1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, JULY 16, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8829 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 58: ministry operations –– 8830

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 58 –– 8830

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. King

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Kempf

Division

On vote 59: boards and agencies –– 8833

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 59 –– 8835

Division

Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982. (Bill 35). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8835

Mr. Stupich –– 8836

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8839

Mr. Cocke –– 8840

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8841

Mr. Barber –– 8842

Tabling Documents

Director of trade practices annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 8846

FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, I would very

much like to draw to the attention of all members of the assembly the

following message from their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess

of Wales, in response to the resolution that was passed in this House:

"We were enormously touched to receive your very kind letter following

the birth of our son, and send you our warmest possible thanks. The

reaction to the news has been overwhelming and thoroughly heartwarming

and we are rapidly discovering what it is to be proud parents. Charles

and Diana."

Secondly, we're delighted to see the return of the quarterback and find the table at full strength.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In the gallery today visiting from the faraway land of Indonesia is the

Hon. Dr. Subroto, the Indonesian Minister of Energy and Mines;

Professor Samadikun, director-general, Energy; and accompanying them,

His Excellency Mr. Budidarmo, the Indonesian Ambassador to Canada.

These gentlemen have just finished a tour of Canada. Of course, they

saved the best until the last, and are with us in British Columbia

today. I hope the House will give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

We have other distinguished visitors in the gallery today, in the

persons of senior officials of Japanese regional banks who are today

commencing a mission to Canada, and then will go briefly to the United

States, a trip which will occupy some two weeks. The delegation is

meeting with officials of the Ministry of Finance today for briefing

prior to travelling to Vancouver, and then will move eastward in our

country. It is led by Mr. Eiichi Ujiie of the 77 Bank. Would the House

welcome these friends.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the

gallery today is a gentleman from Kelowna in the Okanagan Valley, Mr.

Ron Evans, the general sales manager and assistant manager of CHBC-TV

in Kelowna. Along with Ron is his wife Pat, his daughter Charla and

young J.T. Evans. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions in this

session and previous sessions, the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk), in objecting to absences, has raised standing order 8,

which says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House,

unless leave of absence has been given him by the House." The first

member for Vancouver Centre flew out of Vancouver on July 13 for

Frankfurt, and does not return until August 17 –– I don't know whether

he's going to check the banking system in Switzerland...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

...but I do know, Mr. Speaker, that he's absent from this House, and

Vancouver Centre is not represented. The second member (Mr.

Barnes) having been absent for one month, I would have thought, because

of his position....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The

hon. minister knows that the way in which standing order 8 is

interpreted in this House is that every member is bound to attend the

service of the House. But any member who is within the precinct....

There is no way that the Chair can tell from an empty chair whether a

person is in the precinct or not.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I've given evidence that he left Vancouver on July 13, not to return till August 17.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. members. This is not a matter in which

the Chair can intervene.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I want to ask a question of the Speaker in this regard, because

Vancouver Centre is not represented in this House. I suggest to you

that in view of the fact that he's left the country, it's very

disrespectful to the members of this House, and I consider it to be

utter contempt.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members. on several other occasions in this House

members have drawn, or sought to draw, the attention of the Chair to

the fact that members may be present or absent. This is a matter in

which the Chair has steadfastly refused to intervene; this is a matter

which likely can be cared for through the Whip system in the House.

Unless there is a substantive motion, for which there would have to be

notice on the order paper, we cannot entertain this kind of point of

order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, hon. minister.

lnterjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, hon. minister.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BRUMMET: I ask leave to make an introduction. I'm sorry — I did stand up before, but I was not noticed.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Please proceed.

MR. BRUMMET:

I'd like the House to welcome three members from the Peace River–Liard

Regional District: Mr. Jack Hannam, the chairman of the board: Mrs.

Shirley Pomeroy, a member of the board: and the executive director,

Moray Stewart.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[ Page 8830 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 58: ministry operations, $30,960,720.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, I ask the Premier, the Leader of the

Opposition and all other members to please come to order. We are on

vote 58.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that

the Premier has just left, because we have been trying to make this

government understand the meaning of restraint since the estimates were

introduced. We have made motion after motion in this House to have

various votes reduced, and under vote 58 we intend to make another

reduction. The government does not seem to pay any attention to its own

expenditures. When you have a 69 percent increase for travel in the

ministerial offices, the government doesn't know the meaning of

restraint.

I notice the Premier has gone again. At least the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is sitting there. Perhaps he is

listening. I know the Minister of Finance would like to know how to

save money, and we would like very much to be able to assist him.

Mr.

Chairman, in vote 58 there is an increase of 30 percent in data

processing, and an increase of 22.5 percent this year over last year in

advertising and publications — 22.5 percent at a time of restraint. I

wonder if the Minister of Finance is indeed paying attention to all of

these recommendations that we are making. We're advancing positive

suggestions to save the government money. Here in ministry operations

we have an increase in expenditures on office furniture and equipment

of 28.9 percent. Why can they not spend at last year's rate, when the

government is in such a difficult financial position? They seem to

prefer to cut hospital beds and other programs than to listen to our

recommendations about saving money for the taxpayers of British

Columbia. An increase of 28.9 percent increase in office furniture this

year over last year is completely unacceptable.

I would like

to move that vote 58 be reduced by $1,381,293. I think that money would

go a long way in assisting to provide some much needed services to the

people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I certainly cannot support this amendment. I think it would be much

more appropriate to reduce the salary of the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is holidaying in Europe at the same time he is

drawing his salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I remind the committee, and in

particular the Minister of Forests, that we are on vote 58 in the

administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Labour. We must

contain our debate to that ministry and be relevant.

Also,

in Committee of Supply, or at any time in the Legislative Assembly, it

is quite unparliamentary to engage in personal allusions or reflections

upon a member.

MR. KING: I rise on a point of order,

to make the point that when out-of-order statements are made and left

on the records of this House, they should be allowed to be answered;

otherwise, order should be called before that statement is made and

recorded in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of

order is well taken. The committee is, of course, well aware that the

Chair intervened at the earliest opportunity.

On the amendment to vote 58, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course, I'll be rejecting the proposed amendment by the official opposition.

Mr.

Chairman, one of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Labour is to

be certain that the workforce in our province remains productive and

competitive, and that the ability of our various industries — including

the forest industry, the mining industry, manufacturing and so on —

remains competitive with other parts of the world. Something which is

recognized as a nagging problem which crops up from time to time is

absenteeism from the workforce. We have had many examples of this, and

it's known. Industrialists from all over the world — managers and

everyone else — recognize that whenever absenteeism reaches levels of

about 5 percent, you're in a situation where the operation can no

longer become competitive.

We have tried extremely hard,

from the earliest days in our society, to discourage absenteeism. I

note, for example, that our school system.... When I was Minister of

Education, attendance records were kept. You build into your workforce

that attitude of responsibility. Some of our secondary schools, at one

period, were not keeping attendance records, and I discovered that some

high schools were running only 80 percent attendance,

whereas others

would be up in the 95 percent area. But when I asked for attendance

records to be kept in the high-school system, immediately the

attendance began to increase and went back to the norm of about 95

percent. This shows, Mr. Chairman, that there is inherently built into

our society this concept of responsibility, and the necessity of

attendance at the workplace. As we all know, it's extremely difficult.

