1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

407 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible breach of conduct by ICBC official.

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 407

Routine proceedings

Affirmative Action Plan Act (Bill 37). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 408

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill 38).

Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 408

Oral questions

Fruit Growers Mutual loss reserves and insurance on government vehicles. Hon.

Mr. Strachan — 408

Qualifications of Mr. Don Sharpe as Autoplan agent.

Mr. Bennett — 408

Rejection of Mr. Sharpe by Ray Hadfield.

Mr. McClelland — 409

Possible increase in the consumer price of milk.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 409

Number of Kamloops agents dropping out of ICBC.

Mr. Morrison — 410

Possible amalgamation of Oak Bay with other municipalities.

Mr. Wallace — 410

Purchase of property in Victoria.

Mr. Hartley — 410

Cost of Autoplan for government vehicles.

Mr. Bennett — 410

Reinstatement of Mr. John Bremer.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 410

Third TV channel in British Columbia.

Mr. McGeer — 411

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 412

Mr. McClelland — 427

Mr. Skelly — 438

Appendix — 444

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery today a group of students from Norfolk House School in Victoria

and I would like the House to welcome them in the appropriate manner.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): We have on the floor

of the House two labourers in the vineyard of legal reform with the Law

Reform Commission of British Columbia, Keith Farquhar and Arthur Close.

I'd like the House to welcome them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there are a

group of thespians visiting us from New Brunswick. Mr. Lerner, their

leader, is also bringing us special greetings and, I understand, a very

special gift from the Premier of New Brunswick. I'd like the House to

join me in welcoming Mr. Lerner and the group of thespians from New

Brunswick.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I join in welcoming the delegation from New Brunswick, that being my native province.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The gift from the Premier of New

Brunswick to the Premier of British Columbia amounts to 40 pounds of

lobster. I am recommending, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the gift tax, that

the gift be forwarded to the legislative restaurant. (Laughter.)

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I don't think

that it's right to anticipate another gift to the House until we have

at least expressed thanks for the last gift that was given to the

House, namely this booklet. I would like to refer you all to page 18

because it's a very interesting transcript where it says that the

Master took Levi to lunch. I know that it's the same Levi because it

says he was a tax collector and that when it was all over, Levi got up

and left everything, including the bill. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before proceeding, I wanted to advise you

on the question that was raised in the House by the Hon. Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland). I'm not going to burden the House with the lengthy explanation

of the problems that relate to publication in the press and the question of

privilege, other than to say that I'd be pleased to table it with the House.

I do want to just briefly read from the first page and the last page of my decision

on the matter, because it's only fair that it be given to the House.

The Hon. Member for Langley has raised the question of privilege relating to words contained in The Province

newspaper, February 19, 1974. That

article was read to the House

yesterday. The newspaper

article relates to charges made by the Hon.

Member concerning one Gordon Root and an alleged conflict of interest

involving that person as a publisher of a newspaper in which it is

alleged that an advertisement was published by the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, of which corporation Mr. Root is a

director.

It then gives the following alleged reply from Mr. Root to the newspaper:

"In comment on McClelland's charge, Root said Monday night that the MLA is a 'cheap, two-bit politician.'

" 'I have nothing to do with the placement of any

advertising by ICBC,' Root said. 'I had no knowledge of this

advertising being placed until it appeared in the paper.' "

The question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member is that he has

been attacked in the public press and insulted by Mr. Root. He proposes

that Mr. Root be forced by the Minister concerned publicly to apologize

and, perhaps because it's such a serious breach of conduct, to resign,

to use his words.

I had an opportunity to consider the matter closely and to consult with learned advisers and to review May , Beauchesne , and Speakers' Decisions bearing on the subject of comments made outside the House reflecting on a Member.

The question of the relationship of the press to parliament is a

vital and important one, balancing on the one hand the freedom of the

press to comment objectively as it chooses, as against unjustified

assaults and contempts against parliament on the other hand.

One could recite many alleged breaches of privileges to be noted in

the press in its day-by-day continuing account on parliamentary

matters. The test can best be illustrated as follows. A privileges

committee could well say that a calculating insult against Members by a

commentator, although actionable in the courts, does not impair their

legislative functions,

whereas the same commentator, by alleging

falsely that a Member was quitting politics, could well impair the

ability of the Member to deal with his constituents' needs or indeed to

serve them effectively.

Where the matter involves press reports of attacks by individuals against a Member, May states in the 18th edition at page 163:

"It may be doubted whether it is entirely consistent

with the general practice of the House or with natural justice for the

House on the strength of a report in a newspaper, and without hearing

the accused party, to declare

[ Page 408 ]

that the offence has been committed."

That issue would usually devolve upon a committee. In other words,

it's not for me at this stage to make a judgment on the matter, no

matter how much I respect the opinion or the statement made by the Hon.

Member.

It is clear that parliamentary privilege, as the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux stated in the House of Commons on June 9, 1969,

"includes the right of Hon. Members of the House of

Commons to exercise their responsibilities and to discharge their

duties as Members without undue interference. The question is whether

newspaper comments referred to by the Hon. Member for St. John's East"

— in that case — "constitutes such undue interference as to be

tantamount to a breach of privilege."

In summing up my conclusions on this particular matter, under usage according to May's 18th edition:

"When a complaint of breach of privilege is raised,

the Speaker has to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out

which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over the other

business of the House."

The cases listed as examples in May

at page 148 all relate to Members in relation to the discharge of their

duties, be it the Speaker, chairmen of committees or allegations of

corruption against Members in the execution of their duties. It is

noted that the key is that the reflections may tend to interfere with

the Member's capacity to carry out his or her duties.

The imputation complained of by the Hon. Member for Langley cannot

be said to require the suspension of the other routine or precedent

matters to deal with it other than by normal motion. It is for the

House to consider the gravity or disposition of this manner of insult

in the normal course of House proceedings, but the sting of insult

displayed in this newspaper, although strong, could hardly deter the

Hon. Member or any Member from carrying out his or her duties.

There are many examples in the press of gratuitous insults to

Members, and were the business of the House set aside to deal with each

of them, not much else would be pursued.

Although the words complained of would be unparliamentary if uttered

here, I must find that they do not fulfil the urgency aspect required

by the case as cited. They nonetheless could well find a place on the

motion paper for deliberation in the normal course of proceedings of

the House.

Thank you, Hon. Members. I'll table the full reasons, which give all

the cases on the matter that I can collect, in the House for the

Members to study. (See appendix).

Introduction of bills.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 37, Affirmative Action Plan Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 38,

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL

LOSS RESERVES AND

INSURANCE ON GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked me a

question regarding Fruit Growers Mutual and the loss reserves. The

question as recorded in the pinks is: the loss reserves which were

assumed in the purchase were stated to be $100,000 and have

subsequently proved to be $400,000.

First of all I want to state that the ICBC did not take over the

effective operation of the Fruit Growers Mutual until January 1 of this

year. The final annual statement of the company has not yet been

presented to the directors of Fruit Growers Mutual; therefore it can't

be made public until that happens. But I want to assure him that under

our agreement with the Fruit Growers Mutual, the maximum possible cost

to ICBC is $140,000 and we expect it to be less than that.

The other question that was asked a couple of days ago, I think by

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), was with reference to the

insurance of government vehicles — the number and so on. There are

9,552 government vehicles separated into 23 different sections,

departments and so on. About 80 per cent of the premiums have already

been paid and the remaining 20 per cent are on their way in — I expect,

Ministers. So that's the situation.

QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. DON SHARPE

AS AUTOPLAN AGENT

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications: To clarify a discussion

that's been going on in the House, was Mr. Don Sharpe one of the

recognized Autoplan agents when he took the

[ Page 409 ]

Autoplan training seminar prior to December 31, 1973?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is the situation with regard to Don

Sharpe: I checked with the Superintendent of Insurance, at least I had

someone check, and I was officially informed that Mr. Sharpe applied

for the licence November 29. He wrote the Insurance Council of B.C.

exams about December 10. He was issued a licence by the superintendent

December 23. He was confirmed as licensed by the Insurance Council of

B.C. December 21. He was never rejected at any stage by the

superintendent's office of the Insurance Council which is a

professional group of his peers appointed by the government,

MR. BENNETT: My question was: was Mr. Don Sharpe one of the

recognized Autoplan agents when he took the Autoplan training seminar

prior to December 31?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What was the question?

MR. BENNETT: Was he an agent then? Was he one of the recognized Autoplan agents when he took the Autoplan training seminar?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think so. I don't know. I couldn't answer that question.

MR. BENNETT: Will the Minister take it as notice because I'd

like to find out how you get to take the training seminar if you're not

on the list as one of the recognized agents.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, I'll check. When I get the pinks tomorrow, I'll check.

REJECTION OF MR. SHARPE

BY RAY HADFIELD

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has

said that Mr. Sharpe was never rejected by the Superintendent of

Insurance, or whoever it was that he mentioned. The question I'd like

to ask is: was Mr. Sharpe ever rejected by Ray Hadfield, the

Superintendent of Motor Vehicles?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ray Hadfield has nothing whatever to do

with the appointment of agents for the ICBC. How could he be rejected

by him? He has nothing whatever to do with it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Supplementary on

the same subject. Surely though, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles would have some comment

with respect to Mr. Sharpe or any other agent with respect to the

handling of licence plate decals. That is the question which the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) wanted to put, and which I put.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. The operation is that anyone who is licensed by ICBC carries with that licence the right to issue the decals.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Was Mr. Sharpe ever

rejected by ICBC with respect to serving as an agent prior to his later

accreditation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge.

POSSIBLE INCREASE IN THE

CONSUMER PRICE OF MILK

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the Farm

Income Assurance Programme being established in the milk industry,

would the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether or not with the

commencement of that plan there is likely to be an increase in the

consumer price of milk?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): There may be one

at the same time, but it would have nothing to do with the Income

Assurance Plan. I might just as well say right now that the feed costs

have shown an alarming increase even in the month of February and there

is an indication that the formula, the one that has been in effect for

many years, may call for an increase in the consumer price in the month

of March.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: One supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. If

we are then to face an increase in the consumer price of milk, would

the Minister indicate what effect that might have upon the federal

subsidy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think the Members are well aware that any

such increase, when it is calculated, must first be communicated to the

federal government and agreement reached with them that is in line with

the formula arrangement. There will be no increase until the federal

government has been made aware and agrees.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Has the

this they're prepared to extend the subsidy under a subsequent

agreement?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been, I think, three increases in the consumer price since we made this agreement with Ottawa. Ottawa has agreed in

[ Page 410 ]

every instance.

NUMBER OF KAMLOOPS AGENTS

DROPPING OUT OF ICBC

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Could he tell the House how many agents have dropped out of the ICBC

plan in Kamloops prior to the appointment of Mr. Sharpe?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know whether any dropped out or not. I don't know.

POSSIBLE AMALGAMATION

OF OAK BAY WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I seek

clarification of an answer which the Minister of Municipal Affairs gave

to a question I asked the other day about the potential or possible

amalgamation of Oak Bay with other municipalities? He added that there

would be no referendum, but there would be a vote of the people. I

wonder if he could explain to me more clearly what that answer meant.

And if there is further consideration being given, will in fact the

residents of the municipality be consulted? If so, how does he plan to

consult them when the newspapers are on strike?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Well, of

course, you're a little premature. There's been no suggestion that

there's any action to be taken immediately at this time. There will be

a vote by the residents as to what decision they wish in regard to any

amalgamation.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the

Minister answered the degree to which there would be consultations with

the people concerned, prior to simply being presented with a vote of

any kind. Could we be assured that there will be consultations on the

widest possible scale for all concerned prior to a vote?

HON. MR. LORIMER: In all amalgamations there is a committee

appointed representing all communities involved, representing the

regional districts involved, representing any improvement areas that

may be there. This committee studies the problem, has open meetings and

then subsequently sends a report to my office. So there are plenty of

discussion periods.

Probably it is a question of four or five months; then if it is

decided that amalgamation is the right course to take, then there is

the vote of the people.

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN VICTORIA

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked a question yesterday with

regard to the purchase of property in the Victoria area. I haven't all

the details. I believe there is some substance to his question, but I

believe the whole answer would come properly under written question

156. We will supply it this way in writing.

MR. SPEAKER: The written answer, of course, is the way or route. He shouldn't be asking oral questions on it.

COST OF AUTOPLAN FOR

GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. BENNETT: My question is to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. He gave some information to a question asked the other

what was the total amount of money the provincial government was paying

for its Autoplan premiums? He didn't give an answer to that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are a whole series of different amounts, as I said. I'd have to add them up. I haven't got the figures with me.

MR. BENNETT: Ninety-five hundred vehicles.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. BENNETT: Do you have a close figure?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A matter that is too large for oral answer should be filed in the form of a return.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're entitled to an answer or to have an explanation. Would you like to put it on the order paper?

REINSTATEMENT OF MR. JOHN BREMER

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Premier whether he

has discussed with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) the

representations which have been made by the general advisory board of

the Commission on Education, who urged him to reinstate Mr. John Bremer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've received the letter but we've not had a detailed discussion on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister, as his letter indicating that he was

[ Page 411 ]

discussing the contents of the letter with Mrs. Dailly was signed on

February 13, when in the future he expects to have such a conversation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, since I do make a practice of

acknowledging all my letters and then following through on them, I am

aware that I have answered that and I hope to meet with the Minister

shortly to discuss that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Premier answers his correspondence. Could he indicate what "shortly" means?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I really don't know that that is a proper question, if you look in the rules.

THIRD TV CHANNEL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Has he been in

contact with Mr. Pierre Juneau, head of the CRTC, with regard to a

third television channel in British Columbia? If so, what was the

nature of the communication?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad you asked the question, my friend. I'm glad you asked the question. This is my file with Mr. Juneau....

MR. McGEER: Would you table the correspondence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, we can't. You asked the question. You'll get your answer. There's a telegram in here. Here it is!

On May 28 last, I had only been given this office I think a week

earlier, and there was a hearing to be held so I sent a telegram to Mr.

Juneau on May 20, 1973, and it was addressed to Mr. Pierre Juneau,

Chairman, Canadian Radio-Television Commission, Metcalfe Street, Ottawa.

DEAR MR. JUNEAU, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING

CORPORATION HAS FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THE CANADIAN RADIO AND TELEVISION

COMMISSION SEEKING PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A TELEVISION STATION IN VICTORIA

ON CHANNEL 10. THIS GOVERNMENT WELCOMES ANY MOVE BY THE CBC WHICH WOULD RESULT

IN IMPROVED SERVICE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND. FOR THIS REASON WE DECLARE OUR SUPPORT

OF THE CBC APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT PUBLIC TELEVISION SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED,

AND ON CONDITION THAT THE CBC WILL ESTABLISH A STUDIO IN VICTORIA SUPERIOR TO

ANY EXISTING TELEVISION STUDIO IN OUR CAPITAL CITY. WE DO FEEL THAT

THERE SHOULD BE SUCH A FACILITY IN THE CAPITAL CITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. AS

YOU MAY KNOW, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT HAS RECENTLY SET UP A NEW DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS. PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT

WILL BE TO EXAMINE THE WHOLE COMMUNICATIONS FIELD IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA. UNTIL WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS JOB, WE ASK THAT THERE

BE A MORATORIUM ON THE GRANTING OF ANY FURTHER TELEVISION LICENCES TO COMMERCIAL

INTERESTS IN VANCOUVER. FURTHER TO OUR SUPPORT OF THE CBC APPLICATION FOR CHANNEL

10 IN VICTORIA, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS CHANNEL WAS SET ASIDE FOR

USE BY THE PUBLIC SYSTEM IN VICTORIA AS EARLY AS 1956, AND WE WOULD URGE THAT

THIS ATTITUDE BE MAINTAINED AND THE LICENCE GRANTED TO CBC.

Signed by myself. And I received an acknowledgment of that from Mr. Juneau.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The time of the

question period is being used up by a lengthy answer. He should give a

prompt answer summarizing, I think, so that other people have the

privilege of asking questions as well.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: If I had wanted the Minister to read the correspondence, I'd have asked him to.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you wanted the information. The usual

course would be to put a question on the order paper, or a motion

asking for a return of the correspondence.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, you've told us on many occasions the questions should be brief, and so should the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite. I agree with you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He asked me if I had any correspondence. This is what I thought he wanted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member asked for correspondence or the reply

that was given, then he should give it, and I heard the Hon. Member who

just complained ask for the date of the letter or whatever

communication back, so I presume....

[ Page 412 ]

MR. CHABOT: How could you hear me?

MR. SPEAKER: I can hear you very often, unfortunately. (Laughter.) Does the Hon. Member want that letter tabled?

MR. McGEER: I would like all that correspondence tabled, Mr.

Speaker, as I said right at the commencement, because obviously the

Members of the House can't get the gist of the nature of the Minister's

communication if he hasn't prepared a

summary to give to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I suggest the Hon. Member put a motion on for a return of all correspondence.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

It is a pleasure once again to take my place in this traditional

debate, where the Crown has come asking the Legislative Assembly for

the funds to keep this province going in the next 12 months.

I think it was a great budget speech, delivered by a great Premier

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), with great style. But, Mr. Speaker, there is

something about what's been going on in this House in the last two

years that is completely new. Not since the days of John Hart have we

had a Premier who sat in this House and listened to the debate from

both sides of the House as much as the present Premier of British

Columbia does.

For 20 years I sat across the way, 13 of them as Leader of the

Opposition, and not once did that Premier of the Province (Hon. W.A.C.

Bennett) in those days sit and listen to a speech I made right through.

Not once. Can you imagine what that Premier has had to suffer through

from that group over there the last two years?

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I thought I should draw

the attention of the public to the fact that once again in this

province we have a Premier who spends as much time as he possibly can

in this House.

But, the budget speech. As I say, with each passing year it gets

easier to support the budget speech in this House this last two years,

and I listened to the debate across the way.

Look what's in the budget speech. How can you vote against it, in

all conscience? Introduction of a $30 renters' grant to residents up to

age 65. An equivalent increase in the elderly citizens' renters grant

bringing this up to $80 annually. Are you against that?

An allocation of $15 million for the removal of education taxes from

residential property, with homeowners to receive between $30 or $40

towards reduction of school taxes. Against that?

The Housing Department budget up $75 million, including $50 million

for land assembly and services. Ten million dollars for construction of

1,600 homes for elderly citizens — about double the previous year's

allocation. Forty million dollars for first and second mortgages for

homes. Ten million dollars for guaranteed income plans for farmers. Ten

million dollars for the development of agricultural products secondary

industry. Ten million dollars for the British Columbia Medical Centre.

Continuation of the community recreation facilities construction

programme through the provision of another $10 million in capital funds

— to help municipalities, to help the people.

People budgets — I listened last night about people budgets. Aren't

renters of this province people? Aren't the elderly citizens of this

province people? Isn't the removal of education taxes going to help

people? Isn't housing for people? — $75 million!

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, "You forgot — about

people." He didn't read the budget. He didn't read the budget. There's

$40 million for first and second mortgages for homes. Who are going to

live in the homes? — people. A sum of $10 million for a guaranteed

income plan for farmers — aren't farmers people?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Right. So are the people in the nursing homes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A sum of $10 million for the British Columbia Medical Centre. Are you against that, Mr. Doctor? Are you opposed to that?

Community Recreation Facilities Construction Programme: $10 million capital funds. Who's the recreation for? People.

A sum of $10,500,000 for the funding of the Pharmacare programme of

free prescription drugs for residents aged 65 and over. Won't that help

people? You bet your life it will!

MR. WALLACE: What about the people in the nursing homes?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A sum of $80 million for Mincome which now

includes all residents aged 60 and above and handicapped. Aren't those

people? A sum of $80 million.

Appropriation of $15 million to cover the cost of administration of justice in municipalities — justice for people.

Reforestation funding: now here, I guess, you could say it isn't for

people. Reforestation funding more than doubled — a new high of

$12,925,000.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the

[ Page 413 ]

opposition was schizophrenic, myopic, mixed-up, and dangerously

doctrinaire — dangerously doctrinaire. You know, they cling desperately

to this old private enterprise myth as if it still had its old

flexibility and as if it's created of the stuff that it had in the 19th

century.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): What about nursing homes?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And you sit there demanding new programmes

in addition to the new programmes that are in here. You sit there and

you say, "But the percentage for education has gone down."

Now what you're suggesting is that the government freeze the

percentage in every single area of government in perpetuity. That's

what you're suggesting. That's what you're suggesting.

MR. WALLACE: No, we're not.

MR. McGEER: What about the social services?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you then mean that you couldn't

bring in any new programmes, that you couldn't start up any new roads?

Hard, doctrinaire inflexibility!

MR. WALLACE: Nonsense.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Every time you're adding new

programmes.... If you're going to maintain the percentage of the budget

in every department as it was, then you can't introduce a single new

concept or a single new programme. Now let's face it; that's the first

thing you have to understand. There would be not a single new programme

— standstill, freeze, stay as you are! There would be no Pharmacare

here in this province if that had been adopted. There would be no

Medicare in this province; there'd be no hospital insurance; there'd be

no housing; there'd be no recreation programme.

You'd be back in the 19th century if you adopted that attitude.

That's how phony every argument you've given against the budget has

been. Stay as you are, hard, inflexible, standstill; don't move; don't

do anything different; don't have new programmes. The people of this

province elected us to bring in the new programmes and that's what

we're doing.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago I gave a speech in this House and

I remember I gave a couple of quotes. There are a lot of new Members in

the House since then. I think they should hear those quotes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Are you going to recycle a whole speech?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. This is a particularly appropriate

part when I face this united private enterprise group across there and

they cling desperately to this myth. They've had some bad company over

the years.

Listen to this quote: "The American system of ours — call it

Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you like — gives each and

every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands

and make the most of it."

Sound pretty good? Sounds great to you, doesn't it? Do you know who

said that? Al Capone, the Chicago gangster of the 1930s, that's who

said that. "Capitalism...gives each and every one of us a great

opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of

it." Al Capone, Chicago gangster, circa 1928-1938.

Here's another quote, and I've heard almost the identical words from

some of the people over there: "We shall protect free enterprise as the

most expedient or rather the sole possible economic order." Who said

that?— Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler, that's who said that. I thought it

should remind you, when you get up and give these speeches about the

greatness of the free-enterprise system, just the kind of company

you've been.... It's all right.

MR. WALLACE: I just asked, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling as

to whether it is parliamentary conduct to compare the Members of the

opposition to Al Capone and Adolf Hitler.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Hon. Minister did not compare the Members of this House with either of those individuals.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You missed the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Was there any intention to say that they were in any way similar?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister says, "No." I accept his word and I'm sure the Hon. Member would.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, speaking further to the point, he

said that he had heard exactly the same words from our Members as was

quoted from these two people who had no respect for the law. I think

the comparison and innuendo is odious and certainly we have the highest

respect for the law on this side of the House, not the two persons whom

he quoted.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite sure that the fact that two people, one who is odious and one who is not,

[ Page 414 ]

use the same words should not be construed by any fair-minded person as

meaning that they are similar in any sense in their character or

disposition.

MR. WALLACE: Well, what's the point of saying it? Why say it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All kinds of people support free enterprise.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But, Mr. Speaker, the opposition....

AN HON. MEMBER: No innuendo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no innuendo, I'll be very kind, I can assure you of that. It's a happy day. It's a happy day.

But we've heard opposition with the three "I"s. I don't mind the

first one: opposition by incompetence. I don't mind that. But I do

object to opposition by insult and innuendo. I do object to opposition

by insult and innuendo.

MR. McGEER: You would never do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This House is the political mother of every Member.

When I listen to some of the stuff that comes from across the way, I'm reminded

very much of Shakespeare when he's talking about the seven ages of man.

He talks about the babes, mewling and puking in their mothers' arms. That's

the kind of opposition we've been getting across the way — the opposition

of babes mewling and puking in the mother of parliament — your mother of parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that's an

appropriate parliamentary expression to describe anybody, certainly not

in this House. I would ask the Hon. Member to please withdraw it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, I'll withdraw it. All right, all right.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has been

completely irresponsible and, as I say, I resent the opposition by

insult and innuendo: the things they've said about individual Members

in this House; the things they've said outside this House about the

attitudes of this government; what you can expect from this government;

what this government has done about its legislation.

I just want to remind the opposition of some of the political

history of this country. I want you to go back to the first Social

Credit government in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the world. It was in Alberta. In their

first two years of office they brought in some interesting legislation,

and I want the people to know that never in the history of Canada has

any other government brought in that kind of legislation. Certainly no

CCF or NDP government has ever brought in that kind of legislation. It

was brought in by a Social Credit government.

Here's one called the Press Act , 1937 session, Social Credit government:

"Whereas it is expedient in the public interest, the

newspapers published in the province should furnish to the people of

the province statements made by the authority of the government of the

province as to the true and exact objects of the policy of the

government and as to the hindrance to or difficulties in achieving such

objects to the end that the people may be informed with respect

thereto."

Then it goes on down the line to say exactly what the newspapers can

do, how they're going to be handled, what they have to print, what they

couldn't print, and the fact that they had to take direction from the

government of the day.

That was Social Credit legislation. No CCF government ever brought

in legislation like that. No NDP government has ever brought in

legislation like that.

There was another bill the same year:

An Act to Provide for the Restriction of the Civil Rights of Certain Persons .

And you go around this province talking about this government and its

attitudes to people when you belong to a party that brought into a

parliament in this country

an act entitled:

An Act to Provide for the Restriction of the Civil Rights of Certain Persons .

"Any person who is an employee of a bank and is

required to be licensed," and so on, "shall not while licensed for any

reason be capable of bringing, maintaining or defending any action in

any court of civil jurisdiction in the province which has for its

object the enforcement of any claim either in law or equity."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No CCF government and no NDP government

has ever brought in the kind of legislation that was brought in by the

Social Credit government in the province.

My Liberal friends have produced some good legislation in their day,

produced some great premiers and great prime ministers, but there's a

piece of legislation on the statute books of Saskatchewan, and I know

of no other jurisdiction in this country anywhere, anytime, where any

government brought

[ Page 415 ]

in that legislation. It was

chapter 3 of the 1943 Statutes of the Government of Saskatchewan — a Liberal government.

They had been in office for five years. Their full constitutional

period was up in 1943, and they brought a bill into the House, pushed

it through their House, to extend their term of office for another

year. They pushed the bill through the House to extend their term from

the constitutional five years to six years. No CCF government ever did

that. That was 1943 in Saskatchewan — there's the bill there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What happened in 1944?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Liberals in Saskatchewan did that. It never happened in any other government in any other jurisdiction in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened in the next election?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What happened in the next election? Well, they took that year and they went to the people and they got clobbered.

Let's go back to the Social Credit government in Alberta. They

brought in legislation to confine a group to certain limited areas in

the province because of their religious convictions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, not Social Credit!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The Hutterites. No CCF government

ever did that. No NDP government ever did that. Because they were

Hutterites, because they had certain religious convictions, they had to

stay within this compound, within this area on the map. If they got so

many people in there that they had to have more land, they could not

acquire, purchase, live on any property within any circumscribed

distance of that first piece of property.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) know that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, that's the kind of legislation that

other parties have produced. No CCF government or NDP government has

ever produced that kind of legislation and they never will. They never

will! After all your insulting innuendoes you've been peddling to the

people of this province, tell them that, will you? Tell them that!

It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I have a great belief in our

parliamentary system. I campaigned in the last session guaranteeing

that changes would be made in this House: oral question periods — we've

got an oral question period; a full Hansard — we've got a full Hansard ; continuing committees — we've got continuing committees.

I went through 20 years of a government that year by year was making

our system more difficult to operate. I had hoped that in their time in

opposition they would learn something of the value of our system, why

it must be preserved and how it needs the co-operation of every Member

of the House in order to make it work. But I have found that since

they're in opposition they're continuing the same attitude in

opposition as they did in government. They don't want this system to

work because they're worse in opposition than they were in government.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the criticisms we've heard about the

budget and what we've done, that other party would have allowed

northern British Columbia to die economically. A year ago you were

shouting about jobs. You're the kind of people who would abandon jobs.

We move to maintain and provide the jobs, and you start spreading the

doom and gloom stuff about socialism. You fail to see the great new

programmes and policies, plus the enrichment of the existing policies

this government has brought in.

I listened to the speeches made by the three opposition leaders. The

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) said the government is

overestimating revenues, but he still wants us to spend some more.

The spokesman for the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) says the government

is underestimating revenues and he says the Liberals would have spent

more money no matter what, but he must have read the Premier's budget

speech, because when you go to the Vancouver Province , which I have here, and look at this report, you find that he was going to spend more.

The leader of the Tories (Mr. Wallace), who is not there, says we

are underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures. He wants

us to spend more money and reduce taxes at the same time.

All three of them were going off in three different directions.

I'm sorry my friend from the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) isn't in his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's seceded.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to talk to him about this secession.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's only five opposition Members in the House. How about a vote of non-confidence in the opposition?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: While he was here, he said: "In view of

the fact that the Cariboo citizens did not vote for this government,

and as their elected representative I voted against these three laws, I

want the monopoly Autoplan not to be applied in the Cariboo riding." He

said that, yes. But then the

[ Page 416 ]

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) says she wants the ICBC office

in her constituency, in Vernon. (Laughter.) Then with regard to the

Member from.... I think I'll save this until that Member comes back.

I'll save this until he comes back. Remind me to get back on the Member

for Cariboo at a later time.

I want to talk about something that's been discussed in the House,

raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I quote from The Province :

"Social Credit MLA Robert McClelland thinks Insurance

Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) vice-president" — well, he's not a

vice-president — "Gordon Root should be forced to make a public apology

for calling McClelland 'a cheap, two-bit politician.'

"McClelland raised in the Legislature Wednesday a question of privilege relating to Root's remarks as quoted in The Province

Tuesday morning. Root was commenting on suggestions by McClelland

earlier that it was inappropriate for a newspaper owned by Root, the Juan de Fuca News Review , to accept ICBC advertising."

I don't want to talk about the fact that Mr. Root called the Member

a cheap, two-bit politician. I want to refer to the fact that he raised

it....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think a Member should

read or quote an insult to the House against another Member — in other

words, use a newspaper as his weapon to do what he could not do

directly, and I would ask you to refrain from that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I apologize. He questioned the right of Mr. Root to have such ads in a paper with which he's associated. Well, here's the F raser Valley News Herald , which is owned by that Member. He's a member of the Langley Publishing Company or whatever it is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you have any association with that paper? Are you a paper boy for that paper? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hansard

shows, Mr. Speaker that I said, "They might even be in your newspaper.

I don't know — are they?" And the Hon. Member said yes. You said yes;

they were in your newspaper. The constitution which I refer you to

allows you to have ads in a paper which you own, even though you are a

Member of this House, because it's a company, and the constitution

extends in the same way to Crown corporations, in exactly the same way.

And while I could have got up and raised a big fuss about the fact

that this paper — which you said was your paper, according to Hansard ,

and in which you've admitted involvement in the past — was receiving

funds from the insurance corporation. But I knew that the Constitution Act allowed that to happen.

I would never be a party to doing the sort of thing in which you

have participated in this particular instance, because of the fact that

a man who had nothing whatever to do with the placing of ads, done in

the normal way by a normal advertising agency, put in every single

paper in the province to the best of my knowledge.... And to raise that

issue the way you did, I think you just fail to realize the protection

under the constitution for people like yourself, and people who happen

to work for a Crown corporation.

I'd like to give a report on the Department of Transport and

Communications. You know, on February 14, the Reverend Norman K. Archer

read a prayer, and I asked him for it afterwards. Part of the prayer

said in talking of the Members, asking that they be given wisdom in

their decisions, understanding in their thinking, love in their

decisions, understanding in their thinking, wisdom in their attitudes,

and mercy in their judgments: "As your servants here sincerely desire

to do right, make it plain to them." Then he said: "Knowing that

criticism will come, help them to take from it what is helpful and to

forgive what is unjust." And I assure you, I take what I can that's

helpful and I forgive you for anything that is unjust.

I want to assure the House that the aircraft log will be tabled as

usual, with regard to government aircraft. And as long as I am the

Minister it will be tabled every year. I would like the Members to take

the aircraft log this year and work it out with the aircraft log of,

say three years ago, and find out what percentage of the flights were

made by Ministers in the last 12 months, and what percentage of the

flights were made by Ministers three years ago. Because these aircraft

are being used by the public service of this province...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...to pursue their duties and their jobs

more expeditiously than has ever been the case before. Added to that,

of course, is the fact the aircraft are providing a vital back-up

ambulance service, as I said it would. This is only the beginning. I

think we all must be proud of that B.C. government pilot reported in The Province of February 18; there's a picture of the Richmond ambulance crew removing an incubator and baby from the government jet.

Now, I get the gibes from across the way about riding around in this

jet. I've been on that jet twice. Twice since it arrived in this

province. I didn't even see the jet until it had been in the province

for at least five months. It is there to serve the purpose of

[ Page 417 ]

this province; it is not a pleasure vehicle for any cabinet Minister of the Province of British Columbia.

"A B.C. government air ambulance jet successfully

completed a mercy flight out of Terrace Sunday, only a week after that

airport had been closed to jets because of poor runway conditions.

"Pilot Colin Clark said a low pass over the airport confirmed that the runway is in terrible condition.

"He doubted that the Cessna Citation jet could have landed had it been fully loaded.

"The emergency was touched off when baby Eric Dumais,

born Friday in Kitimat General Hospital, developed acute breathing

problems.

"The infant was taken 36 miles to Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace in an incubator.

"There, pediatrician Dr. K.O. Asampe examined the baby

and then telephoned Dr. Gordon Pirie, associate professor of pediatrics

at University of B.C. for advice.

"Pirie said it appeared the baby needed the facilities

of the neonatal nursery at the Vancouver General Hospital for further

intensive investigation.

"The two doctors agreed that the baby could not stand

up to the two-hour bus trip to Prince Rupert or the stopover at

Sandspit, conditions required on commercial flights.

"The Air-Sea Rescue" — that's the federal — "was

called but all its planes were tied up in a search for a downed

aircraft in the Kamloops area.

"The B.C. government Air-O-Vac service was then

notified and Clark and co-pilot Gordon Beddoes were on their way to

Vancouver in 20 minutes to pick up Dr. Pirie.

"Despite the hazardous conditions at Terrace airport, the flight was completed without incident.

"The baby, son of Philip and Huguette Dumais of Kitimat, is now doing well in the Vancouver General Hospital."

That is a pretty good pilot we have serving the people of British Columbia.

There was some criticism of the fact that those jets cost us

$600,000 apiece. There have been about, I think, 18 flights until

today, many of them similar to that. It has already earned $600,000 for

the people of this province.

When the estimates were tabled, one of the writers drew attention to

vote 245, and he remarked that this had gone up from $29,000, last

year's expenses, to $385,000 this year. He said "interesting." That

wasn't the interesting factor of that particular vote. The interesting

factor is that for the first time in the history of British Columbia

there is a vote in estimates indicating to the people of this province

how much it costs to operate these aircraft. The first time in the

history it has ever been shown In the estimates of the province! An

open government. Do you know where it used to be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where, where?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Roads, bridges and wharves, in the

Department of Highways. Roads, bridges and wharves, is where it used to

be hidden. The operating costs, the capital costs, the whole thing.

Roads, bridges and ferries is where the money was shown.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Your highway in the sky.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There were three employees of the Forest

Service shown, and that was the $29,000. When I became the Minister I

brought them both together into the one department.

MR. WALLACE: Always looking back! Look forward.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. I'm making comparisons. Well, don't you want the information published in the...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WALLACE: We know how bad they were. Let's go forward and not look back.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, but you have got to know the reason for the change, otherwise you can't explain it to people.

Anyway, we found, for instance, that people were employed by the

government who had been employed by the government for 28 years as

"temporary." And we said: "Look, M has been there for five years, put

him on permanent." That's why the staff is up from 326.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They were listed as "equipment" in my department. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And that's why they're listed there.

Speaking of what happened, that turbo-prop Beechcraft we have, it cost

$600,000 to upgrade that thing and that was hidden in wharves, bridges

and ferries.

I would like to remind you too, that two of the old Beechcraft, one

was donated to the BCIT for the use of the students in their work, and

the other is just being readied to fly down to Castlegar to be used by

the aeronautical course in the Selkirk College down there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Motor

[ Page 418 ]

Vehicle Branch. Oh, yes, my good friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is

back. I've got some special treats for him. You know, Alex and I are

related. We really are. About 700 years ago, in the year 1213, I think

it was, the oldest daughter of the chief of the clan Strachan married

the chief of the clan Fraser. (Laughter.) Yes, 760 years ago. Ever

since then we have been related, Alex.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you explain his views?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's what I can't figure out.

That's what upset me when I heard he wanted to secede from British

Columbia, and he didn't want Autoplan anywhere near him. I couldn't

believe it, Alex. I really couldn't. You cut me to the quick. You hurt

me. You upset me. Just that for family relations, Alex. (Laughter.)

But I notice that the mayor of Quesnel, the mayor of this Cariboo

town, has called local MLA Alex Fraser "irresponsible" for saying that

Cariboo wants to pull out of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And he's a roar to the viewers! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know. But that's what he thought of

Fraser's statement during the recent budget debate. "Mayor Kingley

replies: 'I don't know that it merits any comment, but that is

irresponsible conduct for a public person to say.' " He says that he's

a good friend, but he thinks he's being frivolous.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They say he was. But, you know, what hurt

me more than anything was that pile of letters from the Chamber of

Commerce in Quesnel asking me to please put a claims centre in there —

copies to Alex Fraser.

I have letters from garage people in Quesnel. But do you know what

Herbie Moser said when he said "keep out of Cariboo?" He wrote me a

letter — two letters — asking me if I would please bring ICBC into the

Cariboo constituency full blast — in Quesnel and in 100 Mile House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was it signed by a relative?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It was signed Alex Fraser.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: June 21, 1973. Then there is a letter to

the president of the insurance corporation, September 24. "I would

therefore ask you to reconsider your decision regarding a branch office

in Quesnel." So it's obvious. Alex, you had better get back home. You

are getting out of touch with your constituents.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's just a fickle friend. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to talk about a subject relative to

motor vehicles. I've tabled the motor vehicle annual report, and there

are a few figures I would like to take notice of.

When accidents happen we find that of 59,000 accidents, 56,000 of

them take place on asphalt roads — so it is not the roads that are to

blame; 34,000 of them take place on clear days. So I think it is

obvious that there is something other than the weather and the roads

that are causing accidents in the Province of British Columbia. I think

it must be people.

I draw your attention to page 23, and I took two excerpts from it.

The number of accidents between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. right through the

year — we find there are 4,400 accidents between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.

That's when people are going to work.

You take the two hours when they are coming home from work, from 4

p.m. to 6 p.m. — 10,200 accidents. The same people. So it's obvious

that people are going to have to be extra careful after a tough day in

the office or on the job. They're a little more tired, not quite as

sharp, and I appeal to them to be extra careful driving home from the

office or their work, because that's obviously when most of the

accidents happen.

There's one interesting statistic I would like to draw your

attention to. There are 429 people in the Province of British Columbia

over the age of 90 still carrying valid drivers' licences. I think they

have an exceptionally good non-accident record. I think there's one in

the House, as a matter of fact.

I want to talk about this matter of seat belts. As you know, one of

the most distressing aspects of the Motor Vehicle Branch's

responsibilities is the recording of the traffic accident statistics. I

am sorry to say that these continue to climb at an alarming rate. In

1972 there were 716 British Columbians killed and 23,000 injured on our

roads. Last year's figures are not completely tabulated yet but it

appears that our dead will total 825, and up to October we had 21,000

injured in motor vehicle accidents.

A recent meeting of the Deputy Ministers of Health from all the

provinces pointed out that something can be done to reduce these

terrible figures, which represent human tragedies. The Deputies pointed

to Australia where mandatory seat-belt legislation sharply reduced the

dead and injured statistics arising from traffic accidents. These

[ Page 419 ]

Canadian health officials have calculated that if only half of all

Canadian motorists were to actually wear their seat belts, the total

number of traffic deaths in this country would go down by 700 a year,

and the number of hospital admissions would be reduced by 25,000.

These same officials report that the motor vehicle accident is the

leading cause of potential years of life lost before the age of 70. In

1971, the figures show that traffic fatalities cost citizens of this

country 212,000 man-years of life lost by those who died before the age

of 70.

This represents about 12.7 per cent of the total of the potential

years of life loss before age 70, compared with only 11.5 per cent for

heart disease.

There are areas in the United States that are now considering

mandatory seat belt legislation, with the full support of the U.S.

government. I suggest to you, in the light of this recommendation,

unanimously from the Ministers of Health, that we seriously consider

the possibility of mandatory seat belt legislation in this province,

because it would have a significant impact on our tragically high

traffic toll.

I am asking you to consider it. Let me know what your feelings are

about the mandatory aspects of seat belts. The illustration is there in

Australia where it is mandatory. I am not saying I am going to bring it

in. I want your reaction to it.

I noticed an editorial in The Vancouver Sun which

talks about this being the right of the individual to determine whether

or not he is going to wear a seat belt. The inference is that it is

nobody else's business whether or not you wear a seat belt.

I can't accept that attitude, that it is nobody else's business

whether you wear a seat belt. If you are not wearing a seat belt, and

you are involved in either a fatal accident or an accident in which you

are badly injured, it affects many other aspects of our society. It not

only affects the insurance rate, but if you're the breadwinner of the

family and you are killed, it means probably an addition of a whole

family to the social welfare roll.

If you and a number of people are badly injured, it means that badly

needed hospital beds are being occupied that might be required by other

people who could have had the use of them had the individual been

wearing his seat belt.

So there's a public interest in whether or not you wear a seat belt.

I'm certainly developing the habit of hooking up my seat belt every

time I get into my car. I always urge every citizen to do the same, and

I want each of you to consider it — the impact, the possibility of

bringing in such legislation in this province — and let me have your

thoughts on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How do you enforce that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there's a fine system. It's not a

step I'll take lightly and I certainly want the fullest possible input

from everyone. Education is partly the way and the realization that it

is everybody's business and that it does have an impact on many facets

of our society other than the individual that's concerned.

Motor Vehicle testing: I'll leave that until the Estimates.

Ferries: I hope you notice that the CPR has boosted the ferry rates.

We haven't boosted ours. But I want you to notice how small the story

was in the paper when the CPR boosted their rate. If we were to boost

our rates, there would be a page 1 headline about so big right across

the front.

For the nine months to December 31, 1973, the net operating loss on

the B.C. Ferries system was $8,242,000. We do need back-up service,

better vessels in the whole ferry system. There's one in for refit now;

there's one being stretched. If anything happens to one of the others,

we're in trouble and sailings have to be delayed. I'm sorry that

back-up vessels haven't been provided.

The call for tenders on the new ferries closes on March 5.

Incidentally, someone told me that on the radio last night it was

reported that the tender for the new ferries had gone to Seattle.

That's absolute balderdash. First of all, the bids don't close until

March 5, and the bidding was limited to B.C. companies.

I think we have to look at the situation with regard to the cost of

these ferries, and the continued refusal of the federal government to

treat the west coast of Canada in the same way that it treats the east

coast of Canada.

The first thing I did as Minister of Highways was to take down the

"B.C.-1" sign and put up the "Trans-Canada" sign, as a symbol that we

in this province are proud of Canada, want to remain part of Canada and

will do all we can to help Canada. But by the same token, we expect a

fair deal from the rest of Canada and a fair assessment of our problems.

We have tremendous transportation problems in the west coast of

Canada. I just wanted to tell the House what happens on the east coast

of Canada and what the federal authorities do with regard to

transportation.

For the year ending March 31, 1973, the federal government spent

some $58 million on ferry and shipping services in Canada. The 1973-74

estimates place the cost for this year at $61 million. An increasing

proportion of these funds go to the Canadian National for their

Atlantic region services — $44 million in 1973 and $50 million in 1974.

Of the $13 million...that's in addition to what the CN get. Of the $13

million being expended by the Minister of Transport and the CTC as

operating subsidy, less than 6 per cent of the funds are for

[ Page 420 ]

service in the west coast.

From recent statements made by the federal government, it would

appear to be established policy that the federal government intends to

not only continue their present financial involvement in east coast

ferry services but to expand them to provide a higher level of service

for the traffic demands. The new ferry services agency which the

federals have set up will oversee this expansion.

In addition to these direct payments, the Ministry of Transport and

the Canadian Transport Commission also make indirect expenditures in

the form of studies on these services.

A study was completed in the summer of 1973 by M. Menderson, chief

regulatory, legislative unit of the division of the Economics Branch of

the Canadian Transport Commission into the implications of the

extension of transport subsidies to the water and air modes in the

Atlantic region. The report was presented to the federal-provincial

committee on Atlantic region transportation in July and August, 1973.

In September, 1973, the federal government committed itself to

extension of the westbound subsidy — that's from the eastern seaboard

to central Canada — for certain eligible commodities moving by truck or

rail under the MFRA or ARFRA. The rate of assistance will be increased

from 30 per cent to 50 per cent.

Then I want to quote you from a statement of Mr. Marchand:

"A new east coast ferry services agency was announced

by Mr. Marchand in October, 1973, under the direction of the joint

Minister of Transport-CN committee. Major objectives of the new

administration will be coordination, improvement and expansion of

existing services to meet expected increased traffic in years ahead, as

well as the immediate unprecedented influx of traffic which the present

system is attempting to handle."

We could be talking about B.C. We're in exactly the same position.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll come to that in a minute.

"Creation is coupled with MOT's plans for purchase of

new vessels and related plans for construction of new terminal and

passenger cargo handling facilities."

That's on the east coast. They won't give us a subsidy or help of

any kind. They insist that we pay the 17 per cent federal sales tax on

every terminal construction facility on the west coast.

"Mr. Jamieson said, 'There's an obvious necessity for an overall

programme expansion of services to meet the needs of regional growth

and industry, tourism and commerce.' " That's from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald , October 13, 1973.

CP Rail have requested a subsidy from the federal government to aid

the operation of the Saint John-Digby service. I know for a fact that

the federal government provided a subsidy to the CPR for the terminal

facilities at the Digby end of that particular terminal of that

particular operation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is that between provinces?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's between provinces. But our

runs are very similar to their runs. In 1970, the capital expenditures

for the ferry and coastal services were $31 million — that's operating

capital and grants. In 1973 they were $51 million. They pay debentures

of up to $58 million.

For the Saint John-N.B-Digby ferry, it was $3 million; it was $15

million for the N.B.-P.E.I. service and $6.9 million for the Saint

John-Digby ferry service.

But in the Province of Ontario — solely within the Province of

Ontario — $3 million was given to aid construction of ferries and

terminals for Tobermory-South Bay Mouth service. For the Province of

Quebec, $3 million went to aid construction of ice-breaker type ferry

vessels. And they got a $3 million DREE grant on top of that, strictly

within the province.

I have a list of all of the ferry services. There's one: Owen Sound

to a Manitoulin Island in Georgian Bay, Ontario. In 1970 they were

getting $49,000; in 1969 they got $213,000. Pelee Island to the

mainland, Ontario — in 1971 it was $88,000 and in 1970, $88,000.

In this province, we get three grants, two in the northland

navigation and one that's for six per cent. They're now taking a survey

of the total transportation needs.

I suggest, because ours is not a profit-making operation, that we

have tremendous transportation problems on the west coast, and I

suggest that we need a better deal out of the feds than we're now

getting.

Some of those smaller ferries were acquired by the previous

administration — I'm not condemning them for it because the ferry

service had to be kept going. I'll give you an example of what it's

costing the people of British Columbia. This is a privately operated

ferry — the Island Princess. I think that's the one that runs from

Beaver Cove to Kelsey Bay. The purchase price paid to Gulf Island

Navigation in 1969 was $457,000. The contract for conversion at Burrard

Drydock to increase from 20 cars to 50 cars cost $940,000. The extras

for the conversion contract were $81,000. The J.K. Cell conversion

design fee and expenses were $37,000. Three Rolls-Royce

[ Page 421 ]

factory exchange engines were $15,000; modified Roll-Royce engines,

1973, came to $40,000. There's $1,570,000. But we finish up in 1974 in

having to approve a complete re-engining at a cost of $315,000. Total

so far, straight capital: $1,885,000.

That's the kind of expenses we're faced with in this province for

keeping these smaller ferries operating, and that's why I suggest that

my friends across the way get on the phone and phone their friends in

Ottawa and tell them it's time we had a better deal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I've raised it at a joint meeting and

Mr. Marchand has said he'd be glad to meet with me. I wrote him a

letter a month or so ago asking when he could set up a date to meet

with me to discuss this face to face. I got a reply from an assistant

saying to wait until the middle of February and he would let me know.

That's where it sits now.

I'll leave the date of processing till estimates.

Communications objectives. I think I should point out that part of

the presentation I made at the federal-provincial meeting said:

"British Columbians expect the federal authority to return to our

province the same rights enjoyed by other provinces, namely the right

to control and, if desired, to own their own telephone system." I think

the important thing is the right to regulate the telephone systems

within our own province. Seven of the provinces already have that

right. The three that haven't are Quebec, Ontario, and British

Columbia. I can't imagine any federal government refusing to one

province the same rights enjoyed by other provinces in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, only three of the seven provinces

own them — that's the three prairie provinces. But there are four other

provinces that have the right of regulation within the province. We

used to have that in British Columbia. Until 1916 the telephone system

was regulated within the Province of British Columbia. It was a federal

Act passed declaring it to be for the general benefits of Canada, and

so on. I'm simply asking them to return that right, which was taken

away in 1916, back to the Province of British Columbia.

As an interesting sidelight as to why we should have the right to

regulate, there's a letter I received from the Liberal Party in British

Columbia. It's a copy of a letter sent to the customer service of the

B.C. Telephone Company, 768 Seymour Street, Vancouver:

"Dear Sir:

"Our telephones were transferred October 29. Our new number

is 736-2331. Directory Assistance is still giving out the old number, six weeks

after the move. We have phoned you at least 10 times on this matter and have

been assured each time the error would be corrected.

"Yours very truly,

President, Liberal Party of British Columbia."

If we had the right to regulation in this province, I could get

after them about the poor service they're giving the Liberal Party in

British Columbia.

Briefly I want to outline the communications objectives as I see

them in the Province of British Columbia. These are long-term

objectives to be attained by the province. They do not delineate the

means by which the province will reach these objectives. Further,

because of concern for national unity, these objectives must be

considered as being interrelated and be taken together rather than in

isolation.

It shall be a communications objective of the Province of British

Columbia that expansion of communications facilities will be such as to

serve the orderly development of the Province according to provincial

priorities, and hence do a provincial determination of the programme

for furnishing telecommunications, broadcast and cable distribution

facilities in British Columbia.

Another goal is universal access to ensure the availability to

British Columbians of electronic means for acquiring and exchanging

information which is relevant to the worldwide interest. The Member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder) was talking about living in the north. Part of the

problem of getting people to settle in the north is that sense of

isolation that is part of living there.

The people in the north are just as much entitled to adequate TV

service and the rest of it as the people who live in the lower mainland

or the lower half of Vancouver Island. But as it has been operating in

the past, with that far-off Ottawa control, somebody applies for a

cablevision area, they say yes — and it's usually the most lucrative

areas, as they were picked up first. They have no realization that

there must be balance in the granting of cablevision licences.

If they're going to be given the lucrative lower mainland area, then

there must be cross-subsidization, so these same people accept the

responsibility for carrying adequate television service into the

northern areas of British Columbia. And that is what I mean by

universal access.

Provincial development. Electronic communications means we develop

throughout the province to meet the social, cultural, educational and

economic requirements of the province.

Regional interests. To facilitate the development of regional

interests and talent within the province by utilizing electronic

communication means.

National unity. To foster national unity through

[ Page 422 ]

ensuring adequate interprovincial facilities for communications between all parts of Canada.

Freedom of expression. To preserve freedom of expression in material transmitted for public dissemination.

Privacy. To preserve confidentiality of material transmitted for private dissemination.

Canadian ownership. To promote Canadian ownership of common carriers, broadcasting and cable distribution undertakings.

National policy. To have an effective voice in the formulation of

national and communications policy, and effective input to federal

matters which bear upon the Province of British Columbia.

Those generally are the communications objectives. We will move step

by step in our meetings with other provinces and with the federal

government so that we can achieve an adequate communications policy for

the Province of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as my final topic I would like to turn to

something which has been a subject of some questioning in this House:

the matter of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

I think we should look at some of the history of what has happened.

The day after the election of 1972, which took place August 30, the

Insurance Bureau of Canada had a meeting in Vancouver. On September 11,

four days before this government was sworn in, they started to move and

to change the conditions under which they had been operating the

insurance industry in this province.

Here is a copy of a letter put out by the Insurance Exchange, dated

September 11, 1972. The Insurance Exchange is a medium set up by the

private insurance companies under which any agent who had been turned

down by one company on writing insurance for any person in the province

could refer this particular application to the Insurance Exchange to be

taken up by this Insurance Exchange, operating on behalf of all of the

companies and written at a lower commission to the agents, by the way.

But the requirement was that some company must have turned down the

writing of that policy on that individual.

On September 11, four days before we became the government, out went

a letter. "The Exchange governing and management committees have

approved, effective immediately, automatic access to the Exchange

without the requirement of having a declining company."

That was the beginning of the troubles within the Insurance

Exchange. From that day on, the pressure was on me to get involved in

supporting the insurance market in the Province of British Columbia.

Week by week, company after company referred more and more cases to

the Insurance Exchange to the point where the Insurance Exchange simply

couldn't handle it. Eventually, on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, I had to commit public funds to maintain adequate insurance

coverage for the people of the Province of British Columbia. This,

despite the fact that on February 1, 1973, in a letter to the Premier

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), the B.C. advisory committee of the Insurance Bureau

said, "We believe an uninterrupted insurance market is essential for

consumers in British Columbia, and in our discussions with Mr. Strachan

last fall we pledged to make every effort to ensure this."

And they did do that in the fall when I asked them in. Before we

even started to write the legislation they gave me verbal assurance

that there would be a market there continuously.

On February 12, I received a letter:

"As indicated previously to you, the insurance

industry wish your government to know there will be no lack of market

for the motoring public during this transition period. We do, however,

feel it is important that we discuss it with you at an early date."

Well, of course, we didn't get the continued co-operation. There was

a $100,000 advertising plan. We had to support the Insurance Exchange.

We were notified they were going to get out of the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund.

As I said earlier in this House, premiums were collected right up to

the last day of February. Part of those premiums were to cover that

particular insurance provision. They are still collecting money

because, under the operations of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund,

they have the right of recovery.

I have a letter here, addressed to me, saying:

"Five years ago our son was involved in a car

accident. He was not covered by insurance and the results were he was

sued. This was put in the hands of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

He has been paying since then, with the threat that he would lose his

licence.

"I understand this company is no longer in business. He got a bill again today. Does he have to pay this?"

How many people they are still collecting from I don't know, but it

is obvious they are still collecting. As I say, on November 11 they got

right out of the field despite the fact they collected premiums with a

portion of that premium given to the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. I

know this: the man said the other day that it's almost broke. That's

not the point. They accepted part of that premium for the full year.

The other day this matter of interest was raised of whether we are

going to pay interest on the moneys that ICBC had received and was it

going to be returned? Starting last June, the private insurance

companies started sending out letters to their clients, and these

letters said: "Your current automobile insurance policy expires on

October 31" — or November 8, or December 14. "We suggest you send

[ Page 423 ]

us immediately X number of dollars so we can rewrite your policy

through to February 28." They were collecting money three, four, five

months ahead of due date.

I didn't hear a single comment from across the way about the fact

that these insurance companies, these private insurance companies which

were collecting this premium three, four, five months ahead of date,

weren't paying interest on the money they were receiving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) ask that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I mentioned the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund. I want you to notice how that was handled. The previous

administration passed

an Act some years ago, a

section of which was

never proclaimed, which earmarked public funds for just such a service.

We are now utilizing earmarked public funds out of motor vehicle

licence plates for the provision of an automobile insurance service

that is part of the law of the Province of British Columbia.

There have been lots of quotes about the insurance of government vehicles.

Incidentally, I was going to mention the rates. I made a mistake a

year ago. I admit frankly to the fact that I did make a mistake. When I

was being asked across the way what the rates were going to be, I said

we would have to wait until the green book came out before I could tell

you. I should never have made that statement, because, sitting back in

Toronto, were the people who make up the green book. They thought to

themselves, "Aha, we can fix him. He's waiting for the green book.

We'll hold the green book up." And they held the green book up....

But that wasn't all. When it was published it did not contain the

figures for the Province of British Columbia. It's for the preceding

year. They're required to give those figures.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What do you mean they had no business? Here's a quote from the underwriters' magazine talking about the green book:

"The green book is the key. The green book is at the

very heart of the rate-making process. The forerunner of the present

green book was issued over 40 years ago and it has developed over the

intervening years until today it is regarded as one of the most

comprehensive exhibits of automobile insurance statistical data

anywhere in the world."

That's not the important point as to their position. All insurers

are required by law — by law — to file their data in a prescribed form

with the statistical division of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who

act as the statistical agency for the superintendents of insurance.

When Carl Wilkin, the IBC actuary issues the green book, he does so

not as the actuary for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, but as the

actuary for the provincial superintendents. And they refused to publish

those figures. Now I could probably have got involved in a long court

case, but that wouldn't have done us any good. So we contacted them and

asked them to live up to the law. What happened?

The best we could get out of them was that they supplied the raw

data, the tapes. They refused to provide the programme that goes with

the tapes. We had to start without that basic information which was a

very necessary part of arriving at the rate structure. But we made it.

You know, there was another reason that I wouldn't quote rates a

year ago. There used to be an Attorney-General in this province and he

introduced a piece of legislation affecting automobile insurance — the

Hon. Leslie Peterson. Here I refer you to the Victoria Times of March 25, 1969 — this is five years ago — and he was bringing in a piece of automobile insurance legislation.

"B.C. Auto Insurance Plan Shifts Emphasis to Humans. Peterson Sees Premium Drop.

"The Legislature Monday gave first reading to about

150 clauses in two government bills which will revolutionize auto

insurance coverage. Attorney-General Peterson, who introduced the bill,

told reporters the combination of compulsory insurance" — that nasty

word, compulsory — "limited no-fault compensation and lifting of the

first $250 repair cost for every auto involved in collisions, should

reduce present minimum rates by as much as 25 per cent."

"Compulsory... reduced rates...25 per cent, " Peterson said. That's

why I would not make a statement. You check, after all. It's all in Hansard

under here. I said, "I'll wait for the green book." I remembered what

Peterson had said, that the rates would go down by 25 per cent. What

else did he say?

"Peterson said, under the proposed insurance plan in

this bill, the representative rates in Vancouver would be showing a

reduction of 28 percent and 21 percent respectively. If you do not

choose to buy collision and so on, the reduction in premiums is

estimated to range from 15 to 35 per cent."

But what did industry say? What did the insurance industry say about

this compulsory insurance? E. Burns of Toronto, chairman of a special

committee set up by the Insurance Bureau of Canada: what did he say?

Compulsory! He said, "We say God bless them; if the Socreds brought in

compulsory insurance, we say God bless them."

We bring in compulsory insurance — it's horrible!

[ Page 424 ]

It's the end of the world! It's horrible! Further on the same man

said: "The industry does not object to the compulsory nature of the

insurance because we long ago gave up the concept that it shouldn't be

compulsory." That it shouldn't be compulsory! — long ago gave up the

concept!

Then we get the sort of nonsense afterwards and, I tell you, this is

why I didn't say what the rates would be last year — because, despite

Peterson's statement that it'd go down by 28 per cent, the next year it

went up by 12 per cent. The year after that it went up by 6 per cent

and had they been here this year, it would have gone up by 22 per cent.

You know, Mr. Speaker, despite all our problems with the green book,

we managed to get the operation going. We first established the broad

principle of operation, checked with the data available, then worked

out specific details through careful examination of circumstances after

the rates had been published.

I discovered that in many cases the published rates didn't mean a

thing. And in the peripheral groups — remember that one million of the

vehicles are passenger cars; they're covered by the same rates as were

first published — but the peripheral areas — the fleets, the trucks,

the so on — once we met with the truck fleet owners we discovered that

the published rates didn't mean a thing, and that's why we moved to

change them.

But the Member for Okanagan said that it was hard to compare rates

with those from the private insurance companies as people had no way of

knowing what the rates would have been. That's true, but I'm telling

you they would have been up about 22 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there have been problems, yes. And the reason I say they're up 22 per cent is that if you want to read the Automotive Retailer

for October, you'll find a list of reports from the companies with

regard to their losses for the last year. It indicates that they were

paying out $11 and so on for every $10 they took in. But the agents

have done a fine job. A few have had problems coping with the new

system.

I have a letter here from a woman saying that she went to one agency

in Victoria and was quoted $129. She went to a second agency and she

was quoted $117. She went to a third agency and was quoted $109. She

went to the Motor Vehicle Branch, and they too quoted $109. So it's

obvious that some of the agents are having a problem in arriving at the

right rate, and it upsets me when I hear agents quoting a higher rate

than it should be, because that could be where part of our problem

about increased rates is coming from.

We ran into problems with claims centres. Partly it was

municipalities refusing to allow zoning and rezoning, partly it was the

availability of property.

But I want the House to know that the previous administration, in

any operation, any construction job, anything, never went to the

municipalities for permits, for discussion, for zoning or anything

else. They just went ahead and did it. But we declared we would work

with the municipalities.

I'll give you one example. There's one municipality where there's a

piece of property here that's been zoned light industrial or

commercial. The piece of property here has been zoned light industrial

or commercial. We wanted a piece of property between it. It would have

to be zoned light industrial or commercial. They refused it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Where was it zoned? Where was the municipality? Where was it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, it wasn't agriculture. It was

zoned residential. But on each side of the piece of property we wanted,

there it was, right in the middle; they refused us the right to rezone.

Many of the municipalities have co-operated, but I want to tell you

that there have been a few problems with regard to claims centres. I

can talk about them later during estimates. But I want to impress on

the people the fact that the previous administration went right ahead,

didn't ask for zoning permits, rezoning, work permits, building permits

or anything else.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not nonsense! That's the record. You check with the municipalities and you'll find that out.

With regard to the claims centres — once they're in operation — I

reiterate what I said the other day: there will be claims facilities

available as of 12:01, March 1.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada made a statement January 29 in The Globe and Mail :

"As an initial step, the industry-wide Insurance

Bureau of Canada has formed a steering committee to develop a programme

for establishing a network of drive-in claims or appraisal centres

across Ontario. These would process car damage and collision claims and

the actual repair work would be done at accredited garages."

Notice the words "accredited garages." Not any garage — accredited

garages. It is what the Insurance Bureau of Canada is prepared to pay;

that's what that means. You'd better believe it.

"The move is intended to speed up car repairs and reduce claims

costs to insurance companies." They say it would take 150 to 180

drive-ins to cover the province adequately.

I'd like to talk briefly about the auto-body shops

[ Page 425 ]

and what the situation is, what they're getting paid now and what they

were offered. We offered them a basic labour rate of $14 an hour with a

5 per cent addition for materials and a 20 per cent addition for paint.

Because we're already in the business of providing insurance coverage,

I have here a list of what a number of the major shops are now being

paid.

Here's one getting $12 a hour, 3.5 per cent for materials and 20 per

cent for paint. Here's another one: $12 an hour, 3.65 per cent for

materials, 25 per cent for paint. This big one has four separate

operations and they charge different rates in each. The same operation

at one of their places gets $12 an hour for labour, 4.94 per cent for

materials, 20.8 per cent for paint. Another one gets $12 for labour, 3

per cent for materials, 13 per cent for paint.

You go down the list — $12, $12, $12...$14, with 8 per cent for

materials and only 7 per cent on paint, so there is an upset there.

Here's one at $12, with 2 per cent for materials, 18 per cent for

paint. One, and one only, gets $15, but only 1 per cent for materials

and only 15 per cent for paint. The rest are 12, 12, 12, 14 and 12. We

are offering them $14, 5 per cent materials, 20 per cent on paint.

More than 50 per cent of the shops in the province have already

agreed to accept that, and I am quite sure that by March 1 a great many

more will accept that very reasonable rate.

I want to talk about some other aspects. I can't talk about the law

case that's now before the courts, because as you know the companies

involved are taking us to court. But I think the people of British

Columbia should know who the companies are that are saying to the

people of this province, "You do not have the right to do certain

things with regard to automobile insurance."

They are: the Allstate Insurance Company, headquarters at

Northbrook, Illinois; the Bankers and Traders Insurance Company,

headquarters in Australia; the Canada Accident and Fire Insurance

Company, headquarters at London, England; the Cornhill Insurance

Company, headquarters at London, England; the Employers' Mutual

Liability Insurance Company, headquarters at Wassa, Wisconsin; the

Federated Mutual Insurance, headquarters at Owatona, Minnesota; the

Fidelity Insurance Company of Canada, headquarters at Baltimore,

Maryland; the General Accident Insurance Company of Canada,

headquarters at Perth, Scotland...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the unkindest cut of all. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, the unkindest cut of all.

...the Great American Insurance Company, New York, N.Y.; the Guardian Insurance

Company of Canada, headquarters at London, England; the Hartford Fire Insurance

Company, Hartford, Connecticut; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Boston,

Mass.; London Insurance, London, England; the Maryland Casualty Company, headquarters

at Baltimore, Maryland; the Pearl Insurance Company, headquarters at London,

England; the Phoenix Insurance Company, headquarters in New York; Prudential

Insurance Company, headquarters at London, England; Reliance Insurance Company

of Philadelphia, headquarters at Philadelphia; the Royal General Insurance Company

of Canada, headquarters at Newark, New Jersey; the Saint Paul Fire Marine Insurance

Company, headquarters at Saint Paul, Minnesota; the Security Mutual Casualty

Company, Chicago, Illinois; the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

headquarters at Bloomington, Illinois; the Travellers Indemnity Company of Canada,

headquarters at Hartford, Connecticut.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Is that in Canada?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to call your attention to the

people who are taking the people of B.C. to court to tell us that we

can't do the job that we are now doing.

Now, time is moving on. I had intended to go into some other aspects

of the Autoplan. I had intended to read many of the letters I have

received, complimenting us on the Autoplan. But I want to quote a

couple of news clippings.

"Insurance Official Praises Autoplan.

"Autoplan is a good plan, an official of one of B.C.'s

oldest and one of Canada's biggest insurance firms told the annual

convention of the B.C. Truck Loggers Association on Thursday."

That was Mr. R.J. Maitland, on January 18, in The Vancouver Sun .

"The president of the Insurance Agents Association,

Hamilton defended ICBC's performance. 'You've got to remember this is

the biggest insurance company in Canada. A fantastic job has been done

to get it along as well as it has and to make a number of changes. It's

a big job, done extremely well, but now we're down to the crunch."'

Mr. Hamilton also said, in his "President's Corner" in the most recent issue of the agents' magazine:

"Although it is still too early for any

across-the-board verdict, initial returns would seem to bear out what

many of us have been saying all along. Those who have picked up the

ball and are running with it — especially those strategically located

at advantageous locations

[ Page 426 ]

— appear to be doing rather well indeed.

Others are reasonably satisfied and a few seem to be falling behind.

Certainly, we would not have assented to any proposition which we would

have thought would have denied any agent a fair shot at making a

dollar."

Mr. Hamilton gave some advice to the agents. He said:

"They have met most of our principal demands and now I think it is up to all of us to stop fussing and get down to serious work.

"I think we have come further than anyone expected,

especially when you consider the latest concessions which were spelled

out in our bulletin of January 11. If we really go after business now,

I see no reason why we cannot make out just as well as we have in the

past."

That's the president of the Insurance Agents Association.

We've met with them continuously. I've had to make changes to the Motor-vehicle Act

to make sure that they had access to the kind of market that I felt

they should have. I have made these changes in close co-operation with

the insurance agents as a part of the plan. Now, Mr. Speaker, the plan

will go ahead — make no mistake.

But I am concerned about the opposition and their attitude. The

attitude of the opposition was announced on January 8, 1974 — not by

the opposition leader, but by Mr. Ian Meyer, chairman of the Insurance

Bureau of Canada, in an interview. He said:

"The opposition political parties in B.C. have assured

the industry that if they become government they will restore

competitive pricing by allowing the private companies to compete with

the government on auto insurance."

They didn't announce it — the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada announced the policy of the three opposition parties.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Same difference!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They said "yes sir; yes sir; yes sir" to

that list of companies that I just read out. They said "yes sir; yes

sir; yes sir." We know whose side they're on, and it's not the side of

the people of British Columbia!

This Autoplan, as I've said, has its problems. But I challenge any

person to go over to the Royal Bank building, walk through those nine

floors, see the tremendous job that has been done in organization and

putting that plan into operation, and not feel proud that it happened

in the Province of British Columbia.

It's one of the most magnificent development jobs ever done anywhere in

any industry, anywhere in North America. As British Columbians I suggest to

you that instead of your determination to tear this thing down, to attempt to

destroy it, belittle it and undermine it, you get behind it and realize that

it's not my plan. That company does not belong to me, it doesn't belong

to this government — it belongs to all the people of the Province of British

Columbia!

Mr. Speaker, opposition has responsibilities too. I was Leader of

the Opposition for years. There were times when I could have taken

political advantage of some proposals.

I remember a time when there was an attack made on the financial

stability of this province by a Vancouver newspaper. Talk to the former

Premier about that. There was an attack on the financial stability of

this province. I was Leader of the Opposition. Had I acted as

irresponsibly as that group over there has acted in the last two years

I would have joined that attack on the financial stability of this

province. But I recognized I had some responsibility to this province

that overrides everything and I refused to be part of that attack. I

said it simply wasn't true what the enemies of that government were

saying.

Another time, when the government came in with a proposal for the

Bank of British Columbia, I could have gone out and badmouthed it, said

it wouldn't work, said it shouldn't work; it should be left to the big

bankers in the east. I could have done all that but I recognized a bank

with its headquarters in British Columbia would add a new factor to the

financial fabric and strength of the Province of British Columbia. I

supported that bank right down the line because it would bring benefit

to the people of the Province of British Columbia, because it would

change the whole financial fabric and strength of this province.

I suggest to you people across the way that the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia will have an even greater impact. We've

agreed it will always be there; not one of them would do away with it.

But I suggest to you the setting up of this insurance company in

British Columbia has changed the fabric of the financial structure of

this province and strengthened it immeasurably. In the years ahead, it

will bring great benefit to all of the people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it's not the time for the kind of

opposition we've been getting to this and many other problems that face

us. I suggest it's time that we had some responsible opposition. I

think it's time they realized that these are troubled times in which we

live, no matter who's the government.

MR. McCLELLAND: We'll be back; we'll be back.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mister, you won't get re-elected next election, let alone your government.

[ Page 427 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Eat the words, eat them!

MR. STRACHAN: Because the people will never support a party

that indulges in opposition by insult, innuendo and destruction. They

never will, they never will.

My friend (Mr. McClelland) across the way, who's about to follow me,

raised the issue of Gordon Root making a statement to the press when

he's employed by a Crown agency. I want my friend to look at vote 1 in

the estimates. It's a vote out of which all of the people who work

within this Legislative Assembly are paid, and the people who are paid

out of that particular vote are responsible to this Legislative

Assembly.

If you want to raise matters of privilege in a way that would really

be meaningful, I suggest you go back and check the statements of two

people who were paid out of vote 1: a Mrs. Grace McCarthy and a Mr. Dan

Campbell. Look at the things they said about this government when they

were being paid out of the public purse of this government, out of the

legislative vote. The things they said about individuals in this

government and this government as a whole far exceeded that picayune

statement you were referring to. I suggest that if you really want to

realign the responsibilities....

I remember when I was Leader of the Opposition that I had somebody

working for me who wrote a letter to the editor once, not as my

assistant but just as plain John Wood. I was told that that wasn't the

thing to do.

Now, just go back and check what the people who have been paid out

of vote 1 have been saying about individuals in this government and

this government; then bring that in as a motion of privilege. Then

you'll be serving as loyal opposition, doing your homework, doing your

job and helping make this place.

I ask you each and every one of you to remember my early words. This

is the only system we have and we've got to make it work. It's time

that official opposition realized that unless they are prepared to help

make this system, they can only succeed in destroying it. That may be

their objective, I don't know, but I prefer to give them every benefit

or give them all the help they need too. And they need plenty. This is

the government of all of the people of this province; this is our

House. Let's get on with the job.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I've enjoyed this brief interlude this afternoon. Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in this budget debate, for which we've been gathered to discuss.

I'd like first of all to welcome the newest Member to our assembly,

the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I hope you enjoy

it as much as we do.

I also want to congratulate the Minister of Transport and

Communications for another fine performance. Not much substance but he

was in good form.

I hope, too, to be able to deal with some of the things that he said

as I deliver my speech today and talk about some of the comments he

made about his departments, and perhaps even the department he doesn't

head anymore which took up a lot of his time.

I was surprised at the introduction of this budget to find the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and myself have at least one

thing in common.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, we do. I lost weight too; probably we

have two things in common, then, Mr. Member. But the real thing that we

have in common is that neither of us is an expert in government

financing. But even as a non-expert, Mr. Speaker, I can recognize that

the budget we're considering today is an irresponsible budget —

irresponsible in its irrelevancy. It bears no relevance to the actual

revenues that will be collected; it bears no relevance to the actual

funds which will be expended; and it sure bears no relevance to the

needs of the people of British Columbia.

The official opposition presented a motion of non-confidence in this

government's programme as outlined in its throne speech because there

was no indication at that time of programmes for people. To the shame

of the Minister of Finance, that non-confidence motion has proved to be

right on. The budget is a total failure as it relates to the needs of

people, particularly in the Departments of Education and Health.

There is no doubt that the budget is big; it's the biggest budget

ever in this province and the Minister of Finance has attempted to

perpetrate the myth that bigger is better. But bigger isn't worth a

plugged nickel if the people of this province don't benefit from that

bigness. In this budget the people in need of intermediate health care,

for instance, and the youngsters in need of a decent education, for

instance, have been cut off from the good life.

How does it help the people of British Columbia to push the

inflationary cycle out of control by an explosion of its own

bureaucracy? The growth of government in the 17 months of socialist

control in this province is incredible and it shows no sign of slowing

down. The public service has been expanded by more than 8,000 positions

and there is a stampede

[ Page 428 ]

of new positions being created week after week. The increased cost for

salaries in the first year of socialist government in British Columbia

is estimated at some $20 million. For its second year, the estimated

increased cost is $90 million.

What this mushrooming bureaucracy means to all of us as taxpayers of

this province, coupled with the other factors of inflation, is that the

real gains in our economy don't go where they're needed to take care of

the social problems and the other needs of this province. Instead, all

of the gains in the economy are lost, wasted on the exploding costs of

government itself. How does that help the people of British Columbia?

The budgetary increases in Health and Education particularly have

been gobbled up by the increased costs of operating the apparatus. I

wonder how that helps the people of British Columbia? The Premier

himself, Mr. Speaker, has acknowledged his government's shortcomings in

programmes for education by announcing on a hotline show and in other

places that if a school district can prove its need for additional

funds, he'll make those funds available by special warrant.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised the question that perhaps

there's some impropriety about this and that it's against the rules to

do that kind of budgeting. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, that kind of

educational non-planning can only lead to discrimination in education

throughout this province.

