of 5,000 tons. No such study has yet been made on the second block.

"A quantity of 110 million tons is adequate for supporting a very substantial mining operation. The coal has been tested for quality and has been determined to be of good metallurgical grade."

Mr. Speaker, the reason I read this into the record is that I think the historical events outlined in that document indicate to us our responsibility to ensure that that particular resource of British Columbia is returned to British Columbia. The complete disregard of that historical agreement seems to have missed the cabinet, and they've been absolutely ineffectual in obtaining any redress. Typically, the people of British Columbia are going to be suffering because of their lack of managerial competence and negotiating ability with their federal counterparts. We in this province have been giving away our natural resources for bargain-sale prices since this province was first established as a colony. Here we are, in 1983, having resolutions before this House asking this opposition to support an agreement which forgoes revenues of $450 billion — future revenue possibilities for our children and our children's children — because of their ineptitude. Obviously there are many other factors, as pointed out eloquently by my colleagues, why we cannot support this resolution. It is a giveaway to the railways. The contracts are open-ended. The CPR and the CNR will get subsidies when the farmers of Canada should be subsidized rather than the railways, who have never lived up to their obligations to the people of this country.

It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this particular change to the Crow rate will not in any substantial way benefit the people of the province, because, as I have outlined, that $450 billion is exactly 150 times more than the railways could possibly spend in any upgrading, doubletracking or railway streamlining in this country. That is absolutely correct, and we have full documentation to support that argument.

It's not surprising that the minister responsible would stand in his place and make fleeting reference to that Dominion coal block, and that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has sent a memorandum to the federal minister begging for some kind of resolution that would be in this province's interest. It is my contention that the return of these coal parcels should have been part of any agreement to change the coal lands. To do otherwise is to be derelict in their duties to all ensuing generations of British Columbians.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let me just outline for you what public aid to the CPR just on the main line alone — has been during the construction period. They received $25 million in cash, they received 25 million acres of Canada, and now this provincial government is asking our side of the House to support them in relinquishing title to a massive natural resource that could be of benefit to us. We relinquished land for right-of-way and stations; sections of the main line would be built at a government cost of $38 million. Parliament clearly intended these resources to enable the CP to maintain a modern railway system. We know very clearly how the CP Rail has treated the farmers on the prairies. They have never lived up to their obligations to service spur lines and secondary and tertiary rail lines, and they're in the process of cutting back all the time. Now we are asked to support a resolution which puts millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into the hands of the railway companies. How can you ask us to do that? They want to support the federal Liberals in this resolution, and we on this side of the House certainly do not.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting insomuch as this House has been in session since June 23 and this is the first day, to my recollection, that we've had a true debate in the House. Up until now we've had nothing but filibustering, procrastination and delaying tactics. Speakers from the opposition have continually risen and spoken for 40 minutes at a time. If they spoke about something, it would be one thing, but they stand on their feet for 40 minutes and say absolutely nothing — one speaker, indeed, carried on for nearly seven hours, keeping this House in session — calling for divisions after every person speaks, delaying the conduct of this House for an additional ten minutes. When I think of the cost to the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia to put up with this nonsense, tens of thousands of dollars a day, it makes me sick indeed. They have got up on every single issue, every single bill, and indicated continual obstruction.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in his maiden speech, but the subject before the House is resolution number 2, which has to do with the Liberal legislation before the House of Commons. The opening remarks of the hon. member have now been four or five minutes and he hasn't touched upon the subject.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair sustains the comments made by the second member for Vancouver Centre and would ask the hon. member to continue speaking but to speak to the Crow rate.

MR. MICHAEL: I am certainly leading into discussions on the Crow rate. I believe that folly is bad enough, but learned, planned and intentional folly is intolerable. The opposition is the most sensible group of people talking nonsense I've ever seen. Their filibustering could best be described as a deluge of words and a drop of sense. I guess I

[ Page 775 ]

shouldn't be surprised by the members of the "no development party" speaking against this motion, although I was hopeful. Doing away with the Crow rate means investment in our province and jobs in your area, members of the opposition. You've spoken against everything else; why not against jobs? You don't want jobs in the private sector. You'd rather keep all on the public payroll. Where's the money going to come from if there's no development in the private sector? If industries are not given the opportunity to develop and expand, where are the revenues going to come from?

Since this current session began, a bitter and defeated "no definite policy party" has filibustered everything that has come before this House. They're against everything: opposing a small tax on cigarettes, using all sorts of stalling tactics day after day and costing the taxpayers of this province thousands of dollars a day. Those members over there are opposed to all progress. They always have been against all progressive ideas: they were against B.C. Place and Whistler; they didn't want the northeast coal; they didn't like Hydro expansion projects being put in place; they were against opening of the northern areas of our great province; they would rather have brought back trolley cars instead of the ALRT. Now they're against changing the Crow rate. They don't want an efficient, expanded rail transportation system. They don't want business and industry in our province to develop and grow. They are against British Columbia increasing its competitive edge in the international markets.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They are against recovery, a bright economic future for British Columbia and for Canada, and jobs in the private sector. They would rather keep everyone unemployed so they can attend protest rallies. They were against the mining industry in the 1970s and they haven't changed; they are still against the mining industry. They don't want the companies to be able to grow and create jobs. "Keep everything the way it is. Leave it in the ground," they say. It doesn't matter to them that even some of their own union friends are lobbying in Ottawa to have the Crow rate done away with. Members of the opposition are down there because they know that change means jobs for their members. If ever there was a time when we should be unanimous in our support for such a motion, the time is now. Instead, we hear them blah-blahing and boohooing about who's in the political bed with whom.

We're talking about jobs in this province. We're talking about development, investment and future prosperity. They're against it all. Their cohorts in Ottawa are against it. "Kill the thing. Don't let Bill C-155 pass. Don't bring jobs and investment to British Columbia. Kill free enterprise. Keep the Crow. Strangle the economy. Keep the people down, unemployed and unhappy." It doesn't serve the NDP's vested interest to see growth in our province. The people of our province are only now realizing the importance and significance of the need for a change in the Crow rate. Only now are British Columbians realizing that our province has the most to gain if the federal government passes Bill C-155, and our province has the most to lose if that bill does not get through the federal parliament. The economic future of British Columbia's resource industries depends tremendously on the passage and change in the Crow rate. As one British Columbian businessman put it recently, the fate of that legislation will determine whether our coal industry takes off in this decade, whether our forest industry recovers from the recession or whether those sectors and others will be tied down by a lack of new railroad capacity.

[3:30]

There are those, perhaps with vested interest, who oppose doing away with the Crow rate, and say it is risky or even fatal to try to change something that has been in place for 86 years. That new federal legislation will do more than just update history; it will help the economic futures of British Columbia and Canada. The Crowsnest Pass Agreement Act, passed by the Canadian parliament back in 1897, was a good idea at the time and for many years after. As the Mining Association of British Columbia put it in a submission to the federal government, the need for change is clear and the time for change is now.

Back in 1897 the federal government wanted to fill the vast, empty prairies with grain farmers who would ship wheat and flour to markets in central Canada. The first transcontinental railway was completed in 1885. Then the government of Canada and British Columbia struck a deal with the CPR to complete a southern route through the Crowsnest Pass. Part of that deal with the railway, besides some land and some cash grants, was a fixing of price for grain. Grain farming in those days was risky. The markets were thousands of miles away, so to help establish this new industry the federal government decided that grain would be carried at fixed low freight rates. The farmer didn't have to concern himself with high shipping costs in times of low prices for his product. The farming industry on the prairies would grow and prosper. Years went by and the Crow rate remained for the most part unchanged. In 1925 the rate was set in statute as a result of lobbying from the prairies. Two years later it was amended to apply the Crow rate to grain handling on the west coast, and in the thirties the route to Churchill, Manitoba, was included in the act.

Things went fairly well. The railways made a profit and the western rail network was expanded. Then came the 1960s and the system began to deteriorate. Railway costs began to rise. There was less money to buy new railcars and less money to keep the small branch lines maintained. Into the 1970s things got even worse. The railways wanted permission to abandon branch lines that were the worst money losers. Instead of doing what was necessary — even then doing away with the Crow rate — the federal government subsidies were spread around. There were over $2 billion in subsidies, but it didn't help and the conditions got steadily worse. In 1975 the railways lost $105 million moving prairie grain. By 1980 the annual loss had climbed to $244 million. By 1982 for every dollar the railways received for shipping the grain they lost $4. Subsidies, studies and royal commissions could not change the fact that the Crow had to go.

We in British Columbia, as I stated earlier, have the most to gain from changing the Crow rate and the most to lose if it isn't changed. Our economic future depends on it. For British Columbia to grow the Crow must go. There is a group in our province called the B.C. Action Committee to Change the Crow. It is not affiliated with any political party. Is a non-partisan group of people from business and labour with representatives from the Employers' Council, the mining association, the Council of Forest Industries, the construction industry, road builders, the Teamsters and the Maritime Employers' Association, all working together lobbying the federal government and opposition in Ottawa to ensure that this most necessary change does come about.

[ Page 776 ]

There was a lot of determined opposition to the legislation. Powerful organizations want to kill the bill, and it's time, Mr. Speaker, that all of us here in the Legislative Assembly, both the government and the hon. opposition, join together unanimously to pass this motion, demanding that the federal government pass Bill C-155.

As I said a moment ago, British Columbia's economic future depends on it. In terms of coal, virtually all of it mined in this province goes to foreign markets, but there are other coal-producing countries that are competing with us for the same markets. The biggest selling point that we can have that can put us ahead of our competition is reliability of supply. That is our key competitive edge. But that reliability of supply depends on our having a transportation system that will move the coal from the mines to the coast right now. The rail system is running at capacity. Unless we increase the transportation capacity, our coal industry cannot expand. Without expanded transportation capacity there will be no investments to develop new mines and no new customers, because we can't guarantee shipment if the rail capacity isn't there.

