1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

115 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 115

Statement

Move of PWA head office to Alberta. Hon. Mr. Davis — 115

Mr. King — 116

Mr. Gibson — 116

Mr. Wallace — 116

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

MacInnes Place rental units. Mrs. Dailly — 117

Cutback at Granduc mines. Mr. Gibson — 117

Sale of B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission common stock. Mr. Wallace —

Proposed ICBC building in New Westminster. Mr. Cocke — 118

CTC jurisdiction over E & N Railway. Mr. Skelly — 119

Funding of transition houses. Ms. Brown — 119

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Hon. Mr. Mair — 120

Mr. Bawlf — 123

Mrs. Wallace — 127

Mr. Rogers — 130

Mr. Skelly — 131

Mr. Bawtree — 134

Mr. Calder — 136

Mr. Haddad — 140

Mr. Kahl — 141

Mr. Lloyd — 144

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask the House to welcome visitors and a delegation to the

House in the person of Mr. Bill Broadley, president of B.C. Teachers

Federation, and members of the B.C. Teachers Federation executive.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, at your kind

invitation, sitting on the floor of the House behind our caucus is the

NDP MP for the great and majestic riding of New Westminster (Mr.

Leggatt). I would have the House join me in welcoming him to Victoria.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome Professor Donald Belmer from the Lewis and Clark

College in Portland, Oregon. He brings a class of political science

students regularly to sessions of the Legislature and shows a very keen

and appreciative interest in our political system in British Columbia.

I met with the group yesterday, and I think he's meeting with the other

parties today. I think we should give him a warm welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce

two guests in the gallery this afternoon, Mr. and Mrs. Lubick, who are

constituents of mine. I'd ask the House to welcome them please.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

while in a partisan sense I may be alone on the floor of this House, I

am happily not alone in the province, and I would ask the House to

welcome in the gallery several members of the B.C. Liberal women's

commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, this

afternoon we have the pleasure of the company of Mrs. Iva Mann and Mr.

Bowie Keefer and the delegation of the Save the Endowment Lands of the

University of British Columbia. I would ask this House to welcome them

here today.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, I would like us to welcome a delegation from the cities of

Bellingham, Bellevue and Lacey. The delegation is comprised of elected

representatives from these areas and they are here to receive our views

on the delivery of social services to the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Dennis Braddock, president of the

Bellingham city council, Dr. George Drake, Bellingham city council,

Nancy Rising, city councilor, Mr. Dan D'Gulio, Western Washington State

College, Charles Rangor, managing editor of the daily newspaper in

Bellingham, and Mayor Karen Fraser, mayor of the City of Lacey,

Washington. I'd like us to welcome them.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mi. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to introduce to you Mr. Donald Barnes, who has been a

very active member in my constituency, sitting up in the gallery, and

also several other very good friends: Mr. Jack Biggs from Crescent

Beach, Mr. John Edmundson from New Westminster, and Mr. Volmar Nordman

from New Westminster. Would you welcome them, please?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome in the galleries today everybody else who's been missed. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

Hon. Mr., Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976.

Bill 3 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.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the Government of British

Columbia today requested the Canadian Transport Commission to restrain

Pacific Western Airlines from moving any facilities or personnel to

Alberta pending a decision on the takeover of the airline by the

Government of Alberta.

British Columbia's application was included along with a letter

which I, as provincial Minister of Transport and Communications, have

sent to the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, the

[ Page 116 ]

Hon. E.J. Benson. In my covering letter, I said:

"Recently, there has been a judicial ruling to the

effect that the Canadian Transport Commission may properly review the

1975 takeover of Pacific Western Airlines by Alberta. The Government of

British Columbia urges that you undertake such a review at the earliest

possible opportunity.

"Pending the completion of this review, and in the

interests of all of western Canada, including Alberta, we request that

you instruct Pacific Western Airlines to leave its head office in

Vancouver and to continue to operate its principal maintenance base at

the Vancouver International Airport.

"We stand unalterably opposed to any movement of

operations out of British Columbia as long as this will result in an

increase in overall operating costs to the airline and ultimately to

its users.

"Our notice of application being filed with the air

transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission today refers

to the February 19, 1976, judgment of the federal court of appeal which

found that Her Majesty in the Right of the Province of Alberta is 'a

person subject to the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the air

carrier regulations and the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport

Commission concerning the acquisition of the controlling interests in

Pacific Western Airlines Ltd.'

"Our government is saying that 'British Columbia's

interest, and its position as an intervener in the inquiry to be made

by the Canadian Transport Commission will be seriously and permanently

jeopardized if the publicly announced intentions of Pacific Western

Airlines and Alberta to move or transfer facilities and personnel from

British Columbia, are carried out.'

"We are also saying that the federal commission has

the power to make such regulations or orders as may be necessary to

preserve the status quo pending its ultimate determination on the

question of whether or not the acquisition would unduly restrict

competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish

to compliment the minister on the statement which he has just made.

Members of the official opposition have called publicly for such an

approach by the government, and it is gratifying that the government

has taken this action to protect the interests of British Columbia

insofar as the head-office facilities of Pacific Western Airlines are

concerned, being retained in the city of Vancouver.

I would make the point that we are unaware as to what the precise

thrust of the government's approach is, and the intervener’s status

before the transport commission. Consequently, I'm not in a position to

register our precise position on that score. But in terms of the

application to retain the facilities in British Columbia, we are in

full support.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the minister would consider providing to the

opposition parties in the House the precise presentation which,

presumably, the Attorney-General's department intends to make to the

transport commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the minister

for his courtesy in sending an advance copy of his statement to

opposition members.

This representation I welcome very much; it is made in almost

exactly the same terms as one that I made myself to the CTC some two

weeks ago. It is essential now that this intervention be backed up with

all of the necessary legal work that might be required. I would suggest

to the minister that it will be timely as well to make direct

representations to the Government of the Province of Alberta in order

that they might be under no illusions as to the way in which the

government and people of British Columbia would feel about any

successful raid on this important head office in our province.

In particular, as the government has recognized by this

intervention, it is essential that the move not be made in order to

make an omelet which cannot be unscrambled in the event that the

Canadian Transportation Commission eventually rules that the Government

of Alberta is not the legal owner of that airline.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to compliment the

minister on what I hope is a precedent for the whole cabinet, that we

in the opposition receive at least a few hours' notice of pending

statements. It enables us to perhaps make a more intelligent response,

although I suppose that will always be questioned.

Though we support any efforts at keeping British Columbia businesses

in British Columbia, particularly PWA, I think there's clear evidence

that, despite economic circumstances which were adverse last year, it

was the one large Canadian airline that made a profit, and that may

well be due to the fact that most of its operations are under one roof.

We would support the effort also because of the jobs that will be

lost. I believe once the maintenance facilities are moved to Edmonton

it might be as many as 1,100 jobs that could be transferred to Alberta.

There is only one cautionary comment that one might make at this time, and that is that the minister

[ Page 117 ]

has made it very clear that the government

intends to intervene in the inquiry regarding the takeover of PWA, and

it might be wise to tread just a little warily since this is a very

sensitive federal area of federal-provincial relationships. We might be

in the process of setting precedents which might one day not be in the

best interests of British Columbia when the shoe is on the other foot.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to point out to

the Leader of the Opposition that the headquarters and executive

offices of Pacific Western Airlines are not located in Vancouver, but

in fact in Richmond.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll take notice of what the member has offered.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the minister whether he'd be prepared for the Province of British

Columbia to purchase that airline, if available.

MR. SPEAKER: We're not quite into the question period yet, Mr. Member.

Oral questions.

MACINNES PLACE RENTAL UNITS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the

Minister of Housing, in reply to my question re the availability of

rental units at MacInnes Place, stated the reason no more were

available was because of the quota system for low-rental income people.

The information I have, Mr. Minister, is that hundreds of people have

applied to the housing commission and have not even been asked what

their income is.

Therefore, my question to the minister is: will you instruct the

housing commission to receive these applicants so that many of the

people that are really in need of housing, and do not necessarily

qualify in the low-income bracket, will have an opportunity to be

housed in the MacInnes project?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): To the hon. member:

I'll take the question as notice inasmuch as today the Deputy Minister

of Housing is meeting with Mayor Constable of Burnaby.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Has a strata plan been filed for MacInnes Place?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. NICOLSON: This is related to the same topic, Mr. Speaker. Has a strata plan been filed?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you frame it as a separate question, because the hon. minister has taken the first question as notice.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the procedure when I

was on that side of the House. In fact, that member who's now making

such a big noise there, that Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) he used to do that four or five times, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will you please frame the question as a separate question to the hon. minister?

MR. NICOLSON: All right then. As a separate question then —

although I hate to deprive people of the normal order — with respect to

MacInnes Place, has a strata plan been filed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CUTBACK AT GRANDUC MINES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Mines. I would ask the minister if he is aware of a 25 per cent

cutback in staff and production announced at Granduc mine this morning,

which will take something like $1 million out of the economy of Stewart

annually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question from the hon. member for North

Vancouver: yes, I am aware that Granduc Operating Co. will be cutting

their production from 4,500 to approximately 3,400 tons a day, and this

will, in fact, will mean a reduction in work force of about 80 people,

and will result in the closing of the Tide Lake single-men's camp.

This mining company has been in operation for a number of years and

has suffered extremely hard times over the last three years in

particular. As a matter of fact, there was a cutback in the production

from this mine about a year ago.

During the first six months of 1975, in spite of losing $410,000 at

the operation, this company was still required to pay royalties in the

amount of $451,000. So is it any wonder then that the mine must reduce

its output and its work force?

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister, in view of this circumstance, could advise the House whether he will

[ Page 118 ]

not take an early opportunity this session to

bring in remedies to be of assistance and maintain employment in these

kinds of northern communities.

Interjection,

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It is suggested that this is an improper

question, but, Mr. Speaker, legislation presented by this government

will come down in orderly fashion,

MR. KING: On a supplementary to the Minister of Mines, Mr.

Speaker: I wonder if he has contacted his colleague the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to minimizing the impact on

those workers laid off through manpower retraining and relocation

considerations.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I believe that question is out of

order as a supplemental question. The hon. member has asked you if you

are giving advice or seeking advice from another member of cabinet.

MR. KING: No, not advice, Mr. Speaker, at all. I wonder if he

has a concern for the miners who are losing their jobs — by his own

statement — and if he is taking action through the resources of

government to minimize the impact on those workers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In reply to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition: yes.

SALE OF B.C. TEL AND WESTCOAST

TRANSMISSION COMMON STOCK

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance: has he in his portfolio since taking office bought or sold any shares in common stock?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): In answer to the

member's question, Mr. Speaker, I believe I should take that question

as notice, just to make sure. I think the answer is no.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I address a supplementary

question, then? In view of the Minister of Finance's statements

regarding our deficit, and in view of the throne speech commitment to

amend the Revenue Act and prevent the Minister of Finance from buying

shares, could the minister tell the House, has a decision been made to

sell the government-owned shares in B.C. Telephone and Westcoast

Transmission?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member,

these matters are always under consideration and will be done in an

orderly fashion as time proceeds.

MR. WALLACE: Just a final supplementary. Would it be possible

for the Minister of Finance to tell the House what is the approximate

value of the shares now held in B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission?

HON. MR. WOLFE: With respect, Mr. Member, I would have to take that question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is the type of question that would be more properly placed on the order paper.

PROPOSED ICBC BUILDING

IN NEW WESTMINSTER

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Education, president of ICBC: I wonder if I could ask the minister

whether or not the rumours around New Westminster are true, that the

ICBC head-office building may not be built in New Westminster. If so,

does the minister envisage continuing to pay the very high rates of

rent that they are now paying — over $9 a foot?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: That is the rent in the future if they continue to stay there. Mr. Speaker, will the minister answer that question?

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

member for New Westminster: the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia is

doing everything it can to cut the excessive costs of its operation,

including the rent.

As far as the location of a head office is concerned, that decision

is under review, but I expect it will be some months before a final

decision will be made.

MR. COCKE: On a supplemental question. As the minister knows, the rents were projected rents. I would suggest that if the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Enough suggestions! You should have done the work while you were....

MR. COCKE: I would ask the question, Mr. Speaker: are the

plans that have all been made ready to go this spring, are they to be

overlooked by this government because of their vindictive stand with

respect to ICBC?

[ Page 119 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, with respect, there is nothing

vindictive at all. Certainly the plans, all of them that were prepared

by the former government, including budgets and so on, are being very

thoroughly reviewed.

CTC JURISDICTION OVER E & N

RAILWAY

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): My question is directed to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. In view of the fact that the

jurisdiction of the CTC over the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway has been

questioned, and operation of the Vancouver Island Railway is one of the

conditions under which this province entered Confederation, has the

minister met with his federal counterpart, the Hon. Otto Lang, to

protest any cessation of services on that railway which would amount to

an abrogation, a unilateral abrogation, by Canada of the terms of union?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, this government did make a full

representation to the CTC here on the island, and only after its

findings are known would it be appropriate for me to speak to the

minister in Ottawa.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Your representation

at the CTC hearings did question the jurisdiction of the CTC over the

Esquimalt to Nanaimo cessation of service. I'm wondering in that case,

or for that reason: did the Minister of Transport approach his federal

counterpart or does he plan to?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I differ with the hon. member Mr. Speaker. We

appeared, as the Government of British Columbia, before that

commission, and that act alone indicated that we believe the commission

has some authority. As I said previously, we will approach the federal

minister at the right time.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary: you should read the brief

presented by your own delegation to that hearing, Mr. Member. Your

delegation questioned the jurisdiction of the CTC at that hearing.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Did you ask leave to make a statement?

FUNDING OF TRANSITION HOUSES

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to

the Minister of Human Resources. I'm a little bit alarmed that there

are representatives from other countries here trying to look at the

delivery of services in the field of Human Resources under the present

minister. I'm kind of curious about what they are going to learn from

him. Nonetheless....

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get to the question?

MS. BROWN: I'm trying to get to the question, but my alarm, Mr. Speaker, gets in the way.

It has to do with transition houses. It was brought to my attention

that on the air today the minister said that the funding of transition

houses would continue on a fee-for-service basis. I'm wondering whether

he would clarify this for the House. Does it mean that the bruises

which the women have are going to be assessed, and the kind of payment

that the houses will get will depend on whether the woman has one black

eye or two black eyes, or whether she has children with her or doesn't

have children with her?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's not a speech, it's a very, very honest

question. I want to know from the minister what he meant when he said

that the police and his department would have to be referring agencies.

Does it mean that the woman who has been beaten has to phone up his

department and get a referral?

MR. SPEAKER: You've covered about three subject areas so far; would you confine yourself to a question to the minister?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am asking about the new policy on

transition houses. When a woman is being beaten does she have to go

through the police or through his department before she can go to a

transition house, and will the transition house payment, on the fee for

service, be based on the extent of her injuries? A very pertinent

question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the

comments made by the hon. member, I don't find it difficult at all to

confer with people from other places as to what action and what

programme we intent to initiate in British Columbia to better the

system. My only moments of embarrassment are attempting to explain what

happened before and why. Frankly, although I cannot speak for that

delegation, I have had many delegations in my office, for the most part

British Columbians, and they are very much in support of what is

happening, and I'm sure they will be very pleased as they see things

unfold.

With respect to the question, yes, we have never said that we

wouldn't continue some sort of funding to these transition houses. We

were dealing with

[ Page 120 ]

grants earlier on. We've now said that we'll

deal with it by fee for service. This is a policy question and I'll be

making further information known in the not too distant future.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I am very grateful for the kind reception I have received in the House,

particularly from the opposition benches. I am instructed by my

colleagues that it is not likely to continue.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wouldn't say that.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Has the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) been at you already?

HON. MR. MAIR: I've had many of those, sir — some justified.

I have tried very hard during the last three or four days to observe

the procedures in the House, and I have noticed that there is a very

interesting procedure called the question period. I noted yesterday

that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose and made a

number of suggestions as to the conduct of two of my colleagues and

myself on last December 22 when we flew back to Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: 23rd.

HON. MR. MAIR: It was the 22nd.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: That makes error number five, Mr. Member.

During the brief time I have been in the House, Mr. Speaker, I did

not observe the hon. member question the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon.

E.M. Wolfe) nor the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. L.A. Williams) nor

myself on the subject that he raised. The suggestion, as you recall,

Mr. Speaker, was simply this: that the Province of British Columbia,

through these three ministers, had made some sort of arrangement with

the federal government with respect to putting the ICBC rates through

the Anti-Inflation Board and, more importantly, that our deal with

Ottawa concerning anti-inflation legislation was somehow contingent

upon this.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the question was not asked of any of the

three of us. On that trip, I was with the hon. Minister of Finance and

the hon. Minister of Labour for every moment of that trip, except one

and one-half hours during which we were given time to sleep.

I assume that the Hon. Mr. Macdonald did not disturb my colleagues'

repose. He did not disturb my repose. The Mr. Macdonald I am referring

to, Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Mr. Macdonald from Ottawa.

I assume that the hon. Federal Finance minister did not disturb my colleagues' repose, because he did not disturb mine.

MR. LAUK: Can we cross-examine?

HON. MR. MAIR: You're no good at it.

The fact of the matter is that the remarks of the hon. member for

Vancouver East could only be categorized as mischievous, patently false

and totally unfounded.

The hon. member has evidently taken the conjectures of a reporter —

who is entitled to make conjectures, and who, in fact, has as his

business the making of conjectures. The hon. member, however, has the

opportunity to ask questions. The hon. member, I am sure and sorry, has

the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to ask the questions in the House, an

opportunity not granted to the reporter. I would suggest that under the

circumstances his actions, to say the very least, were irresponsible.

Interjections.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Why don't you allow the Anti-Inflation Board to look into ICBC?

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Vancouver East....

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully...

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't ever have to say you're sorry.

HON. MR. MAIR: ...to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I ask the Speaker to remind the hon.

member that he has the opportunity of asking me questions once a day

except Friday, I understand.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who, I am instructed, is an accountant. I must

say that any success I owe in life is certainly due to better

[ Page 121 ]

accounting advice than we received in this

House yesterday. I understand the thrust of his remarks to be simply

that we had nothing to worry about on last December 22 because, after

all, a whole bunch of money was going to come in when the premiums came

in. Those moneys are no more or no less than trust moneys.

HON. MR. BENNETT (Premier): Right on!

HON. MR. MAIR: - Those moneys, by any reasonable insurance and

accounting practices, ought to be set aside for the payment of claims

and expenses and ought not to be used for the payment of previous debts

and previous claims. In due course, Mr. Speaker, following the hon.

member for Nanaimo's suggestions, you have to face the music. You can

not go on and on and on paying last year's debts out of this year's

revenues.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am indebted to my colleague. That is called "kiting" in some circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You'd be better off writing your own speeches.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, fortunately....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am grateful for the interruptions. I am told

that there is some rule about interrupting a person in his maiden

address, and I thank the opposition for not abiding by that rule. Let's

have more of it because you'll be around for a while and I'll be around

for longer.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the opposition yesterday talk — and I think

it's safe to say for the first time publicly — about subsidies. Now it

appears that automobile insurance ought to be subsidized.

Notwithstanding the carefully laid remarks of the hon. minister in

charge of ICBC, not withstanding the carefully documented remarks of

other speakers, it now appears after the event that a subsidy was the

idea after all. Notwithstanding all of the statements made in budget

speeches — and yes, I have read Hansard — and notwithstanding all of

the speeches made in this House by the Hon. Mr. Strachan when he was in

the House, it now appears that as an afterthought it wasn't supposed to

pay for itself after all. It was to be a subsidy. May I ask the hon.

members on the other side of the floor when the decision was made that

we were going to subsidize car insurance? When was it made and when were the people to know about it?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It was a bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: Apparently, if my friends on the opposite side

of the House...if their remarks are to be taken seriously, Mr.

Speaker, it was to be made clear to the people in the third year of

operation, not the first or second year.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Very clear. Very clear.

HON. MR. MAIR: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the excuse now,

the suggestion now, that ICBC was to be subsidized out of general

revenues is a pathetic and convenient excuse, and an afterthought at

the worst. I suggest that the opposition has not come up with one

single answer to the allegations made by the government that the whole

affair of ICBC has been a pathetic, contrived cover-up from beginning

to end.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has asked members of the back bench to

answer, and they have answered and they will answer again. But I'm a

new boy, I am in the same position they are. I came into the government

on December 22 last. Let me tell you what we found, Mr. Speaker. We

found an immediate emergency that required courageous and quick action.

We took that courageous action. We immediately appointed an actuary. We

were under the gun. March 1 was the day the premiums had to be paid and

we had to make our decision in the month of January. We made a decision

and I am proud to have been part of that decision. In short, we were

put in the position of having to act now or perpetuate an irresponsible

catastrophe.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what were the results of the action which this

government took? If you'll forgive the quotation marks, Mr. Speaker,

"spontaneous demonstrations". Spontaneous demonstrations by concerned

citizens.