It becomes the kind of situation where the school district which

makes its case best — which pleads, hat in hand, its case best — gets

the best break for school financing. Somebody described it the other

day as squeaky-wheel budgeting. That's not the kind of budgeting we

want in British Columbia for the needs of our children. Not only that,

Mr. Speaker, there is no possible way that that kind of spending can be

kept under control. There are no controls, because we don't know what

the budget estimates are.

No, Mr. Speaker, there are no advances in education in this budget, and I wonder how that helps the people of British Columbia.

In real advances in health care too, the budget stands still. Of the

$115 million increase in the budget for delivery of health care, $95

million of that $115 million is swallowed up by increased payments to

hospitals and increased payments to doctors: $80 million in increased

payments to hospitals, $15 million in increased payments to doctors.

The budget takes care of salary increases and the population growth

and that's all. It stands still in relation to any new programmes for

health care.

Mr. Speaker, the real shame of this budget in relation to health

care is that it fails miserably in its debt to the thousands of British

Columbians who are caught in that squeeze between acute care and

extended care. There is $1 million, Mr. Speaker, in that budget for

intermediate care — $1 million. What a slap in the face for those

people who are shut out of the health care delivery system through no

fault of their own — $1 million!

We travelled around this province, Mr. Speaker, and there were a

number of Members in this House today who will recall the committee

discussing home-care delivery and things like that. When we travelled,

we found that there was a recurring theme. It was pointed out very

clearly by people in all walks of life, in the medical profession,

outside the medical profession, people who were consumers of the

service. Wherever we went we found that those people noticed a glaring

deficiency in the delivery of health care in this province — a very

serious gap in the levels of care being offered — an entire segment of

society which was being forgotten in the publicly sponsored and prepaid

hospital and health care scheme.

The people who are left in this grey area of health care — and the

Member from Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) knows about it as well: she

was with us — are suffering financially, psychologically and medically,

because of the neglect by the people's government of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia told our committee very clearly and

very forcefully, Mr. Speaker, what they wanted. And the committee in

turn told this Legislature, very clearly and very forcefully, what

those people had told us to tell this Legislature. The government

obviously wasn't listening. They didn't get that message, regardless of

the manner, the clear manner, in which it was presented.

No, Mr. Speaker, this budget doesn't have any answers to those

questions that people who want decent health care at all its levels at

no financial penalty are asking.

What we wanted to see, Mr. Speaker, and what we should have seen,

was some kind of action in this field. Instead, we have seen this

government betraying its commitment once again. There were hundreds of

thousands of dollars for that blatantly political report, the Foulkes

Report, but not one nickel for people. Peanuts for people.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned was the matter of spending

more money. But I suggest it has nothing really to do with spending

more money. It has to do with spending money correctly in the

distribution of the money we have already. It certainly doesn't have to

do with wasting those gains in our economy by the exploding bureaucracy

of government itself.

The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, has displayed his amazing

financial genius again in his incredible bungling of the assessment

picture in this province. My God, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 429 ]

destroyed our confidence in this Minister. His amateurish efforts to

patch up his mistakes, piled one on top of the other, should have

proved that he is unfit for the job of Finance Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think it's usual not to debate in detail a question of that sort. It is now before a committee of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not debating anything in detail, Mr.

Speaker. We asked whether or not we were going to be stifled in this

debate to even talk about assessments, which was one of the reasons we

placed an amendment to the motion that went forward in this House. We

were assured that we wouldn't be stifled. I have no intention of

debating the assessment picture or the procedure in detail or in

anything else.

The only thing I want to talk about is the Minister's handling of

the question, which is completely outside his jurisdiction — to some

degree at least.

All I want to ask the Minister of Finance is whether he has any idea

of the kind of grief that he has put the people of British Columbia

through because of his actions with regard to Bill 71. Does the Member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) understand the kind of grief that the people of

this province are going through because of Bill 71?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): No, no.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think she does. Does she know what

kind of people are facing tax increases in this province? Tax increases

have doubled and tripled, increases that she just shrugged off in this

House the other day — shrugged off increases to old-age pensioners.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Widows, people looking forward to retirement,

young couples holding a piece of property until they can afford to

build a home — I wonder if she understands.

Here are a few letters that I received about this whole assessment

question. I won't read them all at this time. I wanted to show you the

kind of concern that's in this province. There is a box of letters that

came into the office of the Leader of the Opposition. These letters,

some 600 of them, came to my office directly; so obviously there's some

concern. At least there's some concern being expressed to the Member

for Langley with regard to assessments in this province.

I do want to read a couple of these letters — at least parts of them

— so we know beyond doubt the kind of people that are being affected in

this province. Here is a couple in White Rock who said:

"We're sending you a copy of our appeal to call

attention to the hardship which the NDP government's land policy is

causing ourselves among many others. Bills 42 and 71 are proving to be

highly inequitable, by penalizing people who have worked hard and

looked after their affairs responsibly over the years."

Here's another family in the Municipality of Langley who say the

cost of owning a home is becoming so high that it is virtually

prohibitive for a great percentage of the population to even consider

becoming homeowners. And there is this kind of thing, a 300 per cent

increase in taxes. That is a leading contributor to the problem.

"We have received our 1974 notice of assessment for

our property and find that there is an increase of almost 100 per cent

over last year. We feel this is unfair. Thirty years ago we bought the

acreage with the intention of spending the rest of our days here. We've

not changed our minds. We are not speculators. Like many others, our

five acres are caught in the land freeze, so there is no opportunity to

do anything with that property, even if we did wish to do so. We don't

feel this property has increased in value by 100 percent.

"My husband retires this summer and on his fixed

income it will be difficult to pay the taxes as they now stand,

especially if the mill rate increases asexpected.

Here's one, this appeal goes from $3,000 to $7,700.

"The property is a family farm," this lady tells me,

"left to me by my mother for the care of my retarded brother. The land

is now frozen farmland. I made 240 bales of hay this year and I intend

to farm as soon as I can afford the expense of barn and animals. I'm

not a land speculator as this has been a family farm since 1947.

Therefore I wish to appeal my land assessment increase.

"In 1951 my first husband purchased this 10-acre small holding under the Veterans' Land Settlement Act and

upon his death I inherited this property. I'm just mentioning this to

point out the fact that there was no speculation involved with the

purchase of this land.

"I understand that the Assessment Equalization Act ,

Bill 71 — the amendments — was aimed at obtaining extra revenue from

land developers and speculators. I'm a homeowner whose home happens to

be built on 10 acres which can't be classified as a farm or subdivided

into smaller parcels."

And they go on and on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.

This one is a kind of a classic, I thought. It's from Langley again, and it says:

"Dear Mr. McClelland:

[ Page 430 ]

"What a fine mess this is. When I phoned my own MLA

from Vancouver South, Mrs. Daisy somebody, she said she'd do what she

could to help, but then she all but told me that if I was well enough

off to own 6.7 acres of undeveloped land and a house in town, I should

either be glad to pay the taxes or sell."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's all right for that Member's opinion, I guess. The letter continues:

"We want to keep this beautifully treed property for

our own retirement 15 years hence, but with the expected taxes now with

a $700 increase, there is little hope. We have appealed on certain

grounds."

They go on and on and on and on like that, Mr. Speaker, and there

are about 600 letters just like that. There's not one speculator in the

whole bundle of letters — not one. There's not one rip-off artist, Mr.

Speaker, in that whole bundle of letters — just people — people who

expected much better treatment from this "people's government."

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): What did Peter Jenowin say to the court of appeal?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, maybe we can talk about Peter

Jenowin and the court of appeal. I was going to save this for a little

later, but since we've had a lot of questions about conflict of

interest in this House as time has gone on, since this government took

over, I'd like to mention the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) who talked about my concerns in this House with

what I consider to be a breach of privilege.

I might add that I have taken the Speaker's advice and I've given a

notice of motion to this House, because the Speaker has said that's the

way it should be handled and that's the way I intend to handle it —

within the rules of this House.

If the Minister of Transport and Communications doesn't understand

the difference between a private citizen, a Member of this Legislative

Assembly who is not on the government side, and a highly paid and

highly placed official of a Crown corporation, then there's something

wrong with his morality.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Finance and the Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) whether there isn't something wrong with the

concept of a chairman of a local court of revision, namely Dewdney —

and I want to apologize to the person in question because he's a good

friend of mine — but I want to say that there's something wrong when

the chairman of a local court of revision can also be the chairman of

the British Columbia Assessment Appeal Board. Now, he's been put into

the kind of position where he has to rule on his own rulings. Now, is

that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's wrong.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's what I'd like to ask this government.

I don't think it's right, Mr. Member for Dewdney, and I think it should

be changed right away.

HON. MR. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It is.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm glad to hear that assurance from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I hope you'll tell the Member for Dewdney.

Mr. Speaker, I'll continue, if I may, with my speech on the budget

debate. I really appreciate the comment from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs for that.

I've pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that there are no speculators, no

rip-off artists, no big developers involved in these letters that we've

received from people in municipalities all over the province.

For some reason — and I don't understand the reasoning — the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) thinks that he has solved all

the problems by fiddling around with the rules and announcing new rules

on radio hotline shows. In so doing, however, the Minister of Finance

has attempted, in a move that is becoming much too prevalent with this

government, to shift the blame for the whole mess to the local

assessors and to the chief assessment commissioner.

I would remind the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, that you can't

fix up bad laws with excuses. Excuses don't make up for shabby

treatment of British Columbia taxpayers.

The Minister tried to patch something with a Band-aid that needed

major surgery. He blamed the assessors, yet assessor after assessor

after assessor in this province are now saying that they had no clear

directives from Victoria. I suggest they didn't get any directives from

Victoria because nobody could figure out how to administer such

obviously bad legislation.

The municipality of Langley saw the problems that would be created

by this legislation — very early, I might add — and threatened not to

carry out the kind of legislation that would cause unbelievable

financial discrimination through Langley's taxpayers. When they

threatened that kind of action — in fact, when they even mentioned that

kind of action — the municipality was told in no uncertain terms to toe

the line or else.

Langley has proof in writing that the assessors were to use two

acres as a residential component on a non-agricultural acreage — in

writing from Victoria. Yet the Minister says the assessors are to

blame. Five acres, he said on the hotline, was the component to be

considered.

The Minister of Finance says he never intervened

[ Page 431 ]

directly in relation to assessment procedures. Well, I find that

extremely hard to believe, Mr. Speaker — extremely hard to believe.

The Minister suggests that in this session, and he's mentioned it in

his budget speech, he's going to come up with legislation that offers a

deferral of taxes. Well, deferral is not the answer to spiralling taxes

this year. It won't do a thing for those people. We're going to be hit

with crippling — and I mean crippling — tax increases this year.

I'm more than a little concerned about the whole