What about our forest industry and manufacturing industry? We are just coming out of the worst recession in 50 years. Business is ready to invest in new growth for our province — new production and new jobs for British Columbia. It's all there. We have everything we need to begin new growth. British Columbia can lead Canada in economic recovery. We also have a solid, well-experienced free enterprise government with good leadership in British Columbia. But standing in the way is the Crow. Threatening to strangle our economy is that 86-year-old piece of legislation. It should be called an albatross, because it is hanging around the neck of our fragile recovery. Resources are everywhere and the economy is root bound. The Crow must go.

When the federal bill is enacted into law in British Columbia, British Columbia will see a railway construction boom such as none of us have ever seen. The two national railways will spend some $16.6 billion on expansion across the country. A third of that money, almost $5.5 billion, will come to British Columbia. CP Rail is ready to pour some $700 million into the Rogers Pass tunnel and double-tracking between Golden and Revelstoke, $10 million into a terminal in Port Coquitlam, and $40 million into a repair shop and a new rail yard in Golden. Canadian National will spend $900 million double-tracking their main line from Valemont to Vancouver, more than half a billion dollars to upgrade the line from Valemont to Prince Rupert, $150 million for new rail yards and new repair facilities in Vancouver, $60 million in Prince George and $34 million in Kamloops. Those are just the main projects. They don't include all the new terminals and sidings, and all the general upgrading throughout the rail network in our province.

Let me just say something about northeast coal. It is an investment in the future of our province. This government's $750 million investment — only a fraction of the $2.5 billion being spent on the project — will result in a net return of $350 billion in taxes, surcharges and other levies. These benefits will go a long way towards paying for our schools, hospitals and social programs. Northeast coal is providing jobs for British Columbians: 6,800 construction jobs have been created this year; 2,230 permanent mining, transportation and port handling jobs will be in place once the mines begin operating. With future contracts and economic conditions, northeast coal could generate as many as 18,000 to 28,000 indirect jobs. With the Crow rate gone, all the projects I mentioned a moment ago will come. All these projects represent the largest megaproject ever launched in British Columbia. At $5.5 billion, they are equivalent to two northeast coal developments over the next seven to nine years.

Those millions of dollars I listed are only direct spending by the railways themselves, including government support. But each one of those billions of dollars will spread through British Columbia's economy and generate tremendous multiplier effects. Employment generated will amount to approximately 87,000 man-years. And the overall labour income will be more than $3 billion over about seven years. Just imagine what that kind of a payroll will do at the retail level, in the housing industry. And there's more. Total industrial sales arising from rail expansion projects will reach $8.5 billion in British Columbia. The projects will add almost $4.5 billion to our province's gross national product. The ripple effect will be far-reaching provincially, nationally and internationally.

This is why British Columbia has the most to gain from the investments that will follow changes to the Crow rate, why our recovery depends so much on expanding our rail transportation system. It is clearly in the interests of all of us, all British Columbians, that the motion we have before us must pass, preferably unanimously, and why the federal Bill C-155 must be passed as well. It is in Canada's interest to end this archaic freight rate. We are not proposing this to serve our own interests at the expense of the prairie farmers. The federal Bill C-155 includes a commitment from Ottawa to subsidize grain transportation to a total of a billion dollars a year in this decade. Increases in grain-shipping charges will be gradually phased in, and there will be a safety net to protect grain farmers against high freight rates in time of low prices. The federal government will also continue to supply new hopper cars and pay for the upkeep of the prairie branch lines.

I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting a portion of a submission in July of this year by the Mining Association of British Columbia to the transportation committee of the House of Commons regarding Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act.

"The mining industry is heavily dependent upon an efficient, reliable railway system. At present the financial ability of the railways to expand capacity in western Canada is adversely affected by the continuing losses that result from carrying grain at the statutory Crow rate. Therefore we welcome the federal government's initiative in introducing legislation to reform the Crow.

"Like any compromise, Bill C-155 has its defects, some of which should perhaps still be corrected. In particular, the mining industry would prefer to see a major part of the Crow benefit paid to producers, who could then decide for themselves how this money should be spent. But however the final compromise is struck, it is very important that some version of Crow reform be enacted as soon as possible.

"Canada's rail network is the vital backbone for agricultural and industrial development in our country. Without the railways, economic development in the west would have been impossible. Without expanded rail capacity, economic expansion in the west is unlikely. Thus the importance of Crow reform goes

[ Page 777 ]

beyond regional considerations and beyond partisan considerations as well.

"The need for change is clear, and the time for change is now."

Only the future can really tell us what massive benefits will come from the development of our rail transportation system. Incidentally, with all this expansion there will be much more ongoing maintenance work in future years, meaning steady long-term jobs for many British Columbians. When all the major developments and expansion are completed, these changes will bring more than just job security for thousands of British Columbians. They will set in place a new and tremendous infrastructure for more development in mining, forestry and secondary industries — jobs, Mr. Speaker.

With the expansion of our rail system and the further development of industry, our competitive edge in the international marketplace will improve. Reliability of supply, which is the edge we need, would come with that expanded transportation system. The customer needs to know that the product he buys will be waiting at the dock when he wants it.

We need to have the expanded system to ensure that products such as coal can be moved quickly and efficiently from the mines to tidewater. I'll give you an example of that need for expansion. In 1981 B.C. Coal was ending a long-term contract with CPR, which was hauling coal from Elk Valley to Roberts Bank. In looking five years down the road, the company discovered that they would be contracting a full one-third of the westbound capacity of the CPR. With the system as it is now, coal as a commodity needs about two thirds of the capacity of the rail system; what little capacity is left goes to the many other products: petrochemicals, timber, grain and all other needs.

[3:45]

In conclusion, I would like to call upon the opposition to give consideration to unanimous approval of this motion. I would invite suggestions on amending the motion, if that's their problem. In his speech to the House I heard the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talk about the lack of faith and lack of trust in the CPR for not fulfilling or following through with their commitments. Why doesn't he suggest to our House Leader that we amend the motion, if necessary, to get unanimous approval? Perhaps the words, "with the clear understanding that a contract is in effect with the railways, ensuring capital expenditures are made in accordance with declared commitments," or words along that line could be suggested by the opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You move it.

MR. MICHAEL: I would move it if I was assured that we would have the unanimous approval of this House. But I don't believe that would do the trick, hon. member. It's my belief that the opposition will always find another excuse for why they can't support this bill.

MR. LAUK: Exercise leadership.

MR. MICHAEL: It's a political exercise on your behalf, hon. member. The NDP in this province will stand in the way of passing this legislation because of their federal cohorts and their friends on the Prairies. They are not sitting in this Legislature representing the people of British Columbia as they should be.

I'll conclude by saying that a little knowledge is dangerous. As near as I can see, no one in the opposition is out of danger.

MR. LAUK: Well, the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke...I was corrected, earlier when I made a point of order and described this speech as a maiden speech. I was informed that he did, indeed, make his maiden speech prior to this occasion.

MR. MOWAT: Another one since then, too.

MR. LAUK: Well, I think that if he's going to read speeches, which is in breach of the standing orders and rules of this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Minister of Agriculture and Food rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's strange, Mr. Speaker, that this very same member stood on his feet not half an hour ago to castigate another member for wasting the first four minutes of his speech in not speaking to the bill. I would suggest that he might wish to address the motion himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, debate during the motion should be relevant. I'm sure all hon. members are aware of the principles of relevancy.

The second member for Vancouver Centre continues on the motion.

MR. LAUK: It's quite clear the hon. minister for Agriculture and Food is underemployed.

As I was saying, I don't intend to read my speech, and I suggest the hon. member in support of the rules does not either. If he's going to read written speeches, we should grant him the right to file his speech as a return and Hansard will print it verbatim, and we won't take up too much valuable time in the House.

I don't want to be ungrateful. The hon. member has brought some interesting information to the chamber, or at least he has been the conduit through which Cam Laker has brought some interesting information to the chamber. We're always grateful for good research. However, it would have been better — it's the member's responsibility, and not his researcher's — to check out some of the facts in the remarks that are being made.

A great deal of his speech pled poverty for the Canadian Pacific Railway. He went on to quote a submission made by the mining association to the committee in Ottawa, which is where that government should be if it is sincere in its views. The submission by the mining association talks about the shipment of coal and mining exports. One of the largest, most productive mining areas is Fording. While he's pleading poverty for the Canadian Pacific Railway, he should ask himself who makes the profit from the coal and who makes the profit from the rail line. The same company, Mr. Speaker. You can't have it both ways. You're talking about poor, little coal companies subsidizing the Crow rate and the railway subsidizing the Crow rate. What you're really talking about is the most selfish, unbridled, greedy company in the history of this great country talking out of both sides of its mouth and

[ Page 778 ]

wanting everything. They have bled this country dry over 100 years.

These people in the Social Credit Party are now arguing on their behalf as if that great powerful company, the wealthiest, most powerful corporation in Canada, needed the Social Credit Party to defend them. They own Fording Coal, they own the transportation system and they own the overseas brokerages. They own the whole works, and they want more money from the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: The forest companies too.

MR. LAUK: The forest companies, the land development companies, all of the great wealth of our nation has poured into the pockets of the CPR and, for many years, to foreign shareholders. They had the nerve to stand in their places today and plead poverty for the poor little CPR. That's audacity if I've ever heard it.

