1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3613 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Statement Explanation of agricultural credit programme. Hon.

Mr. Stupich — 3613

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3613

Mr. Wallace — 3613

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Day Act (Bill 6 1).

Committee, report and third reading — 3613

British Columbia Tartan Act (Bill 62).

Committee, report and third reading — 3614

Blind Persons' Rights Act (Bill 72). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3614

Report stage — 3614

Debtor Assistance Act (Bill 77). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3614

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3614

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3614

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3614

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3615

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3615

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3615

Report stage — 3615

Metric Conversion Act (Bill 80). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3615

section 3.

Mr. Curtis — 3615

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3615

Report stage — 3615

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 89). Committee

stage.

section 4.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3615

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3616

Mr. Wallace — 3616

section 8.

Mr. Gibson — 3616

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3616

Mr. Gibson — 3617

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3617

Mr. McGeer — 3617

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3617

Mr. Wallace — 3618

Mr. Gardom — 3619

Mr. McGeer — 3619

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3620

Mr. Curtis — 3620

Mr. Gibson — 3620

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3621

Mr. Rolston — 3621

Mr. Gibson — 3621

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3622

Division on

section 8 — 3622

section 17.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3622

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3622

Mr. Gibson — 3623

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3623

Report and third reading — 3623

Committee of Supply: Department of Transportation and Communications estimates On vote 235.

Mr. Wallace — 3624

Mr. Gibson — 3630

Mr. McClelland — 3630

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3633

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3635

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3635

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3636

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3636

Mr. Phillips — 3637

ERRATUM — 3640

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

ask leave to make an announcement about the British Columbia

agricultural credit programme.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm announcing today, issuing a press

release…. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would ask

that this be distributed so the Members would have copies of

it.

The objective of the programme is help to make it possible

for economically feasible operations to make the fullest use of

land that has been designated as agricultural land under Bill

42. The main feature of the programme will be an interest

reimbursement so that no farmer borrowing from an established

lending agency, bank or a credit union will have to pay any

more than 8 per cent for his credit.

If he requires a government guarantee to borrow from those

sources — and this would apply particularly to young farmers — then the maximum interest would be reduced to no more than 8.5

per cent. It will apply only to borrowing from banks, credit

unions or the IDB Farm Credit Corporation.

The reimbursement will be calculated so that it will be in

the borrower's best interest to get the cheapest rate that he

can initially, which of course would push people to the Farm

Credit Corporation. At least, that would have been the case

when they were at 7 per cent. At 8.5 it may not be for

long.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Pardon me? Eight and a quarter? I said the

reimbursement feature will be calculated so that his lowest net

interest will still be obtainable by borrowing from the best

source.

Although we've reached agreement with the banks and the

credit unions on this programme, to allow time for them to

properly inform their branches and to allow time for printing

and distribution of the forms that have also been agreed upon

with the lending agencies — application forms — we're asking

people to wait until June 15 to actually seek the application

forms.

The reimbursement feature will be available for farm

interest on these approved loans paid from July 1 onward.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'd just like to welcome the

Minister's announcement. The complicated formula he must have to insist upon farmers

borrowing at the lowest rate of interest I'll be intrigued to

see. I find it difficult to understand just from the simple

statement from the Minister.

But we appreciate the fact that it will be necessary to

provide some sort of farm credit for farmers — in particular as

the Minister was honest enough to indicate that this had some

reference to the workings of Bill 42. Until we get the details,

of course, I'm unable to comment more fully. But I do

appreciate the fact that you made the statement in the

House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I also, on behalf

of our party, welcome the Minister's announcement. Indeed, I

personally appreciate that Minister's efforts always to get the

information out either by announcement in the House or by press

release. I, like the Liberal leader, however, having just got a

note from my banker that the rate's now 12.5 per cent on my

private loan, I wonder what mechanism…. That's the first

part of my disclosure, Mr. Speaker.

One is certainly eager to find out how the 8 per cent will

be arranged and so on. But I certainly appreciate the

Minister's efforts because part of the heated debate on Bill 42

was a two-pronged debate in the sense that while land was

involved, the main aim of the Legislature and all the farming

legislation was to give the farmer a better deal. I assume this

is another step in that direction. But we'll look forward to

reading the details.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Public bills and

orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 61.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DAY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 61, British Columbia Day Act , reported

[ Page 3614 ]

complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 62.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TARTAN ACT

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 62, British Columbia Tartan Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 72.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on Bill 72. Order! Order! I understand

there's a message been sent down to quiet down the noise that

you are concerned about.

section 1.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order

paper on page 17. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, Blind Persons' Rights Act , reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 77.

DEBTOR ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 77; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. MS, YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper on page 18. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

[ Page

3615 ]

section 8.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing

in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 77, Debtor Assistance Act , reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 80.

METRIC CONVERSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 80; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. HALL: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper of today's date, page 18, which was suggested by an Hon.

Member with legal experience who pointed out that in the definition

section

"Canadian measure" appears nowhere in the Act. Therefore it is superfluous.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

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

Section 3 appears

to be the only appropriate point in this short bill where I can

remind the Hon. Provincial Secretary that I looked for a

ballpark figure of costs that are likely to be incurred by the

provincial government after the 1974-75 fiscal year. My notes

indicate that he felt that he would have that information at a

later time. Perhaps he has some comment now.

HON. MR. HALL: No, I have no further comment to make. The

committee, federal-provincial, is still establishing ballpark

figures, although I did see a politician make a ballpark figure

not too long ago.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 80, Metric Conversion Act , reported complete

with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 89.

The House in committee on Bill 89; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page 3616 ]

Sound): Before passing

section 4, I would like to have some explanation

from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) as to precisely the direction

in which the government is going in this regard.

Section 4, as this amendment

provides an amendment to

section 55, will make it possible for any person on

the electoral district of any municipality in the province to stand for election

to the school board in any school district.

Are we now moving to the situation where people may be

candidates for school trustee in the same way as candidates for

this assembly regardless of place of residence?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I think you can assume that is

so.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, since I've read

the amendment correctly, could the Minister indicate the

rationale behind this? It was always my understanding that the

people who were urged to seek the office of school trustee were

those people who had a direct and immediate connection with the

particular school district in which they resided, more often

because they had children or children of children or friends

with children — a real deep and abiding relationship with the

school district. They were, therefore, expected to give their

fullest attention to the responsibilities of a school trustee

and to the conduct of the affairs of the board of school

trustees and, indeed, the improvement of the standards of

education in that school district.

Now we seem to be moving to a situation where we're creating

another elective office available for anybody regardless of

whether they have any close connections with the school

district or not. I wonder if the Minister would indicate the

rationale behind this rather significant change.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: If I recall, Mr. Chairman, we went through

this same debate last year on it. I'm just repeating what the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and I basically said. We do feel

a person should have the same right running for school trustee

as we do as Members of the Legislature.

Secondly, we do also believe that the public will make the

final decision. If someone is residing in an area where they

feel they have no understanding or communication with

particular problems of that district, surely the public can

make that decision.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to express the same concern that

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has stated. In

reply to the Minister's comment, with respect, I would say that the degree of

public participation in school affairs and the percentage of people who turn

out to vote at municipal elections are no guarantees in my view that the public

will decide as to whether a person residing in one area should, in fact, hold

school trustee office in another school district.

I find this particular trend additionally disturbing in view

of other trends; in educational financing for example. A person

can only vote in the area where he resides while he may well

own property in another municipality. Therefore, on the one

hand we have taxation without representation. Here, on the

other hand, we're giving absolutely unlimited scope for a

person to seek office on a school board in a district where,

indeed, he or she may be less well-informed about the local

situation. It seems to me this piece of legislation and the

more recent amendment to the Public Schools Act are instances

of the fact that people are now being taxed although they have

no vote. Yet this bill goes in the opposite direction of giving

individuals no restriction whatever in their capacity to seek

office in a school district where they may neither live nor own

property nor, in fact, make any financial contribution whatever

to the school district on which they're serving as a

trustee.

Maybe it is just a debate of a year ago all over again but

that doesn't change some of the basic points we're trying to

make. Might I just leave this comment, then? If it is felt we

should be as wide open and as flexible in this regard about

school trustees being able to run for office, would the

government not reconsider repealing this other amendment which

came in recently which, in my view, contravenes a very basic

principle of our system in bringing in taxation without

representation?

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): If I understand

it rightly,

section 8 here repeals

section 122 which has to do

with:

"Every pupil shall attend school regularly; be clean and

tidy in person; present himself punctually at each session of school, clothed

appropriately in keeping with the custom of the school as sanctioned by the

board."

Then there's a second provision that the board may make a

bylaw to specify the appropriate type of clothing.

I can understand that there may be some disposition to relax

this provision, but is the Minister proposing that pupils

should be entirely exempted from the need to attend school

regularly, be clean and tidy in person and punctual at each

session?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, not at all. We just felt the specific

restrictions in the Act were frankly somewhat archaic. Those

actual clauses had been

[ Page 3617 ]

drawn up when the Act originally came out over 50 years ago.

We thought that today, in what I hope is an enlightened period

in 1974, the school boards were quite capable of setting those

particular codes regarding dress and so on.

As far as attending school, there is another

section of the

Act which sets out the requirements for attendance at school.

So there should be no concern there, Mr. Member, that that

would be affected.

We're mainly talking about codes of conduct in that

section.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate the Minister saying that the board

may prescribe appropriate dress and so on, but that's exactly

what

section 122 (2) says. I'm wondering under what authority

they will continue to be able to do that or to continue to

require the general clean and tidy appearance, which I

personally believe is something which is very important to

maintain — just as we try and do in this chamber.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, we are certainly saying that we are

not prescribing it. If a school board wished to have meetings

with their parents, and parents put on a certain demand, the

majority of the parents request a certain dress style be

imposed, then it's up to the school board, I suppose, to listen

to them.

MR. GIBSON: But under what authority is this section…?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, we're silent on it. If we believe in

local autonomy and they can come to an agreement with the

parents on it, we don't consider, Mr. Member, it's necessary

for us to give the authority in the Act regarding code of

dress.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'm really very,

very disturbed at what the Minister has to say. Is the Minister

prepared to give any leadership or advice at all as to the

deportment in school and the manner of dress?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No.

