1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 507

Division on motion to proceed to orders of the day — 509

Legislative Indemnities and Expenses Tribunal Act (Bill 31) .

Second reading.

Mr. Skelly — 510

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 511

Motor-vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 32) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 512

Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 512

Change of Name Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 34) Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 512

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3) .

Second reading.

Mr. Barnes — 513

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 515

Mr. Lauk — 518

Mr. Shelford — 523

Mr. Lloyd — 526

Mr. Skelly — 527

Mr. D'Arcy — 530

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, before you start I would point out that you have 20 minutes left in the allotted time limit in this debate.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that will be more than ample time.

This afternoon I made some comments about observing the rules and

traditions of this House. Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in this

House that when one is making his maiden speech the opposition would

accord him certain respect. Now that tradition is just one of the

traditions that seem to have been broken in this House today.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you brought down a ruling on a certain

point that had been raised, and after you had brought your findings

here something occurred that I'm sure every member of the gallery and

every member in this House is thoroughly ashamed of. Never, I am sure,

has there been such a blatant display of complete disregard....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, Hon. Minister. It is not proper to

reflect upon a vote or a proceeding that has taken place in the House

prior to your speaking this evening.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to my speech

in which I mentioned the necessity of the people in this House

conducting themselves with some dignity. The things that happened here

made me thoroughly ashamed of the ways in which some people in this

House conduct themselves. I have young children, Mr. Speaker, who, when

they don't get their own way, quite often jump up and down and scream

and stamp their feet. This type of thing was demonstrated very clearly

this afternoon by certain members of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the thing to do these days is to make readings from

press clippings, and so on, so I would like to reflect on a certain

article

in a Vancouver newspaper which appeared this evening. It refers to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition's awards, which he spoke about in the early parts

of this session. This writer has suggestions as to additional awards that may

be presented. I think it will be very interesting to read them, seeing as how

it is quite in order, to read many, many clippings from the newspapers. There

seem to be the key writers for certain members.

The award for the former Premier: one oscar for his role in the 1975

comedy-drama "The B.C. Election" in which he starred as Lil' 0l' Fat

Dave — a superb performance, except perhaps his timing was slightly off

— plus a hard-cover volume of elementary bookkeeping from Mr. Belcher.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, in The Vancouver Sun .

For the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi): a

detective kit, consisting of a magnifying glass and finger-printing set

for tracking down missing millions. For the former Minister of Mines

(Mr. Lauk), who likened Socred policies to attitudes of Nazi Germany:

the iron cross. For a member who spoke this afternoon, the affluent

Point Grey socialist (Ms. Brown): a book, sequel to the book I'm Okay, You're Okay , a new book entitled "I'm Okay, I'm Okay." For the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly): a copy of Robert Bentley's book My Ten Years In A Quandry and How They Grew .

For the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall): a rubber chicken. For

the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald): a left-handed tennis

racquet for returning problem balls to other people's courts. To the

former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A.

Williams): a stamp alburn, now that he can't collect companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know where that former member is; he doesn't seem to be here.

For the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King): a one-sided bargaining

table, union made. For a former member who now resides in far-distant

lands (Mr. Strachan): a gold-plated gun similar to the one held to his

head during the ferry strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know where he is — I think he's

in Great Britain now. For the former Finance Minister, the most

recently former Finance Minister (Mr. Stupich): a week's paid

leave-of-absence on loan to Mayor Jean Drapeau so that he can explain a

similar situation at the summer Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the traditions of this House, in which a

person's maiden speech should be free from heckling, there were certain

remarks made when I was talking about mining — from the former Minister

of Mines, as a matter of fact. He asked me if I believe, when I spoke

about providing some reason for this industry to exist, in some

incentive for them. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that, for I haven't spent

[ Page 508 ]

entire career working in that industry — and I mean

working in that industry, not observing it from afar.... And my father

before me spent his entire lifetime, his working lifetime, mining in

British Columbia.

Many, many of my friends, who in the last three years have been

sitting waiting, without jobs to go to, have wondered what has happened

to this industry that once was so prosperous and which was killed by

the former government.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many, many proven

ore bodies in this province. In 1972, and for the years prior to that,

we had two or three mines coming along each year, Mr. Speaker,

providing jobs and opportunities for British Columbians, and providing

more revenue for this province and developing our resources.

Then we have the affluent member who spoke this afternoon so long

about Texas, telling us about the working people of British Columbia.

What does that member know about the working people of British

Columbia? This member, Mr. Speaker, thinks that the working people of

British Columbia want to stand around and wait for government handouts

because there are no jobs at which they can work. The people of British

Columbia are much prouder than that. They don't want handouts from

government; they want a chance to contribute to this province with such

bountiful resources. She thinks that profit is a dirty word and doesn't

realize that profit is the wages of industry, just as wages are the

wages of the working people.

Mr. Speaker, I made mention of the petroleum and natural gas

industry and my feelings are that this industry must be encouraged

because there is, indeed, a shortage of energy in this world. An

industry which provides the future energy for our society must be

encouraged to carry on with its work. But the former government felt

that no, it's a rip-off. We have no need for exploration for energy.

Any profits these people make they sock in a great big sack and carry

it away to foreign lands. Mr. Speaker, most of the profit that is made

by people in the petroleum and natural gas business is put right back

into the search for resources and energy for future generations of

British Columbians.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Then why do they do it? Did you ever figure that out?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The former Minister of Highways is again demonstrating his complete lack of respect for the traditions of this House.

Mr. Speaker, another industry for which I have certain

responsibility is the forest industry in British Columbia. This

industry has long been recognized as the cornerstone of our economy.

This industry has the potential for dramatic expansion in the future.

With a proper economic and political climate, it will continue to be a

major contributor to our way of life. In the future we can look to

major expansions and developments on the coast and the central

interior, in the northern interior and in the Kootenays. These

expansions can only take place if the proper economic and political

climate exists and is allowed to continue to exist in British Columbia.

Industry must have a return for its investments so it will be

encouraged to reinvest its profits in further expansion. Government, of

course, must have a return for use of its resource. Government must be

realistic about the operating guidelines and utilization standards.

There must be fair and just enforcement of these regulations. Industry

must have a reasonable security of raw material to justify the massive

injections of capital required. Industry must continue to recognize its

social and environmental responsibilities, but it must also have the

ability to generate the funds to pay for the costs involved. This is a

factor that the members opposite seem not to realize, Mr. Speaker.

On the other hand, government must assure that all sectors of the

industry, from the small independent logging contractor to the major

integrated companies, remain economically viable and continue to

contribute to the overall economy of this province.

The diversity of the forest sector has traditionally been one of its

greatest strengths, and this diversity must be assured by government.

This government will do that. The little sawmill in the hinterland is

just as important in the original economy as is the large pulp mill

which processes the chips. With the proper economic and political

climate British Columbia's forest industry will continue to provide

jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the honour, and indeed it is an honour, to

represent the people of Yale-Lillooet constituency in this Legislature.

These people have been represented since 1963 by the former member, Mr.

Bill Hartley. Mr. Hartley was a hard-working MLA and he did serve his

constituency well. I said this many, many times during the recent

election campaign.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They didn't like him in the Stampede Cafe.

HON. MR, WATERLAND: I, too, will serve the people of

Yale-Lillooet to the best of my ability. I will work hard on their

behalf, as they have come to expect from their MLA.

Yale-Lillooet, as you know, covers the major part of the southern

interior. There are five principal communities in this riding: Hope in

the southwest; Princeton in the southeast; Merritt in the middle of the

riding; Ashcroft on the doorstep of a highland

[ Page 509 ]

valley which has the potential to contribute so

much wealth to this province, and the Village of Lillooet, Mile 0 of

the Alaska Highway. In addition to these major communities there are

large numbers of smaller communities in Yale-Lillooet.

This is a resource-based constituency. Forestry, ranching, mining

and tourism all play important roles in the lives of the people of this

part of British Columbia. It was not because of a lack of hard work and

devotion on the part of the former member that I was elected in his

place on December 11, 1975. It was because these people saw what the

policies of the former government were doing to the resource base on

which they depend for livelihood.

These people chose me over the former member because the party which

I represented is committed to finding jobs and opportunities for them

by encouraging expansion in the industries on which they depend. The

people of this riding do not want government handouts. They don't want

to simply plug into this system. They just want the opportunity to look

after themselves and contribute to the economy of this great province.

Each of the communities of this constituency has problems which I

must help solve. Hope, Princeton, Merritt, Ashcroft, Laidlaw, Silver

Creek, Yale, Spuzzum, Popkum, Boston Bar, North Bend, Kanaka Bar,

Lytton, Gold Bridge, Bralorne, Gun Lake, Upper Hat Creek, Bridal Falls,

Spences Bridge, Lower Nicola, Nicola, Mamit Lake, Coldwater, Quilchena,

Douglas Lake, Coalmont, Tulameen, Aspen Grove, Shaw Spring, Seton

Point, South Shalath...and I am sure there are others I have missed.

MR. CHABOT: How about Brookmere?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Brookmere. There are many I have missed. The people of these communities have problems.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Each of these communities in my

constituency has problems, but these people are willing to work and

help solve their own problems.

Perhaps the area which needs help more than any other is the Bridge

River-Lillooet area. The economic base of Lillooet is very small

indeed. This government must and will provide the proper environment in

Lillooet to encourage the establishment of industry there. Improvement

is sorely needed in the road-access to Lillooet. The taxation base of

this community is very small indeed, and the village cannot afford the

recreational and social amenities taken for granted by so many other

villages, towns and cities in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember Hat Creek.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Hat Creek is there, too, Mr. Member.

The people of Lillooet, in particular, and the entire constituency

of Yale-Lillooet, as indeed all of British Columbia, do not want to

plug into the system. All we want is the opportunity to look after

ourselves, and the ability to help look after those who, through no

fault of their own, cannot look after themselves. It is to this end

that I, as the member for Yale-Lillooet, and this Government of British

Columbia would evoke our efforts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we proceed to orders of the day.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, is it not customary to recognize the opposition after a government member has spoken?

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, are you recognizing me? I move we proceed to orders of the day.