The motion does not refer to the jobs in development that will occur — or rather it does.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It refers to the Crow rate. Somehow by supporting the bill, which obviously that hon. member and, also, quite to my surprise, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) have not read.... They couldn't possibly have made the statements they did in this House on this motion if they had read the bill, because the bill will not do what they say it's going to do. The bill will not create the jobs they're talking about. It does not create the economic development they're arguing it will create. Not only are there no guarantees but there is a guarantee that the CPR will do everything in its power — because we've got a track record of 100 years — to avoid any such responsibility. Any economic development that has occurred in this province for the benefit of the people of this province, be it the Prince Rupert port, be it Roberts Bank or be it anything else, has been done in spite of the CPR, and in many cases in spite of the federal government.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Where were you? These are the very people who have party cards in the Social Credit Party provincially and party cards in the Tory Party federally. These are the people who support the federal Tory Party. Mulroney doesn't support this bill and the Tory caucus doesn't support this bill. Why do you think that the great federal free enterprise party is opposed to this bill? Is it prairie politics? Not on your life. They are not supporting this bill.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. We have two hats now. Is that what the idea is? Provincially you are going to talk out of one side of your face and federally you are going to support people talking out of the other side. Is that the kind of apparent hypocrisy that we have got to deal with? The positions of the Tory Party and the Social Credit Party are diametrically opposed. Are you going to rip up your Tory cards, folks? If you are sincere about Motion 2 on the order paper, then for heaven's sake back it up with something called courage and stand up and oppose the Tory position.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I have more backbone than you will ever see, my friend. You are a gutless wonder in this chamber and you know it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the hon. member to withdraw that phrase immediately. It is unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was provoked, and I withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the minister not to interject, so that we can maintain orderly debate.

MR. LAUK: That person should not be allowed to provoke me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

MR. LAUK: Back in the 1800s the Canadian Pacific Railway received substantial mineral rights, land and cash from the people of Canada in exchange for certain responsibilities. One of these obligations was to haul grain at the Crow rate. Another was to use its mineral resources to keep its transcontinental rail line modern and efficient as the country grew. Now the CPR says it wants to keep the minerals and the grants but shift its obligations to consumers and taxpayers who will have to pay the bills.

The federal government subsidized one-half of the construction costs and the CPR received a grant of over 3,750,000 acres of land in British Columbia, plus additional square miles of rich coal-mining lands. In return, the railroad agreed to reduce the rate for westbound movements by about 10 percent. This became known as the Crow rate. It was fixed in statute in perpetuity, as has already been mentioned by hon. members. It was a deal which gave the railway more than it needed or even expected. Indeed, statements by railway officers that they would have built the line without financial assistance led to considerable embarrassment for the government of the day. It should be pointed out that this same kind of bush-league mentality of giving away more than even the CPR wants has been a characteristic of the federal Liberals, and now it's going to be espoused by this bush-league Social Credit Party most certainly.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you one thing: W.A.C. Bennett would never have gone along with this kind of nonsense. That would be a sellout and he would never go along with it. This party has changed colours so often no one would recognize it.

Cominco Ltd. Is now a mining, refining, smelting, chemical, fertilizer, exploration and holding conglomerate. It has mines and plants throughout the world. CPR owns it. In 1981, its assets totalled $2,027,824,000. Fording Coal holds the rights to 60,000 acres of coking coal in the east Kootenays, with reserves of 93 million tonnes valued at $768 million.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There's no guarantee they're going to spend any money, and you know it. This gentleman from Shuswap

[ Page 779 ]

reminds me of the rube who comes into the big city with his bankroll, and when the first city slicker comes up to him and says: "Listen, I'll tell you what. Let me hold your bankroll while you go into that bar over there, because it's very dangerous," he says: " Oh, okay." This is the kind of attitude the Social Credit government has, particularly in dealing with the federal Liberals and the large CPR conglomerate.

By the time the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed, CPR had received $106 million in cash and over 50 million acres of land. What's the Liberal strategy that's being employed and supported by the Social Credit Party? Underlying the Liberal strategy is the attempt to have people accept the common-sense proposition, they say, that you can't move grain in the 1980s at the 1880s rates. This has been repeated by the honourable gentleman from Shuswap and the honourable gentleman from Vancouver-Seymour. That seems to make common sense on the face of it. Unless we adjust to modern economic realities, they say, we will see a radical deterioration of rail capacity in the near future. They want growth — you've heard that word: modernization; diversification; a flexible, comprehensive approach — the Liberals say: development. To remedy the situation, the government wants to end the statutory status of grain rates, give the railroads $3.7 billion of public funds over the next four years and $651 million annually in perpetuity thereafter, and protect the railroads from the effects of inflation on the cost of transporting grain.

[4:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Indexing it? Are they going to index it?

MR. LAUK: It's a form of indexing. A permanent subsidy to the railway with nothing guaranteed in return, and this government says that's a good deal. What utter and complete nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There is no guarantee. Have you read the bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly.

MR. LAUK: You have not read the bill, or you wouldn't make the statements that you have.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I certainly have.

Let's end this mythology, this woolly-headed, fuzzy nonsense that's coming from both the Liberals and the Socreds. We'll call them Lib-Socs. The Lib-Socs are stretching a point and saying that transportation should be in the free market system. In Canada we have the second-largest land mass in the world and only 26 or 27 million people, mostly along the southern part of the border between the United States and Canada. At no time in the history of Canada has the transportation system not been substantially subsidized by the federal and provincial governments of the day. At no time has the public purse not been called upon to support transportation. There is no way, in terms of transportation economics, that we can have transportation in a country such as ours on the free market system. It is nonsense for them to say that it can be otherwise. Subsidies, yes, but what we say is: "What are we getting in return?" Let's leave the hundred years that have gone past and say: "Okay, there's no one in Canada who doesn't agree that that deal with the CPR was a fraud on the country and the people, and it drained the reserves of our wealth and resources over a hundred years." No one will disagree with that, but that's history.

I agree that today the transportation structure of Canada must be changed. There is no question that it has to be changed. That is a simplistic statement, and it is dangerously simplistic if it's not backed up with, "What do we get back for the subsidy?" And to argue in simplistic terms.... I'm not so surprised at the member for Shuswap, but I am at the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). At a time when the country called for a change in all transportation rate structures across the country, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour was a member of the federal cabinet. Where was he? Now he stands up in 1983 and calls upon Canada to make a narrow change to the Crow rate.

The reason that the CPR, the federal Liberals and the Socreds — the Lib-Socs — do not want to take a close examination of the transportation costs and economics of this country is that they know that when that information is made clear to the people of Canada, there is no way they would support this kind of narrow legislation. They will want a total overhauling of the system, because to just tinker with the Crow rate is to put billions of dollars into the pockets of CPR shareholders, out of the public purse, with no guarantees of economic development or jobs in return. There are no guarantees in the legislation. There are no guarantees called for by any of the speeches made by the Lib-Socs so far — just a claim that there will be economic development.

Yes, we must change the Crow rate. But if you change the Crow rate without taking on at least a substantial part of the responsibility of overhauling the whole transportation structure in terms of rates and costs, then you're playing into the hands of the CPR. You ask the CPR whether they want to do an overhaul of the whole structure, and they'll turn ashen faced and white-knuckled. They'll have to take their nitro-glycerin tablets if you suggest anything of the kind to them. They only want a change in the Crow rate because they're going to get $3.7 billion in the next four years and $650 million every year thereafter in perpetuity.

This is the kind of nonsense we've been hearing here from the Lib-Socs. I wonder if this government will be making a submission to the federal committee that's now........ At least the federal Lib-Socs have got a committee looking into this matter. They'll get submissions all right, from trade unions that want jobs but who want to have a total look at the rate structure. You've been duped and you've been sucked in.

I'll tell you what the NDP is going to submit to that committee. Do you want to hear it?

MR. MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. LAUK: All right. We would ask the federal government to pay the railways for proven operating losses hauling grain. We reckon that it's about $380 million a year.

Secondly, keep the Crow rate for grain farmers and adjust it slightly in relation to fairness within the context of the export of grain alone.

Thirdly, we would agree with public investment to upgrade railways, but we would suggest an amount of only $550 million a year — that's all that's needed — and equity in the

[ Page 780 ]

Crown by the right of Canada. We want equity in the rail bed. We want equity in the transportation system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socialize everything.

MR. LAUK: Socialize it? You say just give money to the capitalists. Do you think that's good economics? Mr. Speaker, that's the astounding kind of attitude we've got from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who's been a disaster as a Minister of Forests: give away the resources, nothing back to the taxpayer, and now that we're in the lean years we've got nothing to pay for the schools and hospitals and social structure that we've built up over the years in this province. It's because of the profligacy and this insidious conspiracy of the Lib-Socs and the industrialists in this country that have left the people high and dry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of step with the world, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm out of step with the world. Robber barons are running unbridled and unchecked in our land, and he says I'm out of step. If that's being out of step, I'm glad I'm out of step. If I were the only person in Canada calling for economic justice from the CPR, so be it. My great-grandfather was a farmer in Canada. I remember the turn of this.... I don't remember the turn of this century, but he told me that at the turn of the century....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I've got a wonderful memory. I can never be faulted for my memory. My grandfather used to be a mixed product farmer. He would ship dairy products and eggs and some livestock and so on to Winnipeg on a branch line. The railway in those days used to sell the product, take off their fare for the transportation, and then send a cheque to the farmer. He said that for about ten years he kept on sending the product along the branch line and getting a bill back from the railway for the transportation. It cost more to ship the product to Winnipeg for the city slickers to survive from day to day than it cost to produce and sell it.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's awfully easy to say prairie economics. I'm not always willing to listen to the prairie farmers who want more and more and so on. But in all justice, Mr. Speaker, hasn't Canada paid the CPR enough over the years?

We say public investment of $550 million a year, but with equity ownership to the Crown, to the people of Canada, in return. In the 1800s the people of British Columbia gave the CPR the large coal deposit to which I have referred. The Pepin plan will remove the price ceiling on this coal but will not tell us who will own and benefit from that half billion dollar reserve. This resource rightfully belongs to the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia, and if we share as taxpayers, federal and provincial, in this plan, then surely we should have a share in the equity of Fording Coal. What could be fairer than that?

The total cost of our plan is the same as the Pepin plan, about $930 million a year. But more upgrading gets done because that's written into the agreement, and we only pay for upgrading. We don't just dump the money and nothing takes place, We prevent public money from leaving the rail system to go to their real estate ventures and dividends and other things. There's no protection for the laundering of the subsidy money leaving the CPR into its other subsidiaries. The taxpayer is protected against inflation by the public investment and the increase in value to make railways more efficient and reduce operating costs. What could be fairer than that? That's all we're calling for. Why move a motion as simplistic as this?