This was a measure that I as Minister of Education felt was necessary

to undertake some years ago so when people in our school system later

entered the workforce they would recognize what their responsibility

would be. The Minister of Labour is going to have to carry on from that

beginning we get in our school system, and see that that degree of

responsibility remains in the workforce. That's a vital task that he

has, just as the task of the Minister of Education is to develop that

sense of responsibility in the youngsters before they enter the

workforce.

Mr. Chairman, you and I know the responsibility

that we as legislators have to set an example in every way in our

society. If we're asking for restraint in our society, we must be the

ones to set the example. Just the other day, a bill before this

Legislature was discharged, and every MLA knows it's because the

example set by that bill is not appropriate for the difficult economic

times we're facing today.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point I must remind you that we are discussing an

amendment to vote 58. In Committee of Supply you cannot reflect on

legislation. I

[ Page 8831 ]

would ask the member to please relate his remarks to this amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'm not reflecting on the legislation. I'm reflecting on the difficult

task that the Minister of Labour is having, and the help that he must

have in order to do his job from all members of the Legislature. That

is not just giving that Minister of Labour the full amount that he

requires. We're going to help the economy by setting an example, and

taking less from the taxpayers' contribution to government than we

otherwise would take. All the money we save can go into the vote of the

Minister of Labour to help him do his job. But we need more than money;

we need example. We in this Legislature cannot afford to be the ones to

set the bad example of absenteeism from work. Absenteeism is a first.

One

can judge absenteeism simply by inspecting the record of attendance at

divisions in this House. It causes me a great deal of concern when some

members never attend divisions on Fridays and Mondays, when the average

attendance at divisions among some groups is less than 80 percent and

when we've got a rampant problem of absenteeism in this House and a

disgraceful example set for the labour force of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: There's a minister who's mentally absent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the committee to order

MR. KING:

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. I want to say that

absenteeism is indeed a problem. As a former Minister of Labour in the

province, I certainly concerned myself with that during the period of

1972-75 when I was minister. And I'm concerned in an ongoing way.

The

minister has hit the nail on the head. I recall so well the then Leader

of the Opposition leaving the House in 1972, going on a world cruise

and then returning to British Columbia, and shortly thereafter

resigning his seat and leaving the constituency of Kelowna

unrepresented for a long period of time. I think that set a precedent

that may be a bad one in terms of the Minister of Labour's

responsibility to ensure that absenteeism is kept to a minimum.

Interjection.

MR. KING: A world-cruise holiday by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the Premier's father.

I think one of the other things the Minister of Labour should be more concerned with than absenteeism at this point in time....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member. Would the committee please come to order.

MR. KING:

I think a point the Minister of Labour might well be more concerned

with than absenteeism, as much as that is a grave problem, is the

question of unemployment. If, as the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications suggests, we should be concerned with the loss of

productivity represented by 5 percent absenteeism, we should be

scandalized by the spectre of 18 percent unemployed in his own

constituency. Think of the lost productivity that the economy of this

province is suffering. Think of the human tragedy of that 18 percent of

forest industry workers in the Prince George area who are unable to

meet their obligations to their families and to society. Why is the

Minister of Labour asking for this 69 percent increase in his travel

allowance? Does he intend to line up the unemployed and review them?

Does he plan some kind of military review of the ranks of the

unemployed in this province? Is that why he's travelling? Or is the

69 percent increase in this year's travel budget for purposes similar

to those of his colleagues the Minister of Energy, the Minister of

Finance and the Minister of Consumer Affairs: to attend Broadway shows

at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia

The

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications was correct when

he said that the Legislature should set an example. The purpose of this

amendment to cut the travel expenses to last year's level, is to set an

example of the kind of restraint this government is preaching but

failing to practise. When the vote is called, they will have an

opportunity to demonstrate whether they are serious about showing

restraint, or whether there is a double standard: one standard for

working people, for the unemployed and the senior citizens and the poor

of this province, who are obliged to practise restraint because of the

policies of this government, and a much cushier, luxurious standard for

the ministers, who increase their travel allowances 69 percent in one

year. That's the issue. Let's face it squarely and see how the House

votes on it.

HON. — MR. HEINRICH: First, the overall

increase in the Ministry of Labour for fiscal year 1982-83 over 1981-82

is 3.7 percent. I would suggest that there has been some demonstration

and exercise of restraint. If you wish, reduce the amount of money in

the Employment Development Fund, and you will find that the increase is

insignificant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The facts speak for themselves.

We're

talking about travel. On examination of my own office, the Ministry of

Labour, you find that travel has been kept to a bare minimum. The

increase in the vote this year over last year is a sum which I had set

aside for the purpose of employing an assistant. That money has not

been spent, and that's the reason for it. I'm not looking for a special

warrant; I'm putting it in the vote and bringing it in here.

Concern

was expressed about unemployment. You bet I'm concerned about it. One

very evident thing, which I hope we are all part of, is the creation of

a climate in British Columbia whereby there can be a major amount of

investment and development. All we have to do is look at the number of

projects throughout the province. I'm not going to stand here and deny

that we are in difficult times; we are, and there's no question about

it. I know what the unemployment level is in my riding and in the

province. I'm concerned and it bothers me a great deal. But there is

only one answer: everybody must pull together and support the projects

that are coming on line, must encourage investment in British Columbia.

There is the southeast resource development, the

[ Page 8832 ]

northeast

resource development, the northwest resource development with

terminals, ports, railway upgrading, petrochemical plants, the LNG

plants that were announced yesterday. All these things are a tremendous

support to the construction industry. In the lower mainland there's

ALRT, B.C. Place, the Pier. Add it up — all of those are coming because

investors realize that British Columbia is a good place to do business

in. One of the points made by the members some time ago, obviously

laying a lot of the problems at the feet of government.... Reference

was made to the Employers Council submission. Fair enough. The

Employers Council submission was clear: yes, there is a lack of

confidence. Why is it, when we read through the

article further'? It's

high interest. We know it very well, and it's been said so many times

it sounds I like a broken record. The fact of the matter is, it is.

Getting

back to the vote, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the House

that the overall increase in the Ministry of Labour over last year is

3.7 percent.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the minister

is sure proud of that 3.7 percent, isn't he? That's a disgraceful

commentary on his ability as a minister: 3.7 percent for employment, 69

percent for travel. That's the minister: a 3.7 percent increase to try

to put people to work, and 69 percent for the minister to wander all

over the land and live it up at the taxpayers' expense. That's what the

minister said. The unemployed people in his riding will enjoy knowing

that.

The 18 percent unemployed, Mr. Chairman, is a figure

that needs to be adjusted somewhat. As the business people from Prince

George say, if you exclude government employees from the workforce —

and government employees have a sense of tenure involved — then you've

got a 30 percent unemployment rate in the city of Prince George in the

private sector. The minister represents that city, and he stands up in

this House and says: "All I was able to squeeze out of the Minister of

Finance was 3.7 percent for work projects, but I was able to get a 69

percent increase for my own high living, my own first-class travel, and

my own wine expenditures."