MR. KING: It is customary to recognize the Leader of the Opposition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I did not recognize you; I recognized the hon. Provincial Secretary and I'm sorry....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I recognized the hon. Provincial

Secretary who was on her feet. The mike on this desk apparently is not

working at the moment, but that does not mean that I did not recognize

the hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have made the motion, Mr. Speaker, that we move to proceed to orders of the day.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

[ Page 510 ]

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

NAYS — 17

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B. B.

Gibson

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to

our rules there is a suggestion under rule 27 that the items standing

on the order paper shall be taken up according to the precedence

assigned on the order paper, especially on Wednesday and Thursday, The

government has the power to vary the order on other days. I would

suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if you examine the order paper for today,

that standing first on orders of the day is the Committee of Supply,

which debate has just been adjourned. Standing next on orders of the

day is presenting petitions — presumably none here — reading and

receiving petitions, presenting reports by standing and special

committees and then, next, motions and adjourned debates on motions.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there is some question as to whether

or not motions and adjourned debate on motions constitute a part of the

routine business of the House and therefore, conceivably, are not a

part of orders of the day. But I would represent to Your Honour that

inasmuch as they stand beneath orders of the day and in the regular

sequence on our order paper, which must be the guide of this House, and

inasmuch as motions and adjourned debates on motions represent

substantive matters of the same category of business as public bills in

the hands of private members to which it is represented, we should

proceed at this time that motions and adjourned debates on motions

should take priority.

Therefore the proper order of business at this time, under the

provisions of standing order 27, would be Motion 1 standing in the name

of the hon. Premier.

MR. LEA: All you have to do is learn the index and you're a lawyer. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in speaking to the point of order

which has just been raised, I think if you refer to our standing orders

you will find that introduction of bills followed by orders of the day

is one

section of our business. Beyond that point, if a motion is moved

and carried to proceed to orders of the day, then it means that the

orders of the day will be whatever motions or bills are included in

public bills in the hands of private members, which we have already

dealt with this afternoon: public bills and orders, committee and

adjourned debates on second reading.

It may be argued that we should take bills in committee before we take bills on second reading.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, certainly.

MR. SPEAKER: That might be a valid argument. However, as you

realize, without the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) being here it

is quite possible that that bill would be immediately adjourned until

the next sitting of the House. So I submit that second reading on the

bill that has been called would be in order at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I need a

clarification of your ruling. I had called for public bills in the

hands of private members, and I was giving the opportunity to the

member opposite to debate Bill 31 because he was not in the House this

afternoon when the private members' bills were called.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. Public bills in the hands of private members. Bill 31. The hon. member for Alberni.

LEGISLATIVE INDEMNITIES

AND EXPENSES TRIBUNAL ACT

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the

government side for giving me adequate time to prepare my presentation

on this bill. I understand it was called this afternoon when I wasn't

in the House, and that gave me a little time to put a few things

together that were necessary to present the bill to the members in the

House.

The bill is fairly specific, fairly straightforward, Mr. Speaker. It

is modelled after several other Acts that are now in effect in other

Commonwealth states that were unfortunately insulted in the budget

speech. But these states had Acts very similar to this

[ Page 511 ]

one, as far back as 1962 in Tasmania, 1965 in South Australia, and 1967 in West Australia.

In 1971, Mr. Speaker, the government of Australia, then a Liberal

Country Party government, felt that the salaries and indemnities of

members of the Commonwealth of Australia should not be set

exclusively...or it should not be the exclusive right of the members of

parliament to set those salaries and indemnities. So they set up a

royal commission under Chief Justice Kerr of the High Court of

Australia. Chief Justice Kerr's conclusions in his royal commission

report — and I'm quoting from page 16 of that report:

"My view is that the appropriate course of action

would be the appointment of a salaries tribunal for the national

parliament which should be authorized by legislation to review salaries

and report to the parliament at regular stated intervals. This report

should cover such matters as the remuneration of members, pensions and

facilities for members, and should include recommendations for action."

Now, Mr. Speaker, my bill takes some of Chief Justice Kerr's

conclusions, but rather than recommending action to the parliament and

thereby permitting members to continue to debate their own salaries and

remuneration, it binds the Crown to accept a determination of that

salary tribunal. This is a far more fair means of determining members'

salaries, indemnities and benefits than the one we have at present in

Canada and the one that was recommended by Chief Justice Kerr of the

High Court of Australia.

The

preamble to my bill, Mr. Speaker, pretty well establishes the

point of the bill, and I'd like to read that

preamble, if I may:

"Whereas the present method of establishing the

indemnities, expenses and benefits of members and officers of the

Legislative Assembly is unsatisfactory in that it is subject to the

whim of government;

"And

whereas members of the Legislative Assembly

should not have the exclusive right to determine their own indemnities

and benefits while those of other groups in society are subject to

regulation by the collective bargaining process, by legislation or by

the marketplace;

"And

whereas it is desirable that salaries, benefits

and expenses allowed members of the Legislative Assembly should be

adequate to permit all persons in society regardless of socio-economic

standing, to seek office:"

Thereby the

preamble is followed by the bill.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, in this day and age, when

income groups in society are being regulated and controlled by such

devices as the federal Anti-Inflation Board — and I understand that the

present provincial government will be entering into an agreement with

the federal government to control salaries and indemnities of public

bodies in this province — that we should have a tribunal which

establishes salaries and indemnities for members of the Legislative

Assembly and for officers of the assembly in this province.

For that reason the bill binds the Crown, that when this tribunal

comes down with a determination, Mr. Speaker, then that determination

of that tribunal is binding upon the Crown, and members and officers of

the assembly are entitled to the salaries, the indemnities, the

benefits and expenses determined by that tribunal.

I think this is a far more reasoned approach than the one that has

been followed in the past. In the past, the salaries of members of this

assembly have been determined either by secret agreements among the

parties in the assembly, which resulted in changes to sections of the

Constitution Act, or by the simple whim of government in establishing

members' salaries by a unilateral bill which changed sections of the

Constitution Act and provided for salaries and benefits.

It has been further brought to the attention of this House during

the past three or four months, Mr. Speaker, in discussions between the

opposition parties and the government over such things as secretarial

assistance, office space, telephones, postal and telegraph privileges —

this type of thing — that it is very dangerous to allow the government,

by its own whim, to establish the benefits of Members of the

Legislative Assembly, because there's a real threat that the ability of

back-bench members, both government and opposition, can be threatened

and the ability to represent their constituents and the ability to

challenge the government's authority can be severely restricted if the

government is solely responsible and has the exclusive right to

determine the salaries, benefits and privileges that members of this

body enjoy.

So I think it's a very important bill, Mr. Speaker, and a very

reasoned approach to the setting of members' salaries and benefits. We

can all recall the federal debacle when federal members of the

parliament of this country attempted to set their salaries, and the

debate that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I think I've allowed you to

speak to the bill for enough time to establish the fact that it is out

of order under standing order 66 of our standing orders of the House in

that it anticipates and provides for an expenditure of public funds and

imposes an obligation on the Crown. Standing order 66 reads:

"This House will not receive any resolutions stating an express or abstract opinion of the

House on recommending the expenditure of

[ Page 512 ]

public money unless recommended by the Crown."

The bill is clearly out of order under standing order 66,

particularly in sections (2) and (3) which contemplate the expenditure

of funds, and I respectfully must rule it out of order.

MR. SKELLY: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker,

sections (2) and (3) do not provide for the expenditure of funds by the

Crown. I believe it says Her Majesty may pay the salaries of these

officers, but there is no provision absolute for the Crown to pay these

officers or people hired by the commission. There are many people who

would volunteer, Mr. Speaker, to set the salaries and indemnities of

Members of the Legislative Assembly, so I don't think that that

necessarily....

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Order! He doesn't believe it himself. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: I thought it was a very good bill, and the government should consider adopting it itself.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest you make that point to the hon.

Minister of Finance (Hon, Mr. Wolfe) and the members of government, but

I must say to you this: the bill is clearly out of order under the

rules of our House. It is a bill that is similar in nature to many

other bills which have been ruled out of order on the same basis by

many other parliaments in British Columbia, and therefore I must rule

that the bill is out of order.

MR. SKELLY: Well, just....

MR. SPEAKER: It's out of order, Mr. Member.

MR. SKELLY: Just further on that point of....

MR. SPEAKER: No. That concludes the debate.

MR. SKELLY: Could you even provide me with an example of one of these other bills that has been ruled out on the same basis?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I'm sure that if you wish to check the Journals of our House, hon. member, in past years you'll find many examples of similar bills which have been ruled out of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would continue to proceed then on public bills in the hands of private members to Bill 32.

MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): There were points raised

this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in the introduction of this bill and, in

response, as indicated to the House, the matter is under consideration.

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom adjourns the debate.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), whose name this bill stands in, is available tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, whether the member is available or not, hon. member, he's not in his place at the present time.

MR. KING: You're just bulling it through and he's not even here.

MR. SPEAKER: No. There's a motion to adjourn the debate, as I understand it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker,

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Mr. Gibson adjourns the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate Your Honour having mentioned this

conceivable point of order earlier on this evening, and that is the

fact that it's important that we should follow the order of the day as

printed here. The committee stage on Bill 10, it would seem to me,

should come before adjourned debate on second reading.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, the hon.

member for Vancouver–Point Grey doesn't know his rules, because it's

Thursday, which is private member's day, and government business

doesn't have precedence.

Interjections.

[ Page 513 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to proceed

to second reading of Bill 3.

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 10.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's he?

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to adjourn,

then — in the absence of the acting minister, to adjourn the committee of supply.

MR. GIBSON: No, no. Leave hasn't been granted. You're not in committee yet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, Order! Hon. Members, the Clerks

informed me — the sound system seems to be very unreliable this evening

— that the opposition has withdrawn their refusal to deny leave to move

to Bill 3. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it's been agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members.

MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 3.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER:

Second reading of Bill 3, the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre

adjourned the debate. Hon. member, I would draw to your attention that

when you took your place and adjourned the debate, you had left nine

minutes in your debate time.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): That's more than

sufficient time because I feel the points that have been made already

have been thoroughly canvassed, but I want to relate Bill 3 to the

state of affairs that I was concerned about this afternoon, and further

to indicate that as a Legislature, the attitudes that seem to be

developing and showing lately...it would appear to me as if we are

deteriorating very rapidly.