It reminds me of the last session when they moved a motion about property rights in the charter. I had to laugh when I saw the 26 bills come down where you could fire without cause — and I use this only as an analogy. If property rights were in the charter, nothing that this Legislature could do could take away the right of a person to be fired with just cause and otherwise with just compensation. The courts would be full, and if any attempt to fire without just cause was made the courts would have to strike it down. As the hon. and learned member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) knows, a property right is vested in a job; the courts have found that for some time now. So a Charter of Rights would protect the people of this province against the actions that this government is already trying to take. You see, they move simplistic motions and they don't know what they mean. One time they vote a motion for property rights — isn't that right? — and the next time they're taking away the property rights in their legislation.

The same thing with Motion 2. "Are you against the Crow rate or for it? You're either for me or against me." There's nothing in life just black and white. Everything in life is complex because human interrelations are complex. Those people who do not have the respect or the commitment to their jobs as legislators to study those complexities are not fit for public office. The simplistic argument that has occurred in this chamber should be recognized as simply that — simplistic, fuzzy-headed and woolly. To support the federal bill without guarantees is pure and utter folly. It's once more stepping into the abyss and pouring public money down a black hole — the CPR treasury. That's why we're opposed to this motion in principle and in particular.

If the hon. minister will agree to include at least a consideration of the proposals that I've made this afternoon, this side of the House would most certainly vote in favour of this motion.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) says that that's magnanimous.

MR. PARKS: Excuse me, it's Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I'm not that pretentious, Mr. Member. I've lived in the province longer than you, and I pronounce it the way we've always pronounced it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He's very sensitive about that.

You say I'm magnanimous about it. I'm not being magnanimous. You've asked for constructive proposals and I'm making constructive proposals.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) attacked the opposition and said: "You're always against this

[ Page 781 ]

and that; you never say anything constructive." What about the six points I've made? Do they sound reasonable to you?

MR. MICHAEL: I said that today was the first day you've said anything constructive. Up to now you've been filibustering.

[4:15]

MR. LAUK: Well, how do you know? You've never been here. This is the first day you've been here, and you haven't been listening.

Will you accept the six points, Mr. Minister? He shakes his head. Why does he shake his head? Because the Lib-Socs are in bed with the CPR. That's why he shakes his head. We've uncovered this fraud upon the public; this simplistic move by the government; this callous and cynical political move. There's nothing worse than political politics. That hon. minister's guilty of partisan political politics, and I'm surprised. They called upon us to make proposals and constructive suggestions, and we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand it to me and I'll read it again.

MR. LAUK: Do you want to read it again? Are you speaking tomorrow on this?

It just proves that the government is not sincere when it calls upon the opposition to make constructive suggestions. We have, and the minister, in all of his regal and royal pompitude, shakes his head.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: An hon. member is suggesting that minister may be nodding off to sleep, but I took his shake of his head to mean that he refuses our proposals.

Hot off the press. Because we've been called upon by the government side to make amendments....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to edit your notes as well as read them?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm just marking down my "x".

It's moved by me that the motion be amended by adding in line 2 thereof, between the words "rate" and "will" the following: "need to be examined by the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to determine if such changes.... " The amendment would make the motion read:

"This House is of the opinion that changes in the historic Crowsnest Pass grain freight rate need to be examined by the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to determine if such changes will substantially benefit the economic development and employment opportunities of Canada and British Columbia."

What can be fairer than that? Are you going to move a simple motion or are you going to accept the amendment and let's have an all-party committee prove that you're right and that we're wrong? If we can show that we're correct, you will make that submission to the federal government. Isn't that fair? I urge all hon. members to seriously consider this amendment and accept it in good faith so that the sincerity of your arguments can be shown to the public at large.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate can proceed on the original motion; the Chair has not decided on the motion yet.

MR. LAUK: Our next speaker is on the amendment.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, would you like a short recess until you...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, thank you.

The motion is ruled out of order. Let me cite Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states: "It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee."

On the original question, debate continues.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair did not recognize the member who interjected, but if the member wishes to rise on a point of order....

MR. HOWARD: No, it had to do with challenging your ruling.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

MR. SEGARTY: The issue of the Crowsnest Pass railway freight system is complex. I would beg the indulgence of the House that I might read portions of my speech. I know the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) sometimes objects to it, but he likes the idea of doing it himself.

It's a pleasure for me to rise today in debate on the motion put forward by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). This motion has two parts, one of which I'd like to quote: "This House is of the opinion that changes in

[ Page 782 ]

the historic Crowsnest Pass grain freight rates will substantially benefit the economic and employment opportunities for Canada and British Columbia."

Since early last year, the government of the province of British Columbia has led the way in our country with policies for economic development and economic recovery. These policies were designed to reduce the ever-increasing tax burden on our citizens and to promote job creation in the private sector. On May 5 the people of British Columbia made a wise decision and returned the Social Credit government to this assembly.

[4:30]

The economic development and employment opportunities which will be available to the citizens of British Columbia and Canada through changes in the Crowsnest Pass railway freight system, as detailed in Bill C-155, are unprecedented. They are greater by far than the total mass of coal development projects that have taken place in British Columbia since 1968.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This investment plan by the railways will dwarf the expenditures in the northeast coal project infrastructure, and are critical to the future of southeastern British Columbia and job-creation prospects for our province in this decade. Once freed from the Crow rate, Canadian National Railways will spend $16.5 billion on expansion across this country between now and the early 1990s. A good one-third of that money, $5.5 billion, will find its way into the province of British Columbia. Canadian National Railways will put $750 million into the Rogers Pass tunnel and double-tracking between Golden and Revelstoke. They will build a $10 million tunnel at Port Coquitlam, a $40 million repair shop and rail yard at Golden, and develop an engine and train crew shop in Sparwood. CN will spend $900 million to double-track their main line from Valemount to Vancouver, and more than half a billion dollars to upgrade the line from Valemount to Prince Rupert. They will put $150 million into rail yard and repair facilities in Vancouver, another $60 million into Prince Rupert, and $34 million into Kamloops.

Those are just a few of the projects already announced, and does not include terminals, sidings and general upgrading of track all over the province of British Columbia. All these projects will represent the largest capital expenditure ever undertaken in the province of British Columbia: at least $5.5 billion, or the equivalent of two northeast coal development projects, to take place in British Columbia between the next seven and nine years. The project will add almost $4.5 billion to our province's gross domestic product. Total industrial sales arising from rail expansion projects will reach $8.5 billion in British Columbia alone. These will provide outstanding benefits to the people of British Columbia and Canada.

The only thing that stands in the way of economic development and opportunities for employment in our province at this time, when people need it most, is the Crowsnest Pass railway freight system. Virtually all coal mined in southeastern British Columbia is produced for export to foreign markets. It is good quality coal and the extraction technology is excellent. But other countries, like Australia, the United States and South Africa, also have mines and compete with us in the same international markets. We can't beat our competitors on price alone, Mr. Speaker; neither do we have significant advantage in quality. Our major selling point that puts us ahead of our competitors is reliability of supply and a well-trained British Columbia workforce — they are our key competitive edge. To have coal waiting on the dock when our customer needs it depends on having a transportation system that will move that coal from the minehead to tidewater at a reasonable cost and in a reliable way. Unless we increase our rail capacity, the coal industry in southeastern British Columbia will not be able to take on planned expansion projects to develop new mines. No one will invest. The capital to develop new mines, long-term contracts to sell coal or any other commodity for that matter.... No customer will sign those long-term contracts unless shipments are guaranteed. Shipments cannot be guaranteed unless rail capacity can carry the product to port. That goes for any commodity, whether it's copper, lead, zinc, lumber, grain or any other product in our province or country.

Our province and our country are coming out of the worst recession in 50 years, and we are on the leading edge of economic recovery in our province. Business is ready to invest in new growth, new production and new jobs. World markets for our products are firming up, but they will only firm up to the extent where our customers are sure that we have the rail capacity to move these goods to market at a reasonable and reliable cost. This is the reason for the second section of the motion moved by the Minister of Transportation and Highways: "This House, accordingly, expresses its support for the action by the Parliament of Canada to deal expeditiously with the issue of the statutory freight rates for the export of grain by passing the required legislation."

You and I, Mr. Speaker, and all British Columbians will suffer if Bill C-155 is delayed in Parliament by the member for Kootenay East–Revelstoke or by any other Member of Parliament. Long-term contracts will fall from our hands and go to our international competitors. The Australians, the Americans or the South Africans will be getting the foreign exchange that our resource wealth would have earned for us. This investment would revitalize whole towns and communities; jobs that would have taken our people off the unemployment rolls and welfare rolls will not be created. All of the opportunities to put the small business sector of our economy back on the rails will not be spent.

No other region in British Columbia has more to lose from that investment and from changes to the Crowsnest Pass railway freight system than southeastern British Columbia. No other region of British Columbia has more to gain. If the people of British Columbia are to make good the promises and if our government is to make good the promises of longterm prosperity and growth, then quite clearly the Crow must go. But there are those who oppose this legislation, even to the point where they would ignore the wishes of their own constituents; even to the point where they would ignore the genuine concerns of the communities that they serve. In fact, they would go out of their way to insult their constituents — the constituents that elect them and pay their salaries — in favour of villages and towns in Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the retention of the Crowsnest Flass railway freight system.

In my riding, the Kootenay riding of British Columbia, the sitting Member of Parliament, the member for Kootenay East–Revelstoke, an NDP member, has put his loyalty, the loyalty to the New Democratic Party, before the interests of his own constituents. I heard that member of the New Democratic Party say, along with the members in this House, that

[ Page 783 ]

they agree that our system needs upgrading, that they agree that the cost of grain should be increased. Their big objection to the Crow legislation was that there was no commitment or guarantee in the legislation that would force railway companies to reinvest their profits and upgrade our western railway system. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has not read Bill C-155. They couldn't possibly have read it. If they had, they wouldn't have been able to have made those arguments. A letter by the Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke to the district municipality of Sparwood, on November 3, 1982, reveals his distrust of coal companies operating in southeastern British Columbia and of their motives for wanting the change. This Member of Parliament was openly hostile to the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. for wanting changes in this agreement. The same Member of Parliament went so far as to accuse the Canadian Pacific Railway of blackmailing Canadians and British Columbians.