The minister is the most

disgraceful exhibition of a Minister of Labour that this Legislature

has ever seen; the most highly paid, incompetent apprentice that one

could perceive of existing in this province. He talks about employment

programs. The only employment program he is engaged in is the people he

socked into his own ministry to give them tenure. He doesn't care about

the workers out there. It's a disgraceful performance on the part of

the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this

is perhaps the first time the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King)

and I have ever agreed on anything. I certainly agree with him when he

says that he agrees with our side of the House that the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is setting a bad example by travelling

to Europe when he should be attending to the duties of the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have reminded the member before that we are on the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

MR. KING:

On a point of order, I was misquoted, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of

Forests has quoted me in completely incorrect fashion, and I want the

records to show that. He manufactured something again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, it doesn't require a point of order; simply debate during the estimates.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, earlier you very correctly and promptly pointed out to

the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that he was not being

orderly in pursuing a certain line of debate. Then the minister rose to

his feet a second time and deliberately provoked the Chair,

an act

which I find offensive, and I would hope that you would take direct

action if there is another provocation similar to this. You are showing

more patience today than you did the other day when you threw out two

of the best-behaved members of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: Do you say Garde is not a well behaved member?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I think the record will show that the Chair has acted on

two occasions with respect to statements which were not relevant to the

debate in front of us.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I

wasn't going to speak on this amendment — I'm certainly going to vote

against it — but I was sitting in my office listening to the remarks

made in debate by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I've just got to

ask him this. He talks about accountability; he talks about being in

this House. Where was he in the 20 years he spent in Ottawa and only 33

percent of it was in that Parliament? Where was he when he was getting

$30,000-plus, when he was supposed to be the Indian adviser to this

province, and he was living in Hull, Quebec?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will take his seat.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. KEMPF: That pompous member over there throws aspersions across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I am sorry, I have no recourse but to ask the hon. member for Omineca

to withdraw from the House. He remained standing while the Chairman was

standing. Will the member please withdraw. The rules are clear, hon.

members: when the Chairman stands, no further debate is allowed; all

members take their seat and are asked to remain silent.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.)

MR. HOWARD:

I have one comment. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) unfortunately

isn't here to listen to this. He made two comments, both of which were

grossly inaccurate. If I were outside the House, I'd classify them as

something else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes his point.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page

8833 ]

YEAS — 20

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Halt

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Passarell

NAYS — 24

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 58 approved.

On vote 59: boards and agencies, $3,356,378.

MR. KING: I have a few questions for the minister respecting the workers' compensation boards of review.

I've

made some inquiries with the chairmen of the boards of review and some

of the members of the boards to try to determine what the existing

complement of those boards is. I'm advised that John Jensen left the

boards as a chairman in September 1981, and has not been replaced,

except by a part time chairman; I think it was Barbara Bluman. The

boards of review are short one and a half chairmen: one full-time and

one part-time.

Why has that full-time position not been

filled since almost a year ago, September 1981? Has the minister inter

viewed any applicants for those positions, and is a decision on new

appointments pending'?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With

respect to the delay in appointing, it was really my design and wish to

change the structure. That has not come to pass; some of the reasons

for that were dwelt upon yesterday. You are correct, Mr. Member; there

are one and a half vacancies. I have interviewed a number of

candidates. I very much want to conclude those appointments by the end

of this month at the very latest. In addition to that, while I'm on

this, I might mention that there are one or two other members leaving

August 1, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said. I'm interviewing

right now to replace them as well. I gave you that assurance in the

House, Madam Member, about a week or ten days ago that all of them

would be slotted — I certainly want them filled by the end of the month.

MR. KING: I just want to outline to the minister what the consequences

are of his failure to make these appointments. He has acknowledged to the House

that, indeed, there is a large backlog of cases which cannot be heard by the

boards of review, due to a shortage of staff. I appreciate the minister's

dilemma in attempting to change the structure of the boards but the practical

consequences should concern the minister more than structural changes in the

board.

an example, I have one young man in my riding from Revelstoke. He was

injured early last spring and has a back problem. He's a hard-working

young man and has worked all his life. He was turned down for workers

compensation by the claims adjudicator. I assisted him, through the

worker's consultant, in filing an appeal. The appeal was heard

yesterday or the day before. and a decision will be rendered sometime

in the future. Mr. Chairman, that was one of the quicker processing of

claims. But the consequence is that this young man and his family — two

or three children, I'm not sure which — have had absolutely no income

since last spring. They have had to exist on piecemeal assistance from

the Ministry of Human Resources, which is a frustrating, debilitating

proposition for a worker who should be entitled to an expeditious

processing of his case, to determine his entitlement. Justice delayed

is justice denied. It's not good enough that the boards of review — I

am convinced they ultimately will — will find that his case is valid

and he deserves compensation. But the fact is that since last spring

that young man and his family have had to exist on the vagaries of

assistance through the Ministry of Human Resources, doled out

sparingly, intermittently, with no right established. It's just not

good enough.

It's also not good enough for the minister to

sit back indecisively saving: "Well, I'm thinking about changing the

structure, so I haven't made these appointments." Mr. Chairman, the

consequence of that kind of indecisiveness is human suffering. Lord

knows there's enough pressure on the family in this day and age, due to

the difficult economic times we're in. The family doesn't need

additional pressure placed on it by the inaction of the minister and

his government. If the minister has that much difficulty finding

appropriate people and making appointments to replace staff who for one

reason or another are leaving the boards of review, I'd be glad to

assist him. What is the problem, for goodness' sake? You know there's

a backlog of six months already. That backlog is being exacerbated

because the minister won't replace staff that retires, quits or is ill.

have another gentleman on the boards of review that the minister has to

be familiar with — Mr. Dave Haggarty. He underwent surgery just a

couple of days ago. It's known that this gentleman, unfortunately, is

going to be off work for some period of months. Is the minister not

acting to get replacements so that the boards can function and carry

on their work, and provide justice and expeditious decisions to the

injured workers of this province? Or is it going to be more months

before we see I temporary replacement for Mr. Haggarty? People are

not that hard to find: there arc all kinds of competent people around.

Some retired staff from the boards of review would probably he willing

to come back on a part time basis to help out and keep the workload

down.

Mr. Minister, I've been there I know there are some

problems. But when the consequences are so difficult, when they

result in the kind of human suffering, family disruption and family

pressure that is created by delays of six months and one year in

failing to appoint adequate personnel to process these cases, that's

unforgivable. I asked the boards of review about their appointment, the

schedule of their hearings, throughout the province. As the House

knows, the boards travel to Kelowna, Kamloops or Prince George to hold

hearings for the injured workers in those regions. I'm advised that

unless staff is brought up to full complement

[ Page 8834 ]

immediately, scheduled hearings in the interior of the province may be cancelled, which means further delay.

want to suggest to the minister, and I want to appeal to him on behalf

of injured working people and their families in this province, that he

at least give them their day in court; at least bring in the necessary

staff to prosecute the cases quickly. They can't stand delays of six

months to a year in having their cases heard by boards of review. As

the minister knows, of the cases that go to review, the percentages

allowed is very high. This means that many legitimate cases are

delayed; they should have been receiving benefits for the previous six

months or a year, and they've been denied those benefits. That is just

unacceptable. If the minister wants to change the structure somewhere

down the road, fair enough; do it! I'd rather see the personnel of the

boards of review inconvenienced in some fashion than see injured

workers and their families denied benefits for up to six months and a

year in British Columbia. That's totally unacceptable.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister is going to respond to the questions posed by the member.

would like to add one thing Mr. Chairman. The minister has as much as

admitted that the change he was planning in the structure of the boards

of review has in fact not received the support he had hoped for, and he

is therefore not planning to proceed at this time with that change.

Could the minister assure us then, Mr. Chairman, that he will reappoint

the vacant positions — one and a half chairmen — as well as fill the

other two positions that are going to be vacant at the end of this

month? And will he at this time, because, as my colleague has pointed

out to the minister this morning, workers are suffering, appoint

additional boards of review to try to reduce that backlog? The minister

knows the backlog can be reduced if he fills the vacant positions as

well as appoints additional boards of review. It has to happen, Mr.

Chairman.

I know the minister would like to make these

changes. He has not received the support he was hoping for; therefore

he has decided he is not going to proceed with those changes at this

time. It is incumbent upon him to give the assurance that additional

boards of review will be appointed so that we don't have to wait.

Workers are waiting up to a year to have their cases heard. That puts

an additional drain on the finances of the government, on public

moneys, because they have to turn to Human Resources in order to tide

them over until their appeals can be heard. So money that should be

paid to these workers through the Workers Compensation Board and the

assessment put on employers in this province is in fact being

paid out, on a somewhat erratic basis at times, through the public

purse, through the Ministry of Human Resources. It doesn't make any

sense in terms of the suffering, or even in terms of economics. Will

the minister give us that assurance?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The only assurance I can really give is with respect to the appointment

of the chairman — perhaps another full-time instead of part-time — and

certainly an appointment to replace the two who will be leaving as a

result of injury and another disability.

With respect to the appointment of an additional panel, I appreciate why the

member raises it. The problem is that I did that not too long after coming into

the portfolio. I think there was something like a 30 to 35 percent increase

in claims. I will consider that as, perhaps, an interim measure. I can't

stand in the House and confirm that that will be done, but it will be considered.

I think your point is made.

mentioned to you yesterday with respect to this area that there seem to

be two areas to address. One is the adjudicator's handling of the

original claim. The fact is we've now had a change of policy at the

WCB, so that if new evidence comes forth which wasn't available at the

time the original decision was made, then the adjudicator on his or her

initiative can bring it in. That's probably one thing that may start to

remove some of the problems. That has always been the allegation made

by the workers and their representatives — that the problem was not at

the boards; the problem was there. I think they're partly right. The

new chairman of the board and commissioners have recognized that and

changed the policy.

With respect to the other areas, I would

hope that we could expedite something to get that backlog down to a

more manageable level, so that the hearings can be held much earlier

than later. I appreciate the point with respect to the travelling

portion. Without members, there may be the danger of certain hearings

being cancelled, and I certainly don't want that to come to pass.

MR. KING:

I have just two things I want to talk about briefly. The minister

indicated that he appointed another panel after taking over the

portfolio and that the claims and the number of appeals continued to

rise and the backlog increased. I just fail to understand the

minister's logic in saying we have to hold the line. If you want to

move to a new structure that can handle it more efficiently and

cost-effectively, by all means do so; but you don't halt the process

while you're considering that change, because that results in great

damage to human beings who deserve to have their cases heard. That's

analogous to saying that if the caseload before the courts increases we

start to curtail access to t, he courts — we're going to cut down on

judges because the cost of hearing cases in court is too high. If the

caseload increases, you don't cut down on staff. If the caseload

increases for Human Resources, by your logic, Mr. Minister,

you'd start laying off social workers. That really doesn't make any

sense. I can understand your concern over the accelerating costs. By

all means have a look at it and try to find a structure and a process

that is more cost-effective. But don't halt the process to the

detriment of the injured workers while you're struggling with a new

structure. That's irresponsible and foolish. I think if the minister

thinks about it, he will recognize that and bring the staff up to full

complement, and increase, as my colleague suggests, the number of

boards of review so the backlog of cases can be brought within

manageable limits. That's what's at issue here, and that's the logical

way to go.

The other question I want to ask the minister is:

what kind of communication does he have with the boards of review? I

really don't remember — it's been a while since I was there — whether

the chairman of the boards of review keeps in touch with the minister's

office in terms of staff requirements, or whether that is done through

the board. Have you had any representations from either Mr. Gibbons of

the commissioners or Paul Devine, the chairman of the boards of review,

with respect to the need for getting that complement of staff up to

par? Have you received any communications? If so, what were they and

did you answer them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I really

don't accept the comment that if more come in you appoint more boards.

The fact is that these can swell and swell and swell, and I'm

convinced, when I look at the probable number of cases that

[ Page

8835 ]

would go to the Labour Relations Board as compared to the number

which go to the boards of review — and, admittedly, the latter is

substantial — the number of people involved can be handled much better.

for meeting with boards of review, I've met with Mr. Devine about three

or four times. We've talked about this, I have his most current letter

on my desk, which came in within the last couple of weeks.

MS. SANFORD: Does it say "Help!"?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Certainly concern is expressed

I'm

not going to stand here and say not. I was interested in his comments

on a submission I received from the Canadian Federation of Labour. My

idea was to change this, so I passed it over to the chairman to see

what he thought of their position. I also sent the same request to the

chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, who responded as well. I

had a letter within the last couple of weeks. Contact was made with my

office. Also, contact was made with my ADM in that area.

The

concern that you raised is a genuine one. I appreciate that the

appointment of two forthwith would perhaps assist to stem the backlog.

It's not going to make a severe impression on its reduction. Regarding

the possibility of adding another panel, I don't know if it would

really make a significant impression. I still stand by my reasoning

that there's only way to handle that: to change the system, the

structure with respect to hearings.

MS. SANFORD: I

don't know that we're going to convince the minister of the need for

immediate changes in that board. I would think that one of his problems

is probably money. I'm going to make other suggestions as to how he can

reduce the expenditures contained in this budget, so that he will have

extra money with which to hire more boards of review and replace the

people who have needed to be replaced for the past year. I bet it's all

related to money.

I'm going to make some more

recommendations, through a motion, as to how this government can reduce

the unnecessary expenditures in this budget, and have that money to use

for boards, agencies and employment programs, which are so desperately

needed in British Columbia.

Office expenses. Last year,

under boards and agencies, the government spent $100,000 on office

expenses; this year it's almost $132,000, a 31.3 percent increase. In a

year of restraint, when they can't afford to hire boards of review, to

bring in employment programs or to give the people the services they

need, there is a 31.3 percent increase in office expenses. Why isn't

$100,000 good enough? It was good enough last year. They got $100,000

worth of new furniture last year — carpets, chairs and whatever else

they needed. Surely they could manage with the same expenditure this

year, when we're so desperate for funds that we can't even hire an

additional board of review to take care of the injured workers in this

province. It's a disgrace.

I'm going to make another recommendation. As a result of the minister's

statement yesterday, in which he stood up in this Legislature and agreed with

me when I stated that the Essential Services Advisory Agency is a waste of money,

that it's doing no one any good and that it's performing no services

in this province, I'm including a $236,786 decrease — the amount of money

now going to that agency — as part of the reduction in vote 59. When the minister

himself agrees that it's performing no useful function and that it is in

effect a waste of $236,000, and he admits that he has trouble hiring boards

of review and replacements on the existing boards of review, then surely he

can do away with this agency that is performing absolutely no useful function.

The

workers of this province, through the B.C. Federation of Labour, have

their own policies with respect to providing essential services if

there are labour disputes. They have a program in place. We have this

Essential Services Advisory Agency collecting $236,000, and completely

wasting the much-needed taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 59 be reduced by a total of $332,086.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Barrett

King

Stupich

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 224

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Segarty

Mussallem

An Hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 59 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT

REFINANCING ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the government is seeking, through this bill the authority

to refinance a portion of the direct debt of the province of British

Columbia. Before explaining the reasons for this measure, may I remind

you, Mr. Speaker, of the origin of this debt. Only one time in the last

30 years has it been necessary to borrow for operating purposes in

this province. Only once has it been necessary for the government to

incur direct debt. I need not remind this House at length the that the

one occasion arose out of the deficit left by the previous Socialist

administration in the period 1972 to 1975.

MR. LEGGATT Keep a straight face.

[ Page 8836 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Coquitlam-Moody will come to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member for Coquitlam Moody interjected with a very telling phrase:

"Keep a straight face." Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, and I

have no difficulty keeping a straight face. The member can laugh as

members over there frequently do — laugh and giggle but this is an

important matter.

The deficit was left by the previous

administration. The failure of that government during its brief time in

office from 1972 to 1975 — its failure to adhere to the sound fiscal

management practices which had become a tradition in British Columbia —

resulted in a cash shortfall of $261 million, a shortfall that had to

be made up by borrowing. Fortunately the people of British Columbia in

late 1975 threw that gang out of office, and turned again in 1979 to an

administration showing responsible financial management. What would

have happened if they had not been thrown out in 1975? Mr. Speaker,

ponder that for a few moments. Larger deficits undoubtedly would have

been incurred. The people of this province have been paying for this

NDP-incurred deficit for the past five years, through interests costs

and debt-retirement payments. It's a burden that the government has

been able to meet in the period of strong economic growth which

followed our government's return to office in 1975.

However,

in the 1982-83 fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, the difficult international

economic situation and our admittedly poor revenue prospects — which I

spoke about in the budget and which a number of us have spoken of in

the time intervening — have caused us to reconsider all expenditures.

The provision of $26.1 million for debt repayment would have in this

particularly difficult year meant a corresponding reduction in some

other activity for the people of British Columbia. Which of those

services would we have had to cut because of the NDP debt? Would it

have been a cut in employment development? Would it have been a very

serious cut in some other ministry activity? We carefully considered

the alternatives, and we reached the decision that is presented to this

House through this bill. In a very difficult time, the provision of

essential social programs, housing and employment development

opportunities, particularly employment development initiatives, is much

more important, at least to the members on this side of the House, than

a repayment on the debt caused by members opposite. I want to point

out, however, that there will be do default on the debt. This bill will

provide authority to borrow funds to make the payment. The terms, the

conditions, and the timing of the borrowing will be determined during

the balance of the fiscal year, depending on our judgment of market

conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I stressed in the budget speech

that the course we have charted for this fiscal year is a very narrow

one. By borrowing to finance this year's debt repayment we are

providing ourselves a little more room in which to manoeuvre. It is a

fiscally responsible measure for a period of extreme financial

difficulty. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: It's

always a disappointment to me when the Minister of Finance gets down

into the mud at the level of some of his colleagues when he's talking

about finances.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member who has control of the floor of the House has the right to be heard.

MR. STUPICH:

I can recall when his predecessor in that position actually brought

forth a budget that was so low in terms of political conduct that he

was obliged to withdraw it and issue a second edition. As I say, it's a

disappointment that the current Minister of Finance tries to get down

on the same level when he's talking about finance.

wondered if the Minister of Finance would repeat the remarks from the

budget speech, and he did. I'm going to repeat them again: "...to

retire the debt incurred by the previous government in 1975-76." They

have to refinance this portion of the retirement of the debt incurred

by the NDP administration, which went out of office on December 22,

I'd like to refer, just briefly, to Public Accounts for

the year ended March 31, 1976, page F121. I suppose this same

reference could come from other sources, but I refer to

order-in-council 1061-76, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor on March

31, 1976. The previous NDP administration had been out of office for

three and a third months. During that period there was not one instance

recorded where the incoming administration was not able to meet the

payment of any of the accounts that were due to suppliers in the

province of British Columbia. I don't recall them ever having to admit

that they didn't have the cash to make a single payment up to three and

a third months after we left office. But three and a third months after

we left office, they passed an order-in-council borrowing some

$261,447,790. Three and a third months after we went out of office they

passed that order-in-council, and in the intervening three and a third

months they had no difficulty at all in meeting payments as they came

due. I'm going to draw on the Clarkson Gordon report, as I've done in

previous instances — a report that was commissioned by the Premier and

that he said at the time was going to be a full and comprehensive

audit, but which he knew wouldn't be and certainly couldn't be in that

length of time. But I'm going to refer to that report again, and I'm

going to talk about Crown corporations, since that's where most of the

debt went. It went to four grants to Crown corporations, and I'll deal

with those in some detail. The Clarkson Gordon report, this

administration's own report — or at least commissioned and paid for by

them — which they haven't referred to very much, because they didn't

like what it said.... They took some very selective reading out of

it, but they didn't like it in general so they don't use it. It talked

about agencies and Crown corporations:

"The

results of operations of these organizations do not enter directly into

the general accounts of the province and therefore do not affect

directly the reported surplus or deficit. Agencies and Crown

corporations do affect the surplus or deficit, however, if they receive

any cash from the general accounts during the year — for example,

grants or loans — or pay any cash to the general accounts — for

example, repayment of loans or, in the case of Crown corporations,

payment of dividends.

"Similarly, if we assume

a Crown corporation has incurred losses and requires a substantial

infusion of cash, it may borrow from commercial lenders (will not

affect provincial surplus), or the government may decide to give the

corporation a grant or advance to put it in funds (will affect surplus)

or may decide to

[ Page

8837 ]

defer the grant or advance until after March 31, which will

not affect surplus this year but will the following year."

The

Clarkson Gordon report pointed out the complete freedom the government

had to shuffle money in and out of Crown corporations to create

surpluses or deficits, as it shows. Certainly that government did

choose, three and a third months after the NDP administration went out

of office, to create deficits for political purposes, and they're still

trying to bring forward those old arguments today.

One of

these Crown corporations that the government likes to talk a lot about

is ICBC. Again I'll read from the Clarkson Gordon report: "A grant

estimated at $175 million will be made to ICBC to cover its anticipated

deficit as at February 29, 1976. We have been advised that this grant

will be made prior to March 31, 1976, and it is included, therefore, in

the current year's expenditures." Remember what the Clarkson Gordon

report said: " If they choose to make a grant to a Crown corporation,

then it affects surplus in that period." Three and a third months after

the NDP went out of office, they chose to take taxpayers' money and

give it to a Crown corporation, creating a deficit to that extent.

recall that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) speaking in the House on May 31, 1982 — I made a

note of it at the time — accused the NDP of having shovelled money out

to ICBC. You know that not one penny of taxpayers' money went to ICBC,

other than a loan which was repaid, until this administration, three

and a third months after they took office, decided to take money from

general revenue — money that had been collected by way of income tax,

corporation tax, sales tax and other government levies, and give it to

a Crown corporation. As the Clarkson Gordon report said quite clearly,

if they choose to take money out of public accounts, money collected

from the taxpayers generally, and give it to a Crown corporation, they

can by that means create a deficit to that extent; and indeed they did

that, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ICBC was hemorrhaging, and you knew that.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, let's take a look at the records. Let's take a look at Public

Accounts ,

again for the year ended March 31, 1976; page Fl2l, for a

start: "The province of British Columbia paid to the corporation

$181,510,000 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund." I thought the

Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations was arguing when I said the money came from

the taxpayers. Public Accounts for the year ended March 31,

1976 makes it quite plain that the $181.5 million came straight from

the taxpayers of this province, nowhere else.

I recall the minister responsible for ICBC at the time saying ICBC needed that

money to pay salaries. ICBC was broke; they couldn't pay their salaries

without getting that $181 million. The financial statements for ICBC as at February

29, 1976 show that ICBC had cash to the extent of $17.115 million, and investments

at market value — which, it points out in a note is for short term, to be used

as cash any time they want — to the extent of $110.481 million. ICBC, one month

prior to receiving this cheque, had cash and investments that were readily converted

into cash totalling $180.596 million. ICBC had no problem at all, at that time,

meeting its commitments as they came due; what happened afterwards is another

story. At that point they had in excess of $180 million, either cash or marketable

securities readily converted to cash. ICBC did not need that donation of $181

million, which reduced the government's ability to pay for all kinds

of other services that it would dearly love to be able to pay for today.

The

transit bureau was the recipient of some cash: $26 million. This grant

was to finance capital commitments payable by March 31, 1976. There is

nothing in the Clarkson Gordon report to say that those commitments

were payable by December 22, 1975. It says they were payable by March

31, 1976. Three and a third months after we left office, they had a

capital commitment to make; so they took that money out of general

revenue and thereby created a further $26 million of deficit. which

they still say is a deficit created by the NDP.

What has the transit authority done since then? Let's look at Public Accounts

for 1981, vol. 3, page F346. Interestingly enough — and you'll recall

what I said about the Clarkson Gordon report — if the government wants

to give money to a Crown Corporation, they create a deficit; if they

want to lend it, they don't create a deficit. Three and a third months

after the NDP left office, they wanted to create a deficit, so they

gave the transit authority a donation of $26 million. Since then, they

didn't want to add to a deficit, but they wanted to give money to the

transit authority, so they loaned them some money. Again, from the

Clarkson Gordon report, if they do that they don't add to the deficit.

These are the most current Public Accounts that we have. As at March

31, 1981, there was a note for $20 million payable to the province of

British Columbia. When it suited their purposes, they loaned money to

the transit authority; when it suited their political purposes to

create a deficit, they donated it.

There is nothing wrong

with any of this, and if a lot of the people over there were saying

this, I wouldn't be concerned at all: but when the Minister of Finance

lends his weight to these arguments. then I cannot help but feel

distressed.

Grants to B.C. Hydro, $32.6 million. I suppose

B.C. Hydro also needed the cash to make its current payments. The B.C.

Hydro report for the year ending March 31, 1976, the day on which

they.... If they didn't receive the cheque that day, they had the

right to receive it that day. B.C. Hydro was not exactly broke, Mr.

Speaker. They had retained earnings, profits accumulated — whatever you

want to call them — of $162,631,155. B.C. Hydro didn't need a

contribution from the taxpayers of the province at that time, but the

Social Crediters needed that $32.6 million to add it to the accumulated

deficit so that they could talk for years about the deficit that they

created three and one third months after the NDP left office and still

say that it was an NDP-created deficit. On that same day, March 31,

1976, before receiving the cheque from the provincial government....

lnterjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I know it upsets the government when I quote from their

own records. I've been very careful in every statement I've made to

justify it by pointing to the volume of the publication I'm using and

the exact page. If they want to check any of the figures, they may

check them. If they don't have a copy of the Clarkson Gordon report,

I'll make one available to them.

[ Page 8838 ]

B.C.

Hydro, had $44.8 million in temporary investments on March 31, 1976.

Those were investments, as were the ICBC investments, that were readily

converted into cash. In effect, they had in excess of $50 million in

cash or near cash on the day they received that extra $32.6 million

from the taxpayers. The taxpayers collectively gave that money to B.C.

Hydro. B.C. Hydro could do with it. Any Crown corporation can do with

that kind of injection. But the taxpayers really couldn't afford that

kind of largess at the time, and there was no need for them to make

that kind of a contribution.

Grant to B.C. Railway, $20

million. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that B.C. Rail is a

bottomless pit. Whether it's $20 million or $200 million, B.C. Rail

could make very good use of whatever amount of money was going to be

given to it. But on March 31, 1976, in order to add to the deficit, the

government decided to give $20 million to B.C. Rail. There are further

comments in the Clarkson Gordon report — page 32 for those who are

interested: "The current authorized borrowing limit" — for B.C. Rail;

this is March 31, 1976 — "is $650 million, of which $623 million has

been utilized." So at that point in time, when the government chose to

give them another $20 million, B.C. Rail still had $27 million of

authorized borrowing available to it, and every year since then that

authorized borrowing has been increased. For decades it has been the

practice that the borrowing authority for B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro be

increased annually. There was plenty of time to further increase it, as

was done in that session. The borrowing authority for B.C. Rail was

raised again, but there was no need at that point in time for the

taxpayers of British Columbia to collectively donate another $20

million to B.C. Rail.

Mr. Speaker, I've gone through the

total grants to four Crown corporations. There were other payments,

which I've talked about on other occasions, that were very

questionable. There were hospitals that received money, and they wrote

letters back asking what it was for. There were stories of hospital

boards receiving money, and they found out later that they were paid in

advance, because the government wanted to charge those expenditures

against the year ending March 31, 1976. There were reports of income

assurance payments being received ahead of time because the government

wanted to get the expenditures into the year ending March 31, 1976.

But

leaving all that aside — and, as I say, up to this point I've been

careful to quote everything I've said giving the exact reference from

the government's own documents — there was no need to borrow the money

the day they borrowed it and there was certainly no need to borrow it

on December 22, the day we left office.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) and the Premier are making all kinds of remarks across the

floor. I don't doubt that they're going to get up and speak — one, two,

three or four of them — but I challenge them, in speaking, to tie

their remarks and comments in with figures from Public Accounts ,

the annual reports of the Crown corporations or any other government

document, or the Clarkson Gordon report. If you're questioning anything

I've said, or disagreeing with anything I've said, show me in your own

books where my arguments are wrong. That's a challenge, Mr. Speaker,

that I know will not be accepted.

When the minister is

winding up, I would remind him that he actually stole money from the

people on superannuation by taking money out of those funds at 9 1/8

percent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I must

caution the member who is now speaking that any improper motive cannot

be imputed to another member of this House. Even though perhaps it can

be imputed to a group or party, it cannot be a reflection upon the

conduct of any member of this House. I ask the hon. member to withdraw

the remark that anyone stole something.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw. I didn't intend it that way. But I do say

that the Social Credit administration, in borrowing money from the

superannuation funds to which workers and the government are

contributing....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that a call for order must meet with compliance or the provisions of standing order 19 and 20 will have to be invoked.

MR. STUPICH:

Borrowing money from the funds to which those people have contributed

at 9 1/8 percent, at a time when the market rates are almost double

that, is certainly, to say the least.... I don't accuse any member

of doing this; I say the administration is shortchanging the people who

are contributing to those funds and expecting the funds to be

there....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll answer that.

MR. STUPICH:

I hope you will. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance

is going to comment on that aspect of it. I've said it many times

before, and there's never really been any comment on it. Maybe he has

one now. I'll have an opportunity in committee to come back on his

comment.

My question is whether or not he intends to borrow

this additional $26.1 million from superannuation funds as well, or is

he going to look elsewhere for that? Will he be borrowing that in the

market, or does he know at this point in time? If he doesn't know at

this point in time, I can certainly accept that. I think he said when

he introduced second reading that a decision would be made later as to

when it would be borrowed, and I appreciate that. I'm just wondering if

he can tell us at this time whether it is his intention, whether he has

already decided to borrow from the superannuation funds; and if so,

will it be at that kind of rate or will there be some different

arrangement?

The opposition looks on this whole debt created

by the Social Credit administration on March 31, 1976, as nothing other

than a political fabrication of what went on previously. They've

determined on this way of handling it in the hope that the people of

British Columbia will be fooled by their analysis of history, and will

be induced by this and by any other fabrications they may come up with

as an administration, to

[ Page 8839 ]

return

them to office when they have the nerve to go to the people. I

certainly intend to tell this story. Every time I tell it, I use the

government's own public accounts, budget speeches and the Crown

corporation annual reports to show that the administration is not

telling the people of British Columbia the truth when they say that the

NDP administration created the debt, which was not created until three

and a third months after we left office. We'll vote against this

legislation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Nanaimo

has given what I consider a political speech in this House. However, at

the beginning of his remarks I found that he was acknowledging the

debt. He was just saying that it wasn't until after three and a half

months that we actually put it into words, but he wasn't arguing the

point that the debt was actually there. He was acknowledging it. Then

at the end of his speech he says that three and a half months after, we

created the debt.

I have to tell him that when we took

office, it took us three and a half months to figure out the mess that

you left. When we brought in the Deficit Repayment Act,

section 2 said:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of

Finance to borrow on the credit of the Province an amount not exceeding

$400 million...." The reason that $400 million was there was that

we really hadn't gotten a total handle on the mess that you had created

between 1972 and 1975.

The member knows that the losses

incurred and the mismanagement that went on in the years 1972 to 1975

were left to us in December 1975. At that time, when we came into

office, we had to get a handle on what was left in the till, if

anything, and the Clarkson Gordon report was prepared. I'm not sure

whether or not the member for Nanaimo wants to challenge the ability

and the credibility of Clarkson Gordon. I doubt he would challenge that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, only an occasional interjection can be

tolerated, even though it is out of order. I think the Premier has

certainly used up his quota.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Throughout the member's speech he cited the fact that money was paid to

Crown corporations even though they were not in difficulty. I would

mention ICBC, because I am familiar with it. ICBC had a $181 million

deficit at the end of that fiscal year, during which time the NDP was

responsible for that corporation. It was literally bankrupt. It took

the infusion of that cash to make the books, you might say, balance.

The member will tell you that the cash was there, so it was no problem.

I gather his previous livelihood was made from accounting. I think he

does some now from time to time. I noticed him filling out tax returns

in the House in April. He also knows that at that time ICBC received in

February of each year all the premiums for the coming year from the

drivers of automobiles in this province. So the cash flow came in right

on February 28. Because of the method of assessing premiums, there was

an infusion of cash then. But he neglects to tell you that that cash

would be there for a 12-month period, and during that 12-month period

claims would reduce that cash. On the balance sheet, the ICBC books of

account, the auditor's statement will tell you that the deficit was

incurred when that party, as government, had responsibility for that

corporation.

The one thing we should remember is that when

they left office they left a substantial deficit. The Minister of

Finance of the day brought in a bill in order to set up this debt

service to pay off this debt that was left to the taxpayers of the

province, rather than assess them in one fell swoop in 1976. We should

remember that the economy was fairly buoyant during that time when the

NDP was government. British Columbia ended up out of step with the

rest of the country due to the fact that the legislation and

regulations they brought in between 1972 and 1975 literally curtailed

the mining industry in this province. They know that's correct. They

know they had a $100 million overrun in Human Resources. They didn't

know what happened, until all of a sudden it was a clerical error.

That's the type of administration that is standing on the opposite side

of the House and debating the issue before us, Bill 35. But the track

record during the time they were government — poor legislation,

discriminatory legislation, poor administration and losses of $100

million, poor investment, such as Swan Valley Foods....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order. please, hon. members. I would remind the Minister of Agriculture

that perhaps a debate on the origin of the debt would be in order;

however, the line of debate on which the minister is now embarking is

beyond the scope of the bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was

just pointing out that the administration that caused the debt to be

there when we took office was the reason for the debt-repayment

legislation we brought in in 1976, which is now responsible for Bill

35, Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982. I'm trying to put together a

case that the member for Nanaimo attempted to paint a picture that the

debt that required this bill today didn't exist.

discussing the administration between 1972 and 1975 and the problems we

inherited, let's look at the administration of 1982 — in that we're

dealing with this bill, which calls for a refinancing of the original

legislation and the original commitment, and the reasons for this bill

— and compare it with the one between 1972 and 1975.

We're

faced with a world economy, as the Minister of Finance has mentioned,

that is having difficulty; with a Canadian economy and an American

economy that are having difficulty at the present time; and with, of

course, a B.C. economy which is being impacted by a slowdown in housing

activity, manufacturing and the world need for lumber, fibre and the

minerals which we extract. But the difference, since the original bill,

is the leadership that this government, faced with the situation in

the economy, has shown in 1982 in trying to get control on spending. The

Premier's restraint program that was announced in February is one of

those areas whereby we have moved to deal will the economy as of today.

Reluctant

as I, for one, am to see the need for it, Bill 35 says that we have to

refinance and borrow money for the purpose of replenishing the

consolidated revenue with respect to that $26.1 million that is

expended, which is part of the requirements of the debt repayment

legislation that we passed in 1976. This bill shows the different

method of this administration, as opposed to the one in that period of

time, 1972 to 1975. Their answer to it was to throw money at it and

maybe it would go away. Our answer is to face the problem

[ Page 8840 ]

and deal with it, and that's why the minister has brought forward this

bill.

Mr. Speaker, you, may rule me somewhat out of order, but the reason for my

solid support of Bill 35 is that it serves as a reminder to the public of

this province of the administration that was here between '72 and '75.

It serves to be a reminder to all politicians, whether they be NDP, Social

Credit, Conservative or Liberal, that we have a grave responsibility as politicians

to administer the people's, money wisely. That's the reason why I strongly

support this bill, because the Minister of Finance has recognized the seriousness

of the problem facing him today, as opposed to the previous Minister of Finance

in the NDP era, who served from 1972 to 1975 — he was also the Premier of the

province. How did he recognize the seriousness of his problem? I'll tell

you. He appointed the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) as Minister of Finance

in the dying days of his government and left him out to dry. Where is the Leader

of the Opposition, who should be in here today defending his responsibilities?

He's not even in the House. He leaves the member for Nanaimo to hang out

to dry and to stand in the House and make what I call a "political speech"

— and this from a man who has enough knowledge of the accounting profession

that it must be very difficult for him to do so.

The

Minister of Finance of the day in 1976, now the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe), opened his remarks, if I recall, at that particular

time when he brought in his budget, which the member for Nanaimo quoted

from, with the words: "Never forget. The people should never forget."

We must never forget the seriousness of that situation that we

inherited in 1976: a $100 million overrun, the mining industry in. a

disastrous situation, Swan Valley Foods investments.... I could go

on and on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister is out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I apologize, but we should never forget and we should never forget the

statements that are made, such as the one made by the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in the House during debate the other day

which really caused a stir across Canada in the investment world. He

said that one of our banks was on the verge of bankruptcy. We should

never forget that type of administration and that type of political

comment.

As I said, the Minister of Finance recognizes the seriousness of the situation

today. The Premier of this province has recognized the situation as it stands

in British Columbia and Canada, and this government is working towards finding

solutions: first of all, restraint, and secondly, encouragement of development

and employment in this province, and addressing it so that we can recover

as quickly as possible from the economic downturn. Bill 35 deals with a responsibility

to the taxpayers of this province, and we have now got a refinancing act to

look after the $26.1 million that is due. As I said before, it is the reason

for this bill and for the original bill passed in 1976 that we should identify,

as opposed to a simple one-section bill which deals very briefly with the issue.

The issue was far graver, and continues to be grave, because we have this responsibility

to our taxpayers.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill 35.

MR. COCKE: I would love the world to be able to contrast that speech

with the speech of the member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who dealt with facts right out of books, right out of your Public Accounts , right out of the Clarkson

Gordon report. That member, that irresponsible minister, didn't even

know what he was talking about. For instance, he talked about a $100 million

overrun that year in Human Resources. Do you know what it was that year? It

was $46.5 million underexpended. He didn't know because he didn't even

bother to look. A totally irresponsible minister.

And you as a government have been totally irresponsible since that first day,

when the then Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) got up in this House and made a total disgrace before all

the people by providing an absolutely fabricated document that you'll

never live down.

have found great interest in the fact that each year we replay this

song. Each year we talk about that terrible New Democratic government

that governed this province for three and a half years. We see a debt

created today, an actual deficit, but they have to turn it on to the

old NDP. The fact of the matter is, the mismanagement we have seen in

this province is here and it's now, and it's a result of the last six

years. That's where we're suffering, that's why we're hurting, and

they would love to defuse that hurt.

Take it back, into

history. God knows, if we had been, government from 1933 to 1935

they'd still be harking back to those days. But we weren't; we have had

a Social Credit government in this province from 1952 to 1982, with the

exception of three years and four months. In those three years and four

months more good happened for the people of our province than happened

at any other time in our history. Look at the provincewide ambulance

service, look at guaranteed income for seniors, look at Pharmacare.

Look at all the things that occurred, and the most important of all was

the guarantee that agricultural land will remain free to feed our

children forever.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, I approved the $30 million Royal Columbian

Hospital. I was out there with my shovel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon., members. The member for New Westminster is trying to make his speech; let's not interrupt him.

MR. COCKE:

I recall vividly that one day between December 1975 and March 1976 I

got a phone call from a hospital. The hospital official said to me: "We

got $10 million in the mail and we don't know why." They were pouring

money into Crown corporations, into every kind of opportunity they

could, in order to create a deficit and blame it on the NDP. Beautiful

workmanship!

I notice the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who is going to get up and give us his typical speech....

MS. BROWN: Same old tired speech.

MR. COCKE:

Yes; the same old tired speech that he gives us year after year — not

the second member for Point Grey, the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), but the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications, (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who doesn't even know how to sex

a whale.

[ Page 8841 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: What part of the bill is that?

MR. COCKE: I went back into history, and I remember what a terrible mistake he made when he tried to sex a whale one time.

ICBC

was on its own: $181 million. This is the deficit they say they found.

The fact of the matter is that it was a Crown corporation. If you found

that they had a deficit.... Incidentally, the cash flow was okay.

They didn't need the money. Obviously they didn't need it, because they

gave it to ICBC and borrowed it back. But that's not the point. The

point is that B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation. What do you do there?

If there's a need for money, you go out and borrow it. They've borrowed

for B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations.

These guys know

how to borrow money. This province has gone from 1975, where our debt

was something in the order of $4 billion, to $11 billion. In other

words, in all of history to 1975, or early 1976, we were in hock for $4

billion. They've increased $7 billion in the last six years; over $1

billion a year. This is the group that is talking about deficits,

borrowings and so on. They should hang their heads. They 've created

many of these Crown corporations just in order to borrow. Public works

used to be pay-as-you-go in this province. What is it now? It's a Crown

corporation. They borrow. The B.C. Buildings Corporation, isn't that

the name of it? Yes. The Systems Corporation is another Crown

corporation.

This government showed from the beginning that

they were untrustworthy. They showed it from the very beginning, when

they produced an artificial deficit and blamed it on a previous

government. Each year they bring up a reminder bill. If it weren't a PR

stunt in the first place, how come they keep bringing it up every year?

To remind the people....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: To remind the people what an incompetent government we had from 1972 to 1975.

MR. COCKE:

That minister is talking about an incompetent government between 1972

and 1975. This province has never been worse off, and you're the

government, and have been for six years.

I think that the

situation right now is a very sad affair. I think the Socreds created

the debt. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that it

took three and a half months to figure out where they were. I wonder if

you agree with that, Mr. Minister of Forests. Did it take that long?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The Minister of Forests will come to order, and the

member for New Westminster will assist me in maintaining order if he

will address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Agriculture didn't even get that straight. He said that it

took three and a half months. He didn't get that straight, because by

February 20, 1976, not March 31, they had in their hands the Clarkson

Gordon report. It took them three days to decide on the direction they

were going to go. The direction they were going to go was to phony it

up as best they could. and then come out with this ongoing saga. I

think it's a darn shame that the people in this province who are

suffering so much right now should have to go through this propaganda,

year after year.

Why doesn't this government go to work and

provide health care? Why don't they go to work and provide for the

people in this province who so badly need them now, with jobs and so

on? Instead of that, they're up here in this House, bandying around a

bill that is really nothing short of a deficit bill. It's a shocking

situation that we should be confronted again with a Minister of Finance

and another "responsible" minister standing up in this House and giving

us the balderdash that we've heard today.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I hadn't wanted to enter the debate, but I found that it would have

been even more difficult to resist the expectations of the member who

has just taken his seat and has offered us another "Cocke-tale," Mr.

Speaker.

Of course, in this Legislature we shouldn't dwell

on the past we should be looking to the future and how to build a

prosperous society for our children and our children's children. Mr.

Speaker, what this bill illustrates is how very difficult it becomes

for present generations — to say nothing of future generations — to

wipe out the profligacy of the past. Probably the least respected and

most required characteristic in government around the world today is

fiscal responsibility. These are harsh economic times brought on by the

worldwide inability of governments to manage their fiscal affairs. The

pain and suffering in the world today for which, regrettably, we must

pay some share, has come upon us because governments in too many areas

of the world have indulged the luxury and irresponsibility that

characterized the New Democratic Party administration during the period

of 1972-75, and which has led to this bill.

The ones who

bring fiscal responsibility are attacked — attacked by the irresponsible

forces in society, attacked by the media