I'm just wondering, as an ex-Whip — I sat with government for a

number of years, and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you were at one time a

Whip yourself — I think perhaps if the new members who are demanding

order would stop and consider the urgency of the matter which I am

discussing, they would not be so anxious to impose closure. I am sure

this is the trend we are heading for, because at this moment there is

no system in this Legislature to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. As much as it grieves me to

do so, I must suggest to you that you return to the principle of Bill

3, which has nothing to do with the Whip system in the House.

MR. BARNES: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate you

for bringing it to my attention. But you realize the difficulty that

all of us, as members of the Legislature, have when we have no idea of

what the order of business is going to be. I think those people who are

visiting this evening would agree that we didn't know what was going on

in the House, and it's actually out of control.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't want....

MR. SPEAKER: Please return to the principle of Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'll do that forthwith. But

I'm a bit worried about the future of the Legislature and the state of

affairs, unless we get some means of communicating.

What's the point in me standing here, Mr. Speaker, and trying to

show the faults of the government asking for money they don't need,

trying to put forth, in good faith, my views about why the financial

state of the government was not in disrepair as is being espoused by

the government, when there is no indication that the remarks I am

making will be received in good faith and given the kind of

consideration they deserve? In fact, there is every reason to feel that

we are going to be steamrollered before this session is over.

We are faced right now with a situation where our members have no

way of preparing themselves because they don't know what the Provincial

Secretary will do next. I think that the Premier, who was so willing to

accept the last-ditch attempt on the part of the opposition leader, to

say: "Well, we won't participate in the Whip system unless you are

going to give us some cooperation," I find that...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: ...deplorable, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 514 ]

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. Hon. Member, please take your seat.

We are debating the principle of Bill 3, which is intituled the

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976. Would you please

return to the principle of that bill? I am sure that you will have

ample opportunity during the course of the session to debate many other

issues, but at this time we are on Bill 3.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if we had more people with your

grace and courtesy I am sure we would have no problem with any of the

members sticking to the principle of any bill. But you stand alone,

unfortunately, and as far as I have been able to observe, and I am a

little bit disturbed. Though I will tell you that there's no way that

this side of the House is going to be steamrollered by that side of the

House through conniving, perpetrating kinds of...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: ...organized programmes that are nothing more than political....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would you please return to the principle

of Bill 3 which is under debate at the present time? Or I'll have to

ask you to take your seat.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have no power to

resist the final order from the Chair, because we are fighting now to

try and get some opportunity to express our views and our concerns. I

am afraid that that day is coming to a fast end. Sure, I want to talk

about the bill. But they want us to lie down over here. They want us,

Mr. Speaker, to lie down and die. They don't want us to participate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: We don't even know what bill they are going to be talking on for half of the time; we don't know what's going on any more.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You don't know what's going on yourself.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, would you call order?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. On Bill 3, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, they know full well why I am upset

and they are deliberately trying to confuse the opposition. Every time

you stand up and try to make a point, you try to suggest to them the

inequities of their thinking, they disregard you; you can't get any

attention on that side of the House.

I suggest to them there was no need for the $400 million deficit

loan that they claim they are going to have. They don't need that

money; they know they don't need it. They started out six months ago to

get ready for a campaign to try and discredit the socialist government.

They made a point that they'd never, never, never see them again. They

are going to do everything they can to wipe us out — no matter how.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've already done it.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you something; you may think you are

doing it. You have the power here because you have all those numbers

over there. But out there the people who you have forced to operate

under the limits of an anti-inflation programme with the raising of

their taxes, their personal taxes, and the sales taxes, the rises you

have created with ICBC, the ferries, what you are doing with the

ambulances, what you are doing with the hospitals, medical services —

do you mean to tell me that you think those people are going to forget

it? No way!

Just keep it up. You can have your fun in here. You can wipe

democracy out in here, but those people will have their day. That's why

it is so difficult, Mr. Speaker, for me to try and point out what

really should be happening in the way of programmes. Sure — do you want

to get $400 million? Fine. I'll support it. Let's bring back the

community resources boards that were attempting to do a service on a

local level. Let's bring back the Vancouver opportunities programme

where people were involved. You laid off hundreds of people who were

working; you wiped them out. There are all kinds of other programmes

that you have wiped out, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Bring back the ambulances.

[ Page 515 ]

MR. BARNES: There was no credit given to this government for

half a dozen new programmes that we brought in, when they talked about

the deficit. There was a series of programmes that has $154 million in

it. They were all new by this government. Special funds: many of the

perpetual funds are higher than they were before. Special funds are

higher than they were before. The money is still there, those

programmes are still functioning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. BARNES: We should be asking you.

The minute the Premier said, "Don't worry, we won't make any

statements until we get the facts," at the same time, he knew exactly

full well what he was going to do, because if you study the headlines

in the press during the campaign, all you were talking about was that

the government was overdrawn.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: And the minister of educational impairment,

sitting over there, the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), educational impairment and public transit, I think it is....

He hasn't recovered public transit, but that's what the automobile is,

Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do you want to subsidize the automobile?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister, if you don't realize it, automobile

drivers have been subsidizing public transit ever since it was

invented, and they have been made to believe that they were getting a

special privilege for driving the automobile. And you're still carrying

that mess on. It's nothing but a mess. If those people were to give up

their cars, you'd sure have some fun. You told them to give them up,

but you thought they wouldn't go for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are on your last two minutes.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

These members sitting over there, many of the new ones, have no idea

what is going on. I believe they are very sincere but you can see that

they are very amazed by the kinds of goings on that are taking place.

Many of them over there don't understand, but they don't know the

people they've got from the Liberals and other parties.

That gang over there has just begun, but they are going to find out

one thing: you may close the door on us as far as your power and

numbers are concerned, but we are still representing those people out

there, and they want to know what you are doing with their dollars.

We say to you that you don't need $200 million. And in closing, I

will make a prediction, Mr. Speaker: ICBC will show a profit and a

surplus, and the reason for it is because the only thing that you are

making compulsory is the public liability and property damage. You have

no compulsory on collision or anything else, and that's where you make

your money. How many people do you think are driving today without

coverage, Mr. Minister?

If they are not driving with coverage, then you are making the

cream, because there are not that many people having lawsuits for $1

million against them for some property damage. We will see what happens.

Furthermore, I think what you've done is very clever: you set the

rates up so high that your friends can come in underneath, undercut

ICBC and destroy it.

Why is it that the Mineral Royalties Act...? Mr. Minister, why don't

you just go back...? Through you, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) go back and eliminate that 40 per cent

increase in the sales tax and make it up through the mineral royalties

resources that we have out? Why don't you do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mineral royalties!

MR. BARNES: Why don't you go out and carry out what the NDP

was doing? That's why you've been quiet down there, because you know

what we were trying to do is what you're going to have to do

ultimately. You are going to have to do the same thing to raise

revenue: you can't get everything off the people's backs. You analyse

the budget, and most of the funds that you are getting are from the

people themselves. You have taken it all out of the people, Mr.

Speaker. Every dime. Practically every dime is coming from the backs of

people. You show no imagination for stimulating industry. You are not

coming out with any programmes that...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, your time is up.

MR. BARNES: ...make any substantial difference. So as far as

we are concerned, until you start to do things like that, the only way

you are going to get support from this side of the House on that $400

million loan you would like would be through programmes for people. Not

programmes for your political ends, because that's what you are trying

to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, we

have listened for two or three days to this filibuster on Bill 3 and

it's time some falsehoods were lashed to the mast. That's what we're

here to do

[ Page 516 ]

tonight, because the filibuster is one more attempt

by the NDP to pass off on someone else the blame for the economic

disaster they brought to this province.

Why is there a need for this borrowing bill, Mr. Speaker. There is a

need for it because in two years under their direction the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia has lost $181 million. In one year, last

year, the B.C. Ferries lost $50 million; the B.C. Railway lost $47

million; the B.C. Hydro lost $34 million; Medicare lost $76 million.

The income from taxation coming to the province, as a result of the NDP

policies, resulted in a drop of $340 million And, Mr. Speaker, I didn't

even mention the $100 million clerical errors. That's why we have to

borrow.

It may be that the opposition thinks that by filibustering this

bill, this borrowing authority, past the end of the year that somehow

these bills will be charged to the new government. Well, Mr. Speaker,

once more they're wrong.

This government is going to move to rescue these Crown corporations

one by one. When they're on their feet it will no longer be necessary

to take the people's taxes away from Human Resources, away from

Education and away from hospitals to put it to the money-losing

business operations of the NDP.

The sickest of all these corporations was ICBC. I'm happy to report

that after only three months that corporation is rescued financially,

and in six months you are going to have it as the most proud

corporation in the government.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government did write a cheque of $181 million

to ICBC. But we are not going to cash that cheque until after this bill

passes. All that's happening, as a result of the hold-up of this bill

is that there's less of that investment income, which the NDP talked

about so much when they were in office, for the insurance corporation,

but which was never there, and which will only add to the insurance

premiums in British Columbia. By filibustering this bill, as the first

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) did, it's only adding to the

cost of automobile insurance that this party over there, the

opposition, was pleading so hard to see reduced. That's the end result

of your filibuster.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: What is the position of ICBC today? I'm not

going to detail once more the reasons why this corporation got into the

desperate financial state that it did. But I can talk a little bit, Mr.

Speaker, about the present financial situation and what the hopes are

for the future.

As of yesterday, the cash position of the corporation was $1 million

overdrawn. There was $151 million invested in short-term securities,

and $18 million in long-term securities, for a total position of,

roughly $169 million. Now against that investment position, Mr.

Speaker, are these liabilities....

AN HON. MEMBER: Forget those.

HON. MR. McGEER: Liabilities. Listen, Mr. Member....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): He didn't learn anything in three and a half years; don't expect him to learn anything tonight.

HON. MR. McGEER: Against that, approximately $170 million in unpaid claims.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Going back how far? How far does it go back?

