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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

27 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. King — 27

Mr. King (amendment to motion in reply to Speech from the Throne) — 41

Mr. Cocke — 42

Mr. Gibson — 48

Mr. Wallace — 52

Division on motion to adjourn the House — 54

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today, perhaps not at this precise moment but

within the next few minutes, we will be honoured by the presence of

Mayor Ron Andrews of the District of North Vancouver, who is also

chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Municipal

Finance Authority. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, to you and to

members of the House, that the Municipal Finance Authority of British

Columbia is holding its annual meeting in Victoria today, and

representatives from all regional districts in the province are

gathered here for those business sessions, and, indeed, we may have

other members of the MFA with us this morning.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the galleries Carl Liden, a once and future member of this assembly.

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

pursuant to the words of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would

like to add my welcome to Mayor Andrews, who is not only the

distinguished mayor of one of my municipalities but a very honourable

and worthy opponent in two elections.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House

to welcome a group of ladies in the gallery this morning. They're from

my constituency and they're enrolled in a pre-employment orientation

programme for women. They're with their most capable instructor, Gladys

Craft.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to acknowledge the presence of my wife, Judith, and my parents,

who have travelled here from California and eastern Canada — not from

two different places at one time, but they reside in both areas. I

would like to indicate they are in the Speaker's gallery today.

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

Speaker, I beg leave to present the Price Waterhouse Associates report

on the B.C. Ferries, entitled: Review of 1976-77, Estimates of Revenues

and Expenditures.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I would at this

time like to extend my congratulations to the Premier and his

government for their success in the December 11 election. Although

indeed it was a hard-fought election, the people have registered their

preference. Certainly the official opposition recognizes that fact and

congratulates the Premier on his success at the polls.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and welcome to the

House all the new members and also those who were successful in a

return to the House, but particularly the new members during the

December 11th election.

I am looking forward with interest to hearing from all the new

members. I think one of the interesting things that follows a general

election is to learn the style and the approach of all new members,

both on the government side and in the opposition. I'm certainly

looking forward to that.

I would like to congratulate the mover and seconder on their

presentations, their maiden speeches, and I think they gave a good

account of themselves. I'll have something to say about the content of

what they had to say a little later on, but nevertheless the

presentation was very impressive.

I'd also like to acknowledge the fact that our group is extremely

disappointed at the loss December 11 of our leader, the former member

for Coquitlam, Dave Barrett. We do trust that he'll be back with us

again.

We have a by-election that, hopefully, will be coming up, that will

be called very expeditiously, because we're certain that now the legal

requirements of calling by-elections have been drawn to the Premier's

attention there will be no further undue delay. I am sure the Premier

and his government would not want to give the impression, as it has got

abroad during the election campaign and at other times, that he has any

reticence about facing the former member for Coquitlam across the floor

of this House. I can understand some anxiety, but I think perhaps he

can bolster his courage and call that by-election very soon so that we

might have a very worthwhile member of this Legislature back in the

House. I think the people of British Columbia deserve that.

I must acknowledge the loss of our second member for Vancouver East,

Bob Williams. I view that as a temporary thing. I am sure it will be

viewed by the people of British Columbia as simply a sabbatical. He

will undoubtedly also be back with us after the next general election.

Mr. Speaker, I recall the former member for Nelson-Creston, good old

Wes Black — I'm sure a lot of you know him. He used to use the occasion

of a

[ Page 28 ]

new parliament to make some

awards. I think it is perhaps propitious that I should emulate that

rather esteemed member of this Legislature and make a few awards of my

own, because I think some are richly deserved — you know, judging from

some of the statements and the actions of new members of the executive

branch of government particularly. I'm not going to hand out physical

awards as Wes Black used to do, but I would like to at least give

acknowledgements with what I think would be appropriate tokens to

distinguish certain members of the cabinet.

First and foremost, I regret that the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) is not here this morning. I think he should be because he's

No. 1 on the list. I'm concerned about him. I'm concerned about the

advice that's going forth throughout the length and breadth of this

province that certain foreign bodies should be inserted in the ear of

that minister. (Laughter.) That concerns me, and I would suggest that

he richly deserves a pair of earmuffs to protect those sensitive ears

from the intrusion of objects which the public generally is suggesting

should be crammed in his lobes. (Laughter.) I think at the same time he

probably deserves a shoe-horn, you know, so he might be able to have

some help in extracting his delicate foot from his mouth.

The Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) has termed his remarks "unfortunate,

" and I wonder about one of the campaign pledges of the Social Credit

government in the last election. One profound promise was that the

Premier would rotate cabinet ministers. I would suggest that from the

performance so far, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is

going to be rotated very quickly. So there's still hope, I say to the

member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). There's still hope, there's still hope; stay

alert, stay alert.

The member for Surrey, the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) is high on the list too. I do have a shovel for the

Minister. It's a large shovel. I didn't want to present it in the House

but I will send it up to his office. I'm going to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that that shovel, which a large group of British Columbia

citizens asked me to present to the Minister, still has stuck to the

blade of it some of the vestiges of the Social Credit propaganda from

the last election campaign; so I think the Minister will recognize it

when it arrives. I'm sure he will. And I think it's a token of the kind

of foolish statement that the minister made which casts some aspersions

on people who are less fortunate than he, and most of us, in the early

stages of his administration.

Now the Premier, I think, needs a little help too. I think the

Premier needs a little bit of protection, Mr. Speaker, because certain

members of his cabinet have indicated that they consider their post

just a temporary stepping-stone to the lofty position of his office;

and I'm sure that he's going to be watching his back very closely

throughout this session. I was considering obtaining for him, if I can

locate one, a bullet-proof vest with all of the armour mounted in the

back, because I think he's liable to need that too.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): This is not the NDP.

MR. KING: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), that

sound business administrator, the one that is going to tightly

scrutinize and be prudent in the dispensation of public funds, turns

out to have a bit of a problem. And I'm thinking of providing her with

a new rubber stamp. Apparently the one she has now only reads

"Approved". I think she should have another rubber stamp marked "Not

Approved" so that she can go about her mechanical duties and protect

the interests of the citizens of this province a little more

effectively.

I have a couple of crying towels to send down to the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) .

I'm sure they were disappointed. And it's quite a slap in the face to

long-time loyal members.... Or Skeena — I beg your pardon.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Skeena.

MR. KING: The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). I feel bad for them and I'm sure that many of the people of...

MRS. JORDAN: You're all mixed up.

MR. KING: ...British Columbia feel bad for them, because it's

pretty shabby recognition of their contribution to that party when they

are shunted aside by new boys and new girls from the heart of

Vancouver. I think they deserve some crying-towels.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Send them to the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: The Minister of Health.... That would be the final irony, wouldn't it? — membership in the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Exchange is fair play, I guess.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), I think, deserves

recognition. I'm thinking of sending to the Minister of Health a nice

bright shiny new detective's badge, because he is apparently able to

unearth by his unusual sleuthing talents problems in the community of

Victoria that even the police

[ Page 29 ]

department is not familiar with — and doesn't believe. So I think,

as a recognition of his ability, we should provide him with a new

detective's badge.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), I think he's got

something too. He's been demanding apologies of people within the

industrial relations world. I think it would be appropriate if we

presented him with a nice padded stool so that when they arrive at his

office they can kneel and bow and apologize humbly in front of him. I

don't know whether he got that apology, Mr. Speaker; but I think the

token would be appropriate.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Yes.

MR. KING: To go from the less serious things perhaps for a

moment and to deal with what is referred to as the throne speech, I

don't expect to take too long dealing with this document because

there's not really too much in it. It's a flimsy document, I think,

generally containing very vague promises and, interestingly enough,

only a few of those promises which were put forward during the election

campaign by that party. I'd like to browse through it, Mr. Speaker, and

simply give some of my reactions and the reactions of my party to

certain issues which we think are of significance in the throne speech.

I find it somewhat ironic that members of the Legislative Assembly

are apparently facing a cut in their salary while at one and the same

time staff employed by ministers, by government in their offices —

executive assistants and so on — are apparently remaining at the

existing level. Indeed, those levels have been boosted in some

respects. I find it rather insulting to members of this assembly when

an MLA who is duly elected by the people to represent his constituency

and to shoulder all of the problems and all of the workload that goes

with representing ridings, many of them rural, many of them a long

distance from this capital, many of them spread out, containing more

than one community.... I find it insulting when the proposal is to cut

that salary from $24,000 a year while at the same time employing such

people as Arthur Weeks, whose conduct can certainly not be viewed as

exemplary when he acted for that party previously at a salary of

$29,000 a year. Some young lad, who has already been embroiled in a

controversy over certain improprieties, is apparently placed higher on

the scale of values by the Social Credit government than duly elected

members of this Legislature.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that not only the opposition but the government

backbenchers should be insulted by that kind of assessment of the role

that MLAs play in this House. I say they should be insulted and I say

that they should speak out and let their views be known on this matter

too.

I note in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, that the government

promises to rekindle the provincial economy, provide programmes that

will encourage individual enterprise and create new job opportunities.

My question is: when is that going to start, Mr. Speaker? Thus far we

have seen a government obsessed with continuing to fight an election

that was held on December 11, with equivocating about political issues

in that election campaign as a justification and as an excuse for not

getting on with the job that they were elected to do.

We have seen unemployment rise just this week to the extremely high level — a record level — of 8 per cent in this province.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): More than that last year.

MR. KING: There is nothing in the throne speech that promises....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your facts straight.

MR. KING: There is nothing in the throne speech that promises

to ease that burden, to recognize the hardships that thousands —

thousands — of British Columbians are facing. Indeed, the converse is

true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better get your facts straight.

MR. KING: Indeed, the converse is true. Steps that have been

taken by this government thus far seem more calculated to compound and

create more problems of that condition than to ease it in any way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You'd better get your facts straight.

MR. KING: We have seen, Mr. Speaker, the tremendously

inflated increase in the cost of automobile insurance, costs that have

escalated so high that many young people throughout the length and

breadth of British Columbia have had to tie up their cars rather than

purchase insurance and plates. The result has been that, in dozens and

dozens of small towns throughout this province, dollars that should

have gone into priming the economy — to purchasing merchandise,

foodstuffs, clothes, many luxury items — have had to be diverted to

that higher, unusual cost of automobile insurance.

This has had a depressing effect upon the economy of the local

communities and created more unemployment. Indeed, when we look at the

record of policy pronouncements by the government, we find the promise

of vastly inflated and vastly increased costs for pretty well all

public services, not only automobile insurance: the promise of increases

[ Page 30 ]

in the B.C. Ferry rates, the promise of increases in transit rates,

railway fares and so on. Virtually every area where the government is

responsible for extending a service to the public is faced with highly

inflated costs — this at one and the same time, Mr. Speaker, that this

government is asking for the cooperation of trade unions, is asking for

the cooperation of the small business community to keep costs down and

to ease the fires of inflation. I say that it's a double standard, Mr.

Speaker. It's a complete double standard. I think this government

should be ashamed of their performance thus far.

I see nothing in the throne speech that comes to grips with or

offers any proposition — any encouragement — for programmes which would

ease the unusually high level of unemployment in this province now or

in the immediate future. I think that's an insensitivity to the

suffering of hundreds of thousands of citizens throughout the province,

because hundreds of thousands are involved, not only those who are

directly unemployed but all of their families too.

I note that the government has a commitment during the term of its

mandate — and that's anyone's guess when it will be. It was more

specific than that in election promises during the campaign, but all

the way through there's some vague promise, during the mandate that

they are proposing, to remove taxes from homes for senior citizens aged

65 and over. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's some debate as to the wisdom of

that kind of move. I think it was the leader of the Conservative Party

who pointed out that this is a provision that would remove a source of

public income — quite a considerable source of public income. It would

mean that millionaires who are quite able to pay property taxes, quite

able to afford homes — indeed, luxury homes — would be relieved of the

need to do so and, consequently, the loss of income to the provincial

coffers would be significant.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I don't know when this is going to happen, Mr.

Speaker. I don't know when this is going to happen. The proposition is

that these taxes will come off. But when I look at an advertisement

that was carried in the Victoria Times on November 12....

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Which year?

MR. KING: It was '75.

MR. KING: I find this headline curious, Mr. Speaker. It says:

"No Property Taxes on Homes of Those 65 and Over" — no property taxes.

No provincial income taxes for those 65 and over on incomes up to

$5,000. No mention of a means test; no mention of a means test

whatsoever. This is what was promised in huge, red headlines to the

people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Communists!

MR. KING: I see nothing about that in the throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's misleading.

MR. KING: I hear talk now about stringent means tests that are

going to be applied in almost every department of government before any services

to people will be available. I want to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, whether

or not he considers this a fair kind of election pitch to the people of British

Columbia. Indeed, I think perhaps there's a case to be made here for an

investigation by the Consumer Services department (laughter) because I'd

say this was unfair advertising. I'd say, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that this

was misleading advertising altogether.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Twenty-five dollar car insurance.

MR. KING: If that government is serious about protecting the interests of consumers...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Twenty-five dollar car insurance.

MR. KING: ...they will start internally; they will start to be

square and honest with the people of this province, and their own

minister responsible for that service will enforce it. It's about time.

It's about time.

They don't like to be reminded, Mr. Speaker. They're becoming somewhat uncomfortable over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've really got us on the hook.

MR. KING: Well, I don't have to worry too much about getting

you on the hook because I think you are doing a very adequate job

yourselves. I think there's been so many feet in the mouth over there

that it's just a matter of reminding you and reminding the people of

some of the faux pas that have been made in the early stages of this

government's administration.

Now the throne speech also says: "I am pleased to report that the

Department of Education has been asked to review the ways in which

provincial operational funding can be offered to independent schools."

[ Page 31 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): We did that already.

MR. KING: This was another thing, Mr. Speaker, that was offered in election material....

MR. LAUK: Give them the money.

MR. KING: This was offered as an absolute.

MR. LAUK: Delaying tactics.

MR. KING: It says: "Social Credit Promises" — carried in The Vancouver Sun .

I should read this because I think it is appropriate that the people

and the press gallery, and the government themselves, be reminded of

all the goodies they were going to bring forward to the people of

British Columbia just a few short months ago.

MR. G.R. LEA. (Prince Rupert): Thanks for the memories.

MR. KING: Socred promises, it says, and I quote:

"The pledges of Social Credit in its well-answered

call for a return to the free enterprise system of government in

British Columbia are so many and varied there is a danger that some may

become lost in the maze of work confronting the new administration.

They must not be allowed to do so, and it is the intention of this

newspaper to attempt to maintain public interest in them with constant

reminders of everything that has been promised.

"The list will be at hand at all times, and as the new

government gets ready to roll, readers might clip it for easy

reference. It was compiled from reports of campaign speeches by

Premier-elect Bill Bennett during his travels throughout the province

as well as from the official Socred election booklet distributed to

many of the electors."

The compilation as presented here is borrowed from The Vancouver Sun .

One of those promises is to place an anti-inflation freeze on taxes.

Another one is to return to the merit system in the public service.

What a return! There's been a veritable blood bath in the public

service of this province.

MR. LAUK: Shame, shame!

MR. KING: They went far beyond the need of any government

control of sensitive positions. It was a campaign of revenge — a

campaign of political revenge and the flexing of insensitive political

muscles, the exercise of raw, new-found power at the expense of many

hard-working and well-qualified public servants. I think that's pretty

shocking.

Interjection.

MR. KING: They've promised to pay operating costs of

independent schools, not capital costs to local school boards. The

throne speech doesn't say that.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): It sure does.

MR. KING: The throne speech says that a review will be made.

They're equivocating now, Mr. Speaker. When will the review be made?

When will this programme be brought forward?

They talk here, Mr. Speaker, about the people achieving ownership of

their own house and their own property. They claim that there's going

to be a real initiative and a real drive towards increasing and

encouraging private ownership of land by releasing more Crown land for

home construction and home purposes.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might dissipate any

reservations that were expressed during your election the other day by

maintaining some order in the House. I don't want to end up in a

shouting match with the members, because we listened intently as their

members presented their views, and I expect the same courtesy.

I want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the

availability of Crown land in this province, and I think it's an

extremely important one.

My concern is that if Crown land is made available in blocks for

public bid without any guarantee that British Columbians have some

preference, the consequence will be the further incursion of foreign

ownership into the land and into the economy of British Columbia. I

think that there should be no opening up of Crown land until a bill is

passed in this House which prohibits the foreign ownership of British

Columbia land. I see nothing in the throne speech that gives any such

guarantee. Indeed, under the former Social Credit government, British

Columbia land was advertised in the American papers — "British Columbia

for Sale" — and I'm afraid we're returning to the same approach. I

think it's a real danger, of grave concern to the people.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the government, and particularly the

Premier, that most British Columbians are working people. Most of them

are on rather modest incomes. There are not many millionaires and used

car dealers out there that can afford to compete with Americans for

land, not too

[ Page 32 ]

many. Most of these people are on modest incomes. I can understand

why the present government is not sensitive to the problems of

obtaining land that our citizens would face if they had to compete with

foreign bidders. It's just academic, and I think if the government were

to get off their seats in Victoria and get out and communicate with the

people, they would understand this.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know a foreigner can't buy Crown land. You know it.

MR. KING: The suggestion is, Mr. Speaker, that Crown land will be released for bid, and that's a very serious proposition.

The government offers to provide stricter consumer service protection in this province.

Interjection.

MR. KING: The Premier is very vocal this morning. He's not

making too much sense, Mr. Speaker, and that's the only thing

consistent about him so far. But I'll ask him to contain himself and I

promise that I shan't be too long on the throne speech because, as I

said at the outset, it really doesn't require too much analysis. It's

pretty patently transparent, and there's not much of any encouragement

in here to the people of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party does, in fact, agree with and

congratulate the government on the promise to introduce an ombudsman in

the Province of British Columbia. We think that is a welcome step and

one which our government planned to introduce also. We do agree with

the proposition of an auditor-general, and they're about the only two

positive things, I think, in the speech.

The matter of gravest concern to me, I believe, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: Are you going to use the bill I drew up?

MR. KING: That's right, we did have a bill prepared, and

perhaps the government has availed themselves of that draft bill for

introduction. We hope so.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but there's no charge. You can use it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there are two matters that I am quite concerned with, and our party is quite concerned with, in the throne speech.

There's the offer of a reduction in the age for which the guaranteed

annual income will be extended and provided, a reduction in the age

from 60 to cover the age 55-59 group. And while we applaud that

direction, I must express grave concern and reservations about the kind

of need test that is apparently going to be introduced to meet that

kind of qualification.

I have found all through the government's statements and indeed in

the throne speech, that there sees to be an obsession with sleuthing,

with snooping, with the basic assumption that the majority of people

are cheats and are prepared to defraud the welfare system of this

province. I think that's unfortunate. I think that the citizens of the

province react in large measure to the kind of direction and the kind

of leadership they get from a government. And I think if one appeals to

reason, one is answered with reason. I think if one appeals to

intelligence, one receives an intelligent response. I think if one puts

forward a moral and decent proposition, one receives that kind of

response, too, But when we have a minister operating from the basic

assumption that poor people, indigent people, people who need

assistance are basically dishonest, then I say that's a pretty

unfortunate approach for a minister of the Crown to take.

The minister stated that $40 million can be saved.

AN HON. MEMBER: $80 million.

MR. KING: $80 million saved. Now that indicates to me that

he's assuming that the majority of the people on social assistance are

dishonest, are defrauding the government. The minister will have the

opportunity to speak for himself if the-Premier will allow it. The

Premier's already put the muzzle on some of his ministers, and I don't

blame him too much. But if the job's going to be too much for you....

You're not quite the stature of the man your dad was. I don't think

you're going to be able to speak for all the ministries and handle it.

I don't think so.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I'm speaking of physical; I'm speaking of physical.

AN HON. MEMBER: He always liked Russell better.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we must express our extreme concern

about the approach which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) is taking. I think that we'll have to look forward to his

expansion of precisely what he means by this new programme. If the

trend holds true to form, we expect that very few people within that

reduced age category will qualify for any additional assistance. So

before we applaud the approach, we want to have a very close scrutiny

of the mechanisms

[ Page 33 ]

which are set up for the administration and extension of that programme to people in need.

You know, there is a problem in terms of people defrauding the

system, and that's true of almost any area of public concern. It's true

of unemployment insurance, which resides under the federal

jurisdiction; it's true in welfare to some extent; in fact, it's true

in income tax reports. I think the Attorney-General will concede that

some of the citizens of British Columbia once in a while violate the

law in other respects. Some of them even go out and commit murder once

in a while. But because that occurs we don't take a punitive approach

to the rest of the citizens. There's a presumption that people are

innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the approach that is being

taken by this government is just the reverse. It's punitive against

people in need, poor people, because of the assumption that is

presently held by some ministers that these people are in the main

fraudulent. I think that is reprehensible in the extreme.

Mr. Speaker, the most distressing part of the throne speech, in my view, is

contained on the last page; it deals with a paragraph which I will quote:

It is with regret that I advise you that my government is forced to

ask your approval to borrow money for current accounts. The advice to

my government from the independent auditing firm, Clarkson, Gordon

& Co., has indicated what our financial requirements will be.

Therefore, for one time only, you will be asked to approve the British

Columbia Deficit Repayment Act 1975-76.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are statements

contained in the throne speech which are patently false and untrue. I

think this is a shocking disgrace that His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor is placed in the position of reading an opening

speech for this Legislature containing falsehoods, containing lies, Mr.

Speaker,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the paragraphs I read....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot impute improper motives, as you well know....

MR. KING: To whom, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: To any hon. member of this House.

MR. KING: I certainly am not imputing improper motives. I am

not sure who is responsible for drafting the throne speech, Mr.

Speaker, but I say that the speech contains a falsehood. The fact of

the matter is that although this....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, are you in any way imputing an improper motive to any member of this House?

MR. KING: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker. I'm simply stating a fact as it's contained in the throne speech.

The speech says, Mr. Speaker, and I shall read it again:

It is with regret that 1, advise you that my government is forced to

ask for your approval to borrow money for current accounts. The advice

to my government from the independent auditing firm, Clarkson, Gordon

& Co. has indicated what our financial requirements will be.

That is the statement, and I read from the Clarkson, Gordon report,

Mr. Speaker, on page 9, where they point out that they only counted the

grants to ICBC, the transit bureau, B.C. Hydro and the railways as

coming from general revenue this year because the government instructed

them to do so. They put it this way in the report, and I quote, Mr.

Speaker....

HON. MR. BENNETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order has been raised.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this member's been asked to

withdraw. He's imputed not only the improper motives or incorrect

statements to the Lieutenant-Governor but, beyond that, to members

of this House. Without qualification, I ask that this member withdraw

that there are mis-statements and lies in the throne speech, and I ask

him to remember the tradition of the throne speech and the position of

the Lieutenant-Governor when he makes such statements.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, if I may,

please. I have not as yet been allowed to read the facts upon which I

base the statement that the throne speech contains falsehood, and I

think this House should be still interested in facts, Mr. Speaker. I

responded to your question, Mr. Speaker, that I was not imputing

improper motives to any member of this House. I regret that the

Lieutenant-Governor, His Honour, has been placed in the position where

he had to read a statement which contains an absolute falsehood. I

expect to have....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

[ Page 34 ]

MR. KING: I expect to have the courtesy of this House in

proceeding to relate that fact to the House, and I have not as yet had

that courtesy.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest to you, sir, that

it's very unparliamentary to suggest that words in the throne speech

are lies, and I'd ask you to withdraw that imputation.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, it seems to me that

to protect the dignity of the Crown and the Lieutenant-Governor that

incorrect statement should not have been put in the throne speech in

the first place. But it is our every right as members of this House to

point out incorrect statements in the throne speech to other members of

this House. The statements are incorrect, and the hon. Leader of the

Opposition has every right to point them out.

MR. SPEAKER: There may be many opinions as to the correctness

or the incorrectness of statements, but it is not for the members of

this House, if they're going to conduct themselves in an orderly manner

and a proper parliamentary manner, to impute statements that are read

by themselves and are interpreted to mean whatever they decide they are

to mean.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He didn't say incorrect statements. He said lies.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get embroiled in a controversy on this thing. I will withdraw....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Will the members please remain silent while I address Mr. Speaker? I'm quite prepared to withdraw the word "lie".

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: I must insist, Mr. Speaker, that the paragraph contained in the throne speech is patently untrue. I presume to....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. KING: I propose to demonstrate that to you. Now this is a question of fact....

MR. SPEAKER: As an hon. member you withdrew the remark and then restated it by another means. You know that's not....

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. I suggest to you

that an untruth can be put forward without any offence or intent to

lie, and I hope that's the case. I would not like to see this

government attempt to prostitute the integrity of the

Lieutenant-Governor for their political purposes. But I think that I

have the right to point out that there is in fact a statement in the

throne speech which is patently untrue, and that's what I propose to do.

The Clarkson, Gordon report states: "We have been advised these

amounts will be paid prior to March 31." That's what they have been

advised. They never gave such information to the government. Indeed,

the government gave those figures to Clarkson, Gordon. That is the fact

of the matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, beyond and above that, there is another question....

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mincing words.

MR. KING: Mincing words indeed!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you suggesting a public servant lied?

MR. KING: I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that this party is

of our group is, and we don't have to mince words or claim being

improperly quoted to find an intelligent position and one that we will

support.

Mr. Speaker, the only aspect of it that bothers me and I think again

gives an improper inference is the statement of the auditing firm of

Clarkson, Gordon — the independent auditing firm of Clarkson, Gordon.

Mr. Speaker, that gives an inference that an audit of the provincial

books was conducted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: An auditing firm is an auditing firm.

MR. KING: "The advice to my government from the independent

auditing firm, Clarkson, Gordon & Co. has indicated what our

financial requirements will be.

A seedy reference, a seedy inference that there was an audit of the

books conducted when, in fact, there was no such audit conducted, as

Clarkson, Gordon themselves stated. They stated on page 12 of their

report, and this is verbatim from the Clarkson, Gordon report: "We were

not requested to perform an audit of the financial information, and we

did not do so."

The government has attempted to inject into the throne speech

political motives, political inferences, which they wanted to

distribute to the public for their edification throughout this province

in the most

[ Page 35 ]

unseemly way, most unseemly. This is a new kind of political

machination by any government that I am familiar with to compromise the

integrity of the Lieutenant-Governor by statements which are

politically motivated.

MR. VEITCH: You mean keeping the books differently?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who kept the books?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is about the kind of mentality that we have come to expect from that government. I think it's unfortunate.

In looking at the throne speech and what it offers, though, I am

reminded of a factual assessment of what has taken place in this

province since December 11, some assessment as to what the status of

the economy was under the previous NDP administration as compared to

what has happened since December 11. I think it is worthwhile having a

look at that.

We have seen what is offered in the throne speech: vague promises of

something that may occur in the future if the economy improves.

Certainly no evidence that it is improving; in fact, the converse is

true. Unemployment is accelerating. The government is cutting services,

extending extreme and insensitive need tests to the problems of people.

I have little confidence under this kind of economic approach that the

people of B.C. can look for any upsurge in the economy in the near

future.

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look; let's have a review of what the

situation was prior to December 11, 1975. Our government had announced

an increase in Mincome from $250 to $265 per month for single persons,

which provided couples with a level of income of $530 — that was done

last fall.

We had announced the phased increase in the Minimum Wage Act from

$2.50 per hour to $3 per hour. I have heard nothing as to whether the

new government intends to abide by that announced phased proposition of

increase which we introduced.

We had announced the continuation of rent control with a decrease

from 10.6 per cent to 8 per cent. We had announced the plan to

establish a housing corporation to provide first mortgages at lower

interest rates.

We had put a price freeze on all foods and beverage products — the

only province in Canada that has taken this kind of action to combat

the ravages of inflation. We had put a freeze on all energy prices,

including home heating oil, gasoline, propane, natural gas and

electricity. We had put a freeze on transportation, including ferry and

bus fares.

We had announced new legislation to be introduced on rent control on

commercial properties to help small businessmen, small business

enterprises.

We had demanded that Ottawa control bank profits, interest rates, mortgage rates and professional incomes.

What has happened since that time under the new administration?

MR. LEA: Nothing.

MR. KING: What has happened since that time? The new

administration has increased auto insurance anywhere from 100 per cent

to 400 per cent and promised to let the U.S. insurance industry back

into the field. This undoubtedly is motivated by a desire to pay off

old campaign debts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: But it's pretty tough for the people of this

province to swallow when they are being asked to exercise restraint in

terms of their wage demands when they are confronted with increases of

from 100 to 400 per cent in auto insurance costs, and the minister

says: "Let them sell their cars." Mr. Speaker, the Premier called that

minister's statement unfortunate. I think it's unfortunate too. I think

the Premier is surrounded by unfortunate ministers, and I hope the

rotation commences very quickly.

This new administration has increased electricity and natural gas

rates an average of 12 per cent. They have allowed an increase in home

and heating oil of 4.54 cents per gallon. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker,

this is an initiative to pay back the campaign funds that belong to the

oil companies at the expense of higher costs to the people of British

Columbia.

They eliminated the price freeze on propane and gasoline. They

eliminated those controls which protected the people on fixed incomes

and the wage-earners of this province from being confronted with

restrained wages but accelerating costs.

They allowed an increase in the allowance for residential rents from

8 to 10.6 per cent while, at the same time, asking those people in

rental accommodations to moderate their expectations and demands. It's

a system of punish the poor and reward the rich that is consistent with

Social Credit policy since its inception.

They cancelled the plan to introduce rent control on commercial

premises. The small business guy doesn't matter too much; more is owed

to the large conglomerates.

They eliminated the price freeze on food, drugs and beverages. All

costs to the housewife, to the consumer, are allowed to accelerate,

indeed, in staggering proportions while this government is paying

lip-service to restraints. Restraints for the average guy; financial

rewards for their friends in the big corporations — that's the thread

we see running through the whole policy. They even allow price

increases on bread and milk, the most fundamental

[ Page 36 ]

basic needs of families and children in this province. I think there

was a statement made by the member who moved the Speech from the Throne

the other day that perhaps I should read back to him. I think it would

be appropriate at this time.

MR. LAUK: Don't do that; he'll be embarrassed.

MR. KING: I don't like to do these things, but, you know, the

new Social Credit members have to understand that after years of NDP

insistence, we how have a Hansard in this House and we can check back

on precise statements made by members. What did I do with that? I've

got to find it here.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I know that he doesn't want me to do this. Oh, here it is.

Yes, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), I believe. He

said: "For, yes, Mr. Speaker, there are enemies out there, enemies to

the future of British Columbia." That's interesting, Mr. Speaker.

That's interesting. It's consistent with my previous statements that

there is an assumption over there that people are frauds, cheats,

enemies of the state.

MR. VEITCH: You're quoting Adlai Stevenson.

MR. KING: No, I'm quoting you Mr. Member. I'm quoting you.

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting the member before he went into his quotes

of a politician in a country where I did not want to associate myself,

with the style of politics that they have.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Not at all. That was the mentality that

justified.... That's exactly the mentality that justified the enemies

of the state, witch hunts that got Mr. Nixon in trouble, and all his

Watergate sleuths. That's exactly the mentality, Mr. Speaker.

He said that there are enemies of the state out there. I think that

member, and this government who agrees, has an obligation and a

responsibility to get up in this House and identify those enemies.

AN HON. MEMBER , Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Get up and identify them. Have the courage of your convictions!

Interjections.

MR. KING: What are they enemies for? Are they enemies because

they are not Social Credit? Are they enemies because they disagree with

the political philosophy of the government?

MR. LEA: Whatever that may be.

MR. KING: How brazen of any citizen of this province to have

his own political views! My goodness! This is a rather frightening

approach, a rather frightening philosophy for any Member of the

Legislative Assembly to hold.

MR. VEITCH: I'm glad you're aware of it.

MR. KING: I'm not going to quote Adlai Stevenson, not at all.

I would hope that in British Columbia we can keep an altogether

different atmosphere about political life in this province than what

has pervaded the United States for the last few years.

If those members are prepared to identify with that, so be it. But

when suggestions are made by elected members that enemies of the state

reside out there among the citizens of this province, I think that is

an absolutely scandalous assertion, and I think the member has a moral

obligation to state who he's talking about.

Interjections.

MR. KING: He did quote Adlai Stevenson and he did talk about

compassion. I want to ask him if the kind of compassion he's advocating

is the kind where this government allows increases in the price of

bread and milk. Is that the kind of compassionate society you are

advocating — where children and poor families pay more, in fact,

possibly can't afford bread and milk? That's the kind of compassionate

sensitivity that apparently those backbenchers are prepared to live

with, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a pretty sad commentary on the

direction of this new government.

He indicated also that increases can be expected in the B.C. Ferry

fares, bus fares, freight rates, income tax, hospital co-insurance, and

further increases in some heating oil and gasoline prices....

MR. LEA: Inheritance tax.

MR. KING: All of those things have been proffered by various

ministers of that government already, while taking off the kind of rent

control protection that low-income earners had some........

MR. VEITCH: Nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. KING: You certainly reduced it.

Interjections.

[ Page 37 ]

MR. KING: It was reduced, Mr. Speaker, from a maximum of 8 per cent to 10.6 per cent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The 10.6 was passed by your government.

MR. KING: No way. It was at 8 per cent, Mr. Speaker...

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was 10.6.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING: ...and that's the kind of consistent approach we've had from this government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call the Premier to order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we over here don't have too much

trouble with our research. We do a lot of it ourselves. We do most of

it ourselves. We don't rely on Dan Campbell and Weeks and people like

that who are constantly making errors and embarrassing the ministers.

We do our own homework.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): You're attacking John Wood; that's all you're doing. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: You're just jealous, that's all.

Mr. Speaker, at one and the same time, when employment has risen in

this province to 8 per cent, we have a serious tie-up on the British

Columbia Railway, and the Premier is running around saying: "Oh, you

can expect a boom in the economy of the north." But that's presumably

when the strike's over. I wonder what happened, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LEA: Where's Alex?

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what happened to those

fighting members from the north who took their excursion up the railway

system when we had a work stoppage on it once before. The member for

South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ; indeed, Mr. Speaker, the member for

North Peace (Hon. Mr. Smith) ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. KING: ...and the Member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) all

were concerned this work stoppage was going to kill the whole economy

of the north. It couldn't be tolerated. The towns were dying. I want to

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have a strike right now that is of

longer duration, and those members are strangely mute and silent.

Strangely mute.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether they're going

to be moved to some statements and to some advice to the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) as to what should be done to solve that

labour dispute. I've heard nothing from them.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I've heard nothing from them — not a word. I think

it's ironic again that it all depends whose ox is being gored, I guess,

They're prepared to live with some inconvenience if it's a matter that

would reflect in any way on their government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you act a year ago?

MR. LAUK: Is that any excuse for you?

MR. KING: I want to turn briefly to a matter which....

MR. LAUK: Rotate, rotate. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: It's like playing musical chairs on the Titanic. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I understand the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) is considering establishing a new programme of

seeing-eye people for blind dogs, but I don't know when he's going to

be rotated. I certainly hope it is before he gets it into place, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister's performance with respect to ICBC, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: ...has been absolutely nothing short of shocking, insensitive, absolutely arrogant.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I hope you won't rule me out of order

for characterizing it as arrogant, because I'm borrowing those words

from certain

[ Page 38 ]

backbenchers within his own party. They characterized it as arrogant.

MR. LAUK: Who said that?

MR. KING: I'm going to tell you who said that. I don't like

to embarrass anyone in this House and I don't want to read back any

statements that those members might not like to be reminded of, but

there are times, you know, when it's necessary.

MR. VEITCH: Are you sure you're reading the correct statements?

MR. KING: Where is that little article? I've lost it here. No, here we are, here we are.

I think it was the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: ...and the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: ...who said that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) was arrogant, insensitive and shameful when he came out with

his Marie Antoinette statement that if they can't afford insurance, let

them sell their cars. They said that they were going to go down to

Victoria and they were going to have something to say to the government

about the insulting remarks of the Minister of Education.

Indeed, in The Province on January 7 of this year there was a

virtual mini-revolution in the government of "Mini" (laughter)...in the

"mini-government" (laughter) — a mini-revolution in the back benches of

the mini-government, headed by the hon. member for North Okanagan.

The Province had this to say: "Socreds Want Blow Softened."

"If B.C. government backbenchers have their way,

motorists will not pay quite as much for car insurance this year as

Education minister Pat McGeer had predicted. Almost all Socred MLAs

surveyed by the Province say they are unhappy with the method of

McGeer's announcement, and most say they want the rates lower than the

predicted 100 per cent, or greater, increases."

What a shock they had coming!

"Vancouver South MLA Gerry Strongman" — good old Gerry;

what a strong guy he is — "said on Tuesday that B.C. motorists would not

object to paying the same rates as other Canadian motorists but that the projected

$181 million Insurance Corp. of B.C. debt should not increase the burden."

Interjection.

MR. KING:

" 'ICBC should start from day one as though the

corporation was not in debt, ' said Strongman. 'The debt should be paid

through gasoline taxes or general revenue.' He termed McGeer's remarks

to the effect motorists who couldn't afford the new rates should sell

their cars as irresponsible and an insult to all the people of the

province."

That's the way to talk, Gerry. That's the kind of backbencher we

want to see. That's independent initiative. Boy, oh boy, what a

fighting member he is. That's what he said.

MR. LAUK: No cabinet post for him.

MR. KING: He's going to get rotated right out the back door there if he comes out with many more statements like that.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Omineca MLA (Mr. Kempf) said his northern

constituents depend heavily on automobiles and feel the proposed rates

are far too high. I believe him. He made a tough speech yesterday. He's

really interested in protecting all those poor little struggling

northern communities, and I know that we haven't heard the last of that

member about these exorbitant rates. I just know that. He'll have the

courage of his convictions, be consistent and get up and tell it like

it is.

Interjection.

MR. KING: He favoured a gasoline tax of 10 cents too. That's

what he favoured. Then the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), who used

to be vocal at one point — he used occasionally to oppose the former

government of the father — was a bit more temperate. Perhaps he though

he had more to lose.

I think it was the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the

member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who were most vociferous. They

were reported on television as characterizing the statement as

arrogant, insensitive, irresponsible. They were going to come down here

and demand a caucus meeting. Imagine Social Credit backbenchers

demanding a caucus meeting. Shame on them! The effrontery to the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and his ministers of those backbenchers

wanting a caucus meeting!

I might have believed that all of these policy decisions were made without any consultation with

[ Page 39 ]

the elected members from the northern part of British Columbia and

the interior. Those rates were foisted on those people without even the

respect being given of a discussion with the members representing those

ridings.

Interjection.

MR. KING: They had an open government. Government of the

people! It's a government of the people all right — the big people. The

insurance corporations, that's who it's a government for. Pound your

desk because that's the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, we are particularly concerned about the unnecessary...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't be bitter.

MR. KING: ...aspect of the insurance rates being adjusted to

the level that they are. There's absolutely no need for the kind of

punitive rates that were established to achieve basically two things,

as I see it. Number one, to portray the image that there were great

financial problems in this province, and to thus discredit the previous

administration. That was the first motivation, and that, I say, is

patently untrue. Had our government reacted in the same way in 1972 we

would have calculated the debt incident to the Columbia River treaty

dams, which was in the area of $800 million. We would have computed the

debt incident to the ferry authority and the transit authority, and

portrayed that as a huge deficit for which we had to borrow in one

budget, and saddle the people with those high costs. We were not so

scurrilous. We were not so politically motivated, and we kept accounts

on the basis that they had been established in this province for years.

The main criteria and the main objective of that government, with

respect to these exorbitant insurance rates, were to open the door to

let back into this province their friends in the insurance industry,

the large foreign corporations who channeled campaign slush funds into

British Columbia to accommodate the re-election of that group over

there.

That was the main objective, because with rates like we have in

British Columbia at the moment, there is no question but what the

private companies can come back and compete — no question whatsoever.

This government appears to care little that the average automobile

driver in this province is the real loser and the one who is paying

through harsh and punitive rates for that kind of insensitive approach.

Mr. Speaker, the third point that we object to most strenuously is

the removal of the territorial equality from the plan that our

government had introduced — a return to the disparity of territorial

ratings. I don't blame those backbench Socreds for speaking out against

that approach. I just hope that they will have the courage and the

consistency to stand up and condemn these rates during the debates in

this House.

One of the most frightful aspects was the very discriminatory action

taken against young male drivers under the age of 25. Absolutely

punitive and destructive rates to young people, young people who have

to either pay insurance costs that in many, many instances are higher

than the value of the automobile that they own, or leave the car

unlicensed and rotting in some shed or in some back yard, which means

that they lack the transportation to accommodate their travel to

university, to work and so on, and without any significant recognition

from this government. Oh, there is the promise of help down the road;

if they remain accident-free, perhaps they'll get a rebate. The point

is they are not millionaires; they are not car dealers. They can't

afford to pay the rates now. A rebate next year is of little value to

them.

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely disappointed with the initial

approaches which this government has taken. We are extremely concerned

that the start which has been made is going to be consistent throughout

the term of this government's administration. I want to remind them

that....

MR. LAUK: Here he is.

MR. KING: I want to remind them.... I am glad the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is back.

MR. LAUK: Just off Air West.

MR. KING: Just off Air West; still no earmuffs. I'll try to obtain them for him. I'm afraid for those ears. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to....

HON. MR. GARDOM: At least Barrett was funnier. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Well, perhaps, but I have more to work with than he

does at the moment. (Laughter.) I think, Mr. Speaker, if anyone wants

to be humorous they have to have some subjects in front of them. When I

see the menagerie which I am confronted with across that floor — all

former Liberals, both federal and provincial, the odd Conservative

thrown in and the odd other kind of dissident too — I find it rather

amusing. I think it's good for a chuckle. The only thing I regret is

that Agnes never made it. I wish Agnes were here with you; I really do.

I think she'd give nice balance, you know, between the two extremes

that we have here. But poor old Agnes got turfed out. Somebody was too

strong for her, I guess.

[ Page 40 ]

Interjections.

MR. KING: Big money boys from downtown took over the Social

Credit Party. No place for the old workhorses; no place for those who

worked hard to build that party. It was once rather a grass roots party

— too bad what happened to it. Too bad.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you of a few statements which were

made respecting automobile insurance during and just previous to the

last election. We had a statement by Ernie Hall, the former member for

Surrey of this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Panco man.

MR. KING: He said during the election campaign that a vote

for the Socreds on December 11 means that next year alone every

motorist in B.C. will have his auto insurance rates at least doubled,

and in many cases their rates will be tripled. I say that that has some

truth.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. KING: He knew, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: He knew, Mr. Speaker, that there would be a

capitulation by that government to their friends in the private

companies. He knew that there would be an attempt to pay back all those

slush funds. The Premier doesn't like that.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): What are you so touchy about over there? What are you so touchy about?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: The maid doth protest too much, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Don't point your finger at me, Mr. Premier; come over and chin yourself on this one.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you of what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had to say. He said that premiums....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, exercise your new-found gavel. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to quote the Minister of Education, if I may

be forgiven for doing that. He came out with this statement, and it's

another gem: "Premiums will be subsidized to a degree. Rates would have

to go out of sight to cover the true cost of insuring the male

25-year-old driver. There is no way we are going to make them pay that."

"No way we are going to make them pay that, " he said

in The Province on December 24, 1975. Then he turned around and brought

in a higher rate.

He was quoted again in The Province on January 3, 1976 — he had

changed his position a bit: "I can say quite bluntly that if you can

afford a car you can afford insurance for it. If you can't afford

insurance for it, sell it." That was on January 3. Talk about arrogance!

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, maybe some of them have some qualms at

the kind of punitive, profiteering rates that your government has

introduced. Maybe that was the problem; maybe it was a psychological

problem. Certainly you have had one for some time.

The Premier, when asked to comment on the Minister of Education's

interview, said that Mr. McGeer's remark was unfortunate. That's what

he said. So I suspect that the Minister of Education is now probably a

No. I candidate for rotation. I hope he doesn't meet the same kind of

fate as the Marie Antoinette that he reminded everyone of. I hope he

doesn't face the guillotine. But I fear for his future on the treasury

benches of the government.

Referring to the protest rally of 10,000 people in this province

against the ICBC rates, the Minister of Education said that it's only

an event. "Let them sell their cars! It's only an event!" My goodness!

Is that the new government that's going to be sensitive and going to

communicate with the people — going to be accessible? What arrogant

statements! A complete lack of understanding. The people all through

this province and up in my riding of Revelstoke-Slocan rely on their

automobiles to drive 30 and 40 miles to work. It's a complete lack of

understanding that people in those areas have to drive 40 and 50 miles

to obtain hospital and doctors' services and, indeed, education —

regional colleges and so on.

MR. VEITCH: What would it cost if it had been added on to the gasoline?

MR. KING: "Let them sell their cars." No alternate transportation, no transit systems or buses

[ Page 41 ]

in that area. It's fine for the Minister of Education to come out

with that kind of callous statement and then fly away to Hawaii to bask

in the sun. He even issued a press release from Hawaii, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dilettante.

MR. KING: I think he got a phone call from the Premier first.

Interjection.

MR. KING: That is where I saw the hon. member for Kamloops

(Hon. Mr. Mair), certainly. But I can tell you this: the ministers in

the former government didn't issue press releases from Hawaii. We

didn't have a government in exile. We believed that the Province of

British Columbia's affairs should be administered here, right here in

B.C.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of order, Mr., Speaker, I would ask the hon. member not to speak against Hawaii. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: I enjoyed it very much. I didn't stay at the Liberal leader's father's resort, but I did enjoy my brief holiday.

I think it was rather insensitive for the Minister of Education to

come out with a statement as arrogant as the one that he made and then

travel off to Hawaii, from which location he subsequently issued a

press release saying he was sorry that it was an insensitive remark.

The minister said he was unfortunate. The minister suggested that the

minister of recreation and conservation was unfortunate, too, when he

wanted to sell ICBC to some foreign control. He has quite a number of

unfortunate ministers over there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not as many as the last government.

MR. KING: And I can understand that; he's rather an

unfortunate Premier. I can understand that. But all of these things,

Mr. Speaker, and all of these approaches — the unwillingness of that

government to recognize the hardship they are imposing on the people of

British Columbia, their unwillingness to be sensitive enough to take a

second look and to respond to....

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Not as many as the first one? Who are they? Who are the bad ones?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who?

MR. MACDONALD: You said not as many as the last.

Interjections.

MR. KING: He's thinking of Waldo Skillings, I think. But old

Waldo wasn't too bad. After all, he usually asked the Premier before he

came out with the kind of statements the present Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) is making.

Mr. Speaker, seriously, I regret that this government hasn't given

any indication that they are prepared to respond in a sensitive,

meaningful way to the literally hundreds and thousands of citizens in

this province who have indicated their displeasure, indeed, their

inability to live with the exorbitant ICBC rates. A group was here and

presented petitions with over 200,000 signatures protesting the

extremely high ICBC rates.

I, myself, Mr. Speaker, have a file; and I don't want to alarm

anyone. I'm not going to read it all. But I have a file here of dozens

and dozens of letters and petitions from ridings other than my own.

Many of the ridings are represented by Social Credit members. They are

asking that something be done. They are desperate because their car is

not a luxury, as the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

seems to feel. It's fine for him where he has air service, where he has

a transit bus service, where the level of income and the style of life

is relatively higher than it is in the Nakusp area of my riding, or the

Kaslo area, or in the north, or in the Kootenays. I regret that this

government has given no indication that they are sensitive to and

intend to respond in a positive way to these pleas and appeals by, I

would say, the majority of citizens in this province.

So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster, (Mr. Cocke) a motion...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. KING: ...that the motion in reply to the opening speech of

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words: "But

this House regrets that the speech fails to relieve the motoring public

from oppressive auto insurance rates, fails to offer fair treatment for

northern and interior drivers and fails to end discrimination against

drivers under 25."

Interjection.

MR. KING: No, the people of the province thought it up.

[ Page 42 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the amendment appears to be in order.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order and on

a point of correction: while the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King) was speaking, Mr. Speaker, he attributed certain erroneous

statements to the member for Columbia River. He suggested that I had

been on television castigating...and attributed harsh words to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) regarding the ICBC situation,

and that statement is untrue. He suggested as well that I had stated

that the Minister of Education was arrogant in his approach to the ICBC

situation, another untrue statement, He suggested that I supported the

10 cents a gallon subsidy on gasoline for ICBC, another untrue

statement. Mr. Speaker, he suggested that I demanded a caucus meeting,

which was untrue. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan, Mr. Speaker, is

confused as usual.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But he's consistent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Columbia River

made an explanation, as one hon. member to another hon. member is

entitled to do in this House.

MR. KING: On a point of order and clarification, Mr. Speaker, I said: "The Member was reported on television as making these statements."

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I bring you

greetings from that great riding of New Westminster, the former home of

this House, the royal city — a great city with a great imagination, and

a city that is asking the new government for the same kind of service

that they had from the last government for the last three and a half

years. That's all I ask, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that this new

government will do everything they can to acquiesce to that kind of

request, if they can.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me today that the member

for South Okanagan, the Premier of this province, is nervous. He reacts

very quickly to almost every statement made.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a busy man! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I would think that I would be somewhat nervous

too. I would be somewhat nervous too, Mr. Speaker, if everything I did

was rendered ashes in the eyes of the public, if everything my

ministers did began to fall apart.

But, Mr. Speaker, getting back to that wonderful riding with or

without a strong member in the eyes of the Premier...I don't really

think that they asked his advice during the election particularly, and

it strikes me that they'll not be asking his advice in the future.

But we have all the problems. We're a microcosm of this province,

basically. We have all the problems of urban B.C., and sitting on the

Fraser as we do, we have a real touch with not only the lumber industry

and the fishing industry, but much of the kind of industry that goes on

in this province. But people in New Westminster are just far enough

away from Victoria that they can be a little bit dispassionate. They

can be a little bit objective, and so some of them are viewing this new

government and its antics in a dispassionate and objective way, and I

wonder if the government knows what these dispassionate and objective

people are thinking and saying about them.

There are those in our towns that refrain from being over impressed

by this government. They aren't even really impressed by this

government despite the fact that it strikes me that some of the media

seem to be having a bit of a honeymoon. I wonder how long it will last.

Even Webster will capitulate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. COCKE: Even Webster eventually will capitulate and begin to see through what's happening over there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you attacking the media as usual?

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, as usual. That member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — I wondered why it was that he got a cabinet

position. Then I started going over the Socred promises, and they

promised a minister from the north. Fair enough. You have to do

something to fulfil this particular promise. You couldn't fulfil a lot

of the others.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's your criterion. That was in the election promises.

Mr. Speaker, there are many in this province who have deep concern,

and they're wondering what this new government is doing, wondering what

their direction is. They're saying: "What are they doing to our great

province?"

I've heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) on a number of other things; I've heard him

[ Page 43 ]

talking in terms of our great province. What are you doing with our province, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Trying to get it back on the road. Digging it out of the ditch.

MR. COCKE: They're saying they've never seen such concerted

efforts to wreck the economy of a province as they've seen from this

government. Wreck the economy!

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, ruin our provincial economy.

That's what the people of British Columbia are saying. In the eyes of

the rest of the world this government is doing that very thing.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They have expended all this effort, Mr. Speaker,

to see to it that people out there, these great business people that

they keep talking about, won't have any confidence in our economy, and

they're doing it for political purposes, Mr. Speaker, and that's

unfortunate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never!

MR. COCKE: Never — oh, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) .

Mr. Speaker, never has such an effort been made to create distrust,

never in our history, and believe me our history is a little bit wavy

when you consider where our government's been over the past 24 years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier will have

callouses all over his hands by the time this session is over. He can

bang on his desk for the weakest of reasons.

Mr. Speaker, no opposition party, given the normal course of events,

would have done the kinds of things that this government has done — the

callous, shallow efforts to present the former government in such a

light as to present our own economy in such a way as to wreak disaster.

Even in the throne speech — referring to restoration of a sound economy

as though it may or may not occur, because they go into that, the

length of time. It may not even occur in this parliament.

Mr. Speaker, think in terms of the high unemployment we inherited

from the Socreds...come on, get off that hobby horse — 10.11! It's 8.9

right now.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: High anyway — 10 per cent during the last Socred regime.

Mr. Speaker, even in that throne speech they indicate a lack of

confidence in our own province, and that's unfortunate. But do you know

why they did that, Mr. Speaker? For another political reason. They have

to explain to the municipalities that "you ain't going to get that

sharing, babies." That's really what you are saying in that throne

speech.

MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. COCKE: Don't look forward to it with a great feeling of

anticipation, Mr. Phillips over there, in Vancouver, because things

aren’t right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did the money go?

MR. COCKE: "Where did the money go?" the member says. The money went to people services when we were government; where is it going now?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: And it's going faster now than it ever went. They

are spending so much money in the last fiscal year just so they could

get it into the last fiscal year. Shocking! Shocking, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it!

MR. COCKE: This business-oriented government....

MR. LEA: I can prove it to you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this business-oriented government,

this business-dominated government, it's not doing business in a

businesslike way.

MR. LEA: Where's Bonner these days?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's doing a great job.

MR. LAUK: Like he did for MacMillan Bloedel?

MR. COCKE: Yes, where's Jimmy Rhodes? Wouldn't you love to have him? Yes, wouldn't you love to have him? Jimmy Pattison took him up.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good public servant.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, they're not doing business in a

businesslike way. Creating distrust is not businesslike. Confidence

will never grow in this

[ Page 44 ]

province around a vindictive game — playing a childish game.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that if that man were the Premier, but he ain't. (Laughter.)

Let's get back to earth, Mr. Speaker. Let's no longer insult the

Department of Finance by bringing in outside auditors to lend their

names to something other than an audit. What nonsense! Not even a

review, I've been told by many competent accountants.

Remember, most of the people in the Department of Finance were there

prior to the last government, and what an insult they got from this

present government. We all know how embarrassed you must have been when

the original appointment of an accountant was found to be an officer in

the Social Credit Party. A bit shocking, wouldn't you say, Mr.

Minister? Just a bit shocking,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's pretty weak, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: Is that pretty weak?

Mr. Speaker, B.C. deserves more. B.C. deserves more from this government. Smarten up!

Beyond the present arguments over the economy, I have a particular

hang up, a particular soft spot for health care in B.C. Presently we

have a House divided, a minister giving pronouncements regarding the

streets of Victoria, much of it poorly researched, but good headline

material — and we can always depend on that minister for that. Good

headline material, sensationalist. It gains the kind of ink that he

feels is worth it.

MR. STUPICH: Does the Attorney-General know about this?

MR. COCKE: And the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

calling the shots, calling the shots on the future delivery of health

training in British Columbia and in hospitals. People ask. (Now they're

both gone.) But they are asking: now will the real Minister of Health

please stand up? People ask assurance for their children and them. They

want assurance that they are assured of life-saving facilities when the

need arises, and we all know the condition of some of the life-saving

facilities in this province. People want assurance that it's the

Minister of Health that makes these decisions, makes the decisions

about hospitals — and I hate to say this — not some elitist academic

who's interfered in order to serve his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, that's the only way I can describe this kind of

interference, and I can't imagine how it occurred. If I were the

Minister of Health I would be most embarrassed. We on this side of the

House are sure that the member for Langley, named Minister of Health,

would love to fill that role. He would be delighted to perform that

function. Is it because he ran for leader, or is it because he wasn't a

Liberal or a Conservative to start with that he is denied the right to

take charge? We certainly see that.

So we would ask one question of the government: could you change the

seating plan? Move the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education

together so that they can confer while we're asking questions in the

House, and give us quick answers to the kinds of questions we might ask

in the future.

There's a possibility that they could double up. They haven't been

in the House much this morning, I can tell you; not really wanting to

face any kind of criticism, I would presume.

Mr. Speaker, how can the health professionals and all those

interested volunteers in the health business in B.C. deal with a will

o' the wisp? That's the way it's spelt out there; I know it and the

people in this House know I know it. It's embarrassing, and it's

embarrassing to all sides of this House.

First an announcement of BCMC by the Minister of Health. Out of that

announcement came this shining, great announcement about a child-care

unit — out of the ashes, somewhere, sometime. He said within the next

three years. Having ripped up all the plans, I don't know how he's

going to do it; I'm going to be very interested to see how he does it.

No relationship; this new unit is going to have no relationship to

high-risk maternity. Do you know what the Minister said about that?

"I've been informed by the medical profession that it's not necessary."

I would like him to present who from the medical profession made that kind of a suggestion.

MR. MACDONALD: Dr. Richards.

MR. COCKE: I heard time after time after time that if you

don't tic them together you haven't got a proper facility. Medical

advice says that they need to be together. What kind of medical advice

did that Minister get? High-risk newborns, Mr. Speaker, need immediate

access.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to be fundamentally businesslike, how come

we're duplicating? Because you're going to have to have facilities

within your high-risk maternity facilities for high-risk newborns. So

why duplicate? It's not very businesslike, but then you can't expect

very much more when it was so poorly researched. You didn't have time

to make that kind of an important decision, no time at all.

MR. LAUK: Dr. Kelly.

[ Page 45 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's right, Dr. Kelly. When he was

hired, Mr. Kelly, the former chairman of GVRD I was suspicious that the

kind of thing that occurred might occur. Obviously it was destined,

right from the outset. Where did they get the kind of research that was

necessary, the kind of really deep thinking that must go into making

these kinds of long-range decisions?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Weren't the files here?

MR. COCKE: Sure, the files were here; the files were at BCMC,

but you couldn't have possibly read them; you couldn't have digested

them in that length of time.

We needed that Shaughnessy central location, Mr. Speaker. It's been

suggested that it will be used for long-term care. What's the matter

with this government? Have they looked at that hospital; have they seen

that it's an acute-care facility? That's what it was originally built

for, an acute-care facility. Putting long-term patients in there.... .

surely the department must be going mad, thinking of that kind of

prospect for a fantastic facility. But just so that they can look after

the needs of the Minister of Education, who made a commitment out at

UBC, they're thumbing their noses at Shaughnessy. It's a disgrace!

AN HON. MEMBER: And the medical profession.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you listen to the medical profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: Academic elitists.

MR. COCKE: What do we hear about prevention? What do we hear

about research? Very little. Just a pronouncement from on high, from

the Minister of Education, that we're going out to UBC.

I know that there was some consultation there — not with the

doctors, not with the hospitals, not with the teaching hospitals. But

what kind of research and what kind of consultation was there with the

children's facility? Do you know what the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) said in that statement? He had consulted with the Variety

Club.

Now, reporters, I have nothing against the Variety Club; I think

that they are a great organization. But I don't think the Variety Club

are people that should be making decisions around the direction of the

delivery of health care in our province. I think that the people

involved directly in the profession and directly in the delivery of

health care are the people that should be consulted, and they weren't,

Mr. Speaker.

Are we going back to the old tactic — the old Socred tactic? "Change is

delay." Change your plans — change your direction — and you delay having

to put out the bucks. You know, that's cost us multi-millions and millions

in this province over the years.

MR. LAUK: Bureaucratic.

MR. COCKE: Look at Ontario now. They're in a luxurious

position; they're able to close down a few beds. McMaster's in place

now running about 40 per cent. There's a big political ruckus down

there, but they're able to close beds down because they did a job in

the '60s. They created a fine climate for the delivery of services to

people in that province. That's why they're able to do it now. We've

never been in that luxurious position. If you don't believe me, my

smiling friends, go down to the VGH — the Vancouver General. But you

don't even have to go that far. Take a look at the services available

in Victoria. I suggest to you: don't get sick in this town.

Always changes of plan, always changing.... You know, you don't

build a hospital in a day. If you ever get up to this side of the

treasury benches, you might find that out, You don't do anything in a

day, but there was good planning going on. For that matter — I'll tell

you in a minute just where we got the short shrift. We got the short

shrift, Mr. Speaker. Many thousands of first-class volunteer hours went

down the drain in that planning situation.

Talk of budgets — we were talking of budgets of BCMC. Six million

dollars, they said. How come they let that money be spent and then not

use it? But they didn't go on to say that half of that $6 million was

health education — 28 of the 36 staff were education. And $1.5 million

was wasted by this government on plans that were drawn, developed and

dumped, Mr. Speaker — plans developed by a fine group of architects,

and probably the very best that could do the job because they put that

group together from all over the countryside, architects and engineers.

It will take years and years again to put together another consortium

like that.

Construction was to start on that centre in May of this year, and

they knew it. That is the most shocking part of the whole thing. If

they had delayed the construction so that they could have studied it

and announced that kind of a delay, I could have bought it, Mr.

Speaker. Let them study it; they're the government. But to say "down

the drain with everything" without so much as a by-your-leave was just

a little bit too much.

Well, millions were wasted because of that minister of ICBC fame and

his promises. He promised to get rid of the medical centre and he did.

It's a shocking situation.

I just want to draw to your attention some of the people — presidents of forest companies, people with

[ Page 46 ]

a great deal of provincial relevance, people who have dealt with

other aspects of business in this province, people who have been

involved in education and made tremendous contributions, people who

have been involved in medicine and other areas of health care — all

giving voluntarily. Not one cent was paid to the directors of BCMC for

their contributions. What a slap in the face, Mr. Speaker, to people

like Jack Christensen! What a slap in the face!

Recent pronouncements regarding the university hospital made by the

Minister of Education are something else again. They are moving

clinical training to the campus. The government asks that the plans be

ready in 60 days. They want to dig up their old plans 10 years old. I

happen to know what those plans are like, too — 2,500 feet per bed.

It's an archaic plan being used in western Ontario right now. In this

day and age surely we can bring our plans up to date; surely we had the

vehicle to do it. But no, Mr. Speaker, to get that hospital out to the

university, not where the people are but where the academics are, we

are throwing it all away. Out goes the baby with the bathwater!

Mr. Speaker, what a statement — what a cudgel — for the Minister of Education

to use. A club over the heads of the people in health care: "The medical

school plans must be ready in 60 days or we'll move to UVic." You know,

if they move to UVic can you imagine how long it would be? Can you imagine just

developing the basic sciences at UVic for a medical centre? Mr. Doctor, can

you imagine that? That's not to say that there shouldn't be a medical

school here ultimately.

MR. WALLACE: Five years.

MR. COCKE: But, my goodness gracious, to make a statement

like that is just a little bit much for any of us that have any kind of

information whatsoever to accept.

Mr. Speaker, if the resources are available, if there's a need for a

hospital at UVic, don't play one against the other. Announce that

you're going to build a hospital at UVic, but don't play one against

the other. That is not fair ball.

MR. WALLACE: Political poker.

MR. COCKE: Political poker; hanky panky, Mr. Speaker, used as

a threat, a threat to club the profession, and the profession are

reacting. They understand what's happening out there, and they're not

very happy, Mr. Speaker, with good reason.

My advice to the Minister of Health is: don't let the Minister of

Education ruin your relationship with the medical profession. It's

late, Mr. Speaker; it may be later than he thinks.

Last fall, that great teaching hospital, the VGH, was under threat

of losing its accreditation to teach. Why aren't we working there with

the medical centre who are to do the job? But no, Mr. Speaker, we put

our efforts into the university campus. There's still time to get back

to the medical centre concept. Remember that your loss becomes a major

loss to the health care in B.C. if we don't.

In other speeches and in other areas I'll be discussing other

aspects of health care, but I just wanted to point out two areas very

quickly. One is the cancer programme. That's an important programme in

this province. It now has fine leadership. It now has great potential

to serve, and it was to be serving under the cancer control agency

under the B.C. Medical Centre. I'm not sure how they're going to work

it now, but it's to serve the whole province. We've been very fortunate

in attracting Dr. Hall for the cancer programme. He was developing

screening programmes. Prevention programmes are being worked out — not

the kind of screening programmes that we heard about the last few days,

but real ones, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that they protect that programme

because it's so very important. We must be more than a province who can

say: "Well, we have pretty fair radiology." We've got to go further. We

have to get into chemotherapy and all the other areas, and certainly

into detection.

We're now dealing with an amendment, and an amendment that says that

the people in this province have lost confidence in this government

because of their total insensitivity with respect to their actions

around ICBC, and you fellows up north know it better than anybody,

don't you? Early in the term of this government most people got a rude

awakening. Using the Minister of Consumer Services' (Hon. Mr. Mair'

s) phraseology, scaled down some, they were kicked in the hindquarters by

this government — by an insensitive government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: You're being very polite now.

MR. COCKE: Yes, this is my polite day. (Laughter.)

This is a group who were campaigning just a few scant weeks ago,

indicating by inference and oftentimes directly, that those bad old

NDPers are going to charge you 19 per cent more. Holy Hanna! As a

matter of fact, they said they're not even staying within the

guidelines. Poor people in B.C. got the wrong impression. They thought

that these people were saying that they were going to give them a

better break than 19 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer Services is quite right. A

group who were campaigning should have thought in terms of what they

were campaigning about. They campaigned for competition; they

campaigned that there would be no government rate-setting, but they did

it all in spades, They did it

[ Page 47 ]

all up in spades. They ignored the people's need for transportation

to and from work, to school or play. They ignored less painful methods

of funding — and those methods were available. The Minister of

Education knows it; whether the Premier does or not is not particularly

significant, because he is saying to people: "I'm sorry for you. I

didn't know Pat was going to be so tough, or the Minister of Education

was going to be so tough, but I'm sorry for you." But that Premier let

the government sharpen up their stilettos, and they skewered the

drivers of B.C. They skewered the drivers of this province by going the

route of territorial disparity.

It was going the other way, remember. It was really going the other

way with ICBC. There was a feeling of sharing. There was a feeling that

people who lived up in the north, who had to face black ice and other

things that were not their fault, should be in a position similar to

the rest of the people in the province. That's the way that parity was

beginning to emerge, and it really emerged. Anybody from the north

knows that the first ICBC rates gave them a real break. They had a good

break until the last few weeks.

Gas tax could make the difference, Mr. Speaker, and don't tell me

the nonsense. I read a little bit of nonsense a while ago; I'll allude

to it in a second. Don't tell me the nonsense about we didn't use it so

therefore didn't intend to. You saw; you were sitting in this House,

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, when that legislation was put

forward and passed, so you knew perfectly well the intention was there

to use that portion of the gas tax that was necessary.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): But there was no money.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, oh, there's no money. We'll hear all

sorts of things about the "no money." You know, just in one area alone

we picked up $150 million that was thrown across the border in the loss

of profits being kept here in this province from our natural gas

giveaway. Don't tell me about the "no money" business.

Mr. Speaker, vague references — vague references to sinister forces

yesterday. Vague references to sinister forces. Ask yourself, Mr.

Speaker, is it a sinister force to provide fair play in premiums for

auto insurance? Have you an alternative in the works; have you got

transit up there? Don't hold your breath. Don't hold your breath, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. You'll wait a long time for this

government.

We're too busy keeping our friends happy, and it's more than just a

provincial affair. Those of us who've been around the insurance

business know just exactly what's at stake. It's a North American

affair, Mr. Speaker. It's a defense by this British Columbia Social Credit government of the whole North American casualty

insurance business. Because what's happening to that business? People

in Quebec are watching. People in Ontario are watching. People in

Massachusetts are watching. Yes, Mr. Member, people all over this

continent are watching what's going on in these jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, the only place they've got left to watch is

Saskatchewan and Manitoba where fair play still prevails, but not so in

this province. Not so in this province, Mr. Speaker, and it's

unfortunate. Campaign promises: "Thanks for the memories." That's

right, we're saying it all over again. Thanks for the memories. It was

a great concept that went sour in the hands of the inept. A great

concept in the hands of the inept went sour.

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of reply. This is a man and a woman

that live some way from here. They wrote a letter telling the Premier

that they weren't particularly satisfied with the way he was doing his

job. Look what they get back. Pages and pages and pages and pages. Now,

if that isn't the most defensive thing I've ever seen....

MR. GIBSON: Are they satisfied now?

MR. COCKE: They're not the least bit satisfied. That's why they sent the whole works to me and said: "It's garbage."

"Here's an excerpt from Hansard ," they say. It

must have cost this province to send this letter and to have it typed and all

the words....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't you answer your letters?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, nothing wrong with the Premier answering letters, but what a defensive way to answer a letter.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't want answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it signed?

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's signed. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to

note how defensive he gets. What a difference a day makes. One of the

lowest rates in the country and December 11.... The difference the day

made was that now we go from the lowest to the very highest in the

country.

There's suspicion out there, Mr. Speaker, that something's wrong in

Victoria. "ICBC is death to your politics." So says Jes Odam, that

great student of the subject. What does your own actuary say? He says

the rates are too high, and he also goes on to say: "Change the

structure." Do you listen? No. So early in office, and yet you're not

listening.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

[ Page 48 ]

went back and said: "We're going to make it a little better, " and

he made it a little worse. Mr. Speaker, shocking! Do you listen to

petitioners? No, you don't. Mr. Speaker, the Premier wouldn't even

accept 170,000 signatures in his office a few weeks ago. So what did

they do, Mr. Speaker? They wouldn't even accept 170,000 signatures in

the office of the Premier; so, Mr. Speaker.... Oh, you weren't there?

Well, we'll see about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you, in Palm Springs?

MR. COCKE: The fact is, you have all sorts of back-up people.

If you don't trust them, tell us now. Either that or drop some of your

backbenchers, but you should have had somebody there. You knew they

were coming.

Mr. Speaker, right now there is something approaching a quarter of a million signatures in our office, over 200,000...

MR. LAUK: Growing every day.

MR. COCKE: ...and people in this province are saying to this government: "We don't like your discriminatory method of doing business."

Mr. Speaker, those in the government don't own ICBC. You're the trustees for ICBC.

AN HON. MEMBER: The directors have always held public office.

MR. COCKE: Careful thought and not vindictive action could be a remedy for a lot that is wrong with this new government.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to this government — go now and repent your

wrongdoings; go now and repent your wrongdoings. People in our province

are broad-minded, Mr. Speaker, and they'll accept an apology.

AN HON. MEMBER: You apologize.

MR. COCKE: They'll accept an apology, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, for heaven's sake, I'd like to ask this government to change their ways, even that sleepy member in the back row.

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano

(Mr. Gibson). But before the hon. member starts, I would just like to

remind the members of the House that we are now on an amendment to the

main motion, and that while the mover and seconder are given some

latitude in speaking, because they do not again speak in the main

debate, the same latitude is not extended to speakers beyond the mover

and the seconder. I would remind hon. members that participate in the

debate that they'll be asked to keep to the actual amendment that is

before the House.

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

attempt to remain strictly relevant to the motion on the floor. We are

limited at this point, but I'll have more to say on this later. But I

would just at the outset join in the general good wishes to members on

all sides of the House, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King)

expressed at the beginning of his "remarks.

I would say one thing to the hon. House Leader of the Opposition:

I'm not sure that he should have chastised or tweaked the hon. members

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) for

allegedly having called the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

arrogant and insensitive and irresponsible. Because after all, hon.

members, he used to say that to them all the time when he sat over

here, so that's only giving them a bit of exchange.

The basic situation of the ICBC, Mr. Speaker, should have been known

in this province as of December 11, the date of the last election. I

think it would have been far preferable to all citizens of this

province if the debate we are going to have today had been had before

December 11th in the knowledge of some of the facts we have today. I

say that without necessarily forecasting which way the votes would have

changed, because I think that while some of the facts should have been

apparent, at the same time some of the moves that have been taken by

the new government in the light of those facts have been less than

popular.

One of the first things that was done by the minister was to appoint

Mr. Byron Straight of West Vancouver to undertake what became known as

the Straight report. Mr. Straight did a rapid and excellent job of

looking at the books of ICBC, an incredible job within the time-frame

allotted, which was about a week.

He revealed a situation where, quite apart from the cash flows of

previous years, in the coming year, in the fiscal year 1976-1977, we

would have had to expect, under the contingent rates set by the then

board of directors, a deficiency of premiums as compared to payments of

somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 million. That made it obvious

that some kind of remedy had to be obtained.

There were three basic options. One option was the option which had

been advocated by the former government, namely to take from existing

revenues

[ Page 49 ]

sufficient funds to make up most of that balance, and the previous board of directors had followed exactly that plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: What funds?

MR. GIBSON: Funds from consolidated revenue, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, just let's leave that aside for the moment, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It is. It is. I'm giving you three clear theoretical options.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Will you allow me to set them out before you comment on them?

AN HON. MEMBER: What was No. 1 again?

MR. GIBSON: Option No. 1 was to take from existing revenues

$83 million from the motor fuel tax revenue and $42 million from

licence fees, for a total of $125 million.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Plus an increase in premiums, that's correct, of 19 per cent on the average.

Option No. 2 was to take everything out of premiums, to raise

premiums by an extraordinary amount by what in the event turned out to

be 139 per cent on the average — a doubling for most people under the

same kind of coverage and a tripling for many.

A third option, which was not spelled out so explicitly in the

Straight report but nevertheless was clearly before the government, was

the option of a new gasoline tax, a gasoline tax of from zero to, say,

23 cents.

Twenty-three cents, I think, would have covered the whole

deficiency. Some lesser amount with an increase in premiums would have

done the same thing. The object of the exercise, it seems to me, had to

be to balance the outgo and the income in the coming fiscal year. It's

quite possible to overlook, for the time being, what happened in the

previous fiscal year, but the next fiscal year the flow of blood could

not be continued.

The government, in my opinion, took the wrong way. They didn't take

the most attractive alternative that Mr. Straight suggested. And I want

it put into the record a little bit of what Mr. Straight said about

gasoline taxes.

He has been a courageous consultant to the government, Mr. Speaker.

He has not hesitated to put on the record some things which the

government might perhaps rather not hear. And one of those has been the

merit of gasoline taxes in the matter of public insurance. Here are

some of the points he lists as for:

"Such taxes are paid only by motorists, the owner, the renter or the

driver. They are easy to collect and require no agent's commission.

They are convenient to pay. One pays as he drives instead of in a lump

sum once a year."

And I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tremendously important

thing to people who find it difficult to raise a couple of hundred

dollars in February of which they had notice only in mid-January. Mr.

Straight continues:

"The greater the mileage and accident exposure the

more the motorist pays in premiums. The heavier the vehicle and the

greater the horsepower, the greater the gas consumption and therefore

the contribution to premium revenue."

And here's a judgment statement and an important one:

"It is an appropriate device for pooling revenue to

pay for no-fault, death and disability benefits and even for

third-party bodily injury and property damage claims, provided there is

an additional personal premium which can be modified to reflect

personal responsibility or the absence for it."

Those are the things Mr. Straight cited as being for the gasoline

tax. He did not mention, but I would add myself, the important

conservation effect of a gasoline tax in a society that is increasingly

concerned about the conservation of energy. An additional gasoline tax

more truly reflects the social costs of the private automobile and

gives a truer incentive to people to take public transit where it is

available, and there are ways and means of making compensation to those

who do not have access to public transit.

Mr. Straight did not suggest that the argument was all pro — that it was all

for gasoline taxes. He mentioned three points that are against it but which

can be provided for in such a way as to eliminate their negative arguments.

He says:

"If the taxes are used to provide all of the premiums,

there is no medium available to vary the charge to the individual to

reflect his personal driving record or to allow the use of a particular

vehicle in a particular way."

That, I think, never has been the proposition before the government.

It has always been the proposition that there should be sufficient

premium available to reflect personal responsibility. He says

[ Page 50 ]

secondly that insurance to cover damage to one's own vehicle; i.e.,

one's own responsibility — so-called collision insurance — should be

purchased privately by each owner on his own policy.

As it happens, Mr. Speaker, with the appropriate level of the

gasoline tax it works out almost exactly so that the specific insurance

purchased by the driver — by the individual — reflects exactly the

collision coverage.

Finally, he notes that the fuel tax does not directly reflect

variations in vehicles as to the damageability. In other words, I

suppose a Volkswagen and a Ferrari might conceivably consume the same

amount of gas, but the one might be much more expensive to repair than

the other — or whatever is the right vehicle; I don't know what the

right comparison is. And this is true, and this, too, must be or could

be reflected in the individual premium.

Mr. Straight gives that important rundown, and then on the following

page, and the minister will be familiar with his report, he gives

further philosophical underpinning towards directing elements of the

gasoline tax towards the payment of insurance in our province.

Irrespective, Mr. Speaker, of whether that is the right answer in

the long run, I submit that there were important arguments for using

the gasoline tax in the short run for this coming year. Because with

the very limited time available it was the only means available to

prevent the very significant wrench in the private lives of British

Columbians in the hundreds of thousands, and in our economy. The

government took what I believe to have been the wrong way, and that

wrench took place.

I mentioned before the difficulty to the ordinary family of finding

some hundreds of dollars extra with a month's notice. It's not easy,

Mr. Minister and members of the cabinet.

I would note that a group that prides themselves on good management

of the economy were able to take such an enormous amount of money out

of the income stream in one month that there was a significant drop in

retail sales during the month of February and in the first two weeks of

March. This is hardly a contribution to economic stability in the

Province of British Columbia. It's all because of that tremendous

lump-sum ICBC premium — that quick change within one year — that didn't

have to be done. Because that additional money which had to be found

could have been found at the gas pumps every day of the year during

It could have been found in a relatively painless way to those

driving, at the same time paying the entirety of the bill and at the

same time giving a person an option so that they don't have to say: "I

either drive or I don't drive because I can't afford the insurance on

February 28." It allows them to say: "I either drive a little bit more

this weekend or a little less because of the extra price of gas."

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): The same number of vehicles this year.

MR. GIBSON: The same number of vehicles this year, Mr.

Minister? It seems a little bit puzzling that the public transit

ridership took such an enormous jump as of March 1 if there are the

same

number of persons using their private motor vehicles.

MR. WALLACE: It just proves that you're not using your car, for crying out loud.

MR. GIBSON: The proof is clear you have switched people's habits by your choice, not theirs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't confuse the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: I try to, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes the

individuals on that side of the House give rise to spurious notions

which must be set right quickly.

The proper answer, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied, was a new gas tax,

not the old gas tax, because that was taking revenue from social

programmes. It was built into revenue for a long, long time; it didn't

even pay the bill for the Department of Highways.

Any taking away of funds from the old gas tax would have been taking

from Peter to pay Paul. But a new gas tax would have balanced the books

correctly. It is my calculation that a 15-cent surcharge a gallon plus

a 30 per cent premium rise, which would have been stiff but affordable

compared to what we have, was the right answer.

Mr. Speaker, the government knew all about this; they'd had the

suggestion. I ask you why they decline to take this more sensible, more

humane route. The only answer I am able to divine is that they wished

to teach a lesson to British Columbians. They wished, by a sufficiently

severe, noticeable kick in the pocketbook, to draw to their mind in no

avoidable way the proposition that the previous government had gotten

this province into financial difficulty and that for their sin of

having had the previous government, British Columbians were to be made

to pay in 1976. I suggest, in other words, that the choice was made on

that political motive. That's the overall cash-flow question.

There were two further moves of interest, strange moves when looked

at in political terms, because the new rate structure, when it became

apparent, had some very severe changes for two categories of people —

northerners and single males under 25. Both of these groups are fairly

large and politically important,

[ Page 51 ]

and a person has to ask himself why a government would alienate

their affections unnecessarily — jumps of several hundred per cent for

single males under 25; the elimination of the territorial discount for

those who live in the north.

These were progressive moves that had been made by the ICBC in the

years before, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that a public monopoly can

do in insurance is to treat people in equal ways, and we have a public

monopoly at least for the next year. Therefore for the next year we

should afford the citizens of British Columbia the theoretical benefits

of a public monopoly.

Because there is no worry about skimming of one category of drivers

by one particular insurer, a public monopoly can base rates strictly on

factors that the individual driver can control, rather than things that

they cannot control. In other words, it is not necessary to charge

people more or less because of where they live, a factor that generally

speaking they cannot control. They must pretty well live where their

house and their job are.

It avoids the necessity of charging people more or less because of

their age and sex, a factor they cannot control. Rather it makes it

possible to charge people insurance based on those actions which

contribute to the cost of insurance, based on, first and foremost, the

accident record of the individual concerned, secondly, the

damageability of the type of car they choose to drive and the cost of

repairing that type of car and, thirdly, the distance that they choose

to drive in any given year. These are the proper determinants of the

cost of insurance. These are the things that determine risk to the

insurer, rather than the question of where you live or what your age or

sex is.

I know very well, Mr. Speaker, that the statistics for single males

under 25 show that they have more accidents, but this is quite

adequately taken into account on the individual record of the driver

concerned. Like any age group, some are good drivers, some are bad

drivers.

After a lot of pushing the minister finally agreed, and the

announcement was made by the Premier, that there should be some sort of

rebate for single males under 25 who proved to be accident-free drivers

during the year. Mr. Speaker, this is elementary and should have been

built into the programme from the beginning and, furthermore, should be

extended across the entire risk category of motorists in this province.

It's done in many other countries. It should be done again in British

Columbia where, by your experience, where you show that your accident

rate is higher and the cost to the insurer is higher, a surcharge is

put on. Where there is no such additional risk, a rebate is given.

So why were these moves taken? Why did we return the old rate

categories in the same year that all of the other tremendous changes

were being made, piling one change on top of the other and making them

almost unbearable for certain categories of people in this province?

There's only one purpose, Mr. Speaker, and that is that a decision has

been made by this government which has not yet been announced by this

government. I challenge the Minister of Education to make that

announcement today. That is that this government has clearly determined

that across the full range of insurance in this province, private

competition will be brought back next year. That is the clear message

given to us by the rate structure. It will be very interesting, in view

of this kind of evidence, Mr. Speaker, to hear the participation of the

minister in this debate.

Because of the brutal way that this programme was brought in,

because of the less than judicious statements of the minister at the

outset, in particular, there has been widespread unrest in the public

with the government's handling of the matter. Members who have been in

this House longer than I may have other instances to cite. But I can

recall of no issue in this province for many years that has given rise

to a quarter of a million signatures on a petition, a most unusual

development in the political life of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I can recall very few issues that have given rise

to rallies which I think totaled some 10,000 in the Agrodome, I think

some 3,000 a couple of weeks before that in Surrey, and grew from a

tiny meeting of a few hundred in White Rock, an enormous spontaneous

growth within a period of a very few weeks.

That should have brought some message to the government, Mr.

Speaker, but it apparently didn't, because they carried on. Of course,

in the end, people obeyed the law where they could afford to, and where

they could not afford to obey the law, they simply aren't driving their

cars. The government could have made it easier for them. It chose not

to for its own political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I am not one who believes that everything the

government has done is wrong. I believe that there are some excellent

suggestions in the throne speech, but that is not what we are debating

under the rules of this House at this time. We are debating the

specific situation of the handling of this government of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia.

I say that the initial concept was right, that it had to be put on a

basis that the payments to motorists each year were financed by

motorists each year. Well, that principle was right. The implementation

beyond that was unnecessarily, deliberately brutal to the ordinary

motorist in British Columbia, entirely

[ Page 52 ]

unfeeling and entirely unworthy of the government of the day, which should say — given the legacy of the past,

whatever they think of it, whatever bad marks they give the past

government for that legacy — "It is our job to make the best of that

situation for the people of British Columbia, not the worst of it." The

worst, Mr. Speaker, is what they did.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It reminds me of old times when I

used to get up to speak; the Premier walked out. But I notice today I

got up to speak and the minister concerned walked out. I hope this

isn't a shadow of things to come, but this was the greeting I always

received from the former Premier when I rose to speak from this side of

the House.

MR. GIBSON: They're afraid of you, Scott,

AN HON. MEMBER: Which former Premier?

MR. WALLACE: Like the Liberal leader, I will try to stick very closely to the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: The minister is back again.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, it's nice to see the minister back in his

place. He well remembers the many occasions that I just referred to

when he was sitting over here on this side of the House.

The amendment deals with three main elements of the ICBC — disputed

deals with oppressive rates; it deals with premiums for northern and

interior drivers, and it deals with the under-25 driver.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Social

Credit government fell from power in 1972 was a clear indication that

it was insensitive to ordinary people's problems. It showed a lack of

awareness of many of the day-to-day simple needs and reasonable

aspirations of the people of British Columbia.

Although the Social Credit party was re-elected, largely on a

commitment to bring about sound management and better administration of

the affairs of this province, many people who were concerned about the

government's lack of sensitivity — or that party's lack of sensitivity

— had made it very plain that they were re-electing this government

with some apprehension because they were not sure that the new, or the

so-called new, Social Credit party would show any more heart than it

had in the years preceding its defeat. We were promised in the election

campaign a government primarily composed of hard-nosed businessmen, men

who knew the value of a dollar and who, in the minds of some people,

knew the value of little else.

AN HON. MEMBER: The value of the dollar is about 25 cents.

MR. WALLACE: Regardless of the economic issue in ICBC — and

there certainly is a serious economic issue to be debated, in this

House, there's no doubt about that — regardless of the strictly

financial aspect of the issue, the manner in which this government

handled the ICBC situation must have been a very rude dash of cold

water in the faces of many people in British Columbia who had

re-elected this