MR. McGEER: Is she telling us that the provincial government

abrogates its responsibility entirely in this regard?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Member, I'm trying to suggest, as I

said before, that it's 1974 and I don't think any Minister of

Education should have to sit here and prescribe a code of dress

for the students of the district.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that perhaps

the reason for asking the question is because it is 1974…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: …and never in the history of our province has

there been a greater problem of attendance at school than there

is today. I get nothing but complaints from teachers whose

morale is almost broken by the poor attendance at school and

the lack of support these teachers get in trying to do their

job from the administrators of the school and from the school

boards of the province, but particularly and explicitly from

the provincial government and the Minister of Education. It is

a major problem in our schools today and the difficulty has

started at the top.

Perhaps neatness is less of a problem than attendance, but I

submit that the two go hand-in-hand. I would hope for not just

some leadership from the Minister of Education but definitive

leadership, not because it's unnecessary in 1974 but because

it's extremely necessary for us to begin to reassert some sense

of responsibility, some work ethic, some seriousness with

regard to achievement in school and in life. I say never before

have we had a government which has been as lax in this regard

as the present one.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the Member over there who

has just spoken obviously hasn't been in the schools of the

province himself lately. Frankly, I get very tired of listening

to these broad, generalized statements…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: …that since this government came in

everything out there has deteriorated in the system. You are

suggesting we are responsible as a government for the many

social changes which have taken place not only in British

Columbia but across the country.

Every jurisdiction in Canada and in the United States and

elsewhere is concerned with the problems of attendance in

school. We accept it. But I refuse to accept the blame, because

the New Democratic Party government has come in, for all the

social ills in the environment which exist today.

What we are attempting to do, Mr. Member, is to create an

atmosphere out there in our schools where we can bring together

the students, the parents and the teachers in consultation in

helping to solve their problems. Leadership will come from this

department in the areas of basic core curriculum as I stated

when I introduced the bills. We accept our leadership there,

but we do not accept the fact…and I don't think students

and parents of this province want to see a Minister dictating

to them what their children are to

[ Page 3618 ]

wear to school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Let me make it plain that I am not blaming this

government for all the social ills of society. But I think that

when we talk about leadership it is often the function of

elected leaders to try and counteract some of the drifts that

are going on in society. Just because we have, for example,

drug abuse in the schools like you wouldn't believe, I am not

blaming the NDP, but it is one more symptom of the

permissiveness of our society. It is the function of

educational leaders not just to pretend that because the

situation is deteriorating we can't do something about it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I never said that.

MR. WALLACE: She did say that. She said: "We can't be

blamed for the social ills."

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen!

MR. WALLACE: I'm not listening. We'll get the words. She

said that we are not….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Member for Oak Bay has the

floor.

MR. WALLACE: I am trying to take

part in this debate to put

our party clearly on record….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Oak Bay has the floor

and we are dealing with

section 8. I hope you are dealing with

section 8.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I'm dealing with

section 8.

I am saying. Mr. Chairman, and I will say it again, I am not

blaming this government or any government for some of the

social ills which we are all concerned about. I hope the

Provincial Secretary is listening to that statement. I am not

blaming this or any other government for some of the

undesirable trends in our society.

But many of these trends in education and elsewhere will not be improved by

a hands-off, permissive I-can't-do-anything-about-it attitude. That is where

leadership comes in. When a person is elected to a position of leadership and

authority in society I consider that a responsibility to speak out and express

opinions which you hear in many parts of your travels in your riding, in the

city and in the province. The reason I am speaking the way I am, and I don't

know what you hear on your side of the House, is because I have been in the

schools and elsewhere in my riding. I'm not speaking for the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey or the Minister who said that he hadn't been in schools recently.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order! The Member for Oak Bay has the

floor.

MR. WALLACE: I am making these comments, Mr. Chairman,

because everywhere I go I am frequently told, contrary to what

the Minister says, by principals, by teachers and by parents

that they are most concerned with the apparent lack of

leadership. I'm not asking the Minister to dictate how people

live, but if there is one theme among the parents of this

province right now it is the deep concern that the educational

system is allowing the child — and we are talking about

children, we are not even talking about young adults or adults,

we are talking about children…. This concept that children

should be allowed to decide everything for themselves, as to

whether they go to school and how they dress and how they

behave in school, is wrong.

It is the feeling of many people in this province, and I'm

sure across Canada, that there has to be a certain degree of

imposition of ideas, discipline, attendance, et cetera, on

children, because it is children we are talking about. Many

people ask me how we can have an orderly adult society when we

are inculcating the idea in our children's minds that they can

do exactly as they please.

While I agree with the Minister in the abolition of corporal

punishment, for example, on the other hand, that is another

general example of the lack of replacement with some other form

of discipline. Not only are the teachers telling us that law

and order in the classroom are breaking down, but now we have

the Minister bringing forth an amendment which says that they

don't even have to attend school regularly. I'm talking about

section 8.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That is not

section 8.

MR. WALLACE: We are repealing

section 122. The first six words of that

section say: "Every pupil shall attend school regularly…." I take it

from the Minister's comments that all children are not, in fact, attending school

regularly. She admitted that and I think we all know it; the teachers and the

principals will tell you that. They will also tell you they don't know how to

control it or what to do about it because they have a lack of authority to impose

discipline. So because that is the unhappy situation, the Minister says, "Oh

well, if that is the situation we may as well take it out of the Act, I guess."

[ Page

3619 ]

That's the point we are trying to make from our party. We

are not trying to blame the Minister for the problems in

education. We know they are there. I am certainly not claiming

that we have any miraculous answers. But it does nothing to

help the situation to make it even easier for the pupils to

thumb their noses at authority. That is the point we are trying

to make.

I am not personally particularly concerned with this dress;

I think it is desirable to encourage neatness and tidiness. I

agree entirely with the Minister that we can't tell people and

children what to wear.

But that first part of this

section is most important

because if they grow up feeling that it is not really important

to attend school regularly, then get a job in the work force

and wake up some morning with a hangover, they may think it is

not very important to attend work regularly either, or church

or meetings or any other social responsibility that they take

on after they leave school.

This drift, this permissiveness, this attitude of

do-what-you-like and if you don't feel like doing it or you

don't feel like going to school, in the view of this government

that isn't all that important, never mind — that is the central

point — the very central point.

While the Minister may feel that this is dictation to insist

that they attend regularly, I have to repeat the point that

parents, citizens and employers, and many, many segments and

cross-sections of our society feel that it is disastrous, that

our education system is carrying less and less impact in its

discipline and in its basic philosophy that all of us, as we go

through life, have to meet certain responsibilities, obey

certain rules and obey the law in order to have an orderly

society. If you start out in the school by giving them the idea

that when they don't feel like going to school they don't have

to go, that is, I think, just one more very dangerous and

disastrous step in this whole direction toward a society where

the individual decides exactly what suits him or herself with

very little concern for others.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, just

to make it abundantly clear to all of the Members of this House

and also to all of the members of the general public,

section

122, which this Minister is asking to repeal in its totality,

should be read into the record. I intend to do that. It

says:

"Every pupil shall attend school regularly, be clean

and tidy in person, and present himself punctually at each session of

school, clothed appropriately in keeping with the custom of the school

as sanctioned by the board."

Subsection (2) reads:

"The board of any school district may, by bylaw, prescribe

either generally or specifically an appropriate type of clothing to be worn

by pupils of any school or all schools within its jurisdiction."

That is the section. But by repealing the whole of the

section, this Minister has succeeded in taking away completely

the discretion, authority and autonomy, which she is always so

delighted to talk about, of the school board in determining

dress. Over and above that, in actual effect, she has repealed

the whole school Act insofar as school attendance is concerned.

She says we will leave it up to the parents, the teachers and

the pupils to work it out as to whether or not little Johnny or

Mary will go to school regularly or be there on time.

I suppose the Minister's suggestion will mean that there

will a plebiscite of every pupil, teacher and parent in every

classroom throughout the whole of the province as to whether or

not a child will have to attend school or whether a child will

have to be in school punctually.

It's just straight milksop stuff as far as I'm concerned.

There is no authority at the present time save and except

expulsion of a child from school if there is continuous

misbehavior. This is just catering to that, just absolutely

catering to it. You're just asking for it; you're just sticking

your chin out as far as you possibly can.

You're not setting any guidelines; you're not providing any

leadership at all. It's a straight abdication of

responsibility. For practical purposes, if you pass this repeal

section 122, you've thrown out the school Act in the

Province of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I submit that the repeal of this section….

Certainly we're going to vote against the

section and I hope

the Members of the House will have the common sense to do the

same.

I believe the repeal of this

section would do a tremendous

disservice to the parents of British Columbia and, indirectly,

to the children because they would not understand the harm they

would do themselves by indulging in the opportunities granted

to them by the Minister of Education and by the provincial

government were this Legislature foolish enough to accede to

the suggestion in this bill.

I would like to ask bluntly how a parent of British Columbia

can deal with the situation where their youngster either

refuses to go to school or says they're going to go to school

and refuses to turn up.

In the past there has always been a degree of mutual

understanding between the schools and the parents which helped

to encourage children, who would otherwise go down the wrong

path, to stay in school and make an effort. But what happens

now? What can the parent do — that's what I'm asking the

Minister — if their youngster either refuses to go to school or

says they're going and doesn't turn up? The school can do

nothing. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the

[ Page 3620 ]

school does nothing.

In many home situations in British Columbia, both parents

work. They depend on the children going to school, but they

aren't going to school. In large numbers they aren't going to

school. I don't think my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) quite understands the fact that the schools aren't

disciplining or expelling youngsters who don't show up at

school. They drift, and the school drifts. Absenteeism runs at

an alarming percentage in some of our high schools today.

I flatly deny what the Minister says about my not having

been near schools. I have, and I can tell you this: the one

thing that teachers, administrators and parents remark about in

school today, is the erosion of discipline and effort to the

extent of non-attendance at 10, 20, 30 per cent.

I agree with what the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says:

the NDP cannot be blamed for something that certainly extends

beyond the boundaries of British Columbia. The NDP can be

blamed, however, with drifting along behind the fashion of the

day in the mistaken belief that this is the way to gain

popularity.

Sometimes for the good of a society, you have to assert

authority because it's your responsibility to do so. It is

clearly the responsibility of the Minister of Education, the

Department of Education and the Government of British Columbia

to assert that authority today, however unpopular they think it

may be. In the long run, it is not only desirable, Mr.

Chairman, it is essential.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I had no idea this debate was going to go

on and on, on the premise from the Members who have just spoken

— a completely wrong premise. If they would only read

section

121 of the Act, you will see where every child in the Province

of British Columbia is required to attend school.

You are purposely throwing out to the public that our

government abrogates this whole principle of children attending

school because you have not bothered to read the school Act,

section 12 1. You are spreading across the province that this

government is leading the way to permissiveness in the schools

without even bothering to read your school Act. You have

accused me as Minister under this

section 8, which we're

dealing with now, of stating that no child has to attend

school. We removed

section 8 because it's redundant and

archaic. If you read

section 121, every child in British

Columbia has to attend school.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's right in front of you. I'm sick and tired, particularly

from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, to listen to these high-flung speeches

with no basic information. Frankly, I'm really disappointed with the Member

for Oak Bay, who is usually most reasonable but has fallen right into this by

not reading the school Act of British Columbia.

I do hope, for the sake of the parents and the pupils out

there, that this is reported by the press. You are going to

send across this province the misinformation, when this Act

passes, that no child has to attend school regularly in B.C.,

which is absolutely wrong. You should be completely ashamed of

yourself from your ignorance in not reading the Act and also

for attempting to discredit this government by false

information.

MR. CURTIS: I'm afraid that from this corner of the House I

have to file a minority report.

The marginal note in the Public Schools Act for this

section

that is going to be deleted is "cleanliness of pupils." That is

obviously its main thrust. I have to agree with the Minister of

Education in this regard; there are other sections untouched

which deal with the behaviour patterns of students. I look at

section 123 which is untouched: "Every pupil shall conform to

the rules of the school, be obedient to his instructors and

diligent in his studies." Also,

section 125 gives some distinct

and definite authority to local school boards.

Perhaps we started out on the wrong foot this morning. The

first few words of

section 122 perhaps should be repeated

somewhere else with respect to "Every pupil shall attend school

regularly." But as far as dress conforming to certain rules and

regulations respecting length of hair and so on, I hope those

days have gone forever from British Columbia.

I went through the school system when we had rigid

restrictions imposed from above with respect to what we might

wear. As a matter of fact, to point out how ludicrous it was at

one point, I was dismissed from school for wearing a T-shirt.

That was in the British Columbia school system not that many

years ago. Dismissed for the day, I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: You came back.

MR. CURTIS: I came back. But I'm afraid that some of the

debate has strayed from

section 122's principal intent. Perhaps

the fault lies with the original drafting of the section, which

combined punctuality, cleanliness, tidiness where they might

well have been separated.

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me that by everything this

Legislature does it exercises some kind of leadership in this

province. By repealing

section 122, it is saying a few things.

"Every pupil shall attend school regularly," I agree is

said in

section 121 in

[ Page 3621 ]

different words. But then it goes on to say, "be clean and

tidy in person."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's not in

section 123, Mr. Minister, and you

know it. Read your Act. If we repeal 122, we're saying that's

no longer necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. GIBSON: "And present himself punctually at each session

of school clothed appropriately." If we repeal

section 122, we

are saying that, according to the Legislature, we'll take that

out of the law too. And finally, "in keeping with the custom of

the school as sanctioned by the board." That's exactly the

local option the Minister has been talking about.

It seems to me that the kind of leadership this Legislature

is giving, if it repeals this section, is to say to the

students of this province that these things are not as

important as has been thought in the past. To me, Mr. Chairman,

that's not good enough.

HON. MR. HALL: I want to just join in this debate for one

second because I've never heard such a stream of senseless,

dictatorial thought expressed on the floor of this chamber in

years. I only wish this debate was taking place at about 2:30

on a regular afternoon when these galleries are full of

responsible pupils of our school system who come here day after

day after day after day. I want to tell you, Mr. Member,

there's no way you're going to get the kind of modified,

structured behaviour from our school children if you think that

by not repealing this Act you're going to do something.

In short, Mr. Member, I want to tell you this: If you want

to get good behaviour, if you want to get rules observed, if

you want to get conduct improved, you do it in cooperation and

consultation with those that you expect to conform to those

standards. And you're not going to do it by the cheap,

gratuitous insult that's been in this Act for 50 years — that

pupils come to school clean. What nonsense!

Section 123 enables the school boards in this province, the

students, the student bodies and everybody else to get together

to bring a set of rules and a code of deportment that is ideal

for that school, that district and those people at that point

in time. That's what we should be striving for.

To stand up, the bunch of you, trapped in your waterfront

idiosyncrasies, and try to lecture the pupils of this province

on what they should do, to me is a sad, sad state of affairs. A

sad state of affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't work.

HON. MR. HALL: It won't work. You know it will work.

MR. GIBSON: Nonsense.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm saying to you that if you'd done your

homework, read this bill, read the Act before you stood on your

feet and made those ridiculous arguments, we could have had

something to be proud of coming out of this Legislature instead

of divisive tactics and the senseless posture the Liberals have

adopted. I think it's to be remarked upon that only one Member

of the opposition parties has seen and has done his homework on

this bill.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, years ago,

students learned, and they still learn, this passage which I

think is appropriate to what's just been said:

"All the world's a stage,

"And all the men and women merely players:

"They have their exits and their entrances;

"And one man in his time plays many parts,

"His acts being seven ages."

That's 300 years ago — Shakespeare. I think it's pretty

relevant to what we've really heard at this time in the

Legislature.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have to say something in

respect to what that Minister's just said. He said that this

was a centralist proposition. I want to point out to that

Minister that this

section which is being repealed says: "In

keeping with the custom of the school as sanctioned by the

board." That's about as local as you can get.

Furthermore, the Minister said that rules with respect to

cleanliness and tidiness are nonsense. And I say to that

Minister that they are not.

HON. MR. HALL: I never said that.

MR. GIBSON: And I say that the rules of this House….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Point of order. There's so much

misinformation placed on this record today — no one in this

House said that being tidy and clean was nonsense.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister said it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think you completely misinterpreted it

if you read the Hansard .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the proper way, though, would be for

you to make your own statement afterwards.

[ Page 3622 ]

MR. GIBSON: The public, Mr. Chairman, can read the

Hansard and see exactly what the Minister said. But

that's what I say he said. He said….

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

do you say you said?

MR. GIBSON: He said that rules which relate to cleanliness

have to be worked out or else they're nonsense. I say to him

that we come here as Members of this House, and we look for

rules of order in this House as to cleanliness and as to

deportment, which we try to follow. I don't see why the same

kind of rules shouldn't be in place in our schools, just as

they should be in place in every home in this province.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Who makes rules in the

House?

MR. GIBSON: And I say that the repeal of this provision is

an invitation to young people across this province to say that

there has been some slackening off in this kind of standard,

and I say that's wrong.

HON. MR. HALL: Now the Member can read Hansard and he

will find that he changed and added five words from the second

time he spoke as compared to the first, in relation to what I

said. That's the kind of thing I'm objecting to.

MR. GIBSON: What do you say I said?

HON. MR. HALL: I am objecting to that. I want to again draw

to the Member's attention that he underscored my words when he

talked about the rules of this House.

Who makes the rules in this House, Mr. Member? We do. We

make the rules for ourselves. And that's what we're suggesting

should be done from now on in the public schools of this

province — that those who are involved at the level of the

school, namely the board, the teachers and the pupils, will

make the rules, and we'll get a better set of rules for them.

And everybody knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it says.

HON. MR. HALL: It does not say that.

MR. GIBSON: It does say that. Read the section.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Hall

Cummings

Gabelmann

Macdonald

Levi

Gorst

Dailly

Lorimer

Rolston

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Barnes

Nimsick

Cocke

Steves

Stupich

King

Kelly

Hartley

Lea

Curtis

Calder

Young

Chabot

Nunweiler

Radford

Bennett

Brown

Lauk

Fraser

Sanford

Nicolson

Phillips

D'Arcy

Skelly

McClelland

Morrison

NAYS — 6

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

AN HON. MEMBER: I request the division be recorded.

Sections 9 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman,

section 17 makes some

significant changes in the matter of capital expense and the

raising of moneys by school boards for the carrying out of

capital works. It removes from the school boards any obligation

to go to the voters in their school district to obtain approval

before the borrowing of capital funds in those instances when

they have the approval of the Minister.

This also is a significant change in the operation of our

school boards. I draw to the Minister's attention what she said

when we were talking about an earlier

section concerning

candidacy for the office of school trustee. She said that she

thought it was appropriate that candidacies not be restricted

and that in the final analysis it was the people who would

decide whether a person was or was not fit to be a school

trustee. So she, in that respect, gives the final choice to the

individuals who are entitled to vote in the school

district.

Yet when it comes to the matter whether or not capital funds

should be raised, whether or not there should be an imposition

upon the taxpayers for the division of capital works in the

school district, she would exclude the right of the public to

be consulted and to express their point of view.

I happen to think that this is a wrong direction we are

taking and I would be happy if the Minister could indicate what

the philosophy behind these amendments is, as she said she

would do during second reading.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, right across Canada I think

you'll find that almost every province of Canada, exclusive of

B.C., until this Act is passed,

[ Page 3623 ]

has removed capital referenda.

The philosophy behind it, first of all, is that we do

believe sincerely that the school boards, when it comes to

drawing up plans for capital projections, should have the right

to do that without having to go to referendum to the taxpayer.

We believe that because, as I said to you earlier, the taxpayer

can always make his judgment on the day he cast his ballot.

I also know that the school boards of this province, when

they move into any massive new capital project, will not sit in

isolation, I'm sure, from the public. They will have meetings

to discuss with the public the needs for new sites and schools

in their district. As a matter of fact, right now this takes

place anyway. You find that parents themselves are vitally

interested in where the new schools are going to be built in

their districts. You find those consultative meetings taking

place now and I know they will continue.

Another point I would like to make is that if you look at

the history of school referenda in this province — it rather

shocked me — you will find the average vote has been, I'm told,

12 per cent turnout of the taxpayers to vote on school

referenda. Those were the figures given to me.

All I can say to you is: it's quite obvious that if you only

have a 12 per cent turnout, when it comes to going to the

ballot box and exercising your right on capital projections for

schools, it seems to be that the taxpayer is saying, "We think

the school trustees are quite capable of doing this and, of

course, we'll let them know if we don't like what they're

doing."

So for a number of years we have had this very low

percentage across the province turning out to vote on capital

referenda. Of course, the tragedy has been that you have had

cases where schools have vitally needed these programmes. You

know yourself, Mr. Member, we have listened to the debates in

the House over the past years of unfortunate situations where

referenda went down to defeat. Today, as Minister, I'm having

to take up the results of those disastrous defeats.

The District of Surrey is an example where a number of

referenda were defeated and now we are in the situation where

we have to try and make up very quickly for those lost

years.

In other words, I'm basically saying that the whole matter

of planning for capital is something that, I believe, can be

done best by the school board with the approval finally, of

course, of the Department of Education. I think it's better for

the smooth development of our capital programming. I think the

people of British Columbia, through the turnouts at their

voting time on capital referenda, have shown that they

themselves do have faith in the school boards of the province

and the department to prepare good, reasonable, sound capital

projects.

MR. GIBSON: The situation the Minister has been

contemplating in her remarks, which I'd largely agree with,

relates to the situation where a school board may wish to

advance further in the provision of capital facilities than the

local ratepayers, and the approval there would then rest with

the Department of Education.

But I would ask the Minister what about the opposite

situation when the local school board and the local ratepayers

wish to go faster and further in the provision of capital

facilities than does the Department of Education. Here is where

a rather strong central control comes in, and where possibly

the ability to hold a referendum would act as a moral force and

a persuasion to the department, that, indeed, these extra funds

that the department otherwise thought unjustified, were indeed

supported by strong local opinion.

Could the holding of a referendum to show support still be a

voluntary if not necessary thing for a local school board, in

order to convince the Department of Education that this is

indeed a meaningful thing?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, it didn't work that way in the past.

I think it gets down to the government in power and their

commitment to education and to capital projects, and of course,

it gets down to the money that's available which I realize all

governments have to face. So we have had a history of

ratepayers approving referenda over the last 20 years,

overwhelmingly approving it, and not finding that the money was

forthcoming because the past government made the decision that

just so many funds would be allowed.

Now, we as a government have to make the decision also. You

said, "Is it not true that there will be pressures and the

school districts and the parents will want to go ahead of what

the Department of Education decides?" Well, I will have to say,

naturally…you can never accede to all the requests across

the province immediately for capital programmes, particularly

today where we are having so many increases in our construction

costs. We are doing our very best in this government to keep up

the building needs, but it's not going to be easy.

As a matter of fact, we've already allocated $60 million for

capital expenditures over the last year. I'm asking the school

boards to work with me on trying to devise more economical

methods, new ways of meeting the class programme problems.

Section 17 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete

[ Page 3624 ]

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 89, Public Schools Amendment Act , 1974, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee further reports that there was a

division on

section 8 and asks leave to have this

recorded in the Journals .

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Gabelmann in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 235: Minister's office, $100,716.

MR. WALLACE: I spoke in the debate last night. I had felt I

had said all I needed to say until we had the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in full

flight for the last 20 minutes last night. It is very

obvious that the opposition….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, five minutes; it doesn't matter. What you

said needs to be countered and corrected. It is very obvious — and disappointing, of course — but very obvious that the

opposition hasn't made its point clear in this debate on

Autoplan. I think a few more words are in order.

The Minister made the speech which was reminiscent of the

kind of performance he used to give as Leader of the Opposition

on this side of the House in the years I sat in this House

while the Minister was also on this side.

He was a great respecter of parliament, and still is. He was

a great respecter of the rights of the individual, a great

respecter of the majority vote, the majority opinion, respect

for minorities, et cetera — all the principles that are part and

parcel of the parliamentary and democratic system.

In the midst of his great oration last night he did,

however, overlook just one or two points. First of all, to a

parliamentarian, let me remind him that 61 per cent of people

in this province did not vote for socialism.

Interjection.

MR WALLACE: For the record, I happen to have more than

50 per cent of the vote in my riding, which is what very

few people in this House could stand up and say. Don't give me

that garbage.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm just setting the record straight.

Maybe you could keep the Member asleep as he usually is; he

seems to be awake this morning.

There are 61 per cent of the people who did not vote for

socialism, of which a main plank was a monopoly car insurance.

The word "monopoly" seems to not get through to the mind of

this Minister or this government. If you want to be a

parliamentarian, as I know you do, one of the very first

responsibilities is to listen to everybody in your riding and

everybody in the province, not just the people who vote for

your party any more than vote for mine.

Certainly the number of letters I've had, and contacts and

phone calls and letters to the editor…. Read what people are

saying. Many, many people are not the least bit happy with a

monopoly situation where the government is the sole provider

and where you take it or leave it on their terms.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, don't start chirping in.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We'll get to that. That's part of the record

that I'm just going to set straight and that he distorted last

night at 11 o'clock. You just sit and listen without chirp,

chirp, chirping, I'll give you the answers.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As an individual whom I respect, the Minister

of Transport and Communications believes the individual has the

choice and has rights and certain freedoms of choice. I always

thought from listening to the Minister when he sat on this side

of the House that he felt as strongly as I do about freedom of

choice. When the individual decides to buy or insure a car, or

buy a house, or send his children to school, or a multitude of

other functions we all carry out every day, he should have some

choice as to how that should be done.

For a Minister, part of a government with 39 per cent

support from the population, to stand up last night and suggest

that Autoplan is the best thing since sliced bread I think was

just a little hard for me to take.

[ Page 3625 ]

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You sure did.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You distorted the truth.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, you did. I'll put that straight right now.

I hope the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), now

that he wants an answer, won't sit and gabble to his

neighbour.

I and the Conservative Party are on record as having never

said that we would destroy ICBC. Now you, Mr. Minister, try and

deny that you didn't use the word "destroy" last night. You did

use that word. I challenge you right now: provide one shred of

evidence in writing, manuscripts, tapes, hotlines, that I have

ever said, or used the word, that we would destroy ICBC. I have

never said that; nor would it be our plan. All we have said is

that we will prove to the people of British Columbia that

competition is a healthy market condition in British

Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, no. I didn't say that either. No, I

didn't.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I have had minimal contact with the insurance

companies, so don't get out your broad brush and just paint

everybody with one colour.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We have never said that we would destroy ICBC.

We have simply said — and I say it again…. It will be our

platform in the next election. Don't give us all this scare

tactics that the Premier tries: that we will be afraid to

challenge the so-called perfect, wonderful, tremendous,

unheard-of Autoplan such as the Minister of Transport and

Communications described. We'll challenge it; we're not scared.

It will be one of our main planks based on our fundamental

concept in the Conservative Party that freedom of choice is

important and vital to the individual. We will simply create a

choice. ICBC can do its thing, and any private enterpriser who

wants to compete will be allowed to compete.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. I'm giving you that assurance

right now. But let's repeat….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What have you told the insurance

companies?

MR. WALLACE: I haven't talked to any insurance companies.

Don't keep coming back with this implication, which is an

unfair insinuation, that somehow I'm in communication with the

insurance companies. I'm in communication with the people I

represent. For every letter which has crossed my desk from an

insurance company there are 200 from the man in the street. And

it's the man on the street and the woman on the street whom I'm

talking about.

We will encourage competition but we will not destroy or

even attempt to destroy ICBC. The reason for that, Mr. Minister

of Public Works, is very simple. Not only do we believe in

freedom of choice and in competition, but there's a third part

that keeps being missed in this House all the time. If you

compete and you can't survive, then that proves you have no

need to exist.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: If this government is so confident that it can

give better insurance and cheaper insurance and give the

citizens altogether a better deal, why are they afraid of

competition? Surely the test of who is the best man is for the

person to compete with others who say they can do better.

When you rule out competition, then, of course, within one

year or two years, as I tried to point out on this farcical

refund system, we will have no comparison. We'll have one, big,

monolithic, monopolistic system providing all the car insurance

a year or two years from now. The poor citizen who is concerned

about his premium won't even be able to write in and say,

"Well, I got it from this company last year for $52 but this

year I am paying $100 to the government plan."

He won't even be able to say that, because there won't be

any standards for comparison — no competition. As I said very

clearly last night, this refund farce is the most pathetic,

face-saving gesture by this government to try and conceal the

fact that it has fallen hopelessly short of meeting the kind of

election commitment it made in saying that everyone would pay

20 per cent less for their car insurance.

For the Minister to get up last night at the close of debate

and give us this grandiose and eloquent description of this

Autoplan as though everybody and his brother was so happy that

it had happened…. Let's get the record straight. I could

send him letter after letter after letter that there are many,

many people in this province who are not the least bit happy

with Autoplan.

Compulsion. Haven't you had letters, Mr. Minister? When you

sat on this side of the House,

[ Page 3626 ]

how you talked about freedom and rights and privileges of

the individual! You must have had letters where certain people

choose, on their own, not to carry collision insurance. But, oh

no, now it is compulsory. Here again we have big brother

government telling the persons and the individuals in our

society what is good for them — government's saying: "Maybe you

don't want to do it that way, but we are telling you what way

you shall do it."

Where is the Minister who sat on this side of the House? I'm

sure he did feel the way he said he did when he espoused the

concern and the importance of individual rights and

freedoms.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Wake up, Roy! We are finished that debate. We

discussed schools about half an hour ago; we are on Autoplan

now, Roy. Wakey, wakey!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's have a little bit of order, please.

MR. WALLACE: I would go one point further and say that I am

deeply concerned. Whether the situation has been contrived or

whether there have really been very serious delays, I'm very

seriously concerned at the way in which we are being held in

suspense by the Premier of this province in regard to an

announcement as to how he will cope with the increased price of

gasoline for the consumer.

I just want to make something else very plain. The Minister

has asked us to make our position very plain on ICBC and I hope

I have done that, especially in regard to this party's position

on the question of fair competition.

If the Premier is about to further bolster the inadequacies

of Autoplan by some subterfuge similar to the refund subterfuge

and subsidize all premiums across the province so as to

establish, let us say, the so-called postage stamp rate, then I

challenge the Premier of this province that he must call an

election to be allowed to do that in the eyes of the people of

this province.

That will be the biggest, phony kind of subsidy to bolster a

major political platform which went sour from the 1972

campaign. I am not saying that the Premier is about to do that,

but the way in which the announcement has been delayed, the

fact that he has said he will not do as has been done in other

provinces by reducing the provincial tax on gasoline….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How many provinces reduced the tax on

gasoline?

MR. WALLACE: Two of the provinces — Saskatchewan and

Manitoba.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't even know; you said

"Manitoba."

MR. WALLACE: The fact is, Mr. Chairman, if Autoplan, which

may or may not be running according to some of the figures

which were produced in debate earlier this week…. One Member

has suggested that costs will exceed premiums by $10

million.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't read the report right.

MR. WALLACE: No, but I am stating that at least one Member

in this House has made that assertion. You've said that he is

wrong but the fact is….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm saying that you have countered his

statement. I think, Mr. Chairman, that because we respect

parliament, two Members on each side of the House have the

right to differ in their opinion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As long as you know that you are quoting

an invalid figure, that's fine.

MR. WALLACE: I'm saying very clearly that the events of the

last few days and weeks, the Premier's statements and this

Minister's statement that the policy is one towards a uniform

insurance rate in all corners of the province — the same rate

for the same car of the same size and vintage…. All I am

saying is that this refund system that had to be put in in a

clumsy, 11th-hour fashion was an admission of this government's

incompetence and inadequacies in bringing in this kind of plan

which it promised at the 1972 election and upon which it

garnered a substantial amount of support.

Having gone through the maze of the refund plan which,

incidentally, excluded a lot of groups which were just as

entitled to a refund as the people who did obtain a refund, we

now have a very high index of suspicion that the Premier is

about to subsidize all automobile insurance in some way or

another to some degree or another simply in the most blatant

political manoeuvre to appear to be helping the motorist in the

face of increased gasoline costs when, in point of fact, he is

looking one year down the road when this Autoplan will be in a

worse financial mess. There is less political loss to subsidize

it in this way now than to try and face the financial mess next

year.

I'm just making it very plain that from what I've heard and

read and from the discussions we have had within our party, if

that should turn out to be the momentous announcement we are to

have in Kamloops tonight, money is to be taken from

[ Page

3627 ]

consolidated revenue to subsidize Autoplan premiums in this

province in order to establish a uniform rate across the

province — and I suspect that is what it will be; the big

Member for Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) supports that concept — if that is to be the momentous announcement to be made

tonight, then I say that the Premier of this province and this

government, if it has any respect for the people of this

province, both the people who voted it into power because of

its Autoplan promises and the people who did not vote it in and

who have been left, in many instances, paying higher

insurances, then, under these circumstances, I say that the

Premier does not have the right.

If this is his plan to be announced in Kamloops tonight,

then this province deserves a provincial election on that issue

alone. Not because it is just dollars out of somebody's pocket;

it is because of the great dereliction of principle espoused in

the 1972 campaign that it would be a cheaper, better plan,

self-sufficient and would not be subsidized from any

direction.

I still don't understand why we can't have some measure of a

two-price system. In fact, we do have a two-price system to a

degree already, but that is another economic argument. The fact

is, in my opinion, the people of British Columbia should be

given some kind of financial assistance by some mechanism or

another to soften the blow which the consumer has from the

increased price of gasoline. I'm not disputing that and I want

to make that very plain. But equally plain, the subsidy should

not be manoeuvred through Autoplan.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We don't run the federal government. We

are not in office in Ottawa. That's where that gas price

increase came from. It came out of Ottawa — from the Liberal

federal government.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the debate does not revolve

around who put up the price of gas or whether it was too much

or too little. I agree that that was a federal

responsibility.

What I am saying is that both sides of the House, I think,

are agreed that the consumer in British Columbia merits some

form of financial assistance by some other means than presently

exists. As I said earlier in the debate, the Premier has flatly

rejected the idea of reducing the gasoline tax.

While some form of assistance, in my view, is indicated, if the Premier intends

to use Autoplan in order to serve two very attractive political ends for his

government — namely, to provide some form of help to the consumer and at the

same time to give Autoplan superficially some kind of financial success which

it presently does not have, as I pointed out through refund debate, plus the

fact that there is a real possibility that next year it will be in an even worse

financial mess — then I say that that will be the most blatant political manoeuvering

that would even make W.A.C. Bennett blush.

I'm amazed at the silence from the government benches. I

have to think that I've hit the nail on the head. Not a single

protest or contradiction of my proposition.

HON. MR. LEA: Are you proposing that?

MR. WALLACE: You're right — I'm opposing that.

HON. MR. LEA: Proposing.

MR. WALLACE: If you want to put $10 million or whatever is

involved to subsidize the car driver, fine.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He asked if you were proposing it. I'm

making notes.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry — I didn't hear the

Minister's interjection.

If this is the….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, just a bit of order so the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay can continue.

MR. WALLACE: I'm almost finished my remarks. These two

points, Mr. Chairman, are so extremely important that we feel

if some such plan is hatching or has been hatched and is

finally to be announced today that the Premier of the province

must call a provincial election based on that particular kind

of political decision, using taxpayers' consolidated revenue,

to suggest that he is helping the motorist, but more

importantly, he is indeed salvaging or attempting to salvage a

plan which has been a failure in the basic goals which the plan

set for itself in the 1972 election campaign.

Not only have many automobile owners reason to ask where is

their 20 per cent less, but those who have applied for a refund

have been told to consider themselves lucky that they're not

paying any more than they did last year. That in itself is a

clear admission that the extravagant promises that were made in

an irresponsible way in the '72 election have certainly not

been met.

Beyond these rather basic and fundamental points, there are

all the other areas which are justifiably to be criticized.

Here we have a government…

AN HON. MEMBER: That cares.

[ Page 3628 ]

MR. WALLACE: Yes, cares for itself, all right. It's busy

running, going crazy to find some plan to bail out the

shortcomings and the financial mistakes of Autoplan. It cares,

all right. It cares about its own survival.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not true.

MR. WALLACE: That is true. We've got this government

spending money buying land which its own legislation has made

inaccessible to claims centres. What kind of incompetence and

inadequacy and stupidity is that? The government which was

responsible for freezing large parts of agricultural land goes

out and buys acres to build an industrial site for a claims

centre. Now tell me, why should we crow about Autoplan and what

it's done for the people of British Columbia when it's spending

money like this?

We have something less than a complete assurance, as we

pointed out in the debate last night, that on the sites where

they will be built municipal taxes will be paid. I listened

very carefully last night, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister when

we were on this subject. Did you notice how precise his answer

was? He has guaranteed payment of taxes in North Vancouver to

the end of the year. That's right. That's a little bit like

guaranteeing the refund to the motor driver for 1973 for one

year. There's no guarantee as to what the rates are. You can

wave your hand and look disgusted, Mr. Minister. The reason

you're waving your hand and looking disgusted is that you're

really in a tight spot right now. These are hard, cold,

established facts that I'm putting into the record, and you

don't like it. You can shrug, you can do a Pierre Trudeau — you

haven't quite got the hair for it, but you just shrugged….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't go too far.

MR. WALLACE: You just did that. So don't deny the

record.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a rough accusation to make.

MR. WALLACE: I withdraw the comparison to Pierre Trudeau.

That's about the worst thing I could accuse you of.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you very much.

MR. WALLACE: I certainly withdraw that remark. But you did

shrug, Mr. Minister.

In addition to these basic failures to meet the goals of the plan, we've had

inadequacy, incompetence and wasting of money. I've pointed out the waste of

money on carpeting. And the Minister, I'll acknowledge in fairness, gave a complete

explanation of what happened. But the record shows that we have some bunch of

incompetents who would go and order carpet, put it down and then take it up

again, or whatever they did.

If the Minister were going to have carpet laid in his home,

I think he would make sure that it didn't have to be taken up

again and replaced by something at four times the price.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, very hard. I'm certainly not putting one

rug under another rug, I'll tell you that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're not either.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, these are facts and I've stuck to

facts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're not facts. You're stuck — that's

all.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister hasn't denied that these are

facts, and he's stuck with them. You're stuck with them, my

friend. It's the Minister that's stuck to them.

The sad thing was that I was all ready to quit last night

until the Minister made his speech, but there were so many

inaccuracies, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk), and indeed an outright distortion of the position of

this party in regard to the position of the Conservative Party

in the next election campaign….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd run for cover if I was you, too.

MR. WALLACE: I won't be running for any cover. It's not my

practice to run for cover.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you run for cover right now.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, leadership isn't the most important thing

in the world — just getting the facts straight, that's

important. I don't care who the next leader is. Leadership for

the person concerned is not the important thing, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, let's stick to the vote, if we

can.

MR. WALLACE: The important thing is to put

[ Page 3629 ]

your record clear on the table. Tell the people what it's

all about. It's very clear that Autoplan, contrary to all the

glorious statements the Minister made last night, has left many

people concerned at this further example of a government that

has to have total control. When it was asked time and again why

it had to be total control, the answer always was, well to make

it economically efficient and financially cheaper to the

consumer, you really have to have total control and no

competition. The Minister was quoting from a famous Scottish

economist not too long ago….

AN HON. MEMBER: Sir Harry Lauder. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: No, I think it was Adam Smith he was referring

to — The Wealth of Nations .

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. He wrote it in 1776 and

you're still back there.

MR. WALLACE: No, I think in 1776 there was still a feeling

among human beings that they enjoyed freedom and the freedom of

choice. And I think the facts are very clear….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't even know the history of

Scotland, my good friend, if you think there was freedom in

Scotland in 1776.

MR. WALLACE: The history of Scotland is a fight for freedom!

You know that, you fool! What's Scotland done all these years?

Centuries, that's what it was! It was a fight for freedom, and

that's what I'm fighting for right now! I know what the history

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was freedom for the lairds but not

for the people.

MR. WALLACE: Don't talk to me about freedom!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. Member, would you please be

seated?

Just while people are relaxing I would ask the Member for

Oak Bay to withdraw the words that I think came out — "you

fool."

MR. WALLACE: I withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to continue?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Are they more than two sword lengths apart?

MR. WALLACE: I never in all my life ever imagined that one Scotsman

would ask another Scotsman about freedom. The history of Scotland is stained

with blood for centuries of fighting for freedom. And all I'm trying to do today

is give every citizen in British Columbia the right to choose where he buys

his insurance — that's all. What's so strange about that?

You fought for freedom when you sat in this chair on this

side of the House, Mr. Minister, and I used to admire, and

still do, the way in which you delivered your point of view,

but you've lost some of that sense of freedom and the

importance of the individual's freedom. Don't tell me that

Scotsmen aren't concerned about freedom.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you know what the lairds kept doing to

the clergy? Whose side would you be on then? Tell me that!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Wild man! Wild man!

Wild man!

HON. MR. LAUK: Dr. Wallace, would you attend to the Member

for South Peace? I think he has a hernia. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the debate's gone on long enough

without going into great detail in Scottish history. But I

think it brings us back to the very central theme, that

individuals in society do like to have a choice.

Even if the government, by following its own particular

belief espoused in the 1972 campaign, had proven that it did

give a better service and it was cheaper to the individual,

then to some degree I would be compelled to acknowledge that my

argument was wrong or inadequate. Not only have they taken away

the freedom of choice but they have not in fact met the basic

thrusts and the basic goals of the plan for the reasons I've

mentioned, which I needn't remunerate over and over again.

That, to my way of thinking, shows that there is good reason to

allow competition to re-enter the field. Maybe I can ask the

Minister: would the government, in the light of the kind of

facts and figures which have been discussed for many days,

consider allowing competition?

For example, I just happen to have a newspaper clipping in

front of me which relates to general insurance and the

instances which were discovered in Saskatchewan. I'm commenting

on the fact that in Saskatchewan it was made compulsory for

municipal and hospital authorities to buy government insurance.

And then a Liberal government in the province withdrew the

requirement that these bodies had to buy their insurance from

the government plan. It's interesting that since that date when

the Liberal government allowed competition to come back in

[ Page 3630 ]

was discovered there were some savings in premiums when

competition occurred. And interestingly enough, since the NDP

government regained power in Saskatchewan it has not in fact

reintroduced the monopoly system. I think we even have an

example of an NDP government which has learned that there is

something useful in the competitive system, even although it

had tried its own system once and found it really didn't create

the savings for the hospitals and municipalities that were

intended.

So in the light, let us say, of that experience in

Saskatchewan, in light of the fact that this Minister has had

to develop and implement this complicated refund plan, and

since he's not given me an answer as to whether the refund will

occur next year to ensure that the present recipients of

refunds don't suddenly have a 30 or 40 per cent increase in

their premium next year…. This Minister is always asking us

to give figures and facts and do our homework, and I've tried

to stick very clearly to all the information which is clearly

documented — facts and figures. Here again, this example in

Saskatchewan is documented. It is a fact that the NDP

Saskatchewan government did not return to the monopoly system

when the Liberal government had decided that competition could

still keep the rates down and make them competitive for schools

and municipalities.

I hope the other parties will respond also to the Minister's

speech of last night, because I think we on this side of the

House, and certainly in this party, want to make it very plain

that anything which can be done to assure the automobile driver

of the best service and the cheapest premium should be done.

What we are saying unmistakably is that Autoplan has failed in

that goal, and secondly, and even more importantly, that we

will absolutely fight to the last breath in our bodies if the

Premier is about to carry out the most blatant political

manoeuvering to salvage Autoplan by telling the people that

he's making their gasoline cheaper.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have to comment briefly on

something the Minister said last night relating to what he saw

as reasons for keeping internal information about the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia from the public. He made a

comparison with the practice relating to Crown corporations in

Ottawa and he read a quote from a parliamentary secretary. He

made that as a comparison, Mr. Chairman, and by inference was

using that as something which would excuse not making ICBC

information public.

I want to point out to him that the practices of our two parliaments are different

in many regards. In some ways Ottawa protects the rights of private Members

better, but they do some things wrong, too. One thing they do wrong, in my

view, is the protection and the insulation from legislative review that they

give to Crown corporations. I don't think therefore that that is any kind of

a proper reason not to do that here.

It particularly doesn't apply when the Minister is president

of the corporation involved. At least in the Ottawa case the

Crown corporations are arm's length corporations and they're

not run by cabinet Ministers. But this is a case where the

Minister is the president and head of that corporation. So

under his salary vote it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we

have a right to all of the information about that

corporation.

Now there can be, in some areas, an argument of commercial

confidentiality on the grounds of competitive position. But

there's no competitive position here, Mr. Chairman. The ICBC

has a monopoly in this province. So the Minister doesn't have

to worry that the revelation of information will damage the

competitive position of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

So I say that those kinds of reasons which the Minister

gives for suppressing information are completely specious, and

any reasons there might be are to protect the government and

not to protect the corporation.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm sorry that the Minister

absented himself from the chamber, but it seems like a long

time ago since we….

Interjection.

Mr. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Highways has promised to

take notes. Is that what you said? Thank you.

Despite the hysterical, blustery performance in defence of

ICBC last night by the Minister, I get the message loud and

clear that that Minister has no faith in the corporation and

that he's not so sure that things are quite as rosy as he

attempts to paint them in this House. If he was sure of his

footing, he wouldn't be so frightened about opening things up

to free competition, and he wouldn't be so frightened about

telling the people of British Columbia all of the facts about

the operation of that corporation when asked to do so by the

Members of this House. No, I think that that kind of blustering

performance that he gave last night was a cover-up for his lack

of faith in the operation of the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia.

I want to put it on the record, too, Mr. Chairman, as some of the

other Members have done, as to the position that we hold in relation to

the Insurance Corporation in the future when we form the government

after the next election. There is no way that we want to destroy ICBC.

No way, Mr. Chairman. We've made that very clear.

The Minister's inference is that if for some reason

[ Page 3631 ]

we open things up to free and fair competition, that in

itself will destroy ICBC. If ICBC is in such a weakened

position at this time when it's only beginning that it can't

face up to fair competition, then there's something seriously

wrong with that publicly owned corporation — something

seriously wrong.

It should be able to stand on its own two feet and face any

kind of fair competition. I have no hesitation in saying….

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it's on the record that the

Social Credit Party in convention voted in favour of publicly

sponsored auto insurance.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Why didn't they put it in

then?

MR. McCLELLAND: The last two conventions. Well, I'm telling

you what the Social Credit Party has done, Mr. Chairman, and

the record is very clear in that regard. And I feel the same

way.

I have no hesitation in saying that once we form the

government again we will return free competition to British

Columbia. We'll return fair competition. We'll return it

providing anybody still wants to do business in this province

after four or five years of abuse from that government. And

that's doubtful.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his frank statement in

response to the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis), with regard to the commitment to Gabriola Island. I

think it's good that you finally put that commitment on the

record. I'd like to ask whether or not you have that same kind

of commitment to the Iona proposal and, if that commitment is

there, what kind of consultation you have had with regional and

local authorities; if you have determined yet how much farmland

is going to be raped because of the commitment to install

massive ferry terminals in that area on prime farmland.

Is the regional district involved at all in your

discussions, and is the Land Commission involved in the

discussions with regard to Iona? I think the Minister should be

as frank about that commitment as he was with the commitment to

Gabriola Island.

It seems a long time since I stood up and opened the debate

for the opposition on this Minister's estimates. But there were….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A week ago yesterday.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's quite a while. But I've still been

waiting for some of the answers to some of the questions I

asked a week ago yesterday. For instance, what is the Minister

doing about slow payment to towing companies — particularly

those who are up against it, some of them because they can't

get their payments out of ICBC?

I think the municipalities of this province would like to

know once and for all how this corporation is going to

determine satisfactory performance so that those municipalities

can qualify for the 30 or 40 per cent reduction in their fleet

insurance rates.

They don't have any idea at the moment how they qualify and

what constitutes satisfactory performance. They are afraid, as

I am, that rather than getting a 30 or 40 per cent reduction in

their Autoplan rates, they're going to be faced with 100, 150

per cent increases which will have to be passed on directly

once again to the taxpayers of those municipalities. What does

satisfactory performance mean? And will in fact any

municipalities be getting the full 40 per cent reduction?

I can't accept the Minister's responses to the rip-off of

motorcycle riders in British Columbia. He says that British

Columbians ride their motorcycles a lot more than other parts

of Canada. But that's only true of the lower mainland, and I'm

not so sure that it even is a factor. I'm not so sure that it's

even a factor.

But it certainly isn't enough of a factor, Mr. Chairman, to

demand that a person with a $2,000 motorbike pays twice the

premium of a person with a car of the same value. What kind of

fairness is that? If that isn't a rip-off of one segment of

society, I don't know what it is.

The Minister in his response to some of the things that were

said by the opposition talked about advertising practices. I'm

not really happy with the answers that we got from him. I don't

expect that we'll get any better answers from him, but he said

that the advertising programme of ICBC was carrying the truth

to the people. Carrying the truth to the people!

Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't see that the kind of advertising

programme that ICBC has been carrying out is anything more than

propaganda for a government corporation — the same kind of

propaganda that this Minister stood in this House and demanded

that other governments stop. This government has been doing it

more blatantly than any other government that I've ever

seen.

I just happened to come across an ad the other day of about

a quarter of a page in The Democrat , I guess. It is a

blank quarter of a page and it says: "This brief pause in the

advertising is brought to you with our compliments. Dunsky

Advertising Ltd."

It's a payoff, Mr. Chairman, to the New Democratic Party for

the ICBC ad business. That's what that little ad in The

Democrat is: a blatant payoff from the government's

advertising agency for the business they've received from

ICBC.

If I could stray just for a second I'd like to refer to the

next page of The Democrat in which there seems to be a

completely illegal ad put in by Canada's Manitoba Distillery

Ltd. — but bearing no disclaimer from the Liquor Control Board.

And I'd hope that

[ Page 3632 ]

the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Wrong estimates, Mr. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I said I was straying just for a

moment, because I want to bring this to the attention of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young). I think that should be

checked out immediately because it's an illegal ad.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pretty sure that that requirement was

removed a year ago.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister

to clarify his statements about plans for auto salvage. Now he

says that the government isn't going into the auto salvage

business. But I'd like to know what it's going to do with all

of the cars it has spread all over this province — in the

middle of some fine communities in many instances, causing a

blight on the landscape of those communities.

It won't help if you continue the practice, or if ICBC

continues the practice — and I really didn't get an answer from

the Minister either — of towing all of these cars into some

central area like Matsqui or Kelowna or Prince George or

Victoria and then dumping them all in the middle of these

communities so that the communities have no control once again

over the way their communities are developing.

It's a shame and a scandal, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know

what ICBC is going to do to make sure that these automobiles

are placed in the kind of position where they aren't a blight

on the community. I'd like to ask the Minister if it's true

that ICBC has either rented or purchased 10 acres — or any

acreage — owned by the Empire Auto Wrecking yard in Surrey. Or

have you purchased any other auto wrecking yard or rented any

space from any auto wrecking yard?

Are you planning any kind of a salvage or recycling or

dismantling operation under the auspices of ICBC anywhere in

British Columbia? Is that your plan?

What happened in Saskatchewan with the recycling and

dismantling was that they didn't allow any competitive bids and

completely bypassed private enterprise in this regard. I think

that the people in the business, particularly those who have

already been forced out of business — and there is one in New

Westminster which has — are fearful that this government again

is going to bypass private enterprise and force those existing

recycling yards out of business. I'd like the Minister to

comment on that.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) talked about this problem

of not having an insurance policy. It's one that the people of British Columbia

are concerned about, despite the Minister's flippant remark about not needing

such a thing with ICBC.

The Minister talked a lot about this great dusty book of

regulations which any citizen can refer to if he wants to know

what he's got in his insurance. But I'd like to refer the

Minister to a letter from the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia to someone who asked about their insurance policy and

where it was. The insurance corporation replied that there is

no policy as such. We know that. What used to be known as the

statutory conditions are now contained in the regulations

pursuant to the Automobile Insurance Act , and are

available through the Queen's Printer.

Now, first of all, that demands that the policy holder is

now responsible for getting his own policy and finding out what

he has in that policy. It should be the other way around. It

must be the insurance company which is responsible for making

sure that the person who purchases his insurance knows what he

is getting and knows what he has exactly.

But the next paragraph in this letter is a dandy, Mr.

Chairman. They refer to the regulations and then the assistant

manager writes: "These regulations are not recommended as

particularly easy reading. However, the information is all

there."

Well, that's part of the point, you know. The person has the

right; a person who buys insurance from Autoplan has the right

to be delivered some kind of a clear policy which tells him

what he or she has. It isn't the responsibility of that person

to go digging through these hundreds and hundreds of pages of

these dry and dull regulations to find out on his own behalf

what kind of coverage he has from the automobile corporation.

That kind of reply from the insurance corporation itself only

reinforces that possibility.

Mr. Chairman, the question of dining rooms on ferries hasn't

really been answered very well. I would hope that the Minister

would address himself very quickly to the question of whether

or not this government intends to return to the previous level

of service in the dining rooms that was in existence in the

summer rush of last year. The Minister says that he will check

with his officials on that, but I think that before these

estimates are completed we deserve an answer.

The Minister was very clear in saying that the changes that

were taking place aboard the ferries last year were only normal

functions to go into some kind of a winter routine. I suggest

that that is baloney to begin with, Mr. Chairman. That is

baloney to begin with because you made some serious structural

changes to those dining rooms which was far more than just some

routine change into a winter schedule. Are you going to go back

and undo those structural changes? Are you going to go back to

the same level of service in the dining rooms aboard the

ferries?

[ Page 3633 ]

What exactly are you going to do?

We don't want any more misleading of the people of British

Columbia with regard to the dining room service on board the

ferries.

The Minister gave some simple little answer the other day

about dining room losses and referred to some kind of a deal

where the staff has to have 40 minutes off on every two-hour

cruise. Tell us why that is necessary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now you're going to build a straw man on

what I didn't say.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister said, Mr. Chairman, that the

staff had to have 40 minutes off….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I did not say that.

MR. McCLELLAND: You did so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I did not.

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course you did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister made the statement, Mr.

Chairman, and it doesn't explain anything about the losses on

the ferries. All I asked was that the Minister institute some

kind of efficient management study of the ferry service and the

dining rooms, and impose or introduce some real restaurant

technology into the operation of the dining rooms on the

ferries. That would go a long way toward solving some of the

losses that we have.

The Minister attempted to relate the dining room service on

board to dining rooms on shore. I would just like to say that

there isn't any restaurant on shore that has the same

opportunity of having such a captive audience delivered with

such regularity as does the ferry system. No restaurant on

shore has that opportunity.

I would like to ask whether or not this government plans to

install any coin-operated food-dispensing machine on board the

ferries as either a substitute for dining room service, as a

substitute for cafeteria service or as an addition to the

present service. It is a simple question: are there any

coin-operated food dispensaries going on board either the ferry

which is in repair now or any of the other ferries? It is a

simple question that can be answered quite easily.

The final point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, has also been made, but I would

like to add my voice to the sort of on-again off-again bus service which is

on the B.C. ferry system by Pacific Stage Lines. They give good service when

they are on the ferries, but there are some key ferry sailings which don't have

buses aboard. That would be fine if a person could refer to their bus

schedule

or their ferry

schedule and find out which ferries do have buses on board and

which don't. But what happens, in fact, is that when a person gets dropped off

at the ferry terminal, as he is purchasing his ticket, at that point there is

sailing it happens to be. By then it is too late.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: If you see the sign — that's right. It is

only a tiny little sign that sits in there. Anyway, whether you

see it or not, it is too late; you're there, you've got to get

on board the ferry. What do you do when you get to the other

end? You either take an expensive taxi ride — and most people

who are walking can't afford a taxi — or you hitch-hike

somehow. You get over to Victoria the best way possible.

Generally, when I get stuck in that position myself I look

around for somebody who doesn't look like a socialist and ask

him for a ride.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Do you prefer an Olds?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no. Be kind, Mr. Member.

I think that is something that should be looked at by the

ferry system. Either include the bus service in the ferry

schedule or, even better, have a bus on every ferry that sails

out of both ends. On the one hand, you are trying to tell us

that you want to encourage foot passengers and bus transport,

and on the other hand you are making it just as difficult as

possible to get that kind of service. I would appreciate it if

the Minister could respond to some of the questions that I have

raised, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, at no time

did I say that the staff gets 40 minutes off. I said that in

each two hours the dining room has to be closed for a 40-minute

period. That's what I said. The passengers are ordered to get

down to the car deck, you have to unload, and then you have to

load. That's what I said and it is obvious that that is the

case. I thought you would have enough basic native intelligence

to understand that.

With regard to the commitment I made regarding Gabriola

Island, again I want you to check Hansard and find out

exactly what I said before you get up and make the kind of

statements that you made. Later on we can discuss the ferries

fully.

With regard to slow payment by ICBC, I announced the other

day the situation which existed with payment. Payments are

right up to date.

MR. McCLELLAND: For towing companies?

[ Page 3634 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For everything. I want to read into the

record a letter which I received, dated May 24.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: File it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm going to read it into the record

because you people keep repeating these untrue statements.

MR. McCLELLAND: They are not untrue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are absolutely untrue. I want to

read this letter addressed to me:

"Dear Mr. Strachan:

"I notice that there has been substantial criticism with

regard to the payment of accounts by the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia to participating body shops.

"I think it is only fair in the public interest that I

should write to you to emphasize, not in my position as mayor,

but in my position as an independent businessman, that the

experience of Peter Pollen Ford Ltd. in receipt of payment for

service rendered from the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia has been truly outstanding.

"As the largest body shop in the City of Victoria I do

believe we are possibly, if not an in-depth random sampling,

typical of body shops in this area.

"Contrary to the mythology that appears to be prevalent in

the community, the so-called independent general insurance

companies have, in my business experience, been the worst

segment of the community in paying their accounts that I have

had the misfortune, as a businessman, to do business with.

"Our current outstanding accounts with ICBC, which

represents now almost 100 per cent of the business of our body

shop, are all current. This fact, considering the volume of

business that we are doing, speaks for itself.

"Signed, Peter Pollen."

That is the kind of record we have established in the

business community. He is still waiting for accounts from the

private insurance industry for work he did last year. We went

into business the first day of March this year, and already

every account is paid right up. There it is. Paid right up.

I've already covered the municipal areas you raised and the

motorcycles. If you are not satisfied with my answers, okay,

that's the difference of opinion.

You mentioned advertising, and again you go off on the aura of suspicion, or

special privilege with regard to the handling of advertising. There are three

advertising accounts within my jurisdiction: ICBC, ferries, and the motor vehicles.

In each case I put a recommendation from the individual in charge of that operation

after they had received submissions from a variety of insurance agencies, and

in each case it has gone to a different firm. In each case I accepted the recommendation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about who does the

advertising for the three different agencies under my

jurisdiction. It is three different advertising firms — three

different advertising firms — based on recommendations I

receive.

I can't remember the name of the one for the ferries — is it

Walters, Erlich — something like that? Ross, Anthony and

something have the one for the motor vehicles, and Dunsky has

the one for ICBC. That's the way I operate.

I resent the accusation that there is something mysterious

and wrong because that particular firm happens to get the

advertising for the one account under my jurisdiction.

With regard to auto wrecking plants, it is true that we are

negotiating with the Surrey auto wreckers as a place to store

wrecked vehicles — not in the recycling project — as an area in

which to store wrecked vehicles.

I want to tell this House that we have helped clear up the

wrecks that were scattered and were being scattered around this

province, because they're now all under the jurisdiction of

ICBC. When they were under the jurisdiction of 180 different

companies they were left lying all over the place, left lying

all over the province. But now that they're under the

jurisdiction of ICBC, they're towed to a central point in every

area and once a week they're up for auction to the highest

bidder. That's how we do it — up for auction to the highest

bidder, then they take them and they recycle them. Now that's

what happens. You may not like it, the fact that we're doing a

better job than we've done before, but that's the answer.

So far as the policies are concerned — I agree, the

regulations would be a little difficult, if that letter was

correct, but here's the booklet which outlines the coverage. As

a matter of fact, I've had objections to the coverage that's

outlined here; I indicated that we're taking a look at that

aspect of it.

There is a very simple and easily understood explanation.

Have you ever read the small print in those insurance policies?

And you don't understand it. This is easily understood by every

individual and that is the way it is.

Now, I think that's the questions that were asked of me. I'm

sorry my good friend isn't here, I wanted to talk to him about

the history of Scotland.

Interjection.

[ Page 3635 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, you rejected that offer of mine. I'm

sorry you did, but you rejected that offer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a

subject which the Minister has not answered on, and that is the

question of whether or not an agent of ICBC, or a director of

ICBC, is telling the truth concerning the appointment of one

Mr. Sharpe.

I think it's important for the Minister to take this

question on which he has had fair notice in terms of the fact

that it's been on the order paper in the form of a motion for

three months. He got fair notice, and it's time that he faced

up to the fact that it's his responsibility to inform the House

where the truth lies in this matter.

Just to refresh your mind, Mr. Chairman, the issue was

fairly straightforward. The claim was made by the Minister of

Health, acting as director, speaking, I guess, as director of

ICBC. I'll quote him:

"On the recommendation of the agents' association, which

said there would not be enough of them to do the job, they came to us at the

end of the year indicating quite clearly that they just couldn't handle it.

The ICBC at that time made a decision to expand the number of agents who would

qualify."