Now in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, the orchestra leader of this

demonstration was a man named Corley, who happens also to be the

president of the NDP constituency organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MR. MAIR: Every single person, without exception, Mr.

Speaker, involved in the organization of these demonstrations in my

constituency was a member of the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, it's political.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 122 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: As a matter of fact, very few of them left after the last election seemed to be involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, what happened when these concerned citizens came to the steps of the Legislature?

AN HON. MEMBER: They sang "Solidarity Forever."

HON. MR. MAIR: "Solidarity Forever" is correct. Not only

that, they were addressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

King) who very carefully and courageously told them: "Don't throw the

rascals in the duck pond." The next moment they burst into the cabinet

room. This is the responsible leadership that we have been shown by the

opposition in answer to the catastrophe that they perpetrated upon this

government.

We know who the orchestra leaders are, ladies and gentlemen. Mr.

Speaker, I'm sorry. We know who they are, we know who orchestrated

these demonstrations, and we know that they're sitting right across

from us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the absurd

situation where the man who ran up the bills is now blaming the bill

collector. (Laughter.)

We have just gone through, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the most sordid,

shameful

chapter in British Columbia's governmental history, and the

responsibility therefore lies across the chamber from me in the

opposition ranks.

Mr. Speaker, they have not even had the courage to ask forgiveness. They have sought vengeance for their defeat instead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MR, MAIR: Oh, yes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: You ought to know, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: This amendment, Mr. Speaker, in closing, is

not worthy of any respectable opposition, much less any consideration

by this House.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I hope the member's....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes, I am indeed, and I hope the member's main

thrust was more accurate than the remarks he attributed to me. They

were patently untrue. I used no such remarks in addressing a group of

demonstrators in front of this Legislature, unless the member had a

crystal ball and perhaps read my mind. But there was no such comment

made by me.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would take more than a crystal ball to read your mind.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I may, with respect, reply to the....

MR. SPEAKER: Only if you're on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The phrase "don't throw him in the duck pond" is a well-known phrase

to those of us who have been involved in the law and to seeing how one

incites people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. I did not

attribute those words specifically to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there has now been a clarification by both sides of the House.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is apparently now doing more.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes. He's attributing to me the motive and the

action of inciting, and I ask the member to withdraw that. It's

patently untrue also.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has made his

statement and so has the hon. member who has just taken his place after

participating in this debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I will not agree with being accused of

inciting improper conduct or illegal conduct in this House. I ask the

member to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. member make that suggestion — of inciting?

[ Page

123 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I made no suggestion of inciting.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is for

me, as for other new members, a great privilege to speak in this House.

The opportunity of representing the people of Victoria in this

parliament is the highest honour which they could have bestowed upon me.

First, may I offer my felicitations to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your

appointment. As well, to the Deputy Speaker and to all the hon. members

who have come to this place to convene these proceedings may I extend a

warm and hearty welcome and best wishes on behalf of all the people in

this fair city.

I entered provincial politics out of a concern for the unchecked

growth of government. I believe that competitive enterprise must be

encouraged, not frustrated or replaced by state ownership and monopoly.

The ICBC mess is a classic example of the consequences of state

take-over, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the opportunity to debate the

opposition's motion.

When this government took office we were immediately faced with a

disaster in ICBC — the largest single loss of any corporation, either

public or private, in the history of British Columbia. The corporation

has taken in only half the amount of premium income required to pay

their claims, and total losses were $ 181 million.

The management of ICBC informed us that the corporation was broke,

that they had no money to pay $160 million in outstanding claims, nor,

indeed, even to pay the employees their wages. So we agonized, Mr.

Speaker, over a solution to this sad legacy the NDP left this province.

I say "we" because our entire caucus participated in the discussions

that led to the present programme for ICBC.

Allow me to repeat the basis of that programme. We agreed to pick up

the entire projected debt of ICBC to the end of the current fiscal

year, with a $175 million subsidy out of general revenue. This is so

ICBC can have a fresh start and pay its own way on a break-even basis

without having to carry the load — from the administrative incompetence

of the NDP government.

I emphasize "pay its own way", Mr. Speaker, because that is a solemn

promise made to the people of British Columbia by the previous

government, and this government is prepared to live up to that promise

even if they aren't.

We reduced the degree of compulsion associated with automobile

insurance to personal liability and property damage, and allowed people

a flexibility which will permit them to tailor their premiums somewhat

to their ability to pay. We provided for ICBC to finance premiums over

a six-month period in order that those with a little amount of

immediate cash could buy their insurance and continue to drive their

cars. We granted a 25 per cent discount for senior citizens and the

handicapped, and we asked ICBC to begin establishing a premium system

based on the individual accident record. Until now, those individual

drivers claims records have not been kept by the ICBC, and if they had,

this phase would begin immediately. Instead, ICBC must build those

records, and at the end of this year there will be rebates to those

under 25 who qualify with good records.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this may be somewhat repetitive, but I

think it has to be repeated. Obviously it's not getting through to the

opposition members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're pretty dense.

MR. BAWLF: There we have, Mr. Speaker, a sound, logical and

honest set of policies for a serious problem which was not of our

making. But wait, here comes the opposition charging to the rescue.

Never mind that they should have rescued ICBC themselves in government

about two years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know it was in trouble. They had no idea.

MR. BAWLF: A remarkable transformation has taken place, Mr.

Speaker. Suddenly the members of the former government have become

financial and administrative wizards. Funny we didn't see any hint of

this before. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: They have all the answers now, though.

MR. BAWLF: Now they have a better way to handle lCBC — in fact, several better ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now they say the rents are too high.

MR. BAWLF: In fact, they have almost as many better ways as they have hon. members, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: No pun intended.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I've never heard such a ragtag bobtail bunch

of hair-brained ideas in all my life. I'm really beginning to see how

this province could be in such a mess after just three years.

First we have the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) who, by

his own admission, is poor enough at simple arithmetic that his wife

won't let him handle the domestic accounts. But he's got

[ Page 124 ]

together with the former

Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) and they think they've got it right

this time, Mr. Speaker. They're ready to have a second try.

It goes like this: ignore the deficit; gerrymander the premiums a

little bit; borrow a little; invest all of it to earn lots of interest,

and just juggle the situation as long as possible, and presto! — what

have you got? The same mess as last year: $160 million in the hole and

$3 million earned in interest. That's not a new approach, fellows;

that's your old one, remember?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Popcorn politics: full of hot air.

MR. BAWLF: Anyway, after seeing their first try, the people

of this province aren't going to give the members of the opposition a

second try for a long long time.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are the members opposite who would like to

see the premiums set on individual driver demerit records. But, by

their own admission, the correlation between these and claims is shaky.

Compounding that, we have a half-million errors in the system that we

inherited from the NDP in retrieving the correlation.

Then, a moment later, Mr. Speaker, some of the members opposite are

talking about picking up the required increase in premium income over

last year by assigning the gasoline tax out of general revenue as a

subsidy.

Now if the correlation between demerit points and claims is shaky,

the correlation between miles driven and claims is worse. The minister

responsible for ICBC has already reported that nearly half of all the

claims come from the under-25 drivers. This age group represents, in

fact, a disproportionate share of the risks on the road. Yet most of

them do not necessarily drive more miles or consume more gas, if you

like, than any other age group.

Should an average driver from another age group, which are safer

drivers, pay the same for their insurance just because they have driven

similar mileage or are driving similar mileage?

Obviously the gasoline tax approach, which is proposed by one group

of members opposite, contradicts directly the individual merit approach

put forward by others. In any case the province doesn't collect enough

gasoline tax to make up the difference. Remember that last year the

excess of claims over premium income was $160 million. This is equal to

at least 20 cents of the gasoline tax per gallon.

Then there is the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the

smaller one, who believes that a wave of the resource-tax wand can do

away with the need for this year's ICBC rate increases. Thank goodness

he's no longer Minister of Industry. In an economic situation....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, in an economic situation such as the

province faces now, with friends like the hon. minister from Vancouver

Centre the province doesn't need any of the enemies referred to by the

mover of the throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Former minister.

MR. BAWLF: The former minister. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we've

heard all that stuff before from the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) about

how he was generating...

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. BAWLF: Yes, where is he? That's a good question.

... generating expanded revenues on which to base new spending out

of resource taxation. The facts differ, Mr. Speaker. During the NDP

term the proportion of provincial revenue raised by direct taxes went

up, not down, and it's higher than ever.

Now we've heard about the half-million dollar man in the north.

Well, we can move him over for the $ 100 million man who Victoria has

been reluctantly harbouring these past three years. The $100 million

man, you recall.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was the most expensive of the whole bunch.

MR. BAWLF: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, in

seconding the motion before us, Mr. Speaker, challenged me to comment

on the plight of the senior citizens in my constituency. Of the 65,000

people in my constituency, over 30 per cent of the eligible voters are

old-age pensioners; almost all are on fixed incomes and, as such, are

most vulnerable to inflation — inflation which, Mr. Speaker, is caused

more than anything else in this country by uncontrolled, profligate

spending by governments which are spending a combined total of well

over one-third of our national productivity, of our Gross National

Product annually.

This spending, as one hon. member has said, is like a blood

transfusion from one arm to the other, spilling half of it on the way,

and with shocking waste and extravagance — alarming trends which must

be checked if we are to lick inflation, and with that secure the future

of our citizens, especially those on fixed incomes.

The federal government has set a terrible example, doubling its spending programme since 1972. But

[ Page 125 ]

there is a worse example,

the worst in Canada to my knowledge: the Province of British Columbia

under the NDP government, which nearly tripled its spending in just

three years, leaving us with a deficit position in excess of half a

billion dollars.

For these people, Mr. Speaker, to suddenly discover inflation at the

eleventh hour, as a pre-election gimmick, is the height of hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BAWLF: The people of this province didn't buy it, and

we're not going to put up with it here on the ICBC question. The burden

of inflation upon the senior citizens and upon all the people of

this province concerns me deeply and it concerns this government deeply.

In seconding the motion before us concerning ICBC, the hon. member

for Vancouver-Burrard went on to one length about Mincome. Mr. Speaker,

in reply I would simply ask: is the former minister's concern about

inflation reflected in the fact that Mincome was not adjusted to

reflect the rising cost of living during their last 18 months in

office? The cost of living rose about 1 per cent per month during that

period — 17 to 18 per cent. His government increased their spending of

the taxpayers' money by about $1 billion. Why didn't the minister do

something for our senior citizens then?

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to use the money to subsidize ICBC.