HON. MR. McGEER: Going back to the inception of the corporation. Against the cash position, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll come to that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Operating expenses of about $27 million a

month or $1.3 million a working day for 11 more months. ICBC will have

used up all its cash and short-term investments sometime after the end

of October this year. At that time it will begin to require some of the

cash transferred by the government to look after these $169 million in

unpaid claims.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment or two about the

investments of ICBC last year, because when the NDP so proudly removed

the private insurers from the province of British Columbia they boasted

that they would save the people of this province millions and millions

of dollars in investment income. They told us how they were going to

invest in British Columbia — keep all that money at home. Well, Mr.

Speaker, instead of the millions and millions of investment income they

said would be made from ICBC and how much it would be kept at home,

instead of the $9 million in investment income that was budgeted, there

was only $3 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MCGEER: And, Mr. Speaker...

[ Page 517 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...I might add that loss of $6 million in

projected investment income was one of the reasons why the losses of

this corporation were so high.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP should realize that you cannot make an investment on money that you owe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Did they invest the money in B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: Where did they invest the money? Where did they invest the money?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: No. Do you know where $60 million of the $99 million that they invested went?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. McGEER: It went to those usurious....

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The eastern banks. That's where it went, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, national banks —

those usurious banks the former Leader of the Opposition, then Premier,

used to talk about. Those usurious banks — that's where the money went.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's where you put the money — into those

usurious banks that you complained about. While you were in here

talking in the House about millions and millions of dollars for British

Columbia, those millions and millions of dollars weren't here at all.

What you did invest, you invested in the banks that at the same moment

you were condemning for their usurious practices.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Bank of Nova Scotia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They thought what you put in the bank was like a piggy bank. It stayed there.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we've heard the former Minister

of Finance and other members of the opposition including former

directors of ICBC saying that there was no problem with that

corporation. It wasn't out of cash, so what was the worry? You would

think, Mr. Speaker, after the experience of the former Minister of

Finance as a chartered accountant and the former Minister of Health,

who was a director of ICBC, that some of the financial principles that

underlie insurance companies or any other kind of company that pays a

claim would have got through to them.

The unearned premiums, Mr. Speaker, are set in reserve against the

claims that are incurred. Isn't that a principle of insurance, Mr.

Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke)?

Interjection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: What they were doing, Mr. Speaker — what

they were doing — was attempting to sell new insurance premiums as fast

as they could to cover the debts of the old ones. That's known as

kiting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Shame, shame!

HON. MR. McGEER: A shameful practice.

I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, that the socialists weren't in power when

the teachers' pension fund was set up — $317 million had been set aside

for the teachers of this province, and when they made a contribution to

that teachers' fund, Madam Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), a

reserve was set aside. It's theirs, held in trust. But if we had

followed the advice of the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) or

the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) or the former Premier (Mr.

Barrett), there wouldn't have been any teachers' pension fund.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They don't believe in reserves.

HON. MR. McGEER: They would have spent it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right!

HON. MR. McGEER: They would have spent it, and when the teachers came to get their money it wouldn't have been there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It would be all gone!

[ Page 518 ]

MR. LEA: What did you say in your book about that?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the workmen's

compensation fund which has been created by the workers of this

province — the B.C. Federation of Labour should take note of this — has

set aside $276 million. Every time a workman is injured, Mr. Speaker,

a fund is set aside for him. It's his. But under the policies of the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) or the former Minister of Health, that

money would have been spent too, and they'd have come to tell us in the

Legislature that you didn't need to have a workmen's compensation fund

because the cash requirements for the injured workers weren't being

called on that very day. Irresponsible! You'd have spent the workmen's

compensation fund.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: And, Mr. Speaker, we have a municipal civil

servants' superannuation fund of $327 million. Would you have set that

fund up against claims for the future, or would you have spent all of

that too?

Mr. Speaker, last but not least, the MLAs superannuation fund.

MR. LEA: You were against that in your book.

HON. MR. McGEER: There's $1.399 million set aside there for

you MLAs when your retirement comes and, fortunately for you, that fund

has been established. But if it had been up to you to establish it,

you'd have spent all of that too.

MR. LAUK: Red herrings.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the funds

that have been transferred from the government, the people of this

province who have claims against ICBC...

MR. LAUK: Blue herrings.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Small things amuse small minds.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...will now have a fund set up for them which

is a sound insurance principle practised by every insurance company in

the world, save one — ICBC until April I of this year.

No, Mr. Speaker, the NDP as usual have been financial fools. You

sounded like it when you were in opposition; you proved it when you

were in government; you're continuing on now demonstrating it in this

debate. The people of British Columbia are not going to be fooled by

this filibuster.

MR. COCKE: Filibuster!

HON. MR. McGEER: They know the damage that was inflicted by

the financial foolishness of the former government and, Mr. Speaker, I

agree with those words in the budget. Never again should the people of

this province vote that party back into power.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Minister of Education describes the debate that has gone on on Bill 3,

with particular reference to the opposition, as a filibuster.

AN HON. MEMBER: True.

MR. LAUK: He's now sitting on the left of a man who stood in this House and spoke continuously for 14 hours or more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-four.

MR. LAUK: Was it 34? Thirty-four hours.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I used to sit in the public galleries

when I was a young teenager coming over here with high schools, and I

watched Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and I watched Premier Barrett, and I

have heard from other people about the conduct of the first minister of

this House. I've never seen a first member occupy himself so readily

and so eagerly, in cross comment, as this minister.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I can take it, Madam Member, but I'm a little embarrassed for that high office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't worry about it.

MR. LAUK: I think that people who occupy that kind of office

should have a little bit more cool and show some leadership and

direction for his cabinet ministers and for his back bench, and

particularly for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), who may not learn anything, but at least, by your example,

he may keep quiet once in a while, and not prove....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could you get

[ Page 519 ]

back now to the principle of the bill?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about 10?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) described the debate as a filibuster. He is sitting beside the

man who spoke for 14 hours or more straight, and with some

adjournments, 34 hours on one subject. That same minister who describes

this as a filibuster voted against the rule changes to limit the time

of debate that we are now operating under. We do not consider those

limitations of debate as chains. We consider them as necessary for the

orderly conduct of business in the House.

Mr. Speaker, even with a 40-minute time limit for each speaker on

bills, even with the 40-minute time limit on debate on the budget

speech and on the throne speech, that minister has the unmitigated gall

to stand in this House and call what we are doing, which is our

democratic right, a filibuster. He should be ashamed of himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: Shame! Shame!

MR. LAUK: Petulance, that's what it is, Mr. Speaker. They

can't put their little bill through so they're crying all over the ball

park, and they're saying to you: "Oh, Mr. Speaker, it's a filibuster."

You can't fool the public; you're trying to steamroller the opposition,

and we're not going to let you push us around.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, Hon. Member, could we get down to the principle of Bill 3?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did Williams resign? Tell us the truth.

MR. LOEWEN: Your ears are red.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education entered into

a debate on ICBC tonight dragging his blue herrings across the floor of

this House, talking about how they needed $181 million, and that's

why they wrote the rubber cheque. Well, he admitted here tonight that

with the short-term and long-term investments of the insurance

corporation extra moneys may not be required until October of 1976, and

yet we're told about the tremendous urgency of this bill.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): It was your loss.

MR. LAUK: I accept the word of the hon. minister, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm sure I can convince my colleagues that we will

reconsider this bill in October of 1976. Why don't you withdraw the

bill now and introduce it when you need it? Why do you bring it now?

Why do you need it now?

HON. MR. MAIR: We fulfilled that one!

MR. LAUK: I'll answer that question for the Premier, Mr.

Speaker. He needs it now because he has to fulfil the prophecy he made

in the election campaign, and no other reason. We heard about how

wonderful the American automobile insurance companies are and how they

take care of their special funds for the insured and how bad the social

democrats have been with ICBC.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Social who?

MR. LAUK: Well, where was he when the hon. member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) was talking? Where was he when the hon. member for Alberni

said: "Compare the performance of other insurance companies in North

America in the first nine months of 1975" — and this is from Time

magazine, January 5, 1976:

"State Farm Mutual lost over $100 million in nine

months. Allstate Insurance Corp., during the same period of time, lost

$215 million in the first nine months of 1975. In the total losses in

the public liability and property loss sector in the United States, in

the whole year of 1975, the underwriting losses were $4,000 million."

Those insurance companies dipped into their reserves to the tune of

$3,000 million for total losses of $7 billion in insurance in the

United States.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: And the bad little socialists...is there something

wrong with trying to bring reasonable insurance rates for ordinary

people in this province? Is there something wrong with attacking that

monopolistic multi-national insurance network that has destroyed the

pocketbooks of ordinary British Columbians? Is there something wrong

with shifting the gasoline tax to assist ordinary people? Not people

who drive Cadillacs, ordinary people — or Mercedes Benz.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 3, let me suggest to you this.

The economy is depressed. What do governments do during a depressed

economy?

[ Page 520 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: They call an election.

MR. LAUK: There are several things that can be done. The

fiscal powers of the provincial government are there. There are many,

many people in this province and across this country who supported that

Premier during the campaign when he said (Lengthen the rope.): "I

promise you" and he said it with that sincere face. He said: "I promise

you that I am going to stop this irresponsible spending. I am going to

stop it. (Another foot of rope.) And I am going to freeze government

taxes."

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's about all you can say, Mr. Member. What

a betrayal of the public of British Columbia. When any government

during a depressed economy should be reducing taxes, you're raising

them. You've got to encourage economic activity in British Columbia.

People need jobs. Since the Social Credit government has been in power

since December 22, 1975, the jobless rate has risen above the national

average. It's been shocking.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The coalition promised to freeze taxes, Mr.

Speaker, and by the fact of their increasing taxes in the budget, they

may deliver a death blow....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Must you make a perfect fool of yourself every night? Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. Nobody is perfect.

It may deliver a death blow. This increase in taxes may deliver a

death blow to the economy of British Columbia. I'll tell you why.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Hindsight!