To ship coal from southeastern British Columbia — from the Elk Valley — to Roberts Bank is approximately $18 a tonne. To ship grain from Regina to Vancouver costs 15 cents a bushel or $5.25 a tonne, compared to $18 for coal. The freight for transporting coal from southeastern British Columbia has increased 300 percent since 1970, while the rate for transporting grain under the archaic Crowsnest Pass agreement has not changed since 1897. The transportation cost for coal is 25 percent of the selling price. The cost of transporting grain is 3 percent of the selling price. In short, Mr. Speaker, you can ship one bushel of wheat from Regina to Vancouver for half the cost of mailing a postcard.

The Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke, along with those other members of the New Democratic Party, should review the provisions in Bill C-155. Mr. Speaker, the government of British Columbia and I agree that this bill does not and will not solve all of our transportation problems. But in reading the bill you will find that there is adequate protection to ensure that railway companies cannot simply take this additional new-found revenue and reinvest it in diversified enterprises within their corporate empires.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. Section 18(d) provides that a grain transportation agency administrator must monitor the performance of rail companies to ensure that performance objectives in the western transportation act are observed. Section 29(l) obliges each railway company affected by the legislation to file annual statements dealing with the company's investment in railway equipment, new plants, and plants in general, for the movement of grain for the time period covered by the report. Section 29(2) under the act sets out the functions of the western grain commission to monitor the programs of railway companies with respect to those companies' programs for investment. Section 55(2) is the enforcement mechanism whereby the Minister of Transport may, pursuant to Section 29(2), hold back funds from any railway company which is not meeting its obligation to ensure that an adequate and sufficient transportation system is in place to meet future requirements for the shipment of grain. Section 56(3) provides that any adjustments made to CN can be varied by other factors that are appropriate in determining the amount of CN's adjustment. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural community itself is protected by levying a percentage of the final price for transporting their products on the cost of their final selling price.

Clearly, the bill tries to protect the taxpayers of Canada and the taxpayers of British Columbia. It also attempts, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that all of the upgrading requirements needed in our western transportation system are to be met and dealt with in an appropriate way.

If the NDP Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke was on his toes, Mr. Speaker, he would have ensured that coal producers in southeastern British Columbia had the same protection as the agricultural community. In fact, if he had provided some positive suggestions to the government of Canada he could have included in the bill the same protection for wood producers in British Columbia as was put in place for the agricultural community to protect them against unreasonable freight rate escalations.

Mr. Speaker, under the mechanisms set out in the proposed Western Grain Transportation Act I am confident in saying that as long as one bushel of wheat travels CN and CP lines throughout this province, railway companies are subject to government monitoring and threats of holdups. After all, about 800 B.C. grain producers ship grain over CN lines and CP lines.

The Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke should check his facts with a member of this House, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who was the agricultural critic for the New Democratic Party.

[4:45]

The first reason I want to elaborate on statements and commitments made by the Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke is that there is a general misunderstanding on the part of the member about the Western Grain Transportation Act. Second, I would have expected the NDP Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke — along with the member for West Kootenays, for that fact — to stand up in the House of Commons and support this bill, because of their constituents in southeastern British Columbia and the job security of thousands of miners and woodworkers in British Columbia whose jobs and families rely on the passage of this bill. They are directly affected and their future is directly affected. He should stand up and represent the legitimate concerns of the elected people and, indeed, ordinary citizens of British Columbia.

I've already discussed the problem with rail capacity. Even if Bill C-155 becomes law tomorrow, there will be rail capacity shortage in western Canada within the next two years. This frightening situation is apparent in my own constituency of Kootenay. In pleading for abolition of the Crow, the mayor of Sparwood, the council of Sparwood and all of the councils in my constituency passed resolutions opposing the Crow. Their concerns have been completely ignored by the NDP member for Kootenay East–Revelstoke. It's interesting how the members of this House come in here and like to talk about municipalities opposing this, that and the other. Yet when one municipality asks them to stand up in support of something that they want, they turn them down because they have a philosophical objective.

MR. REID: It's hypocritical, isn't it?

MR. SEGARTY: I would agree with the comment of the second member for Surrey.

The NDP member for Kootenay East–Revelstoke left the people of southeastern British Columbia with really no alternative but to request the government of British Columbia to present this resolution to the House. Indeed, it was an election commitment on my part to the people of my riding in the East Kootenays that this would be one of my top priorities on

[ Page 784 ]

returning to government. I'm pleased that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) has presented the resolution for debate in this House. The councils in southeastern British Columbia also lobby at great expense directly to the government of Canada for upgrading of our railway system. A letter to the federal minister, Jean-Luc Pepin, dated December 22, 1982, from the municipal council of Sparwood urges the minister to immediately undertake the painful process of passing this legislation. The heading in the letter is: "Upgrading Rail Trackage from Southeastern British Columbia." The letter goes on to say:

"The Sparwood council is duly interested in seeing rail trackage in the rich coalfields of southeastern British Columbia upgraded to meet current and future economic needs. We duly note, Mr. Minister, that the southeast coal-producing area known as the Elk Valley has historically survived despite economic doldrums that affected us over the years. The new age for coal emerged in the sixties, and the Elk Valley bounced back with a new vitality and individuality that has acknowledged a proud and progressive future. One new mine has been opened up in the past year, the Line Creek mine, and another is coming onstream, the Greenhills mine. The expansion plans are set out for yet another mine, Byron Creek, and the future opens itself up to possible new mines and increased production. True, we do acknowledge the recession, but we also acknowledge that this too will pass."

They, too, have confidence in our economy and our future. The letter goes on to say:

"To be, sure, Mr. Minister, the Elk Valley has travelled a hard road of tough times in our country, and the residents of our community and the neighbouring communities, with their determination, have survived and grown for the betterment of the Elk Valley, the province and the nation. We are mindful of our history. We are mindful of our future. We feel that a serious look at upgrading trackage from southeastern British Columbia to port at Roberts Bank would do much to move our resources for the benefit of all. There is a firm belief that the status of the current trackage is already fully strained, and we feel that upgrading would be a step in seeing that the economic lifelines of our communities are extended."

The letter goes on to say:

"We are proud of our people and their determination to contribute for the betterment of family and nation. We have the resources and the manpower; provide us with a fuller means of moving our resources.

Sincerely,
Toto Miller,
Mayor and Council of Sparwood."

That letter deals adequately with the situation that the Elk Valley finds itself in today because of the bottlenecks in our western railroad system. Who is this Member of Parliament from Kootenay East–Revelstoke representing if not his own constituents?

It is interesting to note that on May 19, 1983, the federal Hansard shows on page 25592 that the Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke presented a petition on behalf of Arran and Pelly, communities in Saskatchewan, in favour of retaining the Crow. On page 25595 the Member of Parliament presented a petition on behalf of Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Now this is the Member of Parliament for Kootenay East–Revelstoke who presented a petition of Swift Current, Saskatchewan in favour of retaining the Crow. On page 25612 the Member of Parliament presented a petition on behalf of residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba in favour of retaining the Crow. Can you imagine the nerve? Surely this Member of Parliament has a responsibility to assist the communities that he is representing in presenting their petitions and their concerns instead of municipal councils and individuals going to see federal parliamentary committees at great expense to their taxpayers and their communities in order to have this very very serious problem heard by the federal parliament. They did this at great expense to their community, and the Member of Parliament of Kootenay East–Revelstoke should be ashamed for not taking up the concerns of his own constituents and providing them with the same opportunities as he has provided for the people of Swift Current and communities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The Member of Parliament should know that no area in Canada stands to lose more in the long run from retaining the Crow than the Kootenay region of British Columbia. We tend to lose most.

Page B10 of the Vancouver Sun early in the new year spelled out the changes that are needed to be made to the Crow in the best way. It is not surprising to hear the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talk about different parts of the upgrading and modernization programs cancelled because of the situation we are in. The article is in the Vancouver Sun, and I quote: "Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways are slashing capital operating budgets to compensate for grain deficits, and if the federal government doesn't ease the burden, railways say that they will do less maintenance work than usual in 1983." The article goes on to say: "This will reduce overall manpower requirements causing layoffs if there is no grain solution by mid-year." I would suggest it is past mid-year. "CP won't do any construction this year of its $600 million project for Rogers Pass in British Columbia." At the present time that project could be providing thousands of jobs for British Columbia workers, if it weren't for the holdup attitude of the New Democratic Party. The article goes on to say that the railways are cutting a second tunnel through the mountains to prevent the Rogers Pass from becoming a future bottleneck on its main line from Vancouver. At issue is the Crowsnest Pass rail system set out in 1897, which would set the tariff paid by western farmers for moving grain at a levy below what it costs the railways to handle the product.

Perhaps the best perspective on the Crow was given by the Vancouver Province economist, Mark Wilson, in his February 7, 1982, comment on the NDP position, which was entitled "An Unthinking Stand on the Crow." He says, in part: "It is an unthinking move which observes party loyalty to disregard common sense." That's the position that the New Democratic Party is in today: they disregard common sense for party loyalty. That article goes on to say:

"At present rail freight on export grain meets only one-sixth of railway operating costs, calculated using a formula developed by an independent costing analyst hired by the federal government.

"Losses in the second half of the decade could reach $4 billion. The magnitude of these losses is ignored by the New Democratic Party.

[ Page 785 ]

"The railways already admit to cross-subsidization, whereby they inflate charges to other shippers" — such as coal, copper, lead, zinc, lumber, pulp and other commodities leaving this province. "Worse, they cannot meet capital spending programs in adequate fashion.

"It is not generally recognized that both CP Rail and the CNR have already trespassed beyond desirable starting dates for needed plant expansion pro grams. Thus there will be rail capacity shortages in western Canada in the mid-1980s.

"The western economy would have permanently clipped wings if the New Democratic Party have their way.”

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would particularly like to draw the attention of the hon. members of this House to the current situation with the pulp and milling industry in our province. The third international pulp symposium held on April 25 of this year in Brussels heard in no uncertain terms of the challenge to traditionally dominant producers. Those nations such as Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the United States, known as the Norscan group, are now facing unprecedented competition from their rivals. The non-Norscan producers have gained significant growth over the past 15 years, and in 1982 their combined tonnage of pulp production stood at 9.5 million tonnes, or a full 35 percent of the world pulp supply. In 1984 it is anticipated that the non-Norscan producers will gain another 2 percent of the world share. That 2 percent will represent 570,000 tonnes, equivalent to 12 percent of this country's total pulp production in 1982. In 1990 and beyond, when world demand for pulp is expected to expand tremendously, the competition from non-Norscan producers is expected to intensify and become pretty fierce.

[5:00]

More specific examples may be of interest to members in this House. Brazil, for example, opened up new pulp mills in 1978-79 with a combined production of 900,000 tonnes beyond their domestic requirements. Brazil has export markets in Europe, Japan and in the United States. In nearby Chile, pulp exports are projected to grow to 750,000 tonnes by 1990 and 1.5 million tonnes by the year 2000. Chile now has import markets to Germany, France, communist China and Korea. Argentina is also looking at exporting 40 percent of their capacity of kraft pulp to the Norscan traditional areas, which they started opening up in 1982. In western Europe, Portugal is entering a new pulp market in a major way, with production capacity projected to extend to 735 million tonnes in 1982 and 915 million metric tonnes in 1984. This is basically the situation which our competitors find themselves in. In eastern Europe, only 250,000 metric tonnes are now being produced for export. Even within Norscan itself, competition is becoming fierce with major expansions already underway in the southeastern United States.

Increasingly, there are cost disadvantages to us in this very competitive world. In the current situation the cost of producing one tonne of pulp in southeastern British Columbia is $356. In southeastern United States the equivalent production cost is estimated at $340 per tonne, so clearly they have a competitive edge. The Norcan producing countries have much lower production costs than even the southeastern United States. Is it any wonder that sawmilling and pulp capacity expansions have ground to a halt in our country, while tough competition is rapidly expanding and penetrating our traditional markets?

The New Democratic Party in opposition were intent on attacking the government of British Columbia for supporting he development of our railroads, for projects and programs hat were given to the CPR over a century ago. The same New Democratic Party should look seriously at what's happening in our country today. Technological change is replacing the jobs of our workers in the mines and mills of our country. A few years ago, in a mine in southeastern British Columbia, the largest truck on the mine site was 50 tonnes and the largest shovel was a five-yard shovel; today the largest truck is a 200 tonne truck and one of the largest shovels is 50 cubic yards. So clearly there are changes taking placing in that industry which will replace worker participation.

Our sawmilling industry is no different. Technology is replacing greenchains and areas like that where people were employed in previous years. Industry has to do it in order to compete in a very competitive world. High technology has created opportunities for increased chip production in sawmills; at the same time, the same technology has reduced demand for chips at our pulp mills. This has created a huge inventory of wood chips and fibre in our province. It was with that in mind that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) talked in the throne speech about expanding opportunities for pulp production — creating new pulp production in southeastern British Columbia and in the Kootenay region, or expanding existing facilities. But if the cost of transporting that final product is going to escalate over the next ten years the same way as it has over the past ten years, then nobody will take advantage of that opportunity. The cost of transporting coal increased 300 percent.

It is important today, more than ever before, that our industrial leaders are able to go out in the world market and forecast what our costs are going to be 5, 10, 15, 25 years or the life of the plant down the road. If they're able to do that, you will see industry take advantage of that new opportunity to create jobs and investment in the pulp industry in southeastern British Columbia. Just as an example of what can be done to create that opportunity, it would provide a $300 million to $500 million investment, create 250 direct jobs at the pulp mills, and 500 jobs in the trucking and logging industry in our province. That could take place if that opportunity was available today.

If you can bear with me a second, Mr. Speaker, the value of coal shipments from southeastern British Columbia rose from $66 million to $573 million in 1982. In other words, the value of coal shipments increased 7.68 times since 1972.

In 1968, when Kaiser Resources opened its mine in Sparwood, the capacity of that mine was four million tonnes; it employed 1,000 people. In 1982 that capacity increased to 6.5 million tonnes; the mine employed 1,914 people. In 1969 Fording Coal opened its new mine with a capacity of three million tonnes, with employment for 1,000 people. Today they have an expanded capacity of five million tonnes with 1,500 workers. In 1975 Byron Creek built a new mine with a capacity of 5.5 million tonnes. This capacity is expected to double, creating 200 new jobs. In 1982 Line Creek built and is ready to open up its new mine with a capacity of 1.75 million tonnes, creating 640 new jobs. The mine at Greenhills will open this year with a capacity of 2.8 million tonnes, creating 500 new jobs. In 1982 the southeast coal mines had a combined capacity of 16 million tonnes of coal per year. That

[ Page 786 ]

is why we need the modernization of our western railway system. That is why I support the resolution put forward by the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the government of British Columbia.

To handle the growing production pouring through from southeastern British Columbia, Roberts Bank port facility is nearing the final stage of completion. That was done with the efforts and support of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but unless our transportation system is modernized to take care of new capacity, that port facility will just become another storage area for coal. We need to be able to transport our coal as quickly and efficiently and cheaply as possible and pass it through the port in a fast way in order to get the best dollar for our value.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your indulgence, and my compliments to the Minister of Transportation and Highways for putting forward the resolution.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't expect that I will indulge myself in a lengthy speech on this issue this afternoon, but I think there are some things we should really clarify. The situation in 1907 regarding rail capacity was not the same as it is today. Just to give you one little illustration, it took 225 men and 51 trains to haul the same amount of coal that can be hauled by one train today, with three men. So those people — especially the CPR — who cry out that they can't make any money out of hauling grain I think are uttering fraudulent statements.

The member suggested in his — I think not vicious, but snide — attack on the MP for Kootenay East–Revelstoke that he was somehow disloyal to his own constituents by supporting the aspirations, perhaps, of some of the prairie communities. I think that is a little out of line, and he hasn't told the whole story there as well.

I know the hon. member makes his best speeches when heckling, but I noticed that when he was up making his own he was reading it the whole time. He's got a good fast lip when it comes to heckling somebody else, but when he has his own opportunity he timidly stands up there and reads and mumbles his way through something that was probably prepared by somebody else, for all I know,

MR. SEGARTY: I want to be accurate.

MR. ROSE: Oh, you want to be accurate. That would be a new experience for you. You talked about the member for Kootenay East–Revelstoke being distrustful of some of the rail and coal companies. In 1970 the Elk Valley line didn't want to use Canadian rails at all. They wanted to take their own line, run it down to the border and have a quarter-inch gap right at the border, and then it wasn't crossing an international boundary. This was put forward seriously by their lawyer before the CTC. It wasn't really crossing because actually the rails didn't meet at that point, so that they could ship it, not by Canadian railways at all, but through Burlington Northern to Seattle — not to Roberts Bank, Now here were these good, loyal, corporate citizens, and what were they really up to? No wonder we have a little problem trusting some of the coal companies. Now I know that the CPR needs the money. They need the money to ship their own Fording Coal, for which they will charge us, or themselves, presumably, out at a higher rate than they're getting now — $15, $18 on their unit trains that employ three men where they once employed 225 for the same amount of money.

There's something else that I think is important to know on this whole Crow issue. I don't think we can argue whether it's cost effective or whether they're losing money. I don't think anybody knows. If you want to get a guy like Snavely, he'll tell you one thing; if you want your own expert, Pepin will hire Gilson, and he will give you another whole set of figures. What we do know is that if you look into the subsidies, the rates we're now charging under Crow are not a giveaway; they are competitive with rates in the United States. When these rates go up, depriving the prairie community, which is part of Canada, by the way.... I notice a terrible tendency in this House: if you're not a British Columbian, you're somehow made to feel disloyal to the rest of the country. I don't understand that. There's all the fed-bashing, and today it's prairie-bashing.

What we're talking about is the survival of rural communities in part of our country — a very important part of the country that needs to flourish as well. Certainly we don't want B.C. to suffer in any instance because we're going to be nice to some other part of the country. However, the situation has always been that in order to have the country survive as a nation and not to break up into individual, competitive, combative units of regionalization, we've got to work together. We've got to work for solutions that will satisfy the whole country.

Just because a B.C. Member of Parliament has concern for another region of the country, and stands up and gives a petition for that particular part of the country, because it was sent to him.... I'll tell you about petitions. You say he got one from Swift Current. I got one from people in Abbotsford to "save the Crow," because it's part of our tradition and way of life.

I want to get back to the business of making no sense at all. Your quote from Mark Wilson about disregarding common sense for party loyalty got me a little bit aroused. It isn't a case of party loyalty.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROSE: I noticed the Minister of Transportation and Highways chuckles way down deep somewhere in the lower reaches of his abdomen. As a matter of fact, it was so low and resonant, for a while I wasn't even sure it was a chuckle. The noise he made was more eloquent than usual.

If it's a case of party loyalty, why are the Conservatives in B.C. and in the prairie provinces voting exactly the same way on the Crow resolution as the NDP?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Politics.

MR. ROSE: If someone supports his region, he's political if he's on the Prairies. But if he supports his region in British Columbia, he's just being a stand-up, staunch, brave and courageous politician. That's what I would call somewhat of a double standard.

I think this whole resolution hangs on whether....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's a limit to politics.

[5:15]

MR. ROSE: Oh, the minister is suggesting we shouldn't turn this House into a political arena, I suppose.

[ Page 787 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's courage, isn't it?

MR. ROSE: That's what I thought it was. That's what I came here for: politics. I thought this was a political playpen; that's why all of us are here.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I think that's one of the greatest compliments the minister could suggest.

I want to tell you what is going on here. The whole thing is sold on the basis of jobs. In other words, if you're opposed to Crow, you're opposed to jobs and development. That's exactly what we get here. I would like to ask what guarantee we get for all the billions of dollars we've poured into the CPR over the years? I think people should have some sort of idea of just what kind of money this poor, impoverished company and its sister, the CN, are going to get out of all this. It's very interesting.

Here's what we're going to get. As soon as the announcement was made that they were going to kill the Crow, the shares of Canadian Pacific went up $134 million. That's the first thing that happened; that's the first windfall profit. That was only the beginning. Here's the great reward The Pepin proposal was going to offer the railroad: $651 million in perpetuity.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear what Mowat said? He said he wished he had some shares. Crass materialism!

MR. ROSE: I think it would be nice if he had some shares. If he had some shares in anything, he would still be a minority of the people in Canada. As far as people's capitalism in this country is concerned, fewer than 10 percent of Canadians own shares in any damn thing, and most of them are owned by the large corporations or big investors — pension funds. The average person does not own shares, and if the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) regrets that he doesn't own shares, he's with the majority of Canadians.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Anyway, the railways have got $651.5 million per year in perpetuity, guaranteed. Talk about socialism, talk about giveaways, talk about throwing money around: $313 million as an interim payment in 1983. In 1982 the railroads were cutting their investments in development and expansion. At the same time that they're promised their money they're cutting their investment. There's where your jobs have gone. Your jobs have gone down the drain. We've got $3.7 billion in subsidies to the end of the 1985-86 crop year, protection from the effects of inflation on the cost of transporting grain, and, most importantly, an end to the statutory status of grain rates. Why was this all done? It's to shift the cost from the railways and transportation companies to the prairie farmers. That's all, pure and simply.

If you get those costs up high enough — they're just about up there now — what's going to happen? As with the Elk Valley coal company and the Elk Valley railway that wanted to ship its coal down through the United States, you'll find our grain going out through Duluth because they have — through the American engineering service — a publicly subsidized Mississippi system that can compete and beat us almost at the rates at the moment, and will certainly do that in the future if we punch these through. There we are.

All these jobs that are supposed to come are a myth. We are not opposed to development. We're not even opposed to the money that's going to be spent. But we want to make sure that the jobs are going to be there. There are no guarantees at the moment. I don't care what the minister sitting over there looking comfortable and self-satisfied says. There are no guarantees. I would invite him to get up and read the portions of the bill in which these guarantees exist. I don't see it.

What we're saying is what's happening here right now is that the railways have said, in spite of.... I can give you the profits of CPR and its enterprises for last year, but you don't want to hear that. It amounts to billions of dollars. "You give us more money or we're not going to expand." Only 9 to 10 percent of the hauling is really grain, so these terrible subsidies that they're getting, compared to the other commodities, are again an elaborate distortion designed to fool municipalities in Sparwood and other places that great benefits are going to accrue to us. They may not.

If we are not competitive with grain, one of the largest cash inputs into Canada from overseas will be shut right off. That's what we're concerned about, but we agree that we need to upgrade the railways and we need employment. The question is: how do you best do it? Do you best do it by larding largess onto the railways or do you do it in some other way? That is really where the point of argument exists, because we know we need more capacity. We know we need employment and all those things. My God, we've certainly been successful enough putting people out of work — about 100,000 last year. Sure we've got to put some of them back to work. The question is: what kind of employment bang are you going to get for your buck? That's the real question, and that is the essential question of the whole thing.

We had some recommendations to make. The federal party has. I don't know if this government is serious about the Crow, because if they were I think what they would do is maybe make a submission. There's a travelling committee all across Canada now. It'll be in the west in a couple of weeks. I would like to see what kind of submission the government of British Columbia intends to make to the commission. There's a standing committee visiting our province within the next few days, and I think it would be very nice if we presented a well-documented brief to that standing committee. I think they would welcome it. They would probably find that there would be some....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to make a brief to it?

MR. ROSE: We've made our submissions to it. Anyway, this is the position that we're taking on that, and it's very important.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I have not made a personal submission, but I'm telling you what our policy is, and I think it's important that our policy be put forward, because the position that has been given us by the Socreds across the way is, I think, wildly distorted; but that's political, and that's the way it goes.

We'll take all this money, $930 million or something like that....

[ Page 788 ]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, it's going to go to the CN and CR They both get that. The CN and CP operate in precisely the same way. They take huge gobs of public money out of the system whenever they can, and charge all that the traffic will bear. That's been the history of CN for years. They were saddled with an impossible debt because.... Why do we have a CN? Because we had a whole flock of bankrupt free enterprise railways that needed to be bailed out. That's how we inherited the CN — to bail out a lot of buccaneers who went broke in railroading. That's why the public inherited it.

We've been paying and paying and paying for both railroads.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you what the Crow rate's going to do for the BCR. It's going to raise the rates for the Peace River grain farmers by about a third. It's going to bring a lot of money into the BCR, but it's going to cost your constituents a third more.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, I won't tell his constituents, but he might come clean with them for a change.

Anyway, here's our constructive alternative.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They get their instructions from Moscow.

MR. ROSE: I'm a little disturbed about the coalition between the Socreds and the Liberals. I don't like the fact that they're in bed with the Liberals on this. The minister made some very complimentary remarks about Pepin.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. ROSE: I would like to suggest that there are some constructive alternatives that could be offered. My colleague the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) touched on them, but I would like to deal with them in a little bit greater detail, a little bit more elaboration, provided there's time.

The first thing we should do is end the giveaways. We agree that the upgrading should be done, but they got billions of dollars for branch-line development and all they did was let grass grow through them. And that's another matter: if you remove all those branch lines you've really torn the guts out of most rural communities on the Prairies. It's a very serious demographic and social concern that those provinces, part of our Confederation, are expressing.

We're saying that we've had enough of giveaways. We want to pay the railways for the proven out-of-pocket expenses for hauling grain. We think that will amount to approximately $380 million, not the fantastic amounts that they claim. We want to pay that to them directly, audited by outside auditors — $380 million a year, if that is the audited figure. That's what we think will be there. Give the federal government an equity share in CN and CP equal to the amount that we're putting in. If we're going to give public money to Dome, like 93-cent dollars, or if we're going to give the money to the CN or the CP or Air Canada or deHavilland or Canadair or whatever, or to any groups like that, such as these large monopoly transportation companies, then we should be prepared.... It seems only reasonable to me that if we're going to give them all that money, we should have an equity share equivalent to the amount we give them.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is unclear. We have already bought the CNR and the CPR about ten times over; the only thing is that we never got it. We got it, all right — right between the ears.

MR. LEA: They took money out of the B.C. treasury and the BCR, and they didn't share in the returns.

MR. ROSE: Well, that is something that you know about. I'm not as clear on that as I am on our own policy. I can't worry about the sins of the Socreds, because I would be worrying all the time.

We want an equity share for any more money....

AN HON. MEMBER: We own the CN already. What are you talking about?

MR. ROSE: Well, we're talking about the CPR. We'll do the same for the CPR and the BCR if we need it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should be thankful that they're being run at a profit. Very few railroads in the States are.

MR. ROSE: I can out shout you with this mike on. The only problem is that I can't hear you when you're doing that, and you have such witty comments I hate to miss any of them.

Capital investments in the railway upgrading should be at least $550 million, and we should require the railways to maintain their investments, because they're not doing that. We give them money and then they blackmail us. They did that, beginning ten years ago, with hopper cars. They said: "All our cars are down in St. Louis or Duluth or Dallas or someplace. We haven't got any, so you guys buy the hopper cars."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I take it you don't like the CPR.

MR. ROSE: Well, I realize that they own that little feudal area down in southeastern British Columbia. I'm very much like W.A.C. Bennett. He had a great distrust of the CPR, and I don't think he would have been involved in this resolution. I begin to wonder: why did this resolution come forward? Have the polls told you it was a good idea, or did you somehow figure out that if you could say this was a job producing thing everybody was going to go for it? You haven't got one guarantee that one job is going to be produced as a result of it, because there are no contracts to require the railways to do what they say they're going to do. All we're going to do is pay, and we're not going to be assured of anything particularly. I'll tell you where the tunnels are. They're not through Rogers Pass. They're dream tunnels in your head on that stuff.

[ Page 789 ]

[5:30]

The total public expenditure of $500 million in railway upgrading requires the railways to maintain their investment at the 1981 levels, and in 1983 that would be $887 million. Now that's quite a bit. That's a total public expenditure of $930 million, and that's the same as the Gilson-Pepin plan. This would include complete branch-line rehabilitation, purchase of 1,200 hopper cars, upgrading the main lines with tunnels, new rails, signals, and all the rest of it. These are all with substantial savings of freight costs which will be made available through a modern rail system. So we're with you. We want a modern rail system. But we want control. We don't want you to just shovel it out like we've been doing for a century around here. We want some controls. You don't have any controls in your resolution here. As a matter of fact, your resolution doesn't say very much. It doesn't even say "Bill C- 155," so I suppose it's broad enough to drive a Mack truck through.

We want to make certain that other interests besides the rah-rah-rah — the happiness boys, the optimists over there; they're so optimistic they're shutting down half the civil service because of restraint.... That's how optimistic they are. They're really optimistic. On the one hand, we're the doom- and-gloomers. All the smilers are over there, all the laughers — economically speaking.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you're pretty comical.

MR. ROSE: I'm gung-ho. I'm optimistic.

They say 370,000 jobs by 1992. The railways are actually reducing their investment in 1983 by 22 percent. So that means more layoffs, not jobs — unless we have some good guarantees written into that legislation. And that's what we're working for. It's not that we don't want development, it's not that we don't want jobs, but we don't want to be gullible saps and get hooked into something for which there is no end. And that's what you're asking us to do. "Trust us. Fly blind."