This is denied totally by the president of the Insurance

Agents' Association, Mr. Jack Hamilton, and I quote the

transcript from the interview in which he said, when asked

whether or not there had been any such request, and I'll give

the question and the answer: "There is one thing I want to get

back to. Did the Insurance Agents of B.C." — this is the Sharpe

case again — "make any representation…?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you just for a moment. This

matter has been canvassed thoroughly in these estimates. If you

have some new point to….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, actually the quote that I'm reading

from has never been made in this House, but the answer happens

to be important because we have a case, Mr. Chairman, which

apparently is not fully understood by you, of an agent making a

claim regarding appointments. We have a statement which is

totally contradictory to the….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have a case of the director of ICBC making a statement

quite contradictory. The subject was raised in this House on February 18. A

motion was placed on the order paper which stayed there for some time, and I

want to know whether the Minister responsible will clear this matter up.

A request was made back in February that if there was some

error it be cleared up; if there was an apology due, it be

made. Nothing has happened. We know full well there is no way

of having the matter raised by way of a private Member's

motion, therefore I raised it yesterday and I raise it again

today.

I'd just like to quote the words of the Minister yesterday,

the rough draft: "I don't think that anywhere in my answer did

I say that the agents had recommended an increase in the

agents' force." Well, does he not know at this time? He's

had three months to dig into this, three months to try and find

out. I think it's time that he did say it.

He goes on to say: "I don't think I said anywhere that the

agents had recommended an increase in the agency force." But a

director of ICBC did, and a conflict is clear.

A director of ICBC said as follows:

"When on a recommendation of the agents' association, which

said that there would not be enough of them to do the job, they came to us at

the end of the year indicating quite clearly they just couldn't handle it, the

ICBC at that time made a decision to expand the number of agents who would qualify."

That was the statement of the director.

I just want this matter cleared up because I think it's

important in terms of veracity and terms of the confidence that

people can have in ICBC.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I fear

this nit-picking continually deters us from doing the business

of the House. This problem has been canvassed so many times,

but let me suggest to you this; the front page of the Sun

indicated very clearly…at about that time Mr. Hamilton

said, and made front-page news in the Sun : "Chaos is

coming."

When we met with the agents, the executive of the agents'

association, they didn't tell us to hire, and that's not what I

was saying. But they did tell us that they couldn't handle the

job. They didn't think they could handle it. So therefore, the

board of directors met around this problem and we expanded the

force from something around 900 — I can't remember the exact

figures — from 900 to 1,100 or thereabouts. In other words, we

opened it up so we could put on more. Now that's all there is

to it.

If you wish to put a hard-line kind of…. I recognize the

word "recommendation" there. What I meant by recommendation was

that they were telling us in no uncertain terms that there was

going to be chaos ensuing, that there wasn't going to be

enough, and that kind of thing. You know, they were listening

to all this rot. So we said to ourselves, okay, we'll expand

the agency force, which is precisely what we

[ Page 3636 ]

did. Now let's resolve the thing.

As far as my recommendation around Sharpe was concerned,

I've said a million times that the guy was a particularly good

insurance man whom I had seen in action for 20 years. I

recommended him as I would recommend anybody else. But all of

his moving around prior to that — I had no knowledge of that

until afterwards — going to the Motor Vehicle Branch, this

branch and that branch. But in any event, as far as the

Minister of Transport's and my remarks, they cover the same

ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria, but not

on this subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on this subject….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the subject has been thoroughly

canvassed both in these estimates and prior to now, and I think

it should rest at that. I would ask you to move on to some

other matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your duty is to listen when Members raise

issues of credibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you raise a new point, Mr. Member, you may

continue, but only on a new point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will quote from material not quoted

from before. Will that satisfy you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and try.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. The interview goes on:

"'As a result of what was regarded by Strachan as your

representations, six new agents have been appointed and 13

others have been appointed who were in the process of being

qualified or had been dropped in error from the list.'

Hamilton: 'Nothing to do with any representations by our

association….'"

HON. MR. COCKE: They weren't going to be able to

handle the job, so what's the difference?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The difference is fairly substantial, Mr.

Minister of Health.

"'Nothing to do with any representations by our

departments,' said Mr. Hamilton, 'and we have been in touch

with them on a daily basis for a year and a half.' Webster: 'I

just wanted to get that clear.'"

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You read that yesterday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I did not read that yesterday. That is an untrue

statement. I did not read that statement yesterday.

The interview goes on:

"'Yesterday I tackled the Health Minister, Dennis Cocke, on

a statement in Fotheringham's column that he had leaned on John

Mika, assistant to Mr. Strachan, to get a special licence as an

insurance agent for his friend Sharpe in the Brocklehurst

Shopping Centre in Kamloops. Were you aware of that before

Fotheringham ran the story?' Hamilton: 'Quite a number of people

were aware of the situation.' Webster: 'Do you regard this as

political interference by Mr. Cocke in the appointment of an

agent?' 'I would think that is a good statement,'"

was the

reply.

Now there is, unfortunately, whatever is said, a substantial

difference, Mr. Chairman, between the statement made by the

president of the Insurance Agents' Association and by the

director of ICBC. This matter was raised more than three months

ago. A request was made at that time for clarification. None

was forthcoming. A request was then made by way of a motion on

the order paper which asked that a committee be struck to look

into this matter and nothing was done.

This issue is now being raised in this House. All we had

yesterday was the attempt by the Hon. Minister to say, "Did I

say that the agents had recommended an increase in the agents

for us?" Well, why didn't he say it? Because it wasn't true? If

it isn't true, how is it that we have the statement by the

director of ICBC?

This matter, Mr. Chairman, may not strike the Minister as

tremendously important because his veracity has been called

into question on a number of times. But it is important, when

we in this House request information, to get correct

information from the government. If it happens that a Minister

by error makes an inaccurate statement, it's important to have

that corrected.

To suggest, as the Minister of Transport and Communications

did yesterday, that he has no intention of answering questions

on this is in total contempt of this House. We want to get

things like this straightened out. Otherwise, we simply cannot

have any faith in the credibility of government Ministers.

Could I ask the Minister again…?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Minister doesn't seem very keen

on listening to this but it is an important issue. It has been

there for some time and the time has now come for answers to

that particular question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I might as well.

[ Page 3637 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the Member for "Smear." That's a

good description. He says my veracity has been questioned a

number of times. I agree with you; it has been questioned a

number of times, but on a completely false basis without

justification, without fact, without reason, as a cheap,

political trick. Not only has my veracity been questioned on

that same cheap, political basis to try and build a false

picture to the people of this province but the veracity of

other Members has been questioned on exactly the same basis. No

matter how wild, how stupid, how wrong your accusations are,

you know they'll be printed. It's part of a deliberate plan on

your part to embark on a scurrilous attack on this

government.

I'm concerned. I've dedicated 20 years of my life in the opposition

to the maintenance of a democratic system. I find there are people in

this province who, because they can't control that system, are prepared

to destroy the system. I'm concerned. There are people in this province

who are embarked on destroying our system in order to get rid of the

NDP, and I'm very concerned.

That Member there, what does he do? He throws a bunch of

garbage out on the floor. Then, like a bear, he snarls and

snips and paws around in his own garbage, the garbage he threw

on the floor. Other Members do the same thing. I'm sick and

tired of Members across the way throwing out garbage.

I was up in Buttle Lake with my wife on a fishing trip. In

my tour around they took me to the garbage dump. There were 17

bears there; 17 of them. How many Members in the opposition?

(Laughter.) They were pawing and sniffing and turning over the

same garbage. It's garbage that you threw out there and

continue to throw out there.

I've answered your questions. It's a nothing issue. I've

explained to you what the agents came to us and said. We made

the decision, as the Member said, to increase the agency force

and allow the agency force to be increased from 900 to 1,100.

There were applications there and this one was among it. It

went through with the rest. Now, you can like it or lump it;

you can accept it or discard it. That's the answer and it's the

only answer you're going to get. Get on with your garbage.

MR. PHILLIPS: Every time we seem to get in this Legislature

to the meat of the situation, to the heart of the problem, that

Minister who has had 20 years in this House, so he brags about,

gets up and doesn't answer the question.

HON. MR. COCKE: There's the scavenger.

MR. PHILLIPS: Every time we want a question answered in this House he

gets up and says we're trying to destroy the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you are.

MR. PHILLIPS: Last night in this Legislature he gave us a

10-minute harangue about how we were trying to destroy the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said we were going to bear a grudge,

praying that the system wouldn't work. I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, we were going to bed at night praying that the system

would work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: We didn't want the taxpayers of British

Columbia to be ripped off; we didn't want the incompetency of

this Minister to show forth; we didn't want the incompetency of

this Minister and the incompetency of the dictatorial powers of

that socialist-communist government opposite to show forth and

work a hardship on the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: That is what we are fighting for in this

Legislature. We don't need a harangue from that Minister

opposite. He tries to stand up and play his hand and talk about

democracy.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: He talked about us trying to destroy the

system. Every time somebody really gets to the heart of a

problem in that socialist-communist government opposite, they

stand up and harangue us. They say we attack them because they

are socialists.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I interrupt you for just a

minute? I would ask you to withdraw the word that you have now

used twice, the word "communistic." I don't think that is in

order in this House and I would ask you to withdraw, please.

Unconditionally withdraw, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw it if you say

so. Certainly, nobody on that side of the House has ever asked

me to withdraw it because they know they are communists, a

socialist dictatorial government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, it occurs to me that that kind of

language in this House is out of

[ Page 3638 ]

order and not in keeping with what I think are traditions

that we should be trying to maintain.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you find the truth offensive, I will

withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I would ask you to withdraw it

unconditionally.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't notice any Chairman in this House

last night asking that Member when he made offensive statements

about the opposition to withdraw them. Not at all!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I would ask you to withdraw

unconditionally, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, if you find it offensive that the

truth is known in this province, I will withdraw it, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I would ask you to withdraw

unconditionally. The words are, "I withdraw."

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Point of order. I just

wanted to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that I would challenge

that Member to repeat that accusation against me personally. If

he would care to come to my office and make that allegation, I

would be willing to discuss it with him.(Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tonight, in the town of Kamloops, Mr.

Chairman, the Premier of this province, outside of this

Legislature, is going to make an announcement that involves the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I have asked the

Minister and I have asked him continually and I will ask him

again: why doesn't he bring the facts before this Legislature?

Why doesn't he tell the Members of the opposition and, indeed,

the Members of his own government bench what is going on in the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?

He talks about democracy. There is no more democracy in the

Province of British Columbia. It is a dictatorial, one-man

government. Who will make the announcement? Who runs the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?

I wa