MR. LAUK: What we need in this economy of British Columbia is

consumerism, sensible consumerism, but consumerism nonetheless. We need

more money in the hands of the individual family. And what have they

done? They've increased insurance rates, they've increased personal

taxes, medicare payments. The Minister of welfare, of Human Resources

(Mr. Vander Zalm) has cut back on his assistance to day-care centres

and, by doing so, he's taking single parents out of the work place, out

of the economy, and by so doing, these people....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: And by so doing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, may I have order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that if tulip bulbs are ingested they may have, from time to time, some psychedelic effect.

The hon. minister would have to have them because he believes that

by what he is doing he is helping the economy. What he's doing is

exceeding the money he should be paying out in welfare costs by putting

people, single mothers, back on welfare.

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. LAUK: Now Bill 3 is a crass political Act — there's no

question about it — a self-fulfilled prophecy of the Premier, a

prophecy made by him during the election campaign. You recall that, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure, there in Chilliwack. In Chilliwack some of the

finest chicken-growers in the world reside. Fine men and women, good

and true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's trying to tell us he knows where Chilliwack is.

MR. LAUK: But during the campaign, a chicken of a different description was on the warpath.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko Panco Poultry.

MR. LAUK: No, it wasn't.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I interrupt the member just long enough to ask — I've just arrived at the chair: we are on Bill 3, are we not?

MR. LAUK: That is correct. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, you're very quick to recognize how I am relating the matter to Bill 3 (Laughter.)

There was a chicken of a different description in Chilliwack and in

the province in those days. It was a Chicken Little, because Chicken

Little was a little chicken who was asleep beside a barn, and a pebble

blown by the wind fell off the barn roof and hit him on the head. He

looked up, he didn't see anything but the sky, and he assumed that the

sky was falling.

He rushed around the province and he met Don, the Empty Vessel. He said: "Don, the Empty Vessel,

[ Page 521 ]

the sky is falling, the sky is falling, " and told him the story. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Premier, when he was the Leader of the

Opposition, during the campaign went across this province and said:

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Then after December 22, he

said: "if the sky isn't falling, by golly, I'm going to make it fall."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who are they going to elect to get you some more comic books?

MR. LAUK: What were the choices of the coalition government

when they consulted, not with outside accountants — that was an

afterthought — but with the civil servants of the Department of Finance?

(1) Hold taxes down, particularly those affecting individuals.

Recognize that payments made to Crown corporations and Crown agencies should,

wherever possible, be the last priority. These Crown corporations and Crown

agencies would therefore finance their operations through borrowing, which is

their historical practice. This would of necessity, Mr. Speaker, permit these

corporations and agencies to service their own debts out of the revenues of

those corporate bodies, and this would clearly continue encouraging economic

activity in British Columbia by keeping taxes at their pre-March 26 level.

(2) Necessary expansion of services could continue by modestly

increasing the economic rent charged for our natural resources, such as coal

and natural gas, particularly when we can clearly see a marked improvement in

the demand for these resources on the world market throughout 1976 and 1977.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the report produced by the Department of Economic Development

clearly setting out, by a group of British Columbia. economists and experts,

not only that 1975 held up well but that 1976 and 1977 will be good.

You know, we attempted to stimulate the economy, and I think it should be pointed out.

You know, the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Waterland)...it's very amusing. He considers himself an expert

because he was a grade 8 inspector or something — I don't know what his

position was. But I've never heard such a woolly-headed, fuzzy economic

theory in all my life than that which he expounded. The hon. minister

had the gall to stand in this House this afternoon and say that the

mining industry stopped because of taxation policies of this

government, when in fact there is no question about certain facts: more

mineral mines opened in the two years between 1972 and 1975 than in the

period of 1969 to 1972. Did you know that? You look that up.

Let me also say something else to you, Mr. Minister. When I was

Minister of Mines, I recognized the danger of having federal

encroachment of taxation in the provinces. We, as the government of the

day, were attempting to find....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no you didn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOEWEN: How many mines closed down?

MR. LAUK: Thank you, hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds. As far

as mines closing down in the period prior to 1972, more mines closed

than closed in the period 1972 to 1975. Those are the facts.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: How many opened?

MR. LAUK: Well, if you don't know, what have you been doing for three and a half months? Ask your deputy minister.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, members. The House is

unusually rowdy this evening. I think we should give more attention to

the member who has the floor, and I would encourage the member to

address the Chair.

MR. LAUK ; Mr. Speaker, we need every effort to stimulate the economy.

I'll tell you one thing: if it wasn't for the tremendous transportation

and shipping losses at MacMillan Bloedel, they would have made a profit through

our actions and through those of the former Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr.

R.A. Williams), the man who has been very much maligned in this House, Mr.

Speaker — with the embarrassed silence of this side of the group, embarrassed

not for us or for him but for that side of the House.

That former minister reduced the stumpage and royalty rates to

forest companies in this province, permitting them to have as much

profit during a down period as they could ever have.

One example is the British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. The net

sales of 1975 over 1974 were decreased by 2 per cent; the stumpage and

royalty was reduced in 1975 by 65.1 per cent — 65.1 per cent; it's

right here. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It was because in a

downturn of the market our government reacted, because we governed for

all of the people of British Columbia.

What is the reward that corporate structure of British Columbia have

for voting in that right-wing coalition? An increase in the corporate

tax — as if that's going to encourage economic activity in the

[ Page 522 ]

province. What nonsense! You made everybody mad at you, and that shows you how foolish your government is.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Now the suggestion that I have made....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry — I don't speak that member's language, I'm afraid.

I made a suggestion that we increase the resource-base tax in

natural gas and in coal; do not transfer payments to Crown agencies and

corporations because you don't need to; and keep taxes down! Let the

little person have a break. That was choice 1; that was the choice our

government probably would have taken.

Choice 2: Let's talk about rubber-cheque Bill and Evan the

paperhanger. Rubber-cheque Bill had to fulfil his prophecy at any cost.

He got his bagman accountant to prepare not an audit but a review,

based on a preconceived presumption that there would be a debt. He told

them: "I don't care how you do it, but present a report that will give

us the maximum deficit possible, because, by golly, I promised the

people of B.C. that would happen." And they set to work. But having

done so, he placed our entire credibility as a province in doubt

throughout the world. A large trumped-up deficit and then increase

taxes for the following year. He's endangering our domestic market by

fiscal madness.

The brilliant answer that the new Premier and his government have

given the province of British Columbia is: let's raise taxes. That's

all. That's the wizardry that we were all waiting for, that we were

promised on December 11 — the financial genius. My goodness, how come we

never thought of that, colleagues? Raise taxes — brilliant! He didn't

reduce spending because he knew that after they got to office they

couldn't.

His answer was brutal for the sake of being brutal, Mr. Speaker, not

because he had to be brutal. What do you call that? I call it petty

tyranny of the worst order, Brilliant! — raise taxes. Some economic

genius!

You know, the other day I was reading an editorial in the Victoria Times , March 31. It said:

"The government insists that the bill (Bill 3) must be rushed

through the Legislature before midnight today, when the 1975-76 fiscal year

comes to a close. The deficits were run up in that year, and so must be paid

off in that year, goes the reasoning from the treasury benches. But who needs the money in such a hurry? Nearly half of the borrowing the bill authorizes will be used to wipe out ICBC's accumulated deficit.

"Does the Crown corporation need the cash at midnight,

else it is seized by the Sheriff and his bailiffs, and padlocked? —

policy writers and adjusters evicted into the night? Of course not. The

deficit must be paid off, but at the moment the corporation is flush

with money, a couple of hundred million dollars at least, from all the

premiums drivers had to pay by February 29.

"It is absurd to suggest the bill must pass by

midnight to provide a transfusion of funds to keep the deficit-ridden

Crown corporations from shutting down. There is no cash flow problem

with the government or any of its agencies, but it insists on acting as

if loathsome disease threatened unless"...Evan the paperhanger..."is

allowed by the nasty NDP to mush to the rescue with a special

dog-team sled loaded with life-giving serum."

The Premier knew, and this is the economic genius that we are

dealing with today — the charade of the last few days with this cheque

back and forth from ICBC — the Premier knew that his shell game would

be exposed if he couldn't ram this bill through before the end of the

fiscal year. His shell game, Mr. Speaker, has been exposed. He couldn't

push this little opposition around, so what did he do? He broke the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: What law?

MR. LAUK: He got Evan the paperhanger to issue an NSF cheque

to the ICBC. The Premier knows the ICBC doesn't need the money.

Otherwise, why would he send them an NSF cheque?

MR. LEA: That they wouldn't cash.

MR. LAUK: Because of this, the government is in breach of the

Revenue Act and the Constitution Act. If they were an individual

citizen, they could be charged under the Criminal Code. If he can't do

it legally, Mr. Speaker, he'll get what he wants illegally. He has

always got what he wanted, that man, from peanut butter sandwiches to

trumped-up deficits. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth,

never worked a day in his life at hard labour, and he comes in here and

he socks it to the little people of the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member

to withdraw the remarks that he has just made about an hon. member and

the Premier of our province. They are derogatory remarks, they

[ Page 523 ]

are untrue, and I would ask him to withdraw them without qualification.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There were remarks made which the hon.

Provincial Secretary finds offensive. Would the hon. member now

standing on his feet withdraw those remarks in the spirit of good will?

MR. LAUK: I certainly would, Mr. Speaker, if I could, but I can't because I don't know what remarks she is referring to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. Provincial Secretary remind the Chair?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear by the

rules of our House and by the long-standing history of this House that

there is no need to force one member of the House to repeat derogatory

remarks to which I have just drawn the attention of the House. I ask

the member, who full well knows the remarks that he has made and the

phrases he has attributed to the Premier of this province, to withdraw

those remarks. I will not be a party to repeating them.

MR. LAUK: Well, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I honestly say that I don't know what she is referring to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, whether or not the words which

you used can clearly be defined as unparliamentary, they have been

offensive to the hon. Provincial Secretary. I am just asking you — I am

not ordering you — kindly to withdraw those remarks.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. I would

like to say that it is delightful, indeed, after what I have heard of

the Provincial Secretary, that she would be offended by those remarks.

(Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER ' The Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member is casting aspersions upon my character, I will ask him to immediately withdraw that last remark.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't casting any aspersions on your character, Madam Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: What was the meaning of your remark then, Mr. Member? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have no time to answer any further questions. I have to get on with my debate. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're using up your 40 minutes, Gary.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that

we can only have one member on his feet at a time. We are having

difficulty with the microphones and therefore when the hon. Provincial

Secretary's microphone is on, mine must of necessity be off. Therefore,

we need a little time in which....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and the time is running. Therefore, we

need a little bit of time in order to get the point of order across.

Thank you for your assistance. Now the hon. first Member for Vancouver

Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that. The Premier, as I say, what he couldn't do legally he did illegally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: He wrote the bum cheque to ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer),

who was a party to the order-in-council that authorized the $181

million, was upset because he knew there wasn't any money in the bank.

He immediately ran to Vancouver and spoke to the president of the ICBC,

who is the same man. They argued for an hour. (Laughter.) The president

of ICBC agreed with the Minister of Education that he wouldn't cash the

cheque.

I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that we have the chief executive

officers of Crown corporations at arm's length from the cabinet. It

makes for good government, wouldn't you say? What a charade! What a

shell game! What a hoax!

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think I should say

a few words for the north country, seeing as my friend from Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) let us down so badly during his term of office.

The opposition during this debate, Mr. Speaker — talk about a

steamroller in this House. I would like to tell them very clearly that

there is a difference between a majority government and a minority — a

bitter minority. The government is elected to govern and show

leadership. They can't do it with an obstructionist opposition.

[ Page 524 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking to, them or us?

MR. SHELFORD: I was talking to you, my friend. You have had

an awful lot to say in this debate. You've got a very frank mind and

you certainly waste it.

MR. LAUK: You're the only one in this House who is allowed to lecture me. (Laughter.)

MR. SHELFORD: The opposition says: why do we have to pass

Bill 3? I'll tell you simply why we have to pass Bill 3. In 1952 we had

a surplus in cash of $550 million in the banks. By 1975 we had a

deficit of over $541 million, which means, of course, they bungled $1

billion down the drain.

We have heard a lot of nonsense from my friend, the second member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), talking about the mining industry

about which he knows just about as little as his predecessor. The

mining industry in this province....

MR. GIBSON: That's a very serious charge.

MR. SHELFORD: You're darned right! That's right; that is

serious. Do you want me to withdraw it? You destroyed the mining

industry in this province and you know it. You talk about the mines

that opened up under your government. You don't even know what it's all

about. The mines that were opened up at the end of 1972 and 1973 were

in the process of development 10 years before that and you know it. It

takes 10 years to develop a mine from the time it's staked till the

time it goes into production.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: That's why you lose money, my friend, because you don't know anything about the business of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: Let's take a look at what happened to mining

development. I'll admit that mines that were operating did make more

money because so many opened up at the end of 1972 and 1973. But what

happened in the exploration, development and staking? In 1972 there

were 53,309 mines staked. In 1974 it was down to 10,643. What happened

in the Yukon?

MR. LEA: Is this Bill 3?

MR. SHELFORD: That's why we have to have Bill 3, my friend,

and you don't understand it. In the Yukon.... This is the difference.

We wouldn't have to have Bill 3 if this had happened in British

Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell them about the Yukon, Cyril.

MR. SHELFORD: In the Yukon in 1972, 4,800 claims staked. All

of our people moved to the Yukon. They moved to the Yukon. In 1974

there were over 12,400 claims staked, which is the first time in

history that the Yukon has come ahead of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: Worse than that, Mr. Member, Mr. Speaker, worse

than that. One of the most serious losses is the technical and

professional prospecting experts who were forced to move to other parts

of the world. They're only just starting to come back now. I would

point out that through the bungling of the New Democratic Party we will

harm our social and educational programmes as far away as 1985. Because

by the time the miners come back into British Columbia and start

staking claims it will be 1985 before these mines open up.

Another thing that damaged the economy of the province was the

costly regulations brought in in the forest industry, which brought it

nearly to a standstill. You certainly ruined the economy of the area

which I represent.

I'll say one thing, my friend. What you say about your liking little

people is 100 per cent true, because you made lots of them. You made

lots of them. More people went bankrupt in that riding in the northwest

than have ever been bankrupt in the history of British Columbia.

Why do we have to have Bill 3? Look at the ICBC loss, the ferry

loss, B.C. Rail, Panco Poultry, Swan Valley. Can-Cel would have been a

loss if it hadn't rode on the backs of about four different groups —

one, the contractors. Can-Cel rode on the back of the contractors all

these years, paying $21 a cunit for pulpwood that cost $34 to produce.

The supply companies, $20 million worth of idle equipment in that area alone. The towns....

MR. LAUK: Are you making this up as you go along?

MR. SHELFORD: I'm not. I can show it right to you in Can-Cel's own annual report.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: They also rode on the backs of the people, and listen to this. Rim Forest Products.

[ Page 525 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They were Hazelton.

MR. SHELFORD: A little independent, struggling for survival and in receivership too, I might say.

Rim Forest Products — you wouldn't even come up there or answer our

letters. You couldn't even answer a letter, and you know it. I asked

you to come up and solve some of our problems and you wouldn't answer.

You wouldn't even answer the letters.

MR. LAUK: You wanted to nationalize the oil.

MR. SHELFORD: I didn't see you doing too much, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, would you please address the Chair?

MR. SHELFORD: Rim Forest Products in one year, 1973, paid

$985,000 in stumpage on $3.2 million in sales which comes to 30 per

cent of what they made.

Can-Cel paid, according to their annual report, $8,421,000 on a

total sales of $133,801,000, or only 7 per cent of their sales

compared to 30 per cent of the independent's costs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELFORD: If Can-Cel had paid the same stumpage rates as

Rim, the people of this province would have $33 million in their

pockets and there wouldn't have to be bills like we're passing today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SHELFORD: I would say, Mr. Speaker, it's a shame that

B.C. had to go from one of the most prosperous provinces in this nation

to a have-not province. That's exactly what it's done in three years'

time.

We hear a lot about the bad days of the former Social Credit

government. I would say to you that those were the best days that this

province has ever seen and will see for quite some time. There are

thousands of people across this province that just wish we could return

to those days of prosperity across this country.

I was amazed at what was said by the former Minister of Human

Resources (Mr. Levi), when he left England to get away from the lousy

socialists.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: But I must say after leaving it, he certainly

made great strides in three years to take us down the path of

destruction, to follow the system which he left. No wonder he lost $100

million by a clerical mistake. Maybe it was lost in his desk.

HON. MR. MAIR: He thought they were shillings.

MR. SHELFORD: I was surprised to hear the arguments of the

hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), a former teacher, in

which he used logic which I felt was very interesting. He said it

wasn't a debt at all. It was only a deficit. He sounded just like the

friendly finance company on the radio every morning when they say:

"Borrow yourself out of debt and everything will be okay."

We hear a great deal in this discussion on Bill 3 about this

government having hands in the pockets of the people. I would say the

former government not only took their pants but their pockets with it,

and that's why we have to have this bill.

I was also quite surprised with the former Minister of Agriculture

(Mr. Stupich), the member for Nanaimo, where he even took credit for

the increased birthrate during the NDP government. I say after what the

NDP did to British Columbia, it's no wonder.

I think it is a crime that we have to be the makers of Bill 3, after

the sound financial state of this province between 1952 and 1972. We

built roads right across this province — the pavement ended at Lake La

Hache...and right through from Prince Rupert to the Peace River and

through to McBride.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I sat in my place expecting the

Speaker to draw to the attention of the member that calling people

"lousy socialists" is hardly parliamentary language. I had hoped that

the Speaker would find that kind of language equally objectionable when

it's used by government members as the Chair is prepared to rule on

such matters when the opposition is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you for drawing my attention to it. Hon. member for Skeena, would you withdraw the remark "lousy"?

MR. SHELFORD: I was referring to their system, Mr. Speaker, but I'll withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: I want to point out that during this period of

time every person that wanted to work could work throughout this whole

northwest area, plus there were the highest benefits to our senior

citizens.

[ Page 526 ]

Now on top of this and out of surplus we set up the First Citizens'

Fund for our native people of $25 million; the Amateur Sports Fund for

young athletes, $25 million; the Green Belt Protection Fund, where we

could buy out green areas around cities, a further $25 million; the

disaster fund — I must say we underestimated this one because we didn't

know the socialists were coming in — a further $25 million; the

cultural fund, $10 million; power lines beautification, $10 million;

and agricultural aid and world disaster, $5 million — for a total of

over $125 million, plus $27 million set aside for a third crossing.

Now I would say this is a sound type of financing and something I

hope we can return back to after we've paid back the $400 million that

we have to borrow. It certainly does disturb me, Mr. Speaker, to have

to pay $40 million interest to the loan sharks that the opposition

referred to when it should be going to programmes for people.

Mr. Speaker, let's face the facts of life and get down to paying the

bills that we have to pay because, after all, we were on a spending

drunk for three years and it's time we got back to proper financing in

this province.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd like to add another voice

from the north, and I'll be very brief. I think we've wasted enough

wind and enough time since this House has come in session on different

things. I think the facts have been laid out very clearly a number of

times, but I guess we'll have to repeat some of them. It seems that we

have a little problem getting them through.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of Bill 3, the British

Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, that will allow this province to borrow

up to $400 million. I think the name is very fitting. That's exactly

the position the province is in, and I don't think anyone really

questions that, not even on the other side of the House.

I speak in support of this bill because I think it's up to us to

restore proper financial balance to our province's affairs. I think we

should restore faith in the financial markets once again, and in our

citizens who have been badly shaken by the Clarkson, Gordon report

which clearly reveals a deficit of some $541 million.

Another thing Bill 3 would allow this government to do — which

hasn't been a current practice, I might add — is that it would allow

the government to pay its operating accounts on a current basis. Over

the last year many suppliers and many contractors waited months on end

to receive payments for work that had been done. I know of this

personally because I know of many contractors from the Prince George

area who could not receive payments. We were told by the

then-Provincial Secretary, Ernie Hall, that a mail strike was on. They

couldn't mail the payments to us.

So we offered to have our representatives pick up the cheques from the treasury bank. But, no, that wasn't possible either.

Mr. Speaker, why wasn't this possible? Why couldn't they pick up the

cheques? I think it's pretty obvious why they couldn't pick up the

cheques. They couldn't pick up the cheques because of the NDP financial

bungling that had broke the treasury. They couldn't pay their current

accounts.

Mr. Speaker, over the last three years of labour strife in the Crown

corporations.... The extreme wage settlements they've granted, the

ridiculous fringe benefits that have been given out, the

portal-to-portal working day — a lot of loggers would like to have a

portal-to-portal working day and be home in the hands of mother by

quarter after five — the 35-hour week: all of this has resulted in the

huge deficits that have been piled up in our Crown corporations.

But even worse than that is the drastic drop in the productivity

that destroys any possibility of a viable operation in that Crown

corporation.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) laid out very clearly

the deficits in each of our Crown corporations, the net deficits of the

people's tax dollars. He mentioned ICBC, $181 million; the transit

authority, $26 million; the B.C. Hydro deficit of $34 million; and the

B.C. Railway deficit of some $47 million, for a total of $288 million

of taxpayers' dollars. This doesn't include, of course, the other items

he mentioned — just the small items — the $76 million loss in Medicare;

the $50 million loss in the B.C. Ferries deficit.

Mr. Speaker, this is why that financial whiz, the former Minister of

Finance (Mr. Barrett) had to call the election on December 11, 1975. The

NDP didn't dare tell the public the financial mess they'd led our

province into. This is why this present government has introduced Bill

3, the B.C. Deficit Repayment Act, to pay up the bills and balance our

province's economy.

If the hon. members in the opposition really wished to serve the

people of B.C., I am sure they would speed this bill through the House

and restore our province's good name. It is obvious the opposition has

no intention of cooperating in the people's interest. That is why

they've been returned to the opposition, because they were never

capable to govern this province.

All the opposition has done, Mr. Speaker, since this 31st

legislative sitting has been called, from the opening day spectacle

that they caused, has been to stall, stall, stall, down to today. The

people's business has no priority with them, The opposition embarks on

the big ego trips, constantly repeating each other's remarks, trying to

outdo each other's wild statements.

I've heard that the opposition members are quite

[ Page 527 ]

indignant about the proposed salary cuts in their stipends. If my

constituents, or their own constituents, could observe the time they've

wasted in this House, caused by their stall tactics, I'm quite sure the

taxpayers would recommend a far more substantial cut in the salaries of

this opposition members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you to return soon to the principle of Bill 3?

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I said, I'm not going to be repetitious; I'm not going to

stand up for 40 minutes and talk about the same items over and over and

over again. But I would like to ask the opposition members to

reappraise their deplorable performance and join with the government

members, restore the good name of this province by supporting Bill 3,

the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, before I begin I'd

like to take this opportunity, if it's not too much of a digression rom

Bill 3, to congratulate you. I didn't take that opportunity before and

I apologize for that. I do congratulate you on your election as Deputy

Speaker of this House, and I admire your respect for the rules and the

way you handle yourself in the chair. I think you do an excellent job.

I have no wish to prolong this debate or take my full 40 minutes

which all members in this House are allotted. But I would like to have

the opportunity to present a few of my thoughts on the principle of

this bill, a bill which we should all take seriously in this House

because it gives the government, by cabinet decree, the authority to

borrow up to $400 million, ostensibly to make good an anticipated

deficit for the fiscal year 1975-1976 — an anticipated deficit, Mr.

Speaker, for a year that's already over,

Now I'm not sure how it's possible to anticipate a deficit for a

year that's now past. I suppose that's part of the principle of the

bill, and I'm prepared to discuss it as long as the bill is on the

floor.

In the minister's rather facetious introduction, his remarks on the

introduction of this bill, he thought it would be fair to classify Bill

3 as a non-controversial bill, which he predicted would receive

unanimous approval in this House. Mr. Speaker, if it received unanimous

approval even from the government backbenchers, it would show that

those members in the government back bench are totally incapable of

distinguishing financial fact from the fiscal freak show that we've

been presented with in this House over the last week,

In another part of his opening debate on the bill, the minister implied that

the Clarkson, Gordon report indicated that there was a fiscal shortfall for

1975-76 of about $541 million, Mr. Speaker, and he implied that this bill was

based on the findings of the Clarkson, Gordon report, a report by an independent

firm of accountants, and his quote was this, Mr. Speaker, if I may cite the

Blues:

"Considerable publicity has been given to the findings of the

Clarkson, Gordon report, a report by an independent firm of chartered

accountants. The item which concerns us in this bill — that is Bill 3 —

is the projected deficit of the province of $541 million for the fiscal

year now drawing to a close, but at that point then drawing to a close.

With cash reserves at April 1, 1975 of $143.7 million, the cash

shortfall for the province for the current year is estimated to be

about S400 million."

That was the quote from the Minister of Finance when he introduced the bill.

The implications in the minister's speech, Mr. Speaker, are that the

Clarkson, Gordon report was an independent audit. I'm saying the

implication in the minister's speech was not true. It was not an

independent audit, and the Clarkson, Gordon report spells out that in

its first page in the form of a disclaimer almost, or an apology, when

they say they were requested to "co-ordinate the production of certain

unaudited financial information" — not all the information, Mr.

Speaker, but certain information. So it wasn't a true audit, only a

compilation of certain figures which the Socreds allowed the civil

servants of this province to provide. The second implication in the

minister's speech was that the deficit arrived at by the Clarkson,

Gordon report was $541 million less the surplus funds. Again that

implication — and I'm saying an implication, Mr. Speaker — was

absolutely untrue. Clarkson, Gordon state on page 9 that in

calculating the deficit they were under instructions from the

government to include ICBC's deficit in general accounts. To quote the

Clarkson, Gordon report: "We have been advised that this grant will be

made prior to March 31, 1976, and it is included therefore in the

current year's expenditure."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SKELLY: In light of the minister responsible's comments that

they're not even going to cash the cheque that was issued prior to March

31, 1976, we don't really know what Clarkson, Gordon means by a grant. Is

a grant a cheque that you have no intention of cashing? The minister said that

the grant wouldn't be necessary till next October. Are we taking money out

of the general account from 1975-1976 to pay for needs of the ICBC, needs that

won't be established until the following October? That's fiscal irresponsibility,

Mr. Speaker, fiscal irresponsibility by the people on that side of the House.

[ Page 528 ]

Again on page 9 of the Clarkson, Gordon report Clarkson, Gordon says

$32.6 million will be granted to B.C. Hydro and "We have been advised

that these amounts will be paid prior to March 31, 1976, and they are

therefore included in current expenditures." It's not necessary to

include them in current expenditures, Mr. Speaker, but they were

instructed by the government to pay that amount to B.C. Hydro prior to

March 31, 1976, so that they could be included in current expenditures.

So it was a conscious decision, a political decision, on the part of

the Social Credit government to transfer funds to ICBC, funds that the

minister admits were unnecessary to transfer until next October, and he

admits that he is not even going to cash the cheque because it's not

necessary right now. In fact, it's never been the case that the

government, whether NDP or Social Credit under the previous regime,

transferred money from general account to make up the deficits of Crown

corporations, never in the history of B.C. Hydro as far as I know.

The same is true of ICBC Autoplan deficits. There was no need to

transfer funds from general account to ICBC because as next year's

premiums came in, and as cash flows were generated from those premiums,

claims could be covered. All insurance companies do that, Mr. Speaker,

even ICBC general insurance under Social Credit, all insurance

companies. To quote Clarkson, Gordon again: "The accumulated loss of

ICBC general insurance is financed by premiums received in advance."

Mr. Speaker, those people on the other side of the House feign

outrage when we say that the claims of ICBC could be financed out of

next year's premiums. Yet the Clarkson, Gordon report, which they

instructed Clarkson, Gordon to make up, suggests that ICBC general

insurance claims will be financed out of next year's revenues. They

want it both ways. They don't want it for Autoplan because it's

important for them to inflate the deficit of this province by

transferring $181 million to Autoplan; yet it's okay to do it under

general insurance because there's not really enough of the loss under

general insurance to make the deficit look that bad for the NDP. They

want it both ways.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's a simple case of political vendetta. This

government is continuing to attempt to fight the last election — to

fight the last election by creating an inflated deficit which we are

supposed to approve by passage of this bill. The Clarkson, Gordon

report did not arrive at a deficit figure without instructions, as the

Minister of Finance implies. It arrived at the deficit figure using

information supplied by the government, and the purpose of that

information was simply to discredit the New Democratic Party government

which preceded it.

One thing the Minister of Finance did say, that did ring true in his

introductory speech, is that the Clarkson, Gordon report was widely

publicized. It's no wonder that report was widely publicized. According

to Peter Hyndman, whom we don't hear too much from any more, it was

sent out to all 72,000 members of the Social Credit Party in British

Columbia. In fact, he said it would cost $23,000 in stamps alone; he

didn't know what the printing costs were going to be.

But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, one of those supposed Social Credit

members who received the Clarkson, Gordon report was my constituency

secretary. I think they've even inflated their membership list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: So we checked the stamp on the envelope. We

checked the stamp on the envelope to see if it was sent out by Peter

Hyndman, but it was sent out of the postal branch of the parliament

buildings in Victoria, B.C.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: Sent out from the postal branch down here — Peter

Hyndman said it was going to cost $23,000 in Social Credit Party funds.

Yet it was sent out of the postal branch in Victoria, British Columbia,

to somebody who was not even on the Social Credit membership list.

Not only have they created an inflated membership list, but they

have created a deficit for this province by sending out a political

report like the Clarkson, Gordon report at public expense. We're going

to have to pay for that expense out of this $400 million which they

want us to vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a terrible thing!

MR. SKELLY: Straight politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: No need to mail it out; they could have picked it up anywhere.

MR. SKELLY: We're paying for a political pamphlet through the accounts of this province in 1975-76.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Clarkson, Gordon report was a

straight piece of political pamphleteering. It was a traitorous attack

on the economy and the institutions of this province. It was

reminiscent of that big-lie technique that was used to

[ Page 529 ]

such an effect before an election in 1932 by a party that is similar to that one in office right now.

The same is true of the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, a speech that

was blatantly politically partisan, a shameful attack on the economy of

the province and institutions of the province that were built, not by

Social Credit, not by the NDP, but by the combined efforts — the

cooperative efforts, as the Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) said — of the workers, the investors, the companies and the

governments of this province over the last two centuries.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest to you that you

will have ample opportunity to discuss the budget when you take your

place in the budget debate. At the present time we are discussing the

principle of Bill 3.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I am discussing the principle of Bill 3, Mr.

Speaker, and I am glad you drew the House's attention to that because

the cost of printing and mailing these political pamphlets to the

people of British Columbia is being borne out of this $400 million

supposed deficit — anticipated deficit as it is called in the bill —

that we are expected to approve under Bill 3. So this is the reason

that my remarks are directly related to the bill at hand.

Mr. Speaker, in that budget speech this government attacks the

people of the province, the companies of the province, the investors of

this province and governments of this province over the previous two

centuries who worked so hard to build the economy. It's a traitorous

attack on the economy that those people worked so hard to build.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Will you please return to the principle of Bill 3 and not debate the budget at this time?

MR. SKELLY: It's documents such as these, Mr. Speaker — the

Clarkson, Gordon report, the budget speech and Bill 3 — that, while

they are designed to attack the New Democratic Party and the principles

of democratic socialism, are really creating a deficit in this

province, a deficit of public confidence in people of all political

persuasions. This is a deficit that we will all be forced to bear, as

elected members and as citizens of British Columbia, for many decades

hence.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have no wish to prolong the debate

on Bill 3 and I am prepared to admit, as are many members on this side

of the House, that ICBC did experience serious losses over the last two

years. We've admitted that time and time again. All insurance companies

did. All insurance companies did.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Wait till your brain is engaged before your mouth

is in gear. In the public accounts committee last year, chaired by the

hon. member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), of which the now Premier was

then a member, Norman Bortnick said that he anticipated losses in that

corporation for six years running. He said that any corporation just

beginning could expect losses over the first few years of its operation.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, all insurance companies over the last three years....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: All insurance companies over the last three years

lost money. ICBC wasn't isolated from the economic conditions —

worldwide economic conditions — that other insurance companies suffered

from. I am sure when you were selling insurance, Mr. Speaker, that you

represented companies that suffered serious deficits as a result of

world-wide economic conditions over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, I am even prepared to admit the possibility of a financial deficit for the year 1975-1976.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Most people on this side of the House have said

that they anticipate the possibility of a financial deficit for the

year 1975-1976. Even the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich),

before the Clarkson, Gordon report or in response to the Clarkson,

Gordon report, said that they anticipated a cash shortfall of something

like $40 million. Many governments and private corporations over the

same period, in a period of world-wide economic slump, of world-wide

economic recession, have experienced deficits for the same reason.

The need to borrow to make up cash shortfalls is common with those

corporations and with those governments over the world as a result of

those present economic conditions. But we are not prepared to agree

that the deficit that we experienced over the last year — if, in fact,

there was a deficit — was of the magnitude of $400 million, as this

bill attempts to suggest. The decision to inflate the deficit to that

magnitude was a decision taken by Social Credit and resulted in the

illegal move made by the government the day before yesterday to

transfer to ICBC $181 million.

[ Page 530 ]

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Order, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: The fact that the government illegally

transferred $181 million to the Insurance Corp. of B.C. the day before

yesterday, even before they had the authority of the

Lieutenant-Governor, indicates that they intended to transfer those

funds simply to inflate the deficit of the general fund of this

province.

Mr. Speaker, many of us on this side of the House are prepared to

pass a bill similar to the one before us, but a bill less political in

its intent and more general in its application. The member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) advised the House that we should rid

this province once and for all of this pathological fear of deficit

financing. I find it difficult to believe that the present Premier's

father (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett), who believed in a fiscal surplus as a

means of putting away money for a rainy day to tide the province over

difficult periods, would not also support the idea of deficit financing

when world-wide economic conditions dictate that deficit financing is

the best solution to our problem.

We increased the surplus — we doubled it — and you're going to call

on us to spend that surplus over the next few weeks. Basically, Mr.

Speaker, I am appealing to the other side to be reasonable. We're

willing to accept the possibility of a cash shortfall in 1975-1976 and

possibly even in the next fiscal year.

We're willing to accept the general principle of deficit financing

so this province will have the economic flexibility to operate during

world-wide economic conditions such as the one we are experiencing

right now, the same economic flexibility that most other governments in

the world and most other corporations have. But we are not prepared to

accept a document like this: politically motivated to discredit the

opposition; far too specific in its terms, and in fact is designed to

do nothing more than to certify a bogus cheque that was issued by that

government to ICBC, contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should call on the government now to

withdraw that bill, and to present one that is more acceptable to both

sides of the House. I think all parties are in readiness to accept a

bill that will provide flexibility to any government in the province of

British Columbia to meet the possible problems which face all

governments during a time of economic difficulty and world-wide

recession.

If the government did adopt this reasonable approach in the first

instance, we wouldn't have the problem of a prolonged debate, such as

we're experiencing right now. I think that the government, in good

faith, should withdraw this bill and present another one that doesn't

consist of simply a political attack on the previous government. We

would be prepared — all parties in the House — to accept a bill in

those terms. Thank you.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, before I go into my

remarks, at the risk, I hope, of not creating some perhaps unfortunate discussion

across the floor, I would like to answer some of the implications made about

the operations of Crown corporations — implications made by the member for

Omineca who has a long and, I think, fairly distinguished history and membership

in this House — particularly relative to Canadian Cellulose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Skeena.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Skeena, that's right. He carpet bagged...that's right, he rotated in his interregnum.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to point out that Canadian Cellulose pays stumpage, and always did pay stumpage.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The member for Rossland-Trail has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I hoped that I did not

cause members to get into discussions across the floor, but the remarks

that I am referring to.... I don't believe the Premier was even in the

House at the time.

I'd like to point out to the House that Canadian Cellulose, and all

other corporations operating in the forest industry, integrated forest

companies, paid stumpage at exactly the same rates; there was no

special preference for any company at any time.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: The implication across the floor is that there

is, or there should be, one set of rules for multinational conglomerate

corporations in this province, and another more stringent set of rules

for companies which are owned by the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I would ask that group over there:

[ Page 531 ]

do you really think there should be some kind of special treatment

for companies that owe their allegiance to people who sit in board

rooms in Atlanta, Georgia; in New York; in Pittsburgh and in Tacoma,

Washington — and another more tougher set of rules for companies whose

shareholders are the people of the province of British Columbia?

I wonder who your paymasters are over there. Who are you really serving? Who are your paymasters?

Interjections.

MR. DARCY: There were some other remarks made about the

prices paid for chips in this province. I would like to advise the

province that prior to the Forest Products Stabilization Act coming

into effect, Canadian Cellulose paid slightly higher, voluntarily

slightly higher, prices for chips than was the average in the private

sector of this province, and that they voluntarily, before an

independent tribunal, recommended a chip price increase under the Act.

They voluntarily were the first. A number of other companies followed

suit in voluntarily raising prices, but they were the first company to

voluntarily raise their prices to somewhere over $30.

Interjections.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Member, you had your chance. I did not interrupt you and I suggest that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D'ARCY: At least MacMillan Bloedel is a Canadian corporation. Most of the others that we're referring to are not Canadian corporations.

Mr. Speaker, what I really want to talk about is Bill 3. I realize

there's been some wandering off the subject. I suppose it's all related

to the economic situation in British Columbia, but we have been told

over and over again that the reasons why Bill 3 is absolutely essential

is because the economy is slack and there is not enough revenue coming

into the provincial coffers to pay for the existing programmes and for

the capital requirements for the province during fiscal 1976-77.

Now I don't want to spend a long time on discussing certain economic

facts, not just statements in the air such as have been produced

tonight by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that say that

the economy is in terrible shape, because people over there are

convinced that had they been in office for the last three years things

would be much better. Maybe it's too early to say what their

performance will be, because their term of office so far has been

mercifully brief.

But I would like to compare some pertinent facts, very briefly, over

the last three years compared with the preceding seven years, when

there was another Social Credit government in office. I appreciate that

most of the members of this executive council and people who occupy the

treasury benches here were not part of that government. However, it was

a Social Credit government and it operated under the same name.

During the seven years ending in 1972 there were 240,000 new jobs

created in British Columbia — 34,000 a year, a pretty good record. But

in the following three years there were 149,000 new jobs or 49,000 a

year, 34,000 a year to 49,000 a year, a 45 per cent increased growth

rate. That's a federal statistic quoted from your own records.

Let's look at capital investment. Growth rate per year increased by

$1.6 billion in the seven years ending in 1972, a rate of $220 million

a year more than each previous year. Not a bad record. Some years it

went down — 1968 was a bad year. In the three years that followed, $1.9

billion, a growth rate of $633 million a year — $1.6 billion in seven

years, $1.9 billion in three years — and we've had a recession for the

last year. That was a growth rate 190 per cent higher than when the

former Social credit government was in office.

My friend for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who was not in

his chair tonight when this subject (good evening, I'm sorry I missed

you ) was raised earlier by another member — I think it was a day or so

ago — said it was because government spending was up; that was where

the investment was coming from. So I checked the manufacturing figures.

Manufacturing, the private sector, that risk capital that was

supposed to be fleeing the province over the last three years,

according to those.... What are the figures? Once again a growth of

$140 million. A growth rate of $140 million over those seven years, $20

million a year in manufacturing. What did it grow in the last three

years, though? From $580 million to $780 million per year, $200 million

growth rate over three years, $67 million a year, a 235 per cent

increase. Risk capital in this province came in at a faster rate than

the overall investment picture over the last three years.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I assume you are going to relate these remarks to....

MR. D'ARCY: Of course, the reason we have been told by the government

that we need Bill 3 is because there is a slowdown in revenue, a likely shortfall,

and the government's money, as the throne speech told us, is only the people's

money which comes in through taxation. If the economy is weak, then the government

revenues will be weak. So that's

[ Page 532 ]

what we're talking about in terms of the amount of money.

Interjection.

MR. DARCY: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is pointing at the clock.

Mr. D'Arcy moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents the 1975 annual report of the British Columbia Cellulose Company.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada