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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

441 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Second reading.

Mr. Nicolson — 441

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 442

Mr. Wallace — 449

Mr. Lea — 453

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 461

Mrs. Wallace — 462

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Nelson-Creston adjourned the

debate. Hon. member, before you start, I would draw your attention to

the fact that you have seven minutes left in the second reading of this

bill.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, you are not going to

afford me the same latitude as was given to one of my colleagues earlier, I

take it.

We are here debating Bill 3, the unnecessary bill of this

Legislature, the bill which is purely political, purely a commitment of

the government to itself, purely an attempt — a very weak attempt — to

try to vindicate itself.

This attempt and the neglect of the government, and the

predetermination of this present Social Credit government, is to try to

create the political myth of a financial mess in the province which

they preached before, during, and have continued to preach since the

election, since which time they should know better, Mr. Speaker,

because they have had time to examine the books. What a surprise they

got! They had to delay the Clarkson, Gordon report, and the Clarkson,

Gordon report didn't give them the answers that they wanted.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Clarkson, Gordon said: "Yes, if you want to

play games, Mr. Minister of Finance, you can do that." That's what it

said. It said: "If you want to spend something today — today, March 31

— you can make the previous government look bad. But if you spend it

tomorrow, April 1, you make yourselves look bad, so do it right away."

Not only has the government sought to do things about which they might have

some direction; they have been so clumsy, but so determined, that they issued

a cheque to ICBC of $181,510,000, and that cheque was issued yesterday with

no authority vested in the cabinet or the executive council.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Finance): The order-in-council was passed.

MR. NICOLSON: It was passed today, my friend, by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, it was passed by the executive council on

March 30, but it is not law and not ordered until it's signed by the

Lieutenant-Governor on March 31. You broke the law and you've goofed

again. You are a bungling minister. You have been bungling ICBC, you've

been bungling your Education portfolio, you're bungling the

post-secondary, the secondary, the elementary

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll get to you, Mr. Minister, in the short

time I have. You know, there's the sanctimonious, silver-toned voice of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and

today in The Vancouver Sun he stands exposed.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. NICOLSON:

"Municipal Affairs minister Hugh Curtis is to be

commended for his announcement that he will amend the Transit Services

Act to limit his discretionary powers..."

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm trying to read all of it. I'm going to read the good as well as the bad, hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster):

"...but did he have to spoil it with that display of

overacting about the cost and state of the transit service bequeathed

to him by the NDP? Mr. Curtis got himself worked up into a lather of

superlatives — 'incredible mess,' 'galaxy of errors,' and 'absolute

turmoil' were some of them."

Odd that the people of B.C. Hydro weren't similarly upset, isn't it? But they weren't.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): But they were.

[ Page 442 ]

MR. NICOLSON:

"On the same day that Mr. Curtis was acting out his

melodrama they were reporting that a new era of bus awareness had

dawned as a result of the expanded transit services induced by the NDP,

and that they were being flooded with requests for information about

express bus service."

Mr. Speaker, these people are so preoccupied with this myth about

mess, it has so clouded their minds that they have bungled even in

passing a simple order-in-council. They didn't do it quick enough. They

didn't bring this bill into the House early enough, Mr. Speaker, to

allow proper debate. They've put themselves into a situation where the

Province of British Columbia is going to be NSF.

MR. SPEAKER: You have just two minutes, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unnecessary to be in this position. It was unnecessary to pass

that order-in-council when they knew they had already botched it up.

You might have an obligation to yourselves to try to patch up the lousy

work. But you don't have to support them, Mr. Member; you are in the

back bench.

They're the members of the executive council. They're the ones who

are responsible for this mess. Of course, we're going to oppose this

bill, Mr. Speaker. We oppose it. The people who are already phoning in

response to this government's bungling of this entire fiasco, the

people will support us in calling this government accountable to the

people of British Columbia.

It's time that they grew up. It's time they forgot that an election

has been won by them and it's time they got on with trying to govern

this province.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): You know, Mr. Speaker, I am saddened as I have to stand here this evening and discuss the bill which is going to put...

MR. NICOLSON: Just stop payment on that cheque.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...for the first time in over 20 years...

MR. NICOLSON: Stop payment! You'll be okay.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the Province of British Columbia in debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop payment on that cheque.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I recall very vividly some

three and a half years ago when the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) stood in the Legislature and with some little bit of frivolity

said that "the gates have opened and the hordes are rushing in."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened to that talk by the now

Attorney-General and I chuckled a little bit and I never realized that

less than four years later I would be standing in this chamber which

has seen many debates, realizing in my heart the full impact of what

had happened in that election of 1972.

During the past three and a half years we have seen card-table

bookkeeping and kitchen-table accounting. And as that little group

opposite fears so much about telling the truth to the people of British

Columbia...

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you heard that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I want to tell you that not once in all the debates...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...have you told the truth. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...not once in all of the debates that

have taken place on the throne speech or the budget speech or on Bill

10 has that group denied the truth that they ran the province of

British Columbia into the ground. Not once.

AN HON. MEMBER: No — a hundred times we said it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, I was listening

with a great deal of intent this afternoon to one of the directors of

the insurance corporation as he talked about ICBC — the man who is now

so knowledgeable, who on December 11,1975, became an instant expert in

finances.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that man used to work for an insurance corp.

He was not selling automobile insurance but selling life insurance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you know, Mr. Speaker, what he used to

advise his clients? He used to go round after he had sold them a big

policy and say to them: "You know, you really have to die to collect on

this. That's the only way to beat the system." (Laughter.) And you

know, Mr. Speaker, he used that same intellect...

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking life insurance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...for the automobile

[ Page 443 ]

insurance corporation of British Columbia. He told

the people of British Columbia: "You've got to have an accident to beat

the system." And you know, Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to me...

AN HON. MEMBER: He's down here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that after December 11,1975...

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): He's down here, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the cost of an arson in Vancouver, the

cost of an arson in Vancouver — you know, where if your automatic

transmission went out or your motor went out — $50 and you were paid

off immediately because your car happened to burn up some night when

some friend stole it.

The cost of arson in Vancouver went up 400 per cent on December 11,

Mr. Speaker. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me that this

little group over here are now getting their directions in absenteeism.

You know, Mr. Speaker...

MR. LEA: Hurray for Joe Clark.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the phone is ringing from Vancouver East.

Their little defeated leader is in a hotel room over there, knocking

on doom, telling them how to run the Legislature. He hasn't the guts to

sit up in the gallery. No, no, he hasn't the intestinal fortitude, Mr.

Speaker, to sit up in the gallery and give the direction — he's hidden

in a little hotel room in Vancouver East.

But, you know, he's not really the man who's giving the direction.

No, it's the same man who always gave directions to that group when

they were in government, and that's the real member for Vancouver East,

that minister who used to be the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) . He's the man who really gave the

directions.

But, you know, he's still calling the shots. Absolutely. He's still

calling the shots. He is the real architect of the socialist party in

British Columbia. The man who was feared — the man who was feared

throughout the north, and the south, and the east and the west of the

province of British Columbia. The man who struck fear into everything

that moved in British Columbia.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder: is he the real man

who's calling the shots? Because I've noticed the former Speaker (Mr.

Dowding) is back; I've noticed his presence. I've noticed his presence

— a couple of days in the restaurant. Then as he appeared on the scene

I noticed a little bit — just a little bit — of fiber in that little,

leaderless group sitting opposite.

I wondered who was the real architect of all these motions, all of

these innuendoes and these points of order. Then I realized that it was

the ex-Speaker making his appearance known. You know, Mr. Speaker, he

hasn't done any better job now in the backwoods than he did when he was

in the Speaker's chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Could we get back to Bill 3 now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because all through the debate of Bill 3....

AN HON. MEMBER: This isn't the Land Act we are talking about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, absolutely not.

All through the debate of Bill 3 we've been accused of being political.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Say it isn't true, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, I've watched that group

opposite, that leaderless group, and I've had just a little twang of

sorrow for them because all they can talk about is the fact that we're

being political.

I listened this afternoon to the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stupich). Poor little fellow. After the court jester made a complete

mess of the finances of this province, he passed it on a broken platter

to the member for Nanaimo, and said: "Here, you've got a C.A., you

should have been the Minister of Finance in the first place. You

straighten out the mess."

I've watched the grey hairs increase on that member's head, because

he was handed a mess that nobody could put together. It's like

Humpty-Dumpy; nobody can put it back together.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker: have faith because you now have

a government who will put it all back together. We'll put it back

together, and we'll put it back together because we will use good

business sense, something that is completely unknown and foreign to

that leaderless rump group opposite.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if we put all of the knowledge and all of the

financial brains together over there, they still would not realize that

a company with money in the bank can go broke. They wouldn't realize

that a company.... And they call us the "bottom-line politicians" — but

a company....

Interjection.

[ Page 444 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, I feel sorry for you. Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for you.

You called us the bottom-line government, but there isn't a man over

there with enough business sense to realize that when that bottom line

shows a profit, a company or a government can still be going broke.

They don't understand cash flow. They don't understand the

differences between assets and cash in the bank. They think because

you've got a little cash in the bank that you're rich — the policy of

so many business people in British Columbia today. Because that

financial statement says we're making a profit, they think we're rich.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that was the downfall of that

government, because they came into government and the bank account was

bulging.

I remember when they were in opposition, Mr. Speaker, they used to

talk about phony bookkeeping — cooked books. They denied that the

surpluses were there. They denied that the cash was in the bank. I hate

to recall this to that broken, humble group over there who are paying

for their sins of Saturday-night rich and Sunday-morning poor. They're

paying for it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're preaching like a Presbyterian.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, when they got into the

books of this province, after they became government, and they checked

the accounts, checked the bank accounts, not once did they ever dispute

the books of the government that was in power in this province before

1972. Not once!

MR. NICOLSON: What about B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll tell you about B.C. Rail. Oh. Mr.

ex-Minister of Housing who did nothing while you were there except

create chaos, I'll tell you about B.C. Rail, and, given time, I'll tell

you about the other Crown corporations.

You know, it was so interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear the

Minister of Finance, who had been Minister of Finance for such a short

time (Mr. Stupich) go on TV and say: "Oh, we could have done the same

thing. We could have created the deficit," and they started talking

about the Columbia River Treaty.

I'm not going to speak about it because the member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) did a very good job the other day in explaining

this. They try to thrash this horse of the Columbia River, but not once

has anybody on that side ever said that the power from the Columbia

River will be the cheapest power in all of North America. Not once!

Not once has any member on that side ever denied the truth, that had

it not been for the vision and the courage of that previous

administration...

MR, NICOLSON: What about Bonnington?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...British Columbia would have had brown-outs today. Now I didn't intend to talk about the Columbia River Treaty, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: What about Bridge River?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ex — and I

say "ex" because he didn't last very long and he didn't do a very good

job when he was in there — ex-Minister of Finance.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): The farmers are looking for you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm going to talk about the farmers in

just a moment. I'm glad you brought that up, because while you were

Minister of Agriculture, you gave and you gave and you gave. But you

were afraid to face the real problems that face the farmers in British

Columbia today.

I want to tell you that while I'm minister, I'll not back away from

those problems, and I'll help the farmers of British Columbia. I'll

stand up and I'll fight for the farmers of British Columbia, and I

won't do it by trying to give away the international bank or Fort

Worth. I'll help the farmers to help themselves, and I won't do it by

giving and giving and giving. I'll keep the agricultural industry of

British Columbia from....

MR. NICOLSON: You're a chicken; you're afraid you're going to get caught....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you I'm not afraid of the

chickens. As I stand and breathe in this Legislature, my friend...as I

stand and breathe, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature, I'll tell you that

I'll not back away from the chicken-and-egg war, or any other problem

that comes to my desk while I'm Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to be carried away, but all those chickens

over there, they remind me that when I was a kid I used to visit a

farmyard. I used to come around when it was time to feed the chickens.

The farmer used to say: "Don, why don't you go out and feed the

chickens?" Then he'd give me some grain, and I'd throw the grain out —

and this was before the days of these chicken farms where the chickens

sit in there and they're all in like an assembly-line laying the eggs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Factories.

[ Page 445 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Factories. We used to throw out the feed.

You know, Mr. Speaker, those chickens reminded me of the NDP because

they came in and they gobbled up all the feed within 15 minutes and

then they spent the rest of the day scratching around looking for

something that wasn't there. (Laughter.) Scratching around for

something that wasn't there — Saturday-night rich and Sunday-morning

poor.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Social Credit lays the egg.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened, really, with sadness in my heart...

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What heart?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...as I listened to the ex-Minister of

Finance when he was talking about ICBC. On the television programme he

said: "You know, ICBC's in good financial shape." He said: "They'll

have $175 million in the bank on April."

MR. STUPICH: $350 million.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, you said $175; I listened very

intently. But what did he say? He said: "You know, they're in good

shape; it only costs $40 million a month to run it. They're good for at

least three months."

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the thing that really amazes me about the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, that wonderful gang over there,

you know........ I remember standing in this Legislature...how they

were going to invest those millions and millions and millions that come

in, in premiums. You know what they did? They invested the losses in

British Columbia and tried to call it profit. I want to tell you that I

have no desire to strike out this evening, because my heart is full of

good will, and my heart is also full of sadness. I have no desire to

strike out at that leaderless band over there, wandering around over

their own destruction.

MR. LAUK: Who wrote this, Arthur Weeks?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, little member from Vancouver Centre, I'm not a lawyer....

MR. LAUK: I'm bigger than you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not a lawyer...

MR. LAUK: Well, you're wearing a vest.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I don't need any ghost writers to

write my speeches. I don't need any judges to give me my decisions,

because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am responsible to the people of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The sad part about it is that their true

leader, the true architect of socialism in British Columbia, that

fellow we used to call the Hon. Robert Williams, is still pulling the

strings over there. Why did he resign? That was a man who was the

architect. I remember so well, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, how he

used to have you on a little string like a puppet. And every time he

pulled that little string, you just said: "How high, Mr. Williams, how

high?"

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to speak about the member for Vancouver-Capilano. But I was very interested in some of his remarks.

MR. LAUK: He's not here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He talked about the deficit, and you know

what he said? I listened with a great deal of interest to what he said.

You know: "We don't really need the bill" and "the money really isn't

gone. "

But what did he say on March 15? He said: "The deficit isn't $400

million. The Social Credit are being conservative." Pardon the pun. "It

is more like $851 million." And you heard him last night.

Obstructionist. Far be it from me to strike out at that leaderless

group, because he's not leaderless. No, no, he's his own leader. It has

been very interesting, Mr. Speaker; it has been very interesting to me.

As a matter of fact, it's been an education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Night of the car dealers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would love to talk to the member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). But I'll save it for a later date because

I know he's going to attack me and I know he is going to thrust swords

into me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to some of the remarks by the short-time,

short-lived Minister of Finance. He said: "No way there's a deficit."

He said that government could pull in millions and millions and millions of

dollars. And I'd like to refer to an

article out of the Colonist where he

says the B.C. Harbours Board owes British Columbia about $24 million and B.C.

Rail owes the government $35 million, which Stupich says could have been paid

back.

[ Page 446 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: With what?

MR. STUPICH: There's a bill on the order paper on that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there's a bill on the order paper. Although I just want, for the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, to refer you to The British Columbia Financial and Economic Review.

And I'll have to forgive the short-term, short-lived Minister of

Finance because he didn't sign this. The ex-Premier, the court jester,

signed this. The man who is really the architect of the defeat of the

financial situation of British Columbia signed it. And it was late

coming out, late, as usual, dated September 5,1975.

They talk about deceit and they try to talk about facts. I want to

tell you, Mr. Speaker... Oh, I'll tell you, Mr. Member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich). I want you to pay attention to this because you...yes, I'm

talking about Bill 3 and I'm talking about the sad state of affairs in

British Columbia, that after 20 years we finally have to borrow money.

Now you just listen to me and you might possibly, although I doubt it....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You might possibly get one little inkling of financial acumen.

MR. STUPICH: Not from you. I doubt it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the mastermind of them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to quote from page 14 of this financial review.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever hear of the Peter principle?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is a completely misleading document

tabled by the previous Premier of this province, who served as Finance

minister for a number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was too long.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And I want to talk to you tonight, Mr.

Speaker, and I want to remind you that in this complete financial

review it talks about assets and liabilities.

MR. LAUK: Are you the designated speaker?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should be the designated scapegoat over there, because you're going to be before the session's over.

I'd like to talk to you, Mr. Speaker, about what it says about repayable assets.

"Repayable advances to provincial Crown corporations

at March 31,1975, totalled $43,710,000, and were as follows: British

Columbia Cellulose, $14 million; British Columbia Harbours Board, $23

million; Ocean Falls, $4 million; Panco Poultry" — Pinko-Panco Poultry

— "$1.5 million."

The man who says we should recover money from the BCR...which, mind

you, when it was loaned they didn't know whether it was a loan or a

grant, so we called it a "groan." The man who says you can recover

that, why didn't he tell the people of British Columbia, in the

financial review of September, 1975, that it was recoverable?

Far be it from me to say that they were covering up and misleading

the people of this province. Far be it from me to say that the

ex-Minister of Finance on television was trying to mislead the people

of the province, but it just so happens that they were so incompetent

that when they made this groan — grant, loan, whatever you want to call

it — to the British Columbia Railway, they didn't even know that the

railway shouldn't repay it, and it wasn't until they hired a

lawyer...the railway hired a lawyer and I have before me what the

lawyer said, and I believe the lawyer because it's a legal opinion. He

had to advise the railway that they couldn't repay that groan.

MR. LAUK: Don't be so silly.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) ...

MR. LAUK: What's a lawyer got to do with it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...who served as the Minister of Finance for this province went on television and told the people of this province...

MR. LAUK: Idiot!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that we could recover that $35 million

from the British Columbia Railway. Mr. Speaker, the reason I point this

out — and I do it with sadness in my heart — is because that is the

type of leadership that this province has had for the last three and a

half years. It's a sad and sorry day when we have to come to grips with

the fact that those people over there can stand up in front of the

people of British Columbia and shout and bellow and hold up the

business of the Province of British Columbia after that type of

leadership. It's no wonder that there is sadness in my heart tonight.

Interjections.

[ Page 447 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the book that

was published and sent to all the nations of the world, sent to all the

financial institutions in North America, outlining for those people the

financial situation of the Province of British Columbia, and I refer

you to page 23, where it talks about federal-provincial fiscal

arrangements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read page 23 of the Clarkson, Gordon report.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you can be trivial all you want to,

because when you were in government all you thought about was a power

base so that you could control the people. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that we on this side of the House are here to serve the

people, not to rule over them.

Interjection?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that when we issue a

financial

summary of the state of finances in this province, it will be

a truthful document. Here is a second instance, Mr. Speaker, where we

talk about federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.

It talks about how much money we owe the federal government, and how

much they owe us. Mr. Speaker, it saddens my heart again to say this. I

don't want to accuse anybody of misleading the people of British

Columbia nor, indeed, do I want to speak of anybody misleading the

financial institutions of the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are having heart-strain tonight.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But here we have a supposedly complete

summary — not one word about the money that British Columbia owes the

federal government ...

MR. LAUK: It's in Hansard .

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...on behalf of the Petroleum Corp. of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: It's in Hansard .

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not one word. Do you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia...

MR. LAUK: It's in the newspapers and in Hansard .

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...lost faith.... Oh, yappy one over there

— you became so smart on December 11. It's too bad that the great

little member for Vancouver Centre had not used some of that tact —

some of that fast-gotten financial ability. It's too bad that you

hadn't used some of that ability, Mr. Member, in the last three and a

half years.

MR. LAUK: On September 1,1972, you did not even want to serve the people of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll

always serve the people of this province. I want to tell you something

else, Mr. Speaker: when I serve them and when I work for them, I'll

tell them the truth always. Tell them the truth!

AN HON. MEMBER: The old car dealer.

EON. MR. PHILLIPS: They have great fun talking about the car dealers.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that of all the car dealers who ran in this

province — and they are supposed to be referred to as used-car dealers and so

forth — 100 per cent of them are elected. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I

defy any one of those socialists....

MR. WALLACE: Wrong again. What about Oak Bay?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I defy any one of those socialists to go into any constituency in this province where there was a car dealer running....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about Oak Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Scott the giant-killer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm allowed one little mistake — just one

little mistake. You allow a poor little car dealer his one little

mistake. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I defy any of them to go into

any constituency, because car dealers have a little sign up:

"Satisfaction or money refunded."

I want to tell you something else, Mr. Speaker: car dealers have to

make their money because of their reputation, because there is always

another one around the corner — not like socialist politicians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to this economic review,

and I didn't intend to be long, but I do have to tell the people of

this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just longing to hear that report.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On pages 40 and 41 it talks about the

Insurance Corp of British Columbia, that great corporation that

invested the profits in British Columbia for the benefit of the people

of British

[ Page 448 ]

Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: We're off the amendment to the throne speech, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about borrowing money. For

you, my little friend, after the way you rambled on this afternoon,

stood up and said nothing, at least I am laying some facts before the

people of. British Columbia. About all you did this afternoon was

shout. You can stand up there and try to emulate your previous court

jester, the leader who is down in Vancouver Centre. Now I've watched

you. You thought you were the leader....

MR. NICOLSON: Did you recognize it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you thought you were the leader; you

tried to develop a leader posture. But I want to tell you: don't follow

that guy because he's on the way out!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on page 43.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that one

of the reasons the government is standing up and facing the problems of

British Columbia is because we have to tell the truth. One of the

positive things this government is going to do is stand up and support

the agricultural industry in this province.

MS. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): When?

MR. LAUK: You won't even talk to them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: After three and a half years.... I'm not

going to condemn the previous Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich)

because he gave and he gave and he gave.

MR. LAUK: Are you too much of a snob to talk to farmers?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll meet the farmers, and I'll tell you, when I do meet them and when I talk to them I'll tell them something.

MS. BROWN: When are you going to meet them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But we have a situation in British

Columbia today, and one of the reasons it bothers me that we have to go

into debt is because we should be using that money that we have to

borrow, and using the interest on that money that we have to borrow...

AN HON. MEMBER: Then don't borrow.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: to help the agricultural industry of

British Columbia. I want to tell you that that government made a

decision, and they brought in Bill 42. They said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I spoke against it — that's why you

changed it. Then you could talk about me, you know. But I made you

change it. We made you change it; the farmers made you change it; the

voters of British Columbia made you change it. But you said at the

time: "We bring in Bill 42 and we are going to preserve farmland."

Yes, I'm talking about Bill 3, because this is all tied in to the

whole situation — you've got to borrow money and you've got to spend

interest.

MR. LAUK: He says: "This is the budget — ain't she a honey? Only got 25 miles on her."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they

brought in Bill 42 and they said: "We will preserve farmland, and at

the same time we will make the agricultural industry in British

Columbia viable." But what did they do?

They brought in some programmes, but they didn't stand up against

Ottawa and fight for the farmers of this province. I want to tell you,

Mr. Speaker: so goes agriculture, so goes the economy. They didn't

stand up to Ottawa; they didn't say that the people of British Columbia

are prepared to dig into their pockets and support the farmers of

British Columbia. — why doesn't Ottawa? They didn't tell their story.

They didn't fight for tariff changes. No, but they made a big thing

about supporting agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, when that government came into power the coffers were

full. There was money in the bank. And one of the reasons that we're

faced with this bill tonight is because they had the best years that

British Columbia has ever seen. I remember it well — '73, early '74.

MR. SPEAKER: You have two minutes, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: While the mining industry.... Oh, yes, I

know you're glad to see the end of me, but I'm not going to go away.

I'm not like your Premier; I'm not going to go away. I'm going to stay

and I'm going to fight.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll try and sum it up, during

the best years that this province has ever known, the money was pouring

in; they could hardly get the doors of the safe open wide enough to let

it come in.

[ Page 449 ]

MR. LAUK: Don....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Lumber prices were never better; the markets were never better; the mineral industry was never better. And what did they do?

MR. LAUK: Don....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They thought it was so good they killed

it; they took that bonanza, and they spent it. What did they say? They

said: "Yes, yes, yes," and they thought they were doing the people of

British Columbia a favour...

MR. LAUK ; Don, you're in the government now; you're not in opposition.

You're a Crown minister now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...because they thought the people of

British Columbia were stupid enough to think that there was going to be

a free ride. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

British Columbia have intelligence, and they were not to be fooled by

those socialists.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't be fooled.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The thing that really grips them in the

heart is the fact that we have to stand here with all sadness and tell

the people the true facts. They haven't denied the true facts about the

financial situation of British Columbia. Because we are telling the

people of this province the true facts, they say we're being political.

And still with sadness in my heart I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

with sadness in my heart I will have to vote for this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I think that after-dinner speech is very interesting and very entertaining.

MR. LAUK: It's not worth $29,000, and that's not much.

MR. WALLACE: I think, as some of the interjections suggested,

it did sound as though the hon. minister has forgotten that he is in

the government, and that the Social Credit Party won the election.

Bill 3: I'll try to stick to the principle of Bill 3, but if I

stray, Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be afforded the same latitude that

was extended to the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there has been a certain amount of

latitude extended to a number of members in this debate, and I will

extend to you the same courtesy.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because today has been, for me personally, a day of good news and bad news.

I had to be out of town earlier in the day. I had enquired earlier

on this week about when the MLAs were getting paid. When I got back

into town this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was really very heartened

because my secretary told me that my salary cheque was on my desk. That

was the good news.

Then I came into this chamber and discovered the bad news — that the

cheque's no good. (Laughter.) Not only is the government reducing my

income by 10 per cent, but they're issuing dud cheques.

I really feel that if we're going to debate the principle of Bill 3

in any kind of intelligent way we should certainly have some special

motion tonight, or some emergency procedure, to ensure that when I go

to the bank tomorrow with my long-awaited cheque...or, worse still, if

I write out a cheque to my wife for her housekeeping and she goes to

the bank the following day and can't cash it, then, indeed, the five

Wallace children are in real trouble.

MR. LAUK: Old rubber-cheque Bill.

MR. WALLACE: I have the cheque here. If anybody from the government side wants to validate it in some way I'll be very grateful.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're supporting the bill, are you?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, we're supporting the bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you've given me a great deal of latitude and I am

very appreciative. The principle of Bill 3 is the borrowing of up to

$400 million by the government in relation to a deficit which now

exists. The exact amount of the deficit has been debated in this House

and in public. I am sure that it is indeed somewhat confusing to the

public and to the taxpayer to hear all the conflicting points of view

that have been expressed since the House went into session.

I think that at least this House should pay some tribute to the

authors of the Clarkson, Gordon report who, right at the very

beginning, realized that ordinary persons would be reading the report,

persons who are not familiar with the jargon of the accountants' world.

It's interesting that in the report, right on the first page, the

authors state: "We will attempt, therefore, to use non-technical

language and avoid complex explanations where possible, although we

appreciate that there are always hazards in oversimplification."

I think that is a very realistic approach to the kind of report that

is being used and discussed at great length by the people of British

Columbia. I think it's also relevant in this debate to mention that at

the

[ Page 450 ]

bottom of page 6 they also say: "There is, however,

a need to re-examine many of the accounting and reporting practices of

government with a view to providing clearer, more logical and more

useful information to those who have an interest in the public

accounts." I think that is also something which I hope the government

will take into consideration.

We have certain members of the government who were formerly on this

side of the House, and one of them is giving his jaws a great deal of

activity right now. He is apparently not listening to the debate, but I

am sure he is. I am referring to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

who, when he was on this side of the House, was always pleading for the

widest, most open, most easily understood accounting of government

finances. So when I read the Clarkson, Gordon report at the bottom of

page 6, I think it epitomizes the kind of strong opinion that the now

Attorney-General expressed from this side of the House.

I hope that we can count on the Attorney-General's support in

complicated annual report that only 0.1 per cent of the people can

understand, but in the everyday language that is used in the Clarkson,

Gordon report. I think in putting the Clarkson, Gordon report at its

very simplest, the authors were saying you can do various things with

figures.

This general statement really, I think, Mr. Speaker, was borne out

by the Minister of Finance himself earlier on this year when one of the

members of his department, rightly or wrongly, took a public position

in disclosing in his view the extent of the deficit of the province. I

don't want to get into that as an issue in itself. The point I want to

make is that the Minister of Finance, in a subsequent statement to the

media, mentioned that the public service employees provide the figures

from the ledger but it is the job of the politicians to interpret the

figures. I think this is what the debate is all about. I think the

experts in the accounting world have said that you can interpret

figures in various ways.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

The report also clearly explains, Mr. Speaker that a deficit or a

surplus, as far as government are concerned, relates simply and purely

to timing of payments and that the time at which governments choose to

make payments is purely arbitrary.

If we acknowledge the arbitrary nature of government decisions, as

to when to pay which bills, this debate should clearly recognize that

the Clarkson, Gordon accountants were instructed regarding which debts

were to be included in the 1975-76 fiscal year, and on that basis — the

basis of instruction, not the basis of auditing as they might see fit —

the Clarkson, Gordon accountants established that the expenditures for

1975-76 exceeded estimates by over $100 million, and the revenues fell

short of estimates by over $300 million, giving us a total deficit of

somewhere over $500 million.

But there are certain elements, Mr. Speaker, in arriving at that

decision which I think this debate should clearly recognize. One of

them is the question of taking money from our annual revenues and using

these moneys as capital expenditures in such areas as ferries, buses

and other equipment of various kinds which will be used for years to

come and which, in most jurisdictions, certainly are not financed by a

lump sum of money taken from the operating revenue of the province in

one year. The payments, Mr. Speaker, are clearly recorded as being $26

million to transit, $32.6 million to B.C. Hydro, and, of course, the

major item of all, $175 million to ICBC — although we have learned

today that the actual sum for which the cheque for ICBC has been

written is $181 million.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this conscious decision to take

operating revenue in large sums for capital expenditures is one of the

very important points that the Clarkson, Gordon report makes.

First of all, if a government chooses to do this, it affects either

the deficit or surplus position, and the timing of this decision also

most clearly influences the surplus or deficit position as of March

31,1976. It is quite clear that the government has made the arbitrary

decision in the instructions that it gave to the Clarkson, Gordon

accountants.

Far be it for me to defend the financial bungling that was

perpetuated in ICBC, but one of the things that I think we should do

from this side of the House, or from both sides of the House, is to try

to be fair. It is on record that many automobile insurance companies in

North America have lost their shirts in the last year, and so while

that does not in any way justify some of the mistakes made by the

former government, it is just too simple a criticism and verdict to

blame all of the financial problems of British Columbia on the former

government.

On the revenue side, Mr. Speaker, the lumber revenue, our main

export from this province, is down by $100 million. I do believe, and I

think it is a fair statement, that had the present government been in

power last year, their revenue from lumber would also have been down $

100 million. There are external forces which govern the financial

status of the province regardless of the government in power.

There is another element in the figures we are discussing where I

have asked questions already and I haven't had an answer, but maybe the

government will answer this time. The payments — which were anticipated

from the federal government on hospital cost-sharing programmes is

reported to be down by

[ Page 451 ]

$55 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've followed the present debate in the House of

Commons on Medicare very carefully, and it's my understanding that the

proposed ceiling on increased costs will only relate to the years

1976-77 and 1977-78. To my knowledge the federal government has not yet

changed the ground rules in regard to cost-sharing with the provinces

on hospital costs, Yet in the Clarkson, Gordon report they quite

clearly demonstrate in arriving at the drop in anticipated revenues by

showing the actual revenue as $55 million less than was anticipated.

The other element in the same general area relates to the Canada

Assistance Plan where payments are down by $27 million. If we're to

debate Bill 3 intelligently and if we are to try and determine what

amount might need to be borrowed, I think some of the sums of money

which have brought about the deficit require a little more explaining

than we've had up until this point.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a deficit. While

there is some debate as to the exact amount of the deficit, or how it

has been arrived at, there seems little doubt that the province, as of

midnight tonight, has to try and correct a very serious situation.

I would like also to say that the debate on Bill 3 rather reflects

in my mind some of the fundamental shortcomings of this Legislature, or

the shortcomings of how this Legislature functions, because this debate

has been acrimonious and, in the course of the last day or two, the

actions of the opposition parties have finally dragged out of the

government some basic information, information which really is basic to

this debate.

What I'm really trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that if the

government felt that there was urgency in having this borrowing power

passed by the House by a certain deadline, does it not seem sensible

that the government should provide full information as to its motives,

its reasons for asking for the bill, and, above all, the reasons for

asking that it be passed by a certain hour? But, oh, no, we have this

childish, ridiculous system in this House whereby ahead of debate the

government tries to reveal as little as possible and the opposition

parties in response equally play games.

I would submit that if the government at a much earlier date than

yesterday had revealed in a logical and objective way the cash position

of the Province of British Columbia right now, we not only would have

avoided creating a lot of hostility which we saw in this House last

night, but we probably would have had a more intelligent debate.

Certainly, much of the bitter invective which has been thrown around

from both sides of the House, which is entirely negative and

unproductive.... Let's face it, human nature being what it is, human

beings are never more cooperative with each other if they start out by

insulting each other. That doesn't matter whether we're politicians or

doctors or car dealers or whatever.

I think the kind of hassle that we've had on Bill 3 and on interim

supply is a symptom of what is wrong with the way in which this House

functions. There seems to be an old-fashioned, blind, unintelligent

attitude — and it applies to both sides of the House — that neither of

us should know what the other intends to do until we got into this

House, and then it's the one who can react the fastest who might win

the fight.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): It's all changed now.

MR. WALLACE: The Whip on my left hand here tells me it's all

changed. Well, George, you're a very dear friend of mine, but I'll

believe it when I see it.

But I do think that a lot of the problems we've run into on this

particular issue.... In some ways I think it is fortunate maybe that

it's come early in the session, because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it

benefits none of us, and it certainly does not benefit the taxpayer or

the province if we are going to continue to debate important issues —

and few issues are more important than trying to finance the affairs of

the Province — in this kind of manner, where information is not made

readily available in order to conduct an intelligent debate, where both

sides of the House have not had the opportunity to prepare for the

debate.

You cannot prepare intelligently if you do not have the basic

information. I know how often in this House members refer to the fact

that there are lots of lawyers in politics. I'd just like to quickly

make the analogy that I'm sure all the lawyers in this House would have

great difficulty in the legitimate practice of their profession if they

did not, either as defenders or prosecutors, have pretty reasonable

access to all the available information affecting the trial. While I

wouldn't want to suggest that debates in this House are some form of

trial — although I find them pretty trying at times — I would suggest

that the same kind of intelligent approach whereby the government

reveals more information on the issue, and the opposition parties

respond in a cooperative way by letting the government know how long

they anticipate the debate will take, or how many speakers, and how

long each speaker will speak.... This kind of basic, constructive

approach to debate I think would not only perhaps give each of us a

greater expectation of life, but I think would result quite likely in a

more productive parliament.

To return to Bill 3, as I stated earlier, I was unable to be here this afternoon in the early stages when the

[ Page 452 ]

questioning revealed the true cash position of the

province but, as I understand it, we have $25.4 million in cash and we

have cheques outstanding to the value of $245.8 million which, combined

with payroll cheques of which my cheque is one, another $14 million,

which leads to a deficit of $234 million, including a cheque to ICBC in

the value of $181 million, which I understand was written and dated

today for the purpose I mentioned earlier in my remarks — that that

item of expenditure, in the view of the government, clearly had to be

included within the fiscal year 1975-76.

I'm sure all of us in this House realize that the likelihood of the

directors of ICBC ever going to the bank with that cheque for $181

million before the passing of Bill 3 is highly unlikely. At least I

hope it's unlikely. We needn't publicize far and wide the dire straits

we are in financially.

One interesting little bit of arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, which I think

might justify our position regarding capital payments to Crown

corporations is that the two payments to transit and to B.C. Hydro add

up to almost — within a million or two — the same amount of money as

the deficit which exists if the ICBC cheque is not cashed. If the

cheque for ICBC is not cashed — $181 million — there is an approximate

deficit of $53 million. Yet just a week or two ago we paid capital

amounts to transit and B.C. Hydro for $48 million combined, so actually

we could still be if we set aside the ICBC cheque for the moment pretty

close to a break-even position had the government not decided on the

policy of continuing to make capital payments to Crown corporations out

of operating revenue.

I've already said, Mr. Speaker, that I feel our first job on this

side of the House is to be responsible and, regardless of how the

deficit has been arrived at or to what degree we consider it to, be

exact or accurate, the province obviously needs the capacity to borrow

money. That, in my view, decides why I should support this bill.

But I think there are two questions we are entitled to ask. The

first one is very simply this: did the financial situation need to be

corrected in one single move by, placing all debts, including the

capital payments I have mentioned, on the books prior to March 31,1976?

The second question, about which I ask your tolerance since I've

already asked it more than once is: must the budget for 1976-77 be

balanced at all costs?

It's obvious the government answer to these two questions is a clear

"yes" and while we agree that it's obviously much cheaper in the short

run to pay as you go rather than borrow, I do feel that we mustn't lose

sight of the fact that the government — any government, any modern

government — has responsibilities far and beyond simply balancing the

books. I was really perturbed, but not entirely surprised, when the

Premier interjected into our debate the other day that the budget was

simply the annual report to the shareholders. I felt that that revealed

the Premier's concept of what government is all about, that the voter

in the province is just compared to a shareholder in a MacMillan

Bloedel, or B.C. Tel, or whatever, and that the supreme overriding, and

perhaps only goal — or the most important goal — of government is above

all to show financial responsibility and balance the books, regardless

of how the money is raised to do that or what group in society might be

penalized in the process.

I just feel that modern governments have responsibilities far in

excess of simply balancing the books. They have a duty far beyond the

reasonable pleasures of the Minister of Finance would have in being

able to say that there is no deficit.

But governments have human and social considerations towards various

groups in the society which they govern. These responsibilities render

governments quite different, in my view, from boards of directors which

operate corporations solely for the purpose of making a financial

profit. This, in my view, was the image created by the former Social

Credit government.

The Attorney-General needn't groan, because I've heard him make

endless numbers of speeches on the very same theme from this side of

the House. So don't sit over there and groan as though this is

something you never thought of yourself. The fact is that the former

Social Credit government, in large measure, was defeated because it

created enemies, rightly or wrongly. The Attorney-General may feel that

it had a higher sense of social responsibility than it demonstrated,

But the fact was that that was the image it created.

While there is, thank goodness, a great deal of evidence in this

budget to suggest that the current Social Credit government is not the

same as the old one — and I say thank goodness for that — nevertheless,

the kind of comments, interjected by the Premier into debate, that as

Minister of Finance or as Premier, this government is just submitting

the report to shareholders, I think, rather neutralizes some of the

positive influences which appear to be in the budget. By "positive

influences" I'm talking about housing initiatives; I'm talking about

the safe-driver incentive plan; I'm talking about the GAIN plan for

those in need between 55 and 59 years. of age — single-parent families

and so on.

When I feel some sense of optimism that things are going to be

different from the last Social Credit government, then I find myself

having second thoughts when I hear the Premier saying that, in

financial terms, that's what the budget's all about — a report to the

shareholders of British Columbia.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the disclosure by the

[ Page 453 ]

government that our financial position is difficult

and that, in fact I'm sure through no choice of the government they

have issued cheques which, in effect, cannot be backed up by money in

the bank, is indeed a sorry plight for British Columbia. If we on this

side of the House really believe in the meaning of the words

"responsible opposition", I think we have no choice whatever but to

expedite the necessary legislation to enable this government to pay its

bills.

At the same time I think it is also responsible of this House to

offer suggestions as to at least how the procedural mess need not be

repeated in the future. If this bill had been introduced a little

earlier, and if the government, as I said a moment ago, had given the

opposition more clear-cut, factual evidence as to what the financial

facts really were, I for one perhaps would not have, talked as long as

I'm talking — and I'm almost finished — but would, in fact, have felt

that there was a more cooperative House with a more positive and

reasonable approach to a problem which, regardless of its origin, had

to be solved and had to be solved by a certain hour. But instead of

that, we have gone this whole ridiculous roundabout of government

maintaining secrecy to a degree which I feel has not only prolonged the

debate but created a fair amount of acrimony.

Now there are just two last points I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker.

The bill says that the borrowing will not be deemed to be part of the

public debt of the province. I have to say that that is just almost

insulting to the intelligence of anybody who reads that bill.

On the one hand, we have the government complaining about the

provincial deficit which urgently requires to be wiped out by

borrowing. But then the bill to do that makes the claim that the

borrowed sum does not represent debt. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is

stretching credulity a little bit. I think that if we have to borrow

$400 million, that is debt.

All I know is that when I borrow X-thousands of dollars to buy a

car, which I'm not planning to do — no, I've got 10 per cent less than

I used to have — I'm in debt.

I don't want to make a big issue of it, but I think the bill is

wrong to suggest that on one hand the province has to borrow this kind

of money, but that borrowing should not be regarded as debt. I just

wish I could handle my private finances that way.

The last point is that I do hope the bill will be followed very

clearly in the way it is written, inasmuch that amounts will be

borrowed as and when required, and not to any other degree.

The advice I have received from economists and financial people is

that with any luck at all a pickup of the economy will bring in revenue

in excess of the projected figures in the budget. This being the case,

I would hope that increased revenue will be used to pay some of our

outstanding bills so that, in fact, the amount borrowed will be kept to

a minimum. Thank you.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, this is really the

first time that I have entered into debate; I spoke on an amendment

earlier, but this is the first debate. I didn't speak on the throne

debate....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): We won't heckle.

MR. LEA: Thank you. So let me offer my congratulations to Mr.

Speaker for the post that he has been elected to within this

Legislature, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your elevation to that

post.

My congratulations to all new members voted in in the 1975 election,

and to all of those who came back, because, indeed it is the greatest

of honours to be in this House, no matter which party you represent, to

represent the people of British Columbia. It is the greatest honour.

The last speaker, of course, wasn't quite as long as the one before,

I don't believe — or at least it didn't seem as long, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) gave us quite a lesson, when speaking to Bill 3, on how he

and his colleagues handled fiscal management. There is one point I

would like to bring to the House's attention before we do get to the

nitty-gritty of Bill 3. Shortly after the new government took office I

recall that a Mr. Arthur Weeks was appointed to the Minister of

Economic Development's portfolio as a consultant, I believe, at $29,000

a year.

At that time the minister was questioned by the media as to why Mr.

Weeks, and what qualifications does he have. At that point the minister

said: "What qualifications does anybody have?" At that time he also

said that the reason he was paying $29,000 — we're talking about money

in this bill; we need to borrow money, if it's there — he said: "Well,

I'm saving money really, because I could have hired a deputy minister

which would have cost more money."

Well, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Weeks is still there at

$29,000 or thereabouts — he may have had his pay dropped a little bit,

along with the rest of us. But I notice an order-in-council approving

the established position of an assistant deputy minister for the

Department of Economic Development. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would assume

that this is another position in that department, and it seems rather

strange to me that we have those two conflicting remarks from that

minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will relate this to the principle of the bill?

[ Page 454 ]

MR. LEA: Of course; it's about money. I'll keep as close to

the bill, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. minister when he was speaking, or

maybe a little closer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the reason that we have this Bill 3 in

front of us — a bill asking to borrow $400 million to pay off what the

government says is a deficit created by the former administration? If

we look at the history, we have to go back to the campaign itself to

find the history of this bill. We find a political party, the Social

Credit Party, going throughout the province saying: "This province is

in a financial mess, and when we get in things are going to be better."

Well, lo and behold, they won the election. They came in; obviously

they found that things were not in a mess, but because of economic

conditions that prevailed throughout the western world, found that it

isn't that easy to govern and supply all of the necessary services that

government has to supply to people in a recessionary period.

Now they can't have it both ways. They brought in Bill 3 and they

said: "We're going to take care, with this bill, of all those debts

that the NDP ran up while they were in office." Isn't that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Yes. Then they bring in the budget and say: "The

reason the budget is a little hard on little people is because we have

to pay off the debts out of this next coming year." But you've already

done that, you say, with Bill 3. You see, you can't have it both ways.

So really what you're doing is facing the kind of budget that any

other government would have had to face — whether it was us in power,

you in power; it doesn't matter. But what you did was bring in a budget

taken out on the little people. And you are using Bill 3 as an excuse

to do that.

Now there is one aspect of Bill 3 that bothers me, but before

getting to that I would like to point out what has happened today in

terms of the NSF cheque that has been issued by the government because

they say this bill has not been approved in this House — an NSF cheque,

Mr. Speaker. In other words, the government can do what the people

cannot do; they are above the law. They are above the law.

The last time I remember hearing those remarks were newspaper reports quoting

the tapes of Richard Nixon when he said: "Yes, I broke the law, but I felt

it was for the good of the country." That's what we have heard in this

House today: "Yes, we have broken the law, but we feel it's for the

good of the province." That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, by any government.

Don't let them fool you, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what they are doing

— breaking the law. If a person working in a pulp mill or in a garage, a small

businessman, a doctor, a lawyer — if anyone did that and it was brought to the

Attorney-General's department, charges would be laid. But not against his

colleagues or the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, surely you are not insinuating that any member of this government is breaking the law, and if you do....

MR. LEA: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that if, in fact, a cheque

was issued when they knowingly knew that there were no funds in the

bank, they are breaking the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is aware that, if you are impugning any member, then I must ask you to withdraw.

MR. LEA: I am not doing that, Mr. Speaker. I am just stating what the government has said today.

One of the parts of Bill 3 that bothers me is where this money is

going if the bill passes. It will pass, because there are some 30-odd

members on that side of the House and 19 on this side of the House. So

it's going to pass. Where is the money going? Well, we take a look at

the $175 million that they said was going to ICBC, which is now $181

million and change, $26 million to the transit bureau, $32.6 million

grant to B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that there isn't one member of this assembly,

whether it is a government backbencher, a member of the opposition or a

government member, who would not say that if this money is going to a

corporation, be it Crown or any other kind of corporation that is not

run by a person who is beyond reproach, a person who has integrity and

has been proved over the years.... We wouldn't want to see that money

go to a corporation where the person who runs that corporation has not

handled the affairs of that office with dignity or properly, or any

office that he has held before.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're not leading up to Bob Williams?

MR. LEA: Now, Mr. Speaker, $32.6 million is going to B.C.

Hydro. B.C. Hydro is now being run for the present government by Robert

Bonner. Robert Bonner was a former Attorney-General within the former

Social Credit government. To prove, or to put before the members of

this House that are new members and to people in British Columbia whom

I am sure don't know the story....

There is a book that was written a few years ago by a person called

Paddy Sherman. The book is called Bennett. I would like to use an

excerpt from this book beginning on page 162,

chapter 7, called: "Jail

[ Page 455 ]

for a Minister." Now if this bill goes through this

House, money is going to go to a Crown corporation run by Robert

Bonner. I would like to read into the House an excerpt from this book

beginning near the bottom of the page. It relates to Bill 3. If Bill 3

passes this House money will be going to B.C. Hydro which is run by

Robert Bonner for the government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the House and British Columbia know

exactly what happened a few years ago so that the members of this House

will be able to determine whether they want money to go to that Crown

corporation.

Reading from the page:

"At 8 a.m. on November 21, the RCMP pounced

simultaneously on Sommers, Gray and Charles D. Schultz a Vancouver

consulting forester. Sommers was flown in a police aircraft to

Vancouver and charged there."

Let me explain that Robert Sommers had been a former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

"Four men and four forest companies were accused of being

involved in a conspiracy to bribe Sommers to give favourable consideration to

the companies in the transaction of government business."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. LEA: "The business involved was alleged to be the issuing of a forest management licence on Vancouver Island...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. You're going to

have to show how this relates to the principle of Bill 3, because

debate other than that is out of order, as the member well knows.

MR. LEA: I realize that. I thought I had established that,

Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that moneys from this bill are going to be

going to a Crown corporation which is administered Mr. Robert Sommers,

and I question, Mr. Speaker...Mr. Robert Bonner.

I question whether this House would want money from this Department

of Finance to go to that corporation, to be used by that corporation

that is being run by Robert Bonner, and I think the explanation will

become clear if Mr. Speaker will only let me continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, may I remind you that you are

going to have to show close relationship between your remarks and the

principle of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips)?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To fail to do so is to be out of order, and,

Mr. Member, may I further remind you that if you wish to continue in a

debate which is out of order then you, yourself, must allow that same

latitude to other members of the House, which I am sure you would

object to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You gave it to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Therefore I am sure that before this debate

goes too far you are going to show close relationship between your

remarks and the principle of this bill.

MR. LEA: With all due respect to your position, I think that

possibly you should let me get into the text of this so that you can

rule. You haven't heard hardly a thing yet.

Before I get back, just in case some members of the House aren't

aware, during the time of this Robert Bonner was the Attorney-General

of this province.

Beginning again:

"The business involved was alleged to be the issuing

of a forest management licence on Vancouver Island to British Columbia

Forest Products Ltd., one of a string of companies run by Toronto

millionaire E.P. Taylor, and his right-hand man, M. Wallace McCutcheon.

The prosecutor was to allege that B.C. Forest Products put up $30,000

to finance the conspiracy. Sommers, Schultz and Gray were charged with

conspiracy. So was Gray's brother John.

"The indictment also named Hector Munro, the former

president of B.C. Forest Products, but he had died of a heart attack

before the charges were laid and after a visit from the police. The

companies' names were B.C. Forest Products, C.D. Schultz and Co.,

Pacific Coast Services, and Evergreen Lumber Sales.

"In addition to the conspiracy count, there were

eventually 50 charges of giving bribes, and seven against Sommers of

receiving them. Sommers was accused of receiving $8,907. The others

were accused of giving him $16,406. Along the way several other charges

against Sommers were dismissed when the judge ruled there was no proof

that was technically admissible in court."

HON. MR. MAIR: You get that low, do you?

[ Page 456 ]

MR. LEA:

"The preliminary hearing in lower court was underway

when the 1958 session of the Legislature opened. Sommers asked Bennett,

(refining to the former Premier Bennett) whether he wanted him to be in

the court or in the House. The Premier told him to be in the House, but

the next morning at 10 a.m., Sommers was telephoned by his counsel. The

Crown prosecutor was objecting to his absence and wanted him in court

at once, "

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr.

Member. I've been following your remarks very closely, and I'm going to

have to ask that you relate your remarks more closely to the principle

of the bill or else I'm going to have to ask you to move to another

subject.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think it will become clear when we

get to the part here, which I'm trying to bring to the House's

attention, the role that the former Attorney-General, Robert Bonner,

played in this, and now is going to receive money through Bill 3 to

administer B.C. Hydro.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. With all respect, I see only the most distant relationship of your remarks so far.

MR. LEA: I beg your pardon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see only the most distant relationship of your remarks so far.

MR. LEA: But you do see a relationship?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm trying to find a thread. I'm trying to be as gracious to the hon. member as I possibly can.

MR. LEA: I thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

"Sommers stormed into Bennett's office, and there was

an angry interchange, despite the presence of Solon Low, national

leader of their party. The Premier telephoned Bonner, who said he knew

nothing about the court move, and nothing could be done. However

Sommers appealed and stayed in the Legislature. He was ordered to be

committed for trial and allowed free on bail. Sommers and his

government had some tough and turbulent times that session...."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go back to the First World War?

MR. LEA:

"Gregory complimented Sommers on feeling better. He

apparently was too ill in October to see his doctor. Sommers told him

he was yellow and had no guts. Strachan denounced Bonner as a man who

was putting his political duty before his public duty."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a ruling

from you on the validity of this kind of attack on a person who served

this House as Attorney-General and who is a highly respected citizen of

British Columbia.

The member is quoting a court case, and I would suggest to you that

if this line of reasoning is to continue this House will be bringing up

the court cases of MLAs that have sat in this House in previous times,

and in the Dominion House as well. The member knows full well what

member I allude to when I say this.

MR. LEA: No, I don't.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would think that if that line of

reasoning is to continue it would bring to a low level the debate in

this House, the very lowest that we could possibly have.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this member should apologize to

the member that he has maligned, a member that has served this House

well, an outstanding British Columbian.

His reference to money being given to B.C. Hydro is one thing; to

write out a cheque to a personality he is mentioning is completely out

of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He might turn off his brain. It would only take a small....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! In response to the point of

order brought up by the hon. Provincial Secretary, I think that in all

respect to the procedure that has been going on in the House this

evening the remarks have been wide-ranging — at the best they could be

termed wide-ranging as regards the debate on Bill 3 — and I have sought

since coming to the chamber to try to get the debate more closely

related to the principle of the bill. I have given the hon. member as

much latitude as I possibly can muster and have asked him on three

different occasions to be sure that he does relate his remarks to the

bill. I have given him this much time to prove that he can relate his

remarks to the bill and so far I have been

[ Page 457 ]

unsatisfied, so I am going to have to ask the member to change to another subject.

MR, LEA: Mr. Speaker, because as a member I believe I should follow the rulings of the Chair, I will follow your ruling...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR, LEA: ...but it does distress me somewhat after having seen

the latitude given to members on the other side of the House — but not

by you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Like his budget attack on the former Premier.

MR. LEA: It seems that there are only certain times that latitude is allowed, but I will follow your ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: Could I have the government set of rules, Mr. Speaker? I have this red book here.

HON. MR. MAIR: A despicable, cowardly attack!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that member to withdraw that.

MR. LAUK: Withdraw that remark!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You get in your own seat! You should know the rules of this House.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member wish to withdraw the remark?

I do not see that the remark that he made was unparliamentary. However,

if he wishes to withdraw the remark....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. MAIR: I will withdraw the remark only upon the order of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. In the spirit of good will which now is abiding in this House I appreciate that very much. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: I said "only." Mr. Speaker, let me make myself clear: only upon your order will I withdraw the statement,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, would you please order him to do that, then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, he has not yet apologized and I ask you to order him, as he demands that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I understand that according to

my request he has withdrawn and I think that is all that is requested.

The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Without qualification, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on the point of order,

I am afraid that you have misunderstood me. I do not withdraw the

remark. I will do so if I am ordered to, but I do not withdraw it

voluntarily.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, perhaps Mr. Speaker did not

hear the words of the hon. minister. He said "despicable" and

"cowardly" in describing the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Attack."

MR. LAUK: The words were....

Interjections,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who's the leader over there?

HON. W.R. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): They're all trying.

MR. KING: Where's your leader?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the words clearly heard by me....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You're going to lose that finger.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have a little order in the House? Proceed, please.

[ Page 458 ]

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. the words that were used

that I could hear quite clearly were "despicable" and "cowardly" in

relation to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . Those words

are clearly unparliamentary, I submit, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the

hon. minister withdraw those words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Hansard will reveal the exact

wording used but if there is doubt as to the usage of the words I would

ask the hon. minister, in the spirit of good will, to withdraw those

words.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I may clarify, I

characterized the statements made by the former speaker as a

"despicable, cowardly attack." If Mr. Speaker orders me to withdraw

those words, I will. I regret that I cannot withdraw them under any

other circumstances.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, in the spirit of good will, will you please withdraw those words?

HON. MR. MAIR: In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will accede to your request.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you very much.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we have sat here on this side of the

House and listened to charge after charge after charge against the

opposition for the time we were in government with no facts to back it

up — none whatsoever. That is why they are saying they are bringing in

Bill 3. They have no facts to back it up. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, the facts bear out something different altogether. I only

raise what I raise to prove in this House once and for all that you

cannot stand and use the sanctity of this House to make charges that

you can't back up. They've been doing it over and over and over again

as government — over again. But when the shoe is on the other foot, Mr.

Speaker, you see them stand in their place and whine about the rules of

the House, and whine about everything else. They should stand on their

own two feet and say what they're for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. LEA: The facts of the matter are that they went out into

this province and said that they would need this bill before they even

took a look at the books. That's what they said, and when they got into

this office they said: "Yes, lo and behold, we need it because we're

going to change everything. We're going to...."

Before, you know, Mr. Speaker, when money was borrowed for B.C.

Hydro it didn't become a direct debt to the province, but now it's

going to because the rules have changed and we see an NSF cheque issued

on behalf of the government. How can any court ever again convict

anybody for passing any kind of cheque in this province if it's done

incorrectly? What's good enough for the government should be good

enough for the people.

The saddest part of Bill 3, and the comments made around Bill 3 by

the government members, is that they are trying to tell financial

institutions, other governments all over this world, that British

Columbia is broke. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) when

speaking said that the province is bankrupt.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. Member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich) speculated about the standard fiscal authorities, and

what they might say in next year's editions. You will also recall that

the hon. member pointed out that this year's editions, prepared as late

as last fall, had complimentary things to say about British Columbia

and about the government of the day when we were in government.

HON MR. PHILLIPS: Describing true socialism.

MR. LEA: That is what makes the speculation so interesting,

Mr. Speaker. So I think that Moody's, Whitaker's and Statesman's year

book will probably read something like this when it comes out next year

— I hope not, but it probably will: "All fiscal data indicated British

Columbia solvent and worthy of the double-A bond rating, as was

assigned in 1972,1973,1974 and 1975. However, disturbing information

has reached us. A minister of the Crown in that province has said that

that province is on the edge of bankruptcy."

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. LEA: At 6 p.m., March 29,1976, the Premier of that

province said: "We've got to have $400 million by 12 midnight March

31,1976, just two days from now."

The Minister of Finance on or about 9 p.m., March 29,1976, says: "We don't really need it by then."

Since then the Premier has said: "Yes, we do; no, we don't; yes, we

do; no, we don't." The Minister of Finance said: "Yes, we do; no, we

don't; yes, we do; no, we don't."

What are those financial institutions, those other countries, those

other lending institutions, going to put down when it comes to talking

about British Columbia next year? What an irresponsible thing for any

government to do, to go out into this world and say that this province

is bankrupt, it's broke; the future is bleak, when everyone knows that

that is not true.

[ Page 459 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: We've got a good government now.

MR. LEA: We've got a good government now — the government

that went out and said: "Put us in; things will be all right." Then

they came in and they put taxes onto people which they said they

wouldn't put on.

How can we believe them on Bill 3? How can we believe a government

where two ministers, the Premier and the Minister of Finance, make

conflicting statements, both within this House and outside the House?

How can we believe them? Are they asking us to vote for Bill 3 on

faith, and faith alone — faith that they are good guys? The answer, Mr.

Speaker, has to be no.

What happens in the hallway when the Minister of Finance is being

interviewed by the media? You know, it's all right to have a pliant

Finance minister, if you're the Premier, but at least he should be able

to be left alone for just a little while to speak to the media about

his own portfolio and the bills that he's bringing through this House.

When the Minister of Finance was talking to the press, the Premier

grabbed the Minister of Finance by the arm and dragged him down the

hallway saying: "Peace and love."

There on the evening of March 30,1976, the Premier once again agrees that the $400 million isn't necessary by March 31,1976.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make a prophecy: I believe that government is going to invoke closure on this House this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't dare.

MR. LEA: I believe they are, Mr. Speaker. That is what I think they're going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's never been done.

MR. LEA: I wonder, do they really have the guts to do that to

prove a political point? Not a fiscal point, a political point. They

really believe, Mr. Speaker, that they can go around talking about Bill

3, saying that there's a need to borrow money because the province was

left in fiscal ruin, and get away with it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are two parts about politics which the

politicians very seldom talk about: No government is ever voted in;

governments are voted out.

In 1972 the Social Credit government was thrown out of office by the

voters, and in 1975 the NDP was thrown out of government by the voters.

But somehow or other, Mr. Speaker, this group across the floor seems

to feel that they were voted in, instead of getting in the same way we

did in 1972 and the same way that the Social Credit got in in 1952, and

any other government.

Now I ask you to think about that. Will people swallow this? The

answer is no. If you agree with me, then for God's sake withdraw the

bill. Come clean with the people of this province.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Why were you thrown out?

MR. LEA: Now these events that I've described about the

Minister of Finance being pulled away down the hall...these events took

place. Now these are the kinds of things that are going to be said.

I pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the kinds of actions, the

kinds of things that this government is saying is a dangerous,

dangerous way to go for that government, because if they are doing it,

as I suspect, for political gain then they're selling this province

short. They're selling it short. I am not the only one in this province

or in this House who believes that to be the case. You can read column

after column in newspaper after newspaper to find that many people in

the media feel that to be the case.

I should also point out, before going on to this newspaper

article

that I'd like to quote from, that the book that I was quoting from

earlier, the book called Bennett, I believe, is probably a fairly

accurate account because there were no suits for libel from anyone over

that book. I thought I should make that point before going on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And it was written by one of your great political friends, Paddy Sherman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, from today's Vancouver Sun a

column by Christopher Dafoe, dateline Victoria. I will read it all

because other members of this side of the House have been accused by

members from that side of the House of only reading parts of a column:

"It is, of course, early days for the current

legislative session, but already certain trends are becoming visible as

the various members and parties settle in for the long haul towards

that House being prorogued. The Social Credit party enjoys a

comfortable majority government. The party in power, in fact, appears

at times to be involved in a process that might be called government by

public relations, the major theme being the horrible mess left behind

in the corridors of power by the former NDP administration. In this

regard shock tactics have played important roles, especially by Finance

Minister Evan Wolfe’s recent diatribe-cum-budget address.

[ Page 460 ]

"This reckless desire to dance a fandango on the

earthly remains of the former government could easily backfire, of

course, as potential investors recoil in fear and loathing from the

prospect of risking capital in what must now appear to be a vast and

windswept wasteland, ruined and barren after a term of socialist rape

and ravishment. The government has been so insistent on this point, and

the horror stories have obtained such wide currency, that British

Columbia must by now appear on many financial maps as sort of a terra

incognito, possibly inhabited by tribes of what could be called wild

men.

"Whatever the final result of this strident

doom-saying may be, there clearly appears to be a master plan of sorts,

and the floor of the Legislature has become an important war zone in

the great propaganda offensive.

"Observers in the public galleries have noted the

Premier's penchant for remaining in his seat for hours on end, like a

general leading his troops into battle. As a rule, first ministers drop

into the Legislative chamber for question time and for important

debate, ostensibly spending the rest of their time on vital work behind

the scenes. Premier Bill Bennett, on the other hand, is a regular

attendee in the House, leading the desk-thumping from the government

side and heckling opposition speakers with all the vigour of an

under-employed backbencher.

"Several theories have been put forward regarding the

Premier's desire to stick close to his seat in the chamber of horrors.

Some suggest that he has something less than full confidence in the

members of his cabinet, and prefers to keep a weather eye on their

activities in the House. It has been hinted, for example, that the

thought of Bill Vander Zalm being left to his own devices keeps the

Premier awake at nights, and well it might.

"Others have suggested that Bennett is painfully aware

of his own relative inexperience in legislative debate. He himself has

alluded to his less-than-impressive performance as the Leader of the

Opposition, and it may well be that he feels in order to control the

House one must sit in it for rather a long time soaking up atmosphere.

A third theory contends that all the vigorous desk-thumping indulged in

by the Premier — his desk top may not survive the session intact —

involves a perhaps unconscious attempt to revive what might be

described as a traditionally supernatural tendency of the Social Credit

movement, as exemplified in the past by such luminaries as Phil

Gaglardi and Waldo Skillings. Table-rapping, after all, has been known

to produce sensational effects, and some observers predict that the

Premier's dedicated efforts in this regard could easily summon up the

shades of the late William Aberhart and the A plus B theorem.

"After all, the Premier must often feel as he looks

around him that he needs all the help he can get. The session, of

course, is still in its infancy, in more ways than one, and the velvet

glove may yet replace the ham fist as a symbol of Social Credit

deportment in the House. The Premier may learn to lash the tiller, and

members of the Social Credit caucus may yet realize that, yes, they won

the election with room to spare. The mood of hysteria that seems to

engulf the government at present may be a temporary aberration. Time

alone will tell."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we now get back to the bill?

MR. LEA: God willing. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you will see a light go on, a green light, the same time I will, and that will indicate you have two minutes left.

MR. LEA: Fine, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's a shame that some people gave up colorful careers for political expediency.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You never gave up anything. It's pretty hard to fall off the floor. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session

tonight, we heard a tough up-country unit with the speedometer rolled

back to zero. (Laughter.) That's all we heard. For 40 minutes that

minister stood in his place and didn't once get to Bill 3, but it is

apparent that when a member on this side of the House strays one

fraction of an inch away from Bill 3, he is brought right back to order

— not by you, Mr. Speaker. You're fair, Mr. Speaker — but the members

of government and the backbenchers of government...insist, insist.

Where were they when the Minister of Economic Development was speaking? Oh, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right here!

[ Page 461 ]

MR. LEA: The member over there says "Right here." This is the

first time I've seen those two people so close together, the Minister

of Agriculture (Mr. Phillips) and the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson).

The last time I saw them was on a television screen where the member

for Delta said: "Even I phoned the Minister of Agriculture to try to

get help for his farmers but he wouldn't even answer my phone calls."

That's what kind of minister he is, the man who is going to work for

the people in this province, the man who says: "I always speak the

truth. I always work for the people in this province." And I stand in

my place, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make a speech about tardiness, or

I want to talk about everything, Mr. Speaker, and my own bill, please,

Mr. Speaker, because I'm talking about the same thing, Mr. Speaker, as

the Minister of Economic Development talked about earlier. Isn't that

right? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEA: But now what we're really talking about is whether

or not there is a need for the money being asked for in Bill 3. That's

really what we're talking about, on the principle of this bill.

I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that the government has not proved

that money is needed. Only in the last few hours $181 million has been

transferred, by cheque, from consolidated revenue to the corporation

ICBC, when it's quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the money is not

needed by that corporation.

Now earlier, people referred to the Clarkson, Gordon report when

speaking, and when they referred to this report, hon. members from

across the floor.... They said that there isn't anything in that report

to suggest what a deficit or a surplus is. But the Clarkson, Gordon

report, on page 21 explains exactly what a surplus and a deficit is.

Now it says that there are three important things to bear in mind.

First, used in this sense, surplus or deficit is an annual concept;

cash reserves available at the beginning of the year, resulting from

surpluses less deficits of all previous years, do not enter into the

calculations.

Secondly, surplus or deficit is measured substantially on a cash

basis. Revenues include all the cash received during the year, and

expenditures, the cash paid out. If a building is purchased during the

year, or a highway is built, the entire cost, if paid in cash, will be

included as an expenditure in the year, even though the asset may last

and serve the citizens for many years to come.

Similarly, if an expenditure is made on March 31, the fiscal

year-end, it will enter into the calculation of the surplus or deficit.

If it is made a day later, it will not. Therefore, the timing of the

expenditures or revenues can have a significant effect on the final

result.

Finally, it is important to note that the revenues and expenditures

entering into the calculation of the annual surplus or deficit relate

only to the general accounts of the province, and do not fully

consolidate any special-purpose funds or other government-controlled

operations such as agencies and Crown corporations. This may come as a

surprise to many members of the general public who may assume,

incorrectly, that the operating results of all government-controlled

operations are included in the annual surplus or deficit which is

discussed in the Legislature and in the news media.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that's where we come to a real problem,

because the people out there, or a great many of them, are confused.

For years while the previous Social Credit government was in power, the

former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, went around this province saying

that the province was debt-free, and people believed him because that

former Premier failed to tell them that there were Crown corporations

that owed a great deal of money, and justly so, for which the province

would have to pay. They backed up the loan — like when you go to the

bank — they were a co-signer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you have under two minutes left.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what this new government is trying to

do is return to the old way. For the first time, while the NDP were in

government, we told the truth; we told those people exactly where this

province stood, and some people were shocked. People in my own riding

in Prince Rupert said: "Why, I can't understand that. I always thought

that we didn't owe any money, only contingent liabilities." They didn't

understand when the former Social Credit government said that, that it,

indeed, was a debt.

Now this new government is trying to take us, in yet another way,

back into the dark ages — another way they are trying to find to go

backwards and forwards. Telling the financial institutions of this

country and other countries, telling other countries that this province

is bankrupt, is broke, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is a cardinal sin

against this province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if

it's not out of order, I'd like to address my remarks to Bill 3. Some

of the members tonight have skirted around the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate that. I appreciate the latitude you've offered some of the

[ Page 462 ]

members, although they have attempted to introduce many subjects well beyond the scope of Bill 3.

MR. LEA: Not Don and I. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to rise in support of Bill 3, and

I think it should be emphasized that the bill is known as the British

Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976, which is an excellent title

for that bill.

The bill is most obvious in its language that the government finds

it necessary to authorize the Finance Minister of the province to

borrow up to $400 million to permit responsible conclusions to occur

within the fiscal year which is now ending.

There is no mystery surrounding the necessity for such action. A

recent report, which has been alluded to by various members of the

House, and prepared for the Department of Finance of the province of

B.C., states most emphatically the position this government has found

the finances of this province to be in.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who created this situation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Your friends and mine, Don.

Mr. Speaker, the report told us that the revenue expected for the

fiscal year 1975-76 would fall short by approximately $300 million,

while expenditures would be over-extended by approximately $200

million. Surplus, as of the first of this year, was approximately $140

million, leaving an overall deficit of about $397 million; very simple

addition. It certainly is not with great pride that the Government of

British Columbia finds itself in the position of borrowing money for

current expenses, for the first time since February of 1952.

The philosophy of this government is most basic to sound management

of the economy: the recognition, and the simple recognition, that you

must pay for that which you receive.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 may appear to be a blinding flash of light to

many persons who have been groping through the dark tunnel of financial

games for too long. Perhaps it comes as a shock to some who will not

see, but it is my belief that any government has an absolute obligation

to its people to prevent erosion of the economy by taking necessary

measures immediately.

If we were to step back a few years in time, financially, we would find that

on September 12,1972, the economy of the province of British Columbia appeared

to be quite sound. The old government of that day had left behind a legacy of

some proportions, financially: a perpetual capital fund of $85 million; special

capital funds of $126 million; cash or term deposits in the bank of $200 million;

B.C. Hydro with $97 million in temporary deposits; B.C. Rail with $66 million

in temporary deposits — a total liquid position exceeding $474 million. Mr.

Speaker, compare this figure to the massive deficit as outlined to this government

by the Clarkson, Gordon report.

Suggestions that deficit financing is the answer, as has been

proposed by certain members of this House, leaves much to be desired.

The concept that we can put off until tomorrow that which is required

to be accounted for today is misleading and dangerous. The idea that

others are doing it, therefore we should do it, or therefore it's all

right for us to do it, is folly. This very fantasy has contributed

greatly to the decline in our standards of living and habits right

across this country. The follow-the-leader concept of the lemmings is

well established. Let us be at least one voice that says: "Enough is

enough. Let's get on with the job that must be done."

Mr. Speaker, we are bound, as government, by our commitment to the

people of British Columbia to provide responsible fiscal management of

the people's money. Bill 3 indicates very clearly that this shall be

done.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, because it doesn't take much to speak on

a bill which has fewer words than most of my remarks, much of the

discussion to date in these chambers, involving the economy of this

province, could be resolved very simply if representatives of the

former administration would simply admit they blew it when they had the

chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, first I

would like to extend to you my congratulations. I was remiss in that

the first time I rose to speak. I am very impressed with the decisions

you have been making, with the great degree of integrity I know you are

exercising in making these decisions. I would also like to extend to

the Deputy Speaker my congratulations.

Last night when I spoke, Mr. Speaker — I think it was last night; it

seems a long time ago — I indicated my concern in wanting to abide by

the rules of this House. I indicated that I have a very great degree of

respect for the rules of proceedings, and I certainly wish to abide by

those rules. In fact, it was quite a traumatic experience the first

time I rose to make my maiden speech in this House to find myself,

after my first three sentences, being called to order by you. Now I am

not denying your right to do this and perhaps I was out of order, but

it was a traumatic experience. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to be very sure

that I am in order tonight.

You know, it's difficult to tell when a person is in order and when

a person is not in order. I could stand up here and I could talk about

the farmers of this

[ Page 463 ]

province — that seems to be in order for Bill 3 tonight. I could

talk about the farmers of this province; I could talk about the

Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) attitude to the farmers,

a minister who wants to deny to the farmers of this province the right

to base their payments on income assurance on the cost of production in

B.C., a man who wants to deny the farmers that right. Is that in order

for Bill 3, Mr. Speaker?

I understand that we're to talk about the principle of the bill in

the second reading — is that correct? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have with me

here Webster's dictionary — "principle" — p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e, right? Principle. Yes,

now what does it say?

"Principle: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine or

assumption; a rule or code of conduct; habitual devotion to right

principles; the laws of facts of nature underlying the working of an

artificial device; the primary source; an underlying faculty or

endowment, distinguishing ingredient that exhibits or imparts the

characteristic quality...."

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the principle.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: So, Mr. Speaker, the definition: a general or

fundamental law; a doctrine or a rule; a code of conduct; devotion to

such a code; the laws of facts; of nature underlying the workings of an

artificial device; the distinguishable ingredient that exhibits or

imparts the characteristic quality.

So what is the principle of Bill 3? Well, first, Mr. Speaker, it

assumes a deficit of $400 million and then, from what has gone on in

this House last night and today, I understand it is assumed that there

is a great deal of urgency for this $400 million.

The last time I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the confusion I felt

as a new member and I asked for some guidance from the members of the

government, some guidance from the Treasury Board regarding financial

bills. But, Mr. Speaker, the concern that I felt at that point, I must

confess, has now been magnified a thousand fold. Here I am, Mr. Speaker,

a new member being asked to make a decision about a bill in the amount

of $400 million. I am being asked to make that decision and to make a

decision as to whether or not there is a degree of urgency. I look for

members of the treasury bench and I am not getting any guidance from

them, Mr. Speaker, because what do I see? Well, for one thing, the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) keeps changing his mind.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, a quote from the Victoria Times March

30,1976 — now that was yesterday — and it is talking about the finance

minister. It says, quoting the Finance minister:

"He explained that the money was not needed

immediately but would be required soon because the government has no

borrowing power." His statements were in conflict with Premier Bennett

who said outside the Legislature that the authority to borrow was

essential before midnight Wednesday (March 31) when the current fiscal

year ends and it would have to be covered.

In the hallways outside the Legislature, Wolfe was explaining to the

press that it was not essential the bill be passed by Wednesday

midnight when Bennett strode over and pulled him away by the arm.

Bennett walked down the hallway and said to the press, gently, "peace

and love".

Well, Mr. Speaker, that makes me ever more confused when the two....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with peace?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, peace and love are fine but when the

Minister of Finance and the Premier are at cross-purposes, how do you

expect I feel if they don't know which way they're going?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. WALLACE: Now, Mr. Speaker, that was March 30, yesterday.

Now today the Minister of Finance got up and he tells us that he has

written cheques for approximately $245 million. But he only has $25

million in the bank.

MS. BROWN: Irresponsible.

MRS. WALLACE: And he says now that it's urgent. Well, if it's

urgent now, why didn't he know yesterday that it was urgent? I just

don't understand, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Poor housekeeping.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's right. If I looked after my

housekeeping accounts that way and there was some remark about

kitchen-table accounting from across the way...well, I am sure there's

a lot of accounting done on kitchen tables a lot better than this kind

of accounting. If I handled my chequing account, my household account,

in that manner, Mr. Speaker, I know where I would be. I would be right

up before the court.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would have been traded in.

[ Page 464 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Not only am I confused, Mr. Speaker, I am

completely amazed that the Premier who is the head of this government —

the head of this province — today stood in his place shouting across

the floor at the opposition, completely unheard amid the din that was

being created by the ministers and the backbenchers and all that going

on while at the same time the Minister of Finance was trying to read a

statement, which may or may not have been in order. We'll never know

because no one heard it.

MR. LOEWEN: You didn't want to hear it.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the kind of exhibition that makes it

extremely difficult for a new member to function in this House. Now I

may be a new member, Mr. Speaker, but that does not necessarily mean

that I am naive.

From the information I have been able to glean from the reams of

documents floating around this House and around this province, my

conclusion is that the only real need — the only real urgency — is one

that has been deliberately created by this government for political

purposes.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Clarkson, Gordon report. This is a

much-quoted report, I know, but there are still some things that

haven't been said out of this Clarkson, Gordon report. Let's look at

page 2, Mr. Speaker. If I repeat some of what has already been quoted,

I am sorry, but I think these are mostly different quotes. It says:

"This information is meaningful only if the reader

understands the way British Columbia accounts for its revenues and

expenditure. So before commenting on the results we would like to

discuss the broad terms of what a surplus or a deficit is and what it

is not. Such an understanding is essential if the readers are to be

able to place in context the matters discussed later in this report."

It goes on and it talks about surplus and deficit and the concepts, and it says:

"Surpluses or deficits are measured substantially on a

cash basis. Revenues include all the cash received during the year, and

expenditures are the cash paid out. If a building is purchased during

the year or a highway is built, the entire cost, if paid in cash, will

be included as an expenditure in that year even though the asset may

last and serve the citizens for many years to come."

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the report goes on:

"If an expenditure is made on March 31, the fiscal

year end, it will enter into the calculation of the surplus or deficit.

If it is made a day later, it will not. Therefore the timing of

expenditures or revenue can have a significant effect on the final

result."

Then it says:

"Finally, it is important to note that the revenues

and expenditures entering into the calculation of the annual surplus or

deficit relate only to the general accounts of the province and do not

fully consolidate any special purpose

funds or other

government-controlled operations such as agencies and Crown

corporations.

" 'This may come as a surprise to many members of the

general public,' say Clarkson, Gordon, 'who may assume incorrectly

that the operating results of all government-controlled operations are

included in the annual surplus or deficit which is discussed in the

Legislature and in the news media.'"

I have here another document, Mr. Speaker. I think this document

will probably be very well accepted by the people across the way. It's

a report from the Employers' Council of British Columbia and it arrived

on my desk March 30 — yesterday. On page 2 there's a paragraph I would

like to read you. This paper, incidentally, is discussing the budget. It

says: "Statement by Employers' Council on the Provincial Budget." The

paragraph I wish to read, and I quote from the Employers' Council of

British Columbia:

"However, we have serious reservations about the

government's policy of funding all its own capital expenditures from

current revenue. We believe there is a place for borrowed money to pay

for major capital expenditures which spread their cost over the period

that people benefit from instead of loading them onto the taxpayers in

one year."

MR. LOEWEN: Read the rest of it.

MS. BROWN: Those are your friends.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the part about the budget — the capital budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a real good statement.

MR. LAUK: Then you're not supporting the budget.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the part that relates to the borrowing.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I have another quote from Clarkson, Gordon that

I wish to read, and it talks about their involvement in the preparation

of this report. This, of course, has been quoted so many

[ Page 465 ]

times but it just doesn't seem to sink in, and I'm going to quote it once more. It says:

"We were not requested to perform an audit of the

financial information and we did not do so. This is not an assignment

which leads to sweeping recommendations for change or to critical

comments on the financial policies or performance of the present or the

former government. We were asked to co-ordinate the production of

certain current, unaudited financial information and prepare a

summary

report thereon. This we have done, and the results are contained in the

preceding pages and in the appendices which follow."

As if that weren't enough explanation, in Appendix I where they

quote the figures — the original budget and the current forecast

showing the $541 million deficit — on page 15, after having said those

other things but as a note underneath this, they say:

"The information in Appendix I has been prepared using

information from the budget review compiled by the finance and economic

research department of Finance as of January 30,1976."

They're making it very clear that they simply took the figures that

were handed them by this government and re-arranged them and added them

up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. WALLACE: So, Mr. Speaker, there the figures are

unaudited, supplied by the government. Let's have a look at those

figures. First they talk about the revenue.

"The revenue forecast by this government is $80

million short of the revenue forecast by the former government when it

left office in December."

I repeat: $80 million. I wonder who was the closest to being right, Mr. Speaker?

What has happened to the economy of British Columbia in the last

three months? Has it continued on a downward trend or has it improved?

This is a

summary produced by the Minister of Economic Development, a

summary of economic activity in British Columbia in 1975, and it reads

in part:

"The British Columbia economy has withstood the shocks of world

recession and major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well. Personal

income growth, estimated at 16 per cent, was the major factor

contributing to an anticipated 10 per cent nominal growth in the gross

provincial product.

"In constant dollar terms British Columbia's gross

provincial product is expected to be up fractionally in contrast to a

slight drop for the nation as a whole."

So the trend was there. We were not slipping back as the government

has said. And it goes on to say that the outlook for 1976 is generally

favourable for most sectors of the provincial economy.

I have another quote, Mr. Speaker, dated January 12,1976, from

Canada manpower economic survey as reported in the Victoria Times. What

does it say about retail sales? "In December they ranged from good to

excellent."

And the forest industry, a quote from Bob Rogers, president of Crown Zellerbach Canada as reported in The Vancouver Sun , February 21,1976: "Industry is on a very strong upsurge right now." Date, February 21,1976.

Another quote, Mr. Speaker: "Retail sales in British Columbia

amounted to $2,400 per capita in 1975, 13 per cent above the national

average." This is a quote from The Province, March 18,1976. "Personal

disposable income per capita was 7 per cent above the Canadian average,

and the province's population is currently growing at a rate of 34 per

cent every 10 years, the fastest of any region in Canada." Does that

sound like a depressed economy, Mr. Speaker?

I keep coming back to this report of the Minister of Economic

Development. I think it's interesting inasmuch as it has come out of a

government department. He talks about markets for the mineral industry,

and he says: "Markets for several British Columbian minerals such as

copper and molybdenum were depressed during 1975, reflecting the

influence of the continuing world recession. However, other minerals,

notably coal and zinc, showed considerable increases over 1974. The

total effect of these diverse trends indicated that a new record

mineral production for the province may be reached with an estimated

value of $1.223 million, an increase over 1974."

So, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that even in the field of minerals things were looking good.

Agriculture: performance in agriculture was next. "Total farm cash receipts rose up 2 per cent from the previous year. "

Travel industry: "During 1975 the number of visits to British Columbia

by Americans and out of province Canadians declined slightly, though totals

from overseas continued to rise." The travel industry in British Columbia,

Mr.Speaker, has suffered less in the current recession than in most other regions

in Canada, according to the economic review.

In 1975 the value of British Columbia factory shipments is estimated

at 7.133 million, fractionally higher than in 1974. Capital investment

is up 9 percent over 1974. Investment spending by governments in

institutions in British Columbia increased by approximately 21 per

cent.

[ Page 466 ]

Does that sound like a depressed economy, Mr. Speaker? Foreign trade is up, a mild upturn in trade in 1976 is expected.

I say those are signs, Mr. Speaker, that point to a gross

underestimation on the part of this government in the revenues that

will be coming into this province through the past three months. It's a

deliberate attempt to show the lowest possible revenue, the greatest

possible deficit. It's political gimmickry again. They are still

fighting elections over there, venting their spleen.

It seems the son is dedicated to avenging what he sees as a sin

committed by the electorate of this province when they defeated the

father.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: "The Economy Looking Up." The quote is in The Province, March 31. That's today, 1976.

" In the last week several sets of figures from Statistics

Canada have underlined the stronger turnaround which occurred in the November-to-February

period. Industrial production is finally on the move. After reaching its low

point in October, output has been climbing for three out of the last four months.

"Output is increasing because of the rise in

manufacturing; retails which were expected to slump in January, in

fact, have declined only slightly." The economy is not declining.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the estimated $400 million is

wrong; the anticipated deficit is wrong. It is nowhere near $400

million; it should be nowhere near $400 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much should it be?

MRS. WALLACE: Okay, how much? That's a fair question. That's a very fair question. Okay, we'll check — kitchen table economics,

The Minister of Finance told us this afternoon that he had in the

bank $25 million in cash. He has written $245 million in outstanding

cheques — and that includes ICBC, Mr. Minister — which I certainly

don't agree was necessary.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why not?

MRS. WALLACE: They've got lots of money; they've got in

excess of $2 million. But let me get back to my kitchen-table finance.

That leaves a shortfall of a total of $220 million; if you subtract

ICBC from that, you have a balance of $40 million. That figure is very

familiar to me, Mr. Minister — $40 million.

If you recall, when the former government estimated — and it was a

very conservative estimate — they estimated that as a result of the

major shutdowns in the forest industry this past year, as a result of

the declining international economy, this province might be faced with

a maximum of $40 million. That was the estimate made by the member for

Nanaimo, a former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich), and that looks to

me lik