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, I think if we did something like that built the hopper cars — it would help Ontario manufacturing, maintain the prairie economy, help out southwestern British Columbia, and make sure that we're not paying millions of dollars demurrage because we don't have the cars and the ships are sitting out there in English Bay waiting and waiting because there is no grain or coal.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Sure, we're concerned about the demurrage. Who pays it? The grain farmer pays it. And he has no control over the railways, because the railways are a monopoly.

If you think the railways are suddenly going to abandon their other more lucrative investments to put that money into cars.... They're guaranteed 22 percent right now. Why should they move? What's their motivation? They're guaranteed a 22 percent profit in this legislation. They're not going to hurry with that. Sure, I'd like to have $10 million spent in Port Coquitlam — in my riding. I just don't understand those shrewd, hard-headed businessmen supporting a deal like this for which there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, you've been very kind and, I think, other than rigid with me in terms of order and all the rest of it. But I've tried to put forward what I feel is a viewpoint that has not been expressed here, and tried to rebut some of the nonsense that's come across from the other side. To suggest that if you support Crow you support jobs, and that if you don't support that legislation, somehow you're anti-jobs and anti-development.... Now that is an excellent tack. I think that if you tried it out with the polls, especially down there....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We'll tell Jack Munro's IWA workers how you're against them.

MR. ROSE: It won't make any difference to the IWA.

You know who's in favour of the Crow? Here's the Crow coalition. I'm going to tell you who's in favour of the Crow. These are the guys who are in favour of the Socreds: the Coal Association of Canada — you know that the CPR is a biggie in that one; the Canadian Export Association; the Western Agricultural Conference — who are they? Have they made representations?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many jobs are involved in that coalition?

MR. ROSE: About 370,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. minister not to interrupt.

MR. ROSE: Canadian Chemical Producers' Association more agribusiness, more chemicals, more CPR — they want to get their money back ten different ways; Sultran Ltd; Canpotex; the Council of Forest Industries in B.C.; the Canadian Industrial Traffic League....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: IWA?

MR. ROSE: Well, they have not been part of the Crow coalition.

Any British Columbian could and should support an upgraded rail system and job creation, but achieving this with a giveaway to the CPR and destroying a rural economy in the heartland of our country should be fought.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This has certainly been an interesting debate, with some marvellous rhetoric. Maybe a little background might be in order. Canadian railways are considered to be the most efficient in the world. I wonder if maybe the Crow didn't have just a little bit to do with that — because of the years that the railways in this country had to deal with the Crow, and still have to deal with the Crow, I think they were held to that efficiency by the very rate that they had to work with. That had a lot to do with their involvement in unit trains and hopper cars. I think they've done a pretty good job of moving the prairie grain with this enormous subsidy that they've had to bear for, lo, these many years.

I'm surprised at the Liberal government. I didn't think they'd have the courage to do this, but they have. The time has come to revise the Crow rate and revise it with some equity. The stance that Mr. Pepin has taken is not the stance that I would have taken, nor is it the stance that other people who see the wisdom of reducing the Crow rate would perhaps have taken. Nonetheless, it's a step in the right direction.

[ Page 790 ]

I made a little note here about the member who is just leaving now. He asked if it would be such a bad thing if a British Columbian got up and defended the people in Saskatchewan. It wouldn't be such a bad thing, but I haven't seen too many Saskatchewan MPs stand up and defend British Columbia's rights.

We are major beneficiaries of this change in the Crow rate, and major sufferers as a result of its not being changed. There are other instances that take place in this country where British Columbia would benefit and Saskatchewan and other prairie provinces would be neither here nor there. What do you think happens? There's dead silence about the matter; we hear nothing about it. Incidentally, it's the Canadian Wheat Board that orders the ships and not the CPR or the CNR, and the demurrage rate, which, is paid by the prairie farmer, admittedly.... It's paid by the prairie farmer, but it's not to the credit of the railways, it's to the credit of the Wheat Board.

But who's going to pay for all this if the Crow doesn't get revised? It'll be paid for by the coal shippers of British Columbia. They're the number one group that'll pay for it. The second group are the lumber producers of British Columbia. The coal producers of British Columbia have been subsidizing the movement of grain, not the railway passengers, not the people who ship in Pool cars, because they don't amount to very much in the way of revenue; in fact, in some cases, they amount to a loss.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Were you going to speak later, or did you want to speak now?

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, I see. If you've already spoken, then I presume your debate is already in Hansard and we can read it all later if we're that way inclined.

In any event, the time has come....

MR. LAUK: Pompous twit.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. LEA: Which part of it? Pompous? Or twit?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I find the remark offensive and ask the member to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. The remark has been found unparliamentary and offensive. Will the member please withdraw it.

MR. LAUK: Yes. I withdraw the expression "pompous twit."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister continues. The members will remain in order.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I've obviously touched a very sensitive nerve in a very sensitive member....

AN HON. MEMBER: You devil.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, a devil. I really thought that my remarks were very innocuous. The first, second — I've forgotten which number he is — member for Vancouver Centre....

Mr. Speaker, the workers in southeastern British Columbia, the coal producers of southeastern British Columbia, the lumber producers of British Columbia, are all going to be major beneficiaries of a change in the Crow rates. The major beneficiary of all of them is going to be the people of British Columbia because of the construction, the new jobs, and the new employment that takes place.

It has taken some courage on behalf of governments to address this matter. I would suggest that had it been anywhere else, it would have been addressed 20 or 30 years ago. It's long overdue. I support the motion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. A. FRASER: We've had a good debate today on this motion, and a lot of things have come out. I'm not going to prolong it, except to say that we'd certainly like to see unanimous approval of this motion. The fact that we vote at all here is an outstanding achievement.

I want to correct a couple of items that came from the MLA for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) this morning so that people don't get carried away with his remarks. I'm quite amazed at his remarks regarding the CNR — not the CPR that the socialists hate so much, but the CNR. He states that they have no budget this year for their north line from.... The fact of the matter is that they have and they're at work. I would say to the member that he should go to his riding once in a while, and maybe he would know these facts that are going on. At the present time they are working on the CN west line from Prince George to Prince Rupert, which that member represents. The approximate $100 million worth that that member said this morning is wrong. It's not withdrawn; the work is proceeding at the present time. It includes a rail-relay program replacing 72 miles of old rail between Endako and Smithers. That one little project alone is $20 million. An other $20 million is being spent on improving communication facilities by burying the cable, which will bring centralized traffic control. Major siding extension locations are under construction, and in the great city of Prince George this year's construction includes new receiving and departure tracks, a $7 million diesel shop and a $2 million work equipment shop. I know the member for Prince Rupert didn't do it intentionally, but the work is actually going on.

The other main concern that seemed to come out was that the opposition tried to portray here today that the CPR or any of the rails would be handed a cheque and there would be no restraints on how that money was spent. I would just say that the bill presently before the House of Commons provides for sanctions if the railways don't perform. These sanctions will include reduction of payments, and they're going to have a committee of people from the Ministry of Transport policing this. So I think we don't have to be concerned that public money is going to be given out and that the CPR or the CNR doesn't have to perform. Of course, that isn't the case. The opposition tried to say that today, but it's not a fact.

[ Page 791 ]

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it's long past the time that this Canadian problem should be faced up to and resolved — and I'm referring to the Crowsnest freight rate. The government of Canada, and particularly the minister, as my colleague has said, should be congratulated for bringing it as far as it has come. The government of British Columbia will have a brief to the Transport Committee sitting in Vancouver tomorrow, supporting the government of Canada. We can get on then with the House of Commons finalizing this legislation, and get on with upgrading the railways, with creating jobs. Last and foremost, while we have a very efficient rail transportation system, we'll have an even better one to take our goods to market.

[5:45]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: this House is of the opinion that changes in the historic Crowsnest Pass grain and freight rate will substantially benefit the economic development and employment opportunities of Canada and British Columbia, and this House accordingly expresses its support for action by the Parliament of Canada to deal expeditiously with the issue of the statutory freight rate for export grain by passing the required legislation.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 17

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

6 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

What was the total of accounts receivable and notes receivable from each of the Crown corporations and agencies as at March 31, 1983?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"Unaudited Schedule A

COMBINED GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS
ACCOUNTS AND NOTES RECEIVABLE FROM CROWN CORPORATIONS AND AGENCIES
MARCH 31, 1983

[ Page 792 ]

10 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With reference to the weekly auctions of Treasury Bills —

1. What are the names of all successful bidders for the bills, by week?

2. What are the winning bids, by week, and the yield, by week?

3. What was the total dollar amount bid and the number of bids received, by week?

4. What has been the total dollar amount of treasury bills sold to date and what amount of money has been collected by the Province for them?

The Hon. the Minister of Finance stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

87 Mr. Lauk asked the Hon. the Minister responsible for B.C. Place Corporation the following questions:

1. What was the construction costs, including the design, materials and labour of the V.I.P. lounge and seating area at B.C. Place Stadium?

2. What is the annual operating cost of this facility including staff, utilities, food, beverages and supplies?

3. To whom is the privilege of attending the V.I.P. lounge extended and on what basis (i.e., what guidelines exist for the use of this facility) ?

4. Are members of the Executive Council entitled to use this facility and, if so, may they bring guests?

5. On what basis are members of the Premier's staff entitled to use the V.I.P. lounge?

6. What other Government officials are entitled to use the V.I.P. lounge?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"1. The all up construction costs of the facility is $60,000.

"2. Operating costs of the box are estimated at $80 per event, and include one staff person (barman), cleaning and general maintenance. All food and beverage costs are paid for on an individual basis by the sponsoring Government member or corporation director. A voucher system is in operation for beverage services, and food services are optional, and paid for cash-on-delivery. There is a single beverage staff person, and a single security person in the box for event times only.

"3, 4 and 5. At the outset, specific written guidelines were issued concerning the use of this facility. Government members and directors of B.C. Place may use the

[ Page 793 ]

stadium box when conducting Government or Crown corporation business, and in the promotion of the best interests of the Province. Guidelines specify that Government members and corporation directors must accompany their guests.

"6. Government members and directors of B.C. Place may invite other Government officials and ministerial staff where provincial interests indicate."