MR. BAWLF: Now, Mr. Speaker, the opposition would have us

take $160 million out of general revenues for additional subsidies to

ICBC, at the least, on top of the $175 million which is already

committed from that source to clean up the staggering deficit they left

behind. A total of' $335 million taken away from the other services of

government in this province. What programmes, Mr. Speaker, would they

have us take this huge sum away from? To what programmes would they

have it take precedence? Should further subsidies for ICBC take

precedence over our plan to extend Mincome benefits?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR, BAWLF: Of course not. Should it take precedence over the removal of property taxes from the homes of our senior citizens?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BAWLF: Certainly not. Perhaps the hon. minister for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. minister for Revelstoke-Slocan could get....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ex-minister, ex-minister, double-ex.

MR. BAWLF: Member, I'm sorry.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. Perhaps the member

for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan can get

together and decide whether most of our senior citizens are hurting in

these inflationary times, or whether they're all millionaires.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): They never did get together before. Don't expect them to now.

MR. BAWLF: I'm sure they'll be glad to learn the verdict with

regard to property taxes. Should further subsidies take precedence over

our housing programmes?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BAWLF: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. acting

Leader of the Opposition say that this government is insensitive to the

problems of British Columbians buying land, an incredibly ironic

statement, Mr. Speaker, "incredible" as in lacking credibility totally.

Never has it been costlier or more difficult for a citizen of this

province to buy land for a home than in the past three years.

The former government, Mr. Speaker, brought in measures which

restricted lands available for new housing to an unprecedented degree

and no measures were taken by that government adequate to compensate

for the serious housing shortages which resulted.

I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the

allocation of funds. Where is the priority? As a result, the cost....

MR. SPEAKER: I don't wish to interrupt you, Mr. Member, but you must relate your remarks to the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. After watching the

members opposite at some length, I've been given to understand that

ramblings away from the topic were the practice in this House.

MR. LAUK: And you're very good at it.

MR. BAWLF: Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am following the precedent of the member for

[ Page 126 ]

Vancouver-Burrard who went on about Mincome at great length.

As a result, the cost of home ownership has been pushed beyond the

means of a whole generation of British Columbians. This is the tragic

legacy of the NDP government, Mr. Speaker.

Should further subsidization of ICBC take precedence over solving

these problems, Mr. Speaker? Thousands of young families with children

are stuck in inadequate rental accommodation, unable to afford a decent

home, with serious social consequences — in some cases, extending to

family dissolution and alienation and delinquency among our youth.

Shall ICBC subsidies take precedence over improved opportunities for

people to own their own homes? Of course not. Please note, Mr. Speaker,

my emphasis is on the word ownership. Ownership, not serfdom. That's

the difference between this government and the former socialist

government, Mr. Speaker. This government, is committed to restoring the

opportunity for home ownership after the disaster of the last three and

a half years, and to the extent that this effort requires government

financial assistance, Mr. Speaker, it deserves far higher priority than

further subsidies to ICBC.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech pledges that local governments

will become partners with the provincial government, sharing in its

growth and the growth of its revenues. This is to remedy the shocking

neglect of our municipalities by the NDP government, which brought many

of those municipalities to the brink of bankruptcy. Should more

subsidies for ICBC take precedence over cleaning up this mess, Mr.

Speaker?

In the time that the former government almost tripled its spending,

the municipalities received only token increases in financial aid. In

fact, those increases failed to keep pace with inflation. Then, of

course, there's the famous NDP joke on the beleaguered taxpayer, school

tax removal. Mr. Speaker, I'm in no mood for more subsidies to ICBC as

long as these burdens on my constituents remain.

Then there is the question of health care. On Friday we heard the

hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggest that we take a look

at the hospital services in Victoria, and he warned: "I hope you don't

get sick in Victoria." Amen.

We also heard a complaint during this debate from a member opposite

about misleading advertising. Consider this item for a moment: NDP

literature claiming that in their term of government they produced more

than 600 new hospital beds in the Victoria area. In fact, the number of

new hospital beds produced in Victoria was scarcely altered because

the former government embarked on a programme of acquiring beds that

already existed and renaming them. As a consequence of that meagre

programme there is today in the Victoria area a shortage of some 500

intermediate- and extended-care beds. Our two acute-care hospitals have

each had to give up over 80 beds for intermediate care. There is simply

nowhere else to send patients who have progressed that far. This

amounts to over 50,000 bed-days a year which are taken away from their

intended acute-care use.

People requiring surgery are having to wait months for admission.

Operating hours have had to be cut back and a first-class open-heart

surgery team has had to slow its activities because there are

insufficient beds for their patients.

If the former Minister of Health had been less concerned with plans

to build monolithic monuments to the medical millennium, such as the

B.C. Medical Centre, and lowered himself to a few modest human-scale

improvements, such as less-costly extended- and intermediate-care

facilities, he wouldn't have had to warn us about the hazards of

getting sick around here. As it is, he has made a lot of people sick of

socialist planning.

The NDP government emptied the province's medical plan fund — some

$50 million. Should NDP demands for further subsidies for ICBC now take

precedence over our health care facilities? Of course not. The throne

speech outlines this government's concern and priority for the people

of this province and for a balanced approach to serving their needs.

Our programme for cleaning up the NDP's ICBC mess must be seen in that

context.

The NDP members, Mr. Speaker, have failed to consider the

implications of siphoning more money away from Mincome, housing,

hospitals and other fundamental needs because they are obsessed, as

they have been all along, with hiding the true gravity of their ICBC

mess from the people of British Columbia at any cost.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cover-up.

MR. BAWLF: And for that reason this motion is wholly

irresponsible. Furthermore, the conduct of the members of the

executive council of the former government responsible for ICBC, as

related by the hon. Minister of Education...their conduct in

deliberately hiding the true facts of ICBC and deliberately hiding the

rates, the true cost in the rates, is entirely....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. member has said that members of the previous executive council deliberately hid something.

[ Page 127 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: True, true!

MR. MACDONALD: That would be deception, and he should

withdraw. He's been out of order almost all of his speech, but on this

point he should withdraw. Is he charging deliberate deception or not?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of your

interpretation, Mr.

Member, according to what you seem to think you heard. I didn't hear

this statement. Was there any assertion there that was a reflection on

the former administration in any derogatory manner?

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I will clarify my comments to make reference to the former government, and I will say that the activities

of the members of that government are reprehensible. I would conclude,

Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that we should be having more than one

by-election right now. We should be having a by-election in New

Westminster.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe the

House is entitled to a ruling by the Speaker on whether or not it is

acceptable in this House to refer to and accuse the government or

members of this House of deliberate deception. I believe that was the

assertion, and I believe we are entitled to a ruling on that point,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I heard no such statement. I asked

the hon. member who was on his feet, after the hon. member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose on a point of order, to clarify

this statement, which he has done publicly in front of the whole House.

I think that is as far as the matter needs to go.

But while we're on this matter, I would like to draw to the

attention of all members a practice which I don't think is in the best

traditions of parliament, and that is for members to rise on a point of

order, which in effect and in fact is not a point of order, after they

have been recognized by the Chair. So until I can listen to the point

of order I can't rule on it.

The other thing is that when a member is on his feet speaking, if

another hon. member takes exception to something that is said, the

tradition is for them to wait until the member who is on his feet

finishes his speech, and then gets up and asks for a retraction or a

withdrawal or a correction, if that's in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I take issue with that. I agree with

that

interpretation in terms of any disagreement with a point of fact.

But if it's a point of order, I think a member is entitled, under the

rules of this House, to rise on that occasion and draw the Speaker's

attention to the breech of the House rules.

1 would point out further, Mr. Speaker, that we have a Hansard in

this assembly now, and as earlier when I objected on a point of order

to a statement made by the hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr.

Mair), I submit again that Hansard will definitely show, as it will in

the case of the member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), that improper

allegations were made in violation of the rules of this House.

I wonder if at that point, if our position is substantiated by the records in Hansard , if the Speaker will request and demand a retraction from those members.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, who rose in the House on a point of order, there is no

objection to any hon. member rising on a point of order in the House,

but there is a distinction and a difference between rising on a point

of order and rising after a person has delivered his speech to ask them

to correct a statement.

The point seems to be with respect to a statement that was made by

the previous speaker. I didn't completely hear the statement. If there

is a statement that the hon. Leader of the Opposition can quote to me,

that you feel is out of order.... What was that statement?

MR. MACDONALD: That former ministers had deliberately misled this House, and he should have withdrawn it!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's true!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is a suggestion that you made

a statement that former members of the government deliberately misled

this House. Did you make such a statement? If so, will you withdraw it?

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making that

statement. If the facts bear out the opposition's view, then I will

withdraw any statement that imputes improper motive to individual

members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, first I

would like to deal with one of the less offensive remarks the last

speaker made. In his opening remarks he indicated that there had been a

[ Page 128 ]

caucus meeting, that all members of the government benches had had

an opportunity to participate in the decisions regarding ICBC.

That is a rather strange statement in view of the fact that it has

been established very firmly in press reports that the hon. member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said that she knew nothing about it, that

the first she heard of it was in the press.

Now I have not heard her deny this statement, and I'm wondering if

perhaps she was not included in that first caucus meeting when they

talked about ICBC. I had rather expected to see the member for North

Okanagan in the cabinet. I have a great deal of interest in agriculture

and I have followed her activities as critic of Agriculture at great

length. I think she did an admirable job. Yes, she did, and I'm rather

surprised to find that she's not in the cabinet.

I had expected to have a representative of one of the very few women

in the cabinet. We don't have that many women in this House. This is a

problem that bothers some of us women. We're more than 50 per cent of

the population, and yet we sit here with some six members in the House,

and it's rather unfortunate that the member for North Okanagan is not

in the cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the proceedings of

this House, not only on behalf of the constituents of Cowichan-Malahat

but on behalf of a constituency that has a long, proud history of

returning to this House a member of the democratic socialist party. The

traditions of Cowichan-Malahat go back to James Hawthornthwaite and

Parker Williams, to Sam Guthrie and more recently, Mr. Speaker, Bob

Strachan.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I dislike interrupting you, particularly when you are making your first speech on the floor of the House.

Could I suggest to you that your remarks must be in some manner related to the amendment that's before you?

MRS. WALLACE: They are, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will be presenting the main motion at some other time.

MRS. WALLACE: They are to do with that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as you relate them to....

MRS. WALLACE: They are related.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you tell me... ?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm coming to that part; I'm coming to that part.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. Sam Guthrie and Bob Strachan, the former member for Cowichan-Malahat.... .

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: ...now the Agent-General in London...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: ...and the former Minister of Transport who was

charged with the establishment of ICBC — the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia.

I'm coming to the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. WALLACE: I cannot think of an adjective vehement enough

to express my shock and my horror as I sat in this House during the

past few days and heard members of the cabinet and members of the back

bench get up and impugn the integrity and the honesty of a man who has

given 22 years of service to this province — as an MLA, Mr. Speaker, as

Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and as a member of the

executive council of the government of this province. A man who is not

here to speak out in his own defence...

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you speaking?

MRS. WALLACE: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of

political gimmickry being evidenced by members of the House is nothing

short of disgraceful.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Much of the social legislation that is written

into the statutes of British Columbia is there because of the vision,

the persuasiveness and the persistence of pioneers of the New

Democratic Party, including Robert Strachan, and I am proud to stand as

his successor.

I'm proud to speak out as he and others have done on the side of

social justice. Robert Strachan accomplished an almost impossible task

in setting up the largest insurance corporation in Canada. He set it up

in face of every possible kind of non-cooperation from the private

insurance companies — setting it up in the face of every kind of

negative criticism in the press.

We read stories of the gigantic line-ups that were going to be created, about people who would not be

[ Page 129 ]

able to buy insurance. But, Mr. Speaker, when the cards were down,

the transition into public insurance moved ahead without incident and

the citizens of this province were able to buy car insurance at a cost

they could afford. I say that the establishment of a government

insurance plan in a few short months stands as a monument to Bob

Strachan's ability, his determination and his drive.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the remarks that have been made in this House

are an insult to parliamentary democracy. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

no private insurance company could set up a brand new corporation the

size of ICBC and expect it to make money in its first or in its second

year of operation — not only to make money, Mr. Speaker, but pay off

all the deficits from its current operation.

This is a ridiculous assumption, Mr. Speaker. I suggest you can

prove anything with figures, and this government is trying to juggle

ICBC accounts to discredit the former government and the former

Minister of Transport.

Mr. Speaker, when a government says that automobile insurance is

compulsory — and that's what the former Social Credit government said,

and I agree with that — it should be compulsory.... But when a

government says to its drivers in this province, "Thou shalt have

insurance", then, Mr. Speaker, it's morally incumbent upon that

government to provide that insurance at a price those drivers can

afford to pay.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the action of this government

increasing the rates twofold and threefold is an immoral act. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government has forced many decent

law-abiding citizens to break the law, to break it because they cannot

afford to drive. Their very livelihood depends on driving to their

place of work; and I suggest there are many drivers out there driving

without insurance. If that is not so, Mr. Speaker, why is the insurance

company placing quarter-page ads in the press advising drivers that it

is against the law to drive without insurance?

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it's immoral of this government to put honest, hard-working citizens in this province in that position.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's all right, friends, I tangled with the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr., Phillips) before. You know, he was

parachuted into my riding during the election.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I drove up.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't really know why the member who was

running against me was afraid to meet at an all-candidates meeting, but

I first met the Minister there. Do you know, the minister had the

courtesy there to tell me that he thought I would make a very good

representative in this House. Then he added a very interesting thing.

He said whether or not I got elected. So, I'm a little bit used to

tangling with the Minister of Agriculture. I expect that we will tangle

a bit more before this House is over.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, to get on with the theme, so I won't be called to order

again, I'm shocked that this government in these inflationary times

would reduce the amount of compulsory public liability insurance —

reduce it to $50,000, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that in the case of a

major accident involving two or three cars, injury or death, $50,000 is

but a drop in the bucket towards covering the cost of such an accident.

And I suggest further, Sir, that it is the people least able to pay who

have been forced into buying this minimal insurance coverage. Those are

the people, if they are responsible for an accident, whom the injured

party will have to sue in order to get satisfaction. Those are the

people who are being forced into the position, if they cause an

accident, of facing garnishee of their wages for the rest of their

working life, and I suggest, Sir, that it's immoral for a government to

put people in that position.

Collision insurance is no longer compulsory, Mr. Speaker, and again

I suggest that there are many British Columbia drivers who know they

should have collision insurance who are driving without it because they

can't afford it — people who use their cars to go to and from their

places of work, Mr. Speaker, shift workers often, driving early in the

morning or during the night, times when the vagaries of weather can

cause conditions of extreme hazard, black ice for example. Those

drivers have to use their cars, because where I live, and I believe

where many of the other members of this House live, there are no buses,

no public transit to the mill and the other places of work, no buses at

any time and especially during the early hours of the morning, or for

workers coming off graveyard shift.

An accident can happen in a split second — no warning. You can find

your car wrapped around a power pole or jammed against a bridge

abutment, or, worst of all, slammed into another car. That's collision,

Mr. Speaker, and without collision insurance the repair or the

replacement of that vehicle is the sole responsibility of that driver,

a vehicle, Mr. Speaker, that is often his only means for him to get to

and from his place of work, a vehicle that is essential for him to earn

his livelihood. It's not a vehicle for pleasure driving, Mr. Speaker,

but one of the expensive kind, a work vehicle, and I suggest, Mr.

[ Page 130 ]

Speaker, that a government that allows economic pressure — or more,

a government that instigates that kind of economic pressure that forces

a person to drive without collision insurance — I submit that

government is an immoral government.

"Thanks for the memories." So sang the ads during the

last stages of the election campaign. Many others have some memories of

pre-ICBC days, days when private companies ignored the facts and tried

to argue both parties involved in an accident to accept 50 per cent of

the responsibility. That way, Mr. Speaker, both claims were considered

collision and both parties were obligated to pay the deductible portion

back in the days when, in order to get satisfaction, it was necessary

for injured parties to take their claims before the courts of this

province to obtain a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the callous approach this government

has taken to ICBC. They talk about freedom. What kind of freedom, I

ask. Freedom to sell their cars, freedom to walk to work, freedom to be

unemployed because we have no means to get to and from our job sites,

freedom to make ourselves vulnerable because we can't afford to

purchase adequate insurance. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that economic

freedom is a very real freedom, a universal freedom that countries

throughout the world are striving towards. And I submit further that in

a province with the resources we have in British Columbia, the

direction this government is taking — and ICBC is but one of many

things, Mr. Speaker — towards destroying economic freedom in this

province is, in fact, nothing short of disgraceful. Thank you.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would start my remarks with a quotation from the Financial Post

of 1973. The speaker is Dave Barrett, the former Premier of this

province, and he says as follows: "As socialists we will be hard-nosed

capitalists in business ventures."

It seems to me that that statement is very much the question today.

Much has been said in this House about the profits or losses, the

deficits or debits of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and much

of it is semantics. Much of it is subject to

interpretation of the

facts. The points are quite simple and the points are these.

In the year of 1975 the income of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia was approximately $161 million and the projected losses were

$325 million, leaving for the year 1975 a total deficit of $164

million. You may call this a deficit, you may call it a loss, you may

call it a debit — whatever. It's money the insurance company did not

take in and is therefore not able to pay out. Oh, indeed, we have a

$100 million line of credit at the bank; I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,

we've got a $1 billion line of credit at the bank. The Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia is backed up by the resources of this province, and I

should hope this province has a larger line of credit than merely $100

million. It doesn't mean we should go to the bank to pay for groceries.

During the last week I was visited by a delegation from the British

Columbia Federation of Labour, and they said to me: "You have to

maintain the 1975 rates for Autoplan. You can do it merely by putting

on an additional gas tax." I suggested to them, because the existing

gasoline tax is used to maintain highways and hospitals and schools,

that if ICBC were to be subsidized it must be by an additional gasoline

tax. They agreed.

Mr. Len Guy, a true heavyweight in the British Columbia Federation

of Labour, agrees with me. The insurance corporation rates were too

low, but he felt, and his delegation felt, that the losses of the

insurance corporation should be made up by an additional gasoline tax.

The difference between last year's rates and this year's rates should

not be made up by premium increases. Well, Mr. Speaker, it took very

little research to come up with some interesting numbers.

Last year, in the province of British Columbia, there were 770

million gallons of gas consumed. If we allow for 70 million gallons of

gas to be consumed in farm tractors and boats and other vessels that

use non-tax-paying gas, we come up with 700 million gallons of

gasoline. Divide that by the number of millions of dollars that ICBC

has a shortfall and we find out that we have to pay an additional 22

cents per gallon of gasoline just to cover the losses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this House about the unfair

treatment of the northern ridings, and my constituents would be the

first to agree that 22 cents on a gallon of gasoline is unfair taxation

to those people who live in rural ridings or who must commute great

distances to work. In fact, contrary to the opinion that many members

of this House have, we agree that, actuarially, accidents are caused by

the young people, specifically the young male between 16 and 25, and we

feel that they should pay the lion's share of the cost.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): There's no applause for that.

MR. ROGERS: I didn't ask for any. Now much has been said

about the fact that the young men are being charged these exorbitant

rates based on statistical analysis rather than the true facts. But we

know that it was on the instructions of the previous administration

that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia failed to keep records on

those drivers who had accidents. It was purely a political move to

insure the fact that very proper assessments of the rates would not

come about.

[ Page 131 ]

Much has already been said about the disparities and irregularities

of the rates. The drivers on the lower mainland who, like it or not,

have more accidents than those people who live in Victoria, do in fact

pay higher rates. Strange, indeed, how we have to pay our own way. How

very realistic. You have no idea of the numbers of my constituents who

phone me and say: "I can't understand why the automobile needs a

subsidy."

One of the reasons we are debating this subject today is because the

previous administration felt that the insurance industry was in fact a

rip-off. That brings me to a famous quote from a famous quotation. It's

from Tommy Douglas, so some of you in the NDP might like to listen to

this: "Canadians do not want to escape from the tyranny of big business

only to fall into the clutches of big government." It's too bad you in

the NDP didn't listen to your own man's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, there have been calls for Mr. Strachan to return to

this House. He is currently residing at 10 Waterloo Place in the City

of Westminster in London, England, and he can be here in 8 1/2 hours. I

happen to know, having made the journey several times. If it is the

wish of this House, I suggest we phone him — he's in the book,

In deference to the hon. minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), I would point out that Mr. Jimmy Carter, who is seeking the

presidential nomination in the United States, is in the peanut

business, so I suggest we now change it to a popcorn stand.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would leave you with a thought from a

famous quote, and that's from Sir John A. Macdonald. This applies to

the previous government: "Given a government with a big surplus and a

big majority, a weak opposition, you could debauch a committee of

archangels." Well, Mr. Speaker, they failed with the archangels, but

they debauched the economy and the people of the province of this

country.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, there are just a few

points I would like to make in support of this amendment relating to

the exorbitant, unnecessary and discriminatory increases in ICBC

Autoplan premium rates. The first one, as many of our members have

pointed out, is that the magnitude of the rate increase set by the

Social Credit cabinet, that is politically set...are far too high.

That's a point that many of our members have already made, but it is a

point that the Socreds themselves have admitted.

The Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), while professing to be shocked at almost everything

that took place during his few weeks in office, admitted to the Victoria Times

on January 27, 1976, that the rates were far too high and that a transfer of

funds from the consolidated revenue fund to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

was unnecessary. I'd like to quote the Premier's remarks as they were

cited in that Victoria Times newspaper article. The Premier said: "The

government decided to pay off the $181 million deficit left by ICBC's first

two years of operation, but that money will not be needed right away and ICBC

can invest it and make millions."

What the Premier is really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that his

government is depriving citizens of this province of needed revenues to

provide services and is saddling drivers with unnecessary premium

increases in order to make him look like a financial wizard just like

his daddy.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) stated that the new

rates were actuarially set, and that was absolute misinformation. Byron

Straight, the actuary who was appointed by the Socreds to the ICBC

board of directors, was forced to issue a disclaimer to the press to

save his reputation. In fact, he voted against the premium increases

because they were unnecessarily high and based on the most pessimistic

possible outlook for the corporation's performance.

If the rates weren't actuarially set, then we can only conclude they

were politically established and that it was the Social Credit cabinet

which interfered in the setting of the rates.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Who set the rates before?

MR. SKELLY: Now there's been some confusion.... You'll have an opportunity to speak on this amendment, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR, SKELLY: There's some confusion that the Social Credit

cabinet interfered with the setting of the rates. We've had some

differing information from members of your own caucus, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Speaker...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: ...that caucus was consulted in the establishing

of the ICBC rates. The member for Victoria who just spoke (Mr. Bawlf)

said that caucus "agonized" over the establishment of these rates —

if we were to believe the Member for Victoria. The member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf), in an

article in the Prince George Citizen said

that all of the caucus wasn't consulted, and that they should hold off

any decision on the premiums until caucus was consulted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did they tell you about

[ Page 132 ]

plan Z?

MR. SKELLY: If you can believe the member for Omineca....

We'll get to plan Z in a minute. Yes, it was brought before the public

accounts committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, it was?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, will you call your Premier to order, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Order! Control yourself, Billy.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Uncontrollable Premier; he can dish it out but he can't take it. A wild man!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Again, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) in

the Terrace Herald complained about the establishment of ICBC premium

rates, and he wanted to hold off the establishment and the finalization

of those rates until caucus as a whole was consulted. So we have three

different statements from three different members of caucus as to

whether caucus was consulted or wasn't consulted, Mr. Speaker, if you

can believe any of the members of that caucus over there.

MR. LEA: Is there an "in" caucus' and an "out" caucus?

MR. SKELLY: How many caucuses do they have?

At any rate, the Social Credit cabinet did interfere with the

establishment of those rates, and any statement by that group that the

rates were actuarially established is a complete and utter falsehood.

The only reason for increasing the Autoplan rates, and for changing

the rate structure, is to lay track for the return of foreign insurance

companies to British Columbia. It's a straight political payoff to the

donors of Social Credit campaign funds, a straight political payoff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that, the former member for Coquitlam?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Member, I don't have Dan Campbell write my speeches; I write my own.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The only reason for transferring $175 million

from consolidated revenues, dollars required for needed services in

this province, is to give the Socreds an excuse for cutting services to

people, to blame those cuts on the former government and to create an

inflated so-called deficit in the 1975-76 financial statement.

The Socreds have already stated that they will have to borrow up to

$400 million. This is twice the amount they require, Mr. Speaker —

because of the decision they made, a Social Credit decision to transfer

moneys from the consolidated revenues fund to Crown corporations.

As a result of decisions made by that government, decisions that

were not necessary to make, the citizens of this province, Mr. Speaker,

are going to be forced to pay double the amount of debt service charges

that they should be required to pay over the next many years.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Again, again.... Mr. Speaker, will you please call the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I remind you...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I remind hon. members that the Chair

cannot afford luxuries to any one individual that that individual would

not wish to extend to other members of the House? So I would remind all

members present to allow the member to continue with his speech. Thank

you very much.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

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

As a result, the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia will be

forced to bear debt service charges twice as high as necessary, and

again the people of British Columbia are being punished by this

negative, cynical government for their temerity in throwing the present

Premier's daddy out of office back in 1972.

But, Mr. Speaker, this type of action is characteristic of the

Campbell-Bennett government. One of the Socreds who spoke yesterday,

known more for his volume than the reliability of his information, said

that this was a negative opposition, negative because it was attempting

to prevent the

[ Page 133 ]

government from discriminating against people in the setting of insurance premium rates.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they may talk about a negative opposition, but

there isn't a single positive thing this government has done since it

was first elected to office on December 11, 1975. They've chopped

Mincome, Mr. Speaker. They've eliminated community resource boards

elected by the people. They've eliminated government services to women.

They've damaged the tourist trade by cutting back on the Marguerite

service. They've eliminated the commission discussing Indian cut-off

lands and instead they've attempted to piece off Indian groups by

negotiating one single land claim in order to pay off a political debt.

A totally negative, cynical, vindictive government, Mr. Speaker, and

nowhere is the Socred characteristic more evident than in its approach

to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

From the very inception of this corporation, that group, allied with

"the insurance companies doing business in British Columbia" — not

owned in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, not controlled in British

Columbia, but simply doing business here — systematically set out to

destroy the insurance corporation and to demoralize the people around

the concept of public insurance. Again, during the last election, they

launched an attack to discredit ICBC, and again they were financed by

the "insurance companies doing business in British Columbia" and again,

not owned in British Columbia and not controlled in British Columbia,

because there was only one insurance company owned and controlled in

this province. There was only one insurance company set up with the

capital and the labour and the initiative of the people here in British

Columbia, and that was the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

The Socreds, Mr. Speaker, with the help of the foreign insurance

companies, have systematically set out to destroy the company that our

citizens built and that our citizens own and control. That, Mr.

Speaker, is the betrayal of the work and the investment of our own

citizens in favour of outside companies. It's a traitorous attack on

the citizens of this province, and you should hang your heads in shame.

Mr. Speaker, it was suggested by the hon. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) that the directors of the Insurance Corp. of B.C. who

were members of this House during the 30th Legislature attempted to

cover up the losses of ICBC. That's another fabrication. There is more

information available on the performance of the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia, financially and otherwise, than there is on any other

insurance company doing business in this province. All members received

the annual reports of the corporation and they were tabled in the

House, and the hon. Minister of Education had an opportunity to

question the directors of the Crown corporation when they appeared

before the public accounts committee, a practice that wasn't always

followed by the government of the party of which he is now a member.

In fact, when the ICBC directors appeared before the public accounts

committee, which was chaired by the present Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) — and he was a very good chairman — the present Minister of

Education didn't choose to show up. He wasn't there to question the

directors of the public insurance corporation in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was he?

MR. SKELLY: He was a truant. And that's his only qualification to be Minister of Education; he was a truant from that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Premier had a document that he

submitted to that public accounts committee — I don't know if it was

Plan A, B, C or X, Y or Z — but he had a document that was an internal

document of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. I don't know how

he obtained it, possibly a briefcase lying around in some civil

servant's car. I don't know where he got that document, Mr. Speaker,

but I think this party on this side of the House would be perfectly

willing to submit documents such as that or to have documents on the

day-to-day operation of Crown corporations submitted for the perusal of

the public accounts committee if the present Premier would be willing

to change the terms of reference of that committee so we can scrutinize

the internal documents of Crown corporations. Perhaps he is going to

make that suggestion during this session.

In any case, at that public accounts committee meeting it was

announced by Mr. Norman Bortnick, the general manager of the Insurance

Corp. of B.C., and it was announced for all the public to see, that

during the start-up phase of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia,

losses could be expected for a period of six years. That's not

uncommon, Mr. Speaker, during the start-up phase, for a corporation to

lose money.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Certainly ICBC lost money over its first two

years of operation, and as Norman Bortnick indicated, losses could be

expected over the next four years. But compare the experience of that

corporation and the losses of that corporation to other industries, Mr.

Speaker, in these troubled economic times. There's the pulp mill that

was built in my riding at Gold River by the Tahsis Company. It was

built in 1966 at a cost of $50 million. That mill didn't turn a nickel

of profit until 1972. Yet nobody suggested that it be subsidized out of

consolidated

[ Page 134 ]

revenue. Nobody suggested that it be put into receivership.

It was considered a risk to be taken by that company during the

start-up phase of the pulp mill, and it was a legitimate expectation

that losses would be suffered by that mill.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): But not by the taxpayers, sonny. Not by the taxpayers.

MR, SKELLY: Let's look at the private insurance companies

doing business in North America in these troubled times, Mr. Speaker.

Compare the performance of other insurance companies in North America.

In the first nine months of 1975, and this is from Time magazine of

January 5, 1976, State Farm Mutual lost over $100 million in nine

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

$215 million in the first nine months of 1975. That's almost as much as

the premiums written by the Insurance Corp. of B.C.

In the total losses in the public liability and property loss sector

in the United States in the whole year of 1975, the underwriting losses

were $4,000 million, Mr. Speaker, and those insurance companies dipped

into their reserves to the tune of $3,000 million for total losses of

$7 billion in insurance in the United States. Look at the experience in

Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rip-off.

MR. SKELLY: Money that they got from drivers in the United

States...and don't you think those insurance companies are

cross-subsidized, Mr. Speaker? Don't you think that IT&T, Rayonier,

cross-subsidizes the Hartford Insurance Corp.? Don't you think money

taken from stumpage and revenues from the Rayonier Corp. in this

province goes to subsidize the losses of the Hartford Insurance Corp.?

Don't be silly. Of course they do. Those companies have to

cross-subsidize each other to minimize their losses in subsidiary

businesses.

Look at the experience of the insurance industry in Canada,

according to the Canadian Underwriters' magazine of April, 1975 — the

statistical information contained in that issue. In 1973 public

liability and property insurance lost $133 million across Canada. In

1974, the same year that ICBC lost $34 million, the private insurance

corporations across Canada lost $330 million. We do 10 per cent of the

insurance business in that area in Canada, so that loss is not bad in

comparison with what the private insurers suffered.

In fact, compared to these losses in the private sector, Mr.

Speaker, ICBC looks pretty good in spite of the fact that the Socreds

have attempted to confuse the issue around rates and deficits.

In summing up, I would like to say that the Socreds have interfered

politically with the rate structure of this corporation, and they said

they wouldn't. They overruled the recommendations of their own actuary

who voted against the rate increases because he felt they were

unnecessarily high and unnecessarily punitive. They lied in saying the

rates were actuarily based, and the real intent in proposing exorbitant

and discriminating rates is to destroy the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia and lay the tracks for the return of private insurance

companies to British Columbia.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Just on a point of

order, Mr. Speaker: I do believe the hon. member referred to members of

this government as lying, and I request him to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member referred to any individual in this House as lying, would you please withdraw that remark?

MR. SKELLY: I'll withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker, if it referred to members of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak

against the amendment presented by the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King) and the Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

The motion is against the oppressive auto insurance rates, not

against the oppressive insurance costs, which this government and the

hon. minister in charge of ICBC are trying to correct. I predict that

the cost of car insurance, under the new policy, will go down. I

predict that the added benefits will be far lower cost for the

accident-free drivers, and as the penalties rise for bad drivers there

will be an eventual saving in life, misery and property losses.

We are on the way to lowering the costs, saving the lives and

property, yet the opposition are unhappy. Their policy brought about

high costs, an ever-escalating accident rate and no penalties for the

ones who caused the accidents. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe

that the amendment is completely unnecessary, a smokescreen designed to

hide the true facts and where the true responsibility lies.

We will be lowering the cost of auto insurance, Mr. Speaker, and it

is less than honest for those members over there to infer that the

premiums paid to ICBC were the same as the costs. Yet the resolution

says: "We regret that the speech fails to relieve the motoring public

from oppressive auto insurance rates."

They go on to discuss the rates in the north and the interior as if

they were the highest in the province, but we know this is not true, as

this has been stated many times, and I know that the

[ Page 135 ]

opposition knows it is not true.

I would like to quote from the previous president of ICBC: "All

revenues to the funds are used to satisfy claims, to meet

administrative costs of the plan and to establish financial reserves

consistent with good management."

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that some people have difficulty

recognizing a debt when they see one, but how in the world can the

financial mess of ICBC be said to be establishing financial reserves

consistent with good management? A peanut stand would be too complex an

operation — too complicated, I believe.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when we get emotionally involved in a

subject it pays to sit back and consider what we set out to accomplish.

In insurance we set out to spread a common risk over a group of people

who all contribute to a common pot.

Insurance is not, in my view, a system which asks people who have no

risk — because they don't own a car — to pay into the pot to subsidize

the ones who require the insurance. That is what happens when money

from general revenue is used: the ones who have no risk pay part of the

costs. Insurance is not asking some people who have a common risk to

pay a great deal more than their neighbour. If we pay for the costs of

insurance by way of a fuel tax, then some people with a common risk pay

much more than others.

The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) referred to some

statements of mine. I want to thank her for it, as I had forgotten

about that discussion. I want to set the record straight about that

discussion. I want to set the record straight as to what I actually

said. I said that I thought the gas tax route for financing car

insurance was unwise for several reasons.

All of the increases in gas taxes incurred by those people moving

goods and services around this province would be passed on to the

consumers, many of whom do not own a vehicle and certainly do not need

higher costs for food, clothing or heating fuels. This method would

have caused unnecessary hardship for our senior citizens and those with

large families. The costs are borne by the amount of fuel you use and

not according to the risks and there would be no penalties for bad

drivers.

One of the greatest problems facing this province is to overcome the

lack of confidence we have experienced over the last three years due to

the NDP mismanagement of our affairs. We must get our economy rolling

again, and our truckers in the forest industry, our farmers and our

miners do not need an additional tax burden. A 20 cents a gallon tax

for our logging trucks would increase the operating cost for fuel alone

as much as $4,800.

I also said in that interview, Mr. Speaker, that the government

interference and government subsidies do not allow other insurance

companies to enter the insurance field, and thus they prevent the

people of this province from having an alternative. I will always try

to make sure that the people of my riding do have a choice — whether it

is a pound of beef, a loaf of bread, or automobile insurance.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I tried to find out, Mr. Speaker, where ICBC went wrong. We all know

that the rates were not set in a realistic or responsible manner, but I

was interested also in some of the land purchases that were made. I

found some very peculiar things happening in this department. A parcel

of land in Vernon containing two acres, more or less, was purchased and

registered on February 19, 1973, for $68,000. Just seven or eight months

later in October of that same year that same parcel of land was sold to

ICBC for $140,000, or over 100 percent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): By a rip-off Socred!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You'd better be careful, because there were some NDP-ers in there.

MR. BAWTREE: In Spallumcheen just a few miles from Armstrong

another piece of property — 17.75 acres to be exact. No highway

frontage, no particular assets, just a piece of rather poor farmland,

rather gravelly — and what should this land be worth, Mr. Speaker?

Adjoining land that was sold about the same time, there are several

examples: 66.9 acres for $160,000, or approximately $2,400 an acre; 10

acres for $15,000, or $1,500 an acre; another property — the Department

of Highways bought this one; it had frontage on it — seven acres for

$15,000, or $2,143 an acre.

From these examples it would seem to be pretty well established that

the price should somewhere be around $2,100 to $2,200 an acre. What did

ICBC pay? They paid $180,000 for 17.75 acres, or approximately $ 10,000

an acre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What kind of dealings are those?

MR. BAWTREE: It is doubtful that even with the inflated

prices of today we could realize more than half the price that ICBC

paid at that time.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that a person can go broke even selling peanuts if you pay too much for the land

[ Page 136 ]

you set your stand up on. When we see the irresponsible spending of

the people's money for land, when we see the first two years' losses of

$181 million, when we see that even after experiencing these losses the

government of the day, and more particularly the Premier and the

corporation directors of the day, took no steps to correct the

situation, but in fact tried to mislead the public into thinking that

all was well when in fact they were actually budgeting for a further

$159 million loss....

Mr. Speaker, there is a chap going around door to door in the wilds

of Vancouver East right now, hoping to get his old job back, when he

and all those responsible for misleading the people of this province

should not only hide their heads in shame, but should no longer

represent the people they so cruelly misled.

I regret that this amendment has been brought in because, in my

opinion, the majority of the province, the majority of the people of

this province, have accepted the new rates, and rather than discuss

something that the people of this province decided on December 11 last,

we should be getting on with running the province. We should be

implementing good legislation which will get this province moving again

and creating jobs. We should get this province moving again so that we

can have money for hospitals and schools and roads. I support the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when he says that these things

are more important than fixing bashed fenders.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of my main reasons for

taking on the responsibility of representing the constituency of

Shuswap was to do my utmost to ensure that my children and

grandchildren were not saddled with any more of our day-to-day

operating costs for running this province. This has been the case under

the gross mismanagement by those people over there as exemplified by

ICBC.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the

hon. member who just took his seat to withdraw the assertion he made a

number of times that the opposition in this House was less than honest.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Far worse than that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has brought to

the attention of the House an assertion that the members of the

opposition were less than honest. If such an assertion was made, would

the hon. member please withdraw that statement?

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to indicate

that the members over there intentionally misled the House, but if they

didn't then they obviously didn't know what was going on with ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the suggestion has been made that a

statement was made by yourself on the floor of the House. As an hon.

member, please withdraw it if you made such a statement.

MR. BAWTREE: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, in beginning my second

maiden speech (laughter) in this Legislature and speaking to the

motion, I wish first of all to congratulate you in your elevation to

the responsible position of Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. I am

addressing my sixth Speaker of the House, and I am happy to say that

the previous five Speakers were indeed dedicated, devoted, unbiased

Speakers of the House. At this moment, speaking for the majority of the

members of the Legislature, I know that you will perform your duties

just as justly as your predecessors.

Mr. Speaker, you happen to be the first real northerner elevated to this position.

Just for your information, by many phone calls people have asked me: "Did

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition oppose a northern member?" I said: "Yes,

they fumbled again." Yes, they did. (Laughter.) There's a heck of a

lot of good northerners, partner. No thanks to those guys over there.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): One or two southerners, too.

MR. CALDER: I also extend my congratulations to the Member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) for his appointment to the Deputy

Speaker of the House. I feel greatly for my friend because for 13 years

I spent most of my life trying my best to educate myself in that

particular area. I feel quite highly for his appointment.

I also congratulate the new members of the House, and I think I am

one member who can truthfully say that sincerely. I know that they will

find their participation and contribution to the House most challenging

and I know that they will feel greatly in this respect in the years

they will serve in this House.

On the motion, Mr. Speaker, I feel quite depressed to participate in

it because it appears to me that the opposition in its presentation of

this motion is just making an excuse for what has happened and what

they have created during their term in office of three years in this

province. I really don't feel quite hepped up to participating in it,

but at the same time I feel that I must participate to bring up a few

points in it.

First of all, I must thank the opposition for this motion, and I'm

going to thank the opposition in advance for many motions that they are

going to

[ Page 137 ]

present on the floor of this House. It has been promptly printed by The Vancouver Sun that this is going to be a session of a deficit. As far as I'm concerned, this is going to be a session of opposition excuses.

MR. GIBSON: I thought you voted for ICBC.

MR. CALDER: Not only that, it's going to be a session of many

things. We've already heard from some of the members coming forth with

their 12-year-old remarks — not parliamentary. We're going to hear a

whole lot of it. I can hear it from the front benches all the time. I

have been here for many years and I hear this crap all the time. This

is what we're going to be getting. After what they've done...without my

knowledge and without the knowledge of the back bench in that party

when I was a party to it.

MR. GIBSON: The same thing is going to happen to you too, fellows. So don't applaud too loud.

MR. CALDER: Get off it!

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that these things we're hearing now,

particularly from the front bench, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the whole works of

them, particularly this chap here, Vancouver Centre.... He was used

particularly as a front for the cabinet last year to fly over the

province and make statements: "We're going to do things. We're going to

do this. We're going to do that." You know. I wish my colleagues here

would listen to the way he is going to present his little case.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Smokescreen.

MR. CALDER: And it is a little case, little remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little chirper.

MR. CALDER: Well, I'm going to sit here and I'm going to

listen to all this. For a change in all my years in this House I'm not

going to sit back there and listen to it. You're going to hear my

voice. Big mouth excuse — that's what they're going to give. And I've

got a bigger voice than they have. You'd better believe it. This excuse

they're going to relate to ICBC and everything else is a big mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you please relate your remarks to the amendment?

MR. CALDER: I'm going to. I'm just getting into it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate the fact that this is his maiden speech in the House; that's why I'm being so lenient.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, when I turned the page, again

referring to ICBC.... You know, Mr., Speaker, on the question of ICBC,

perhaps one of the first frauds presented by the opposition, when they

were in power, was when it presented to the people that the premiums of

ICBC were going to be $25.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CALDER: Somewhere along the line the civil service was

paying that. Then my good friend, who was sitting in your seat, Mr.

Minister, Bill Hartley, had issued to the public that it was going to

be $25. The party of the opposition picked it up and it went along with

the fact that it was going to be low all the way through. The fact that

they were going to preach this to the public was where they made the

mistake, and they sold that to the public in 1972. Damn it! The public

bought it!

I must say that we got elected on that ICBC criterion that this was

going to be the price. And I was a member of that party then.

I am going to say this emphatically, Mr. Speaker: it was on that

particular point that the party got elected. There was no other. You

can name any social one, two, three, if you wish, but that automobile

insurance, practically the only one left in the party programme, they

had to programme as its No. 1 priority.

I, as the member for Atlin, went throughout my own constituency and

I programmed that as my priority, and I won that election on that

particular point. We have many points in that isolated constituency,

but that happened to be the No. 1. Believe me, it was No. 1 in many, if

not all, of the constituencies in the province.

Well, today we look at this mess that we are now in. I can't

understand how we got into this; I really don't. I do not wish to....

Interjection.

MR. CALDER: Well, for all I care they can interject because,

after all, I've been over 20 years with the party, and I can't

understand how this mess got into a mess. I couldn't understand it.

I now conclude, and it might be in the eighth

chapter of my book,

that one of the reasons why I couldn't understand it was because the

cabinet didn't communicate with the back bench. I don't give a hoot

what those people say. There was no communication between the cabinet

and the back bench. They couldn't trust or have faith in the 18 members

of which I was a part.

[ Page 138 ]

Why was it that they didn't communicate? It's very simple — they had

no faith in us. Leaks? Oh, yes, they feared there might be leaks.

Interjection.

MR. CALDER: Oh, yes. The tentative leader can smile and

laugh. As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, you are a good friend of mine

and I don't know what chance you have, but please don't laugh.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: A part-time leader.

MR. CALDER: I really don't know. All I know is your present

carpetbagger. He's brought back for only three reasons — the fact that

they blame Bob Williams for the election and they've brought him back

for the word "stop Rosemary Brown." That's why he's coming back; that's

why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest you get back to ICBC now.

MR. CALDER: Hon. members, to go back to ICBC: it's a mess in

ICBC and I relate the mess to the leadership convention. The wife of

the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), she's not happy. Nor is the

member for Vancouver — is it Centre?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the leader of the NDP?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rosemary!

MR. CALDER: In any event, Mr. Speaker, that's the way it is.

Hiding, just the way they're hiding the fact that there's a mess in the

party and the mess that's going to be had in the leadership convention

is just as much, if not more, a mess as what they did with so many

Crown corporations and in the whole status of finance in this province.

There was an instance in which my present leader demanded an inquiry

in the finances of this province, which foremost had to deal with what

the heck was happening with ICBC. I'm going to say this: it was

absolutely beautiful last fall when Trudeau, the Prime Minister of our

Parliament, indicated that there was going to be an anti-inflation

programme. It played right into the hands of the Premier of this

province because before that, he already knew that we were in a mess.

This was a gift to him, only he didn't know how to play politics in it.

He said that on October 24, 1975, just last fall. Then earlier this

year, measures were taken to slow public expenditures with a view to

reducing inflationary pressures. Subsequently, to preserve essential

services to the public and maintain the forward thrust of the economy,

Bill 146, the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, was passed. The

leadership we demonstrated by this action brought an end to work

stoppage 1n certain key industries for a 90-day period, to allow for

negotiations settlement in these disputes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read you my campaign talk on December

8, 1975, which I issued to a little town in my constituency called

Canyon City. I said:

"Frank Calder, Social Credit candidate in Atlin said

in a meeting held in Canyon City Monday night that the reason why

Premier Dave Barrett called a winter provincial election is because the

government is broke."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR.CALDER:

"Mr. Calder suggested that during the early fall the

Premier's financial advisers had indicated to him that the finances of

the provincial government were reaching a state of embarrassment — for

one thing, due to labour tie-ups in the forest industry, and because

very little revenue had been realized from the mining industry. The

Atlin candidate said that it was because of this unfavourable financial

situation that the Premier of the province was forced to call a brief

fall session and order the workers back to work. Labour was used as a

pawn."

Now I'm going to say this, Mr. Speaker. It was just about that time,

trying my best to be a little good observer, that I smelled something

was wrong. Here I'm just a member of the back bench; I'm trying to

figure things out. I hear about ICBC. I talk with Strachan to find out

what was going on. There was nothing presented to me or anybody else.

If it was presented to any of the back bench there, I have no knowledge

of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cover up! Cover up!

MR.CALDER:

" 'It was pertinent to this, ' " Mr. Calder added, "that he charged the Premier with being anti-labour.' "

That's why I said it; I was truthful. I tried my best to be.

"The Indian candidate for this riding said that

several departments of government required an immediate investigation

for mismanagement of funds. He named the departments of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources; Human Resources; ICBC; Public Works; Municipal

Affairs; Mining and all the Crown agencies.

[ Page 139 ]

"Mr. Calder stated that if Social Credit became

government on December 11, the new government will certainly take

several years to correct the mismanagement created by the NDP

government.

"Mr. Calder said that the current promises made by the

NDP to the electorate are nothing but desperation promises, because

there's no sound financial backing to guarantee these promises. He

posed a query: where is the money coming from? For instance, what would

create housewives' pensions? And where is the guarantee for all this

northern development... "

And this northern development certainly is relevant to this ICBC.

"...where there was no money available?

"He said that all these were repeats from Barrett's speeches of 1972."

1 travelled with him and I heard those speeches. He repeated that

the reason why the election was called was because the Barrett

government was broke. He said that if everything was rosy, the election

would not have been called at 50 below zero.

"Mr. Calder indicated that Premier Dave Barrett had

not said very much about the inflationary programme nor about the

guidelines that may solve the inflation. But rather he has said

everything else to cloak his empty budget."

And that was my statement.

I faced that throughout the country, especially in terms of ICBC.

And when the terms were set...and this would interest me. You know,

they'd all get up and say: "Hey, get up and say something, you guys

from the north." You're damned right! I said a hell of a lot of things

over the telephone, boys!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that the phrases you just used are quite unparliamentary. Will you withdraw them?

AN HON. MEMBER: I withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CALDER: Then these phone calls came in, and I made these

phone calls: what about this subsidy, this territorial subsidy and

discounts? This is what they were bringing up yesterday. I've got some

pretty bright people who own cars in that riding up north. They said to

me: "My gosh, we know that somebody has to pay for this bloody mess."

Oh, excuse me — the bloody mess.

Your riding, Mr. Member, your riding, Mr. Speaker — Omineca, Skeena

and mine.... Oh, come on now, I've been dedicated to that phone call.

For heaven's sake, give me

your criticisms. I've had some bad replies, but I can truthfully say,

and I've been truthful in this House.... I would say that a good

majority have said: "My God, we know that we have to pay somehow. We

know what happened. We know what happened." If they killed industry —

next like forestry and mining — no doubt they'll kill that too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CALDER: The very same people were the ones who assisted

me. I didn't do anything on my own to be on this side of the House; I

was greatly assisted by the people who said: "Frank, you move!" And I

moved.

On this motion, Mr. Speaker, maybe first of all I have to thank my

former colleagues. But, for heaven's sake, I hope they don't introduce

another motion like that one. It's devastating. They have lost ground

on this motion. Every time they introduce a motion relating to finance,

every time they open their mouths, we are going to throw something in

it.

I have the greatest respect for the party. My gosh, they gave me my

opportunity to be in this House, and I'll never forget it. Some of the

greatest politicians that have come on the floor of this House — the

Winches and I'll say the McDowells, good men. The Bergers...but after

the Bergers they discredited the party. Some of the people who have

built this party can turn in their graves for the misrepresentation of

the party that has represented us. Like our member who heads CBC has

truthfully said, this was a misrepresentation of facts.

My gosh, as a matter of fact I have been sitting here so many days

and ever since I resigned from the party, not because of my friends

there but because of a carpetbagger.... I've got no fight with these

boys there. No way. But somebody else waved their little finger in my

face, and the Little Chief is not going to back down. I'll fight.

So I'm back in the House — a great thank you to the people of the

north and believe me I did a lot of investigation on ICBC, and, my

friends, I know you have. All those members of the north are in

agreement about this because somebody had to pay for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CALDER: Really, sometime I'm going to tell you how Leo

Nimsick, my little buddy, got knocked out. It was all the time on this

question of ICBC when a guy came into my office and said to me: "I'm

going to get rid of Leo and I'm going to get rid of Strachan and I'll

give you a job in Japan." You come to me one day and I'll tell you what

happened. He wanted to put me in.... But I said: "Buddy, I'm

[ Page 140 ]

going to fight you." My friends here don't know about that. If I

ever write a book I'll make Judy La Marsh's book look like a peanut.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say this....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the big seller?

MR. CALDER: I have said something about that north. They

demanded it but there isn't anybody on that side of the House that's

going to tell me to get up. I am a member of the Atlin constituency.

Some screwball said to me one day: "I have no confidence in you." But

on December 11 somebody said to me — a great many of them — "we are

returning you with a vote of confidence."

I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker. I'm here on a new ball game and you

bring up the subject. You name the subject. Right now it's ICBC, and

I'm going to tell you that ICBC is supported by the northern people;

make no mistake about that. They know that somebody has to pay and I'm

here standing on their behalf to say that that is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, this is all I'm going to say. I'm going to close my

remarks while I'm standing on my feet, just for one minute. I've never

yet had a hello from anybody on that side. When somebody said, "I got

no use for you," ever since then none of those people have ever said

hello to me in the corridor.

Please say hello to me because I'll say hello to you, I'm going to say: "Peace, comrades, peace."

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect to

make my maiden speech with ICBC. I have a maiden speech written out

that I will use later on, I hope. However, I'm going to add a little

more to ICBC and to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member from Vancouver Centre kept

remarking about the automobile dealers. I would like to remind him that

if it wasn't for the automobile dealers there would be no discussion or

argument about auto insurance.

MR. LAUK: There'd be no Haddads either.

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon.

first member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for his

excellent report on ICBC. After listening to his report, I felt the

hon. members on the other side of the house would be delighted to have

finally found out what ICBC was all about and what a mess Mr. Strachan

had created.

Mr. Speaker, in my personal opinion ICBC should never have been

started, as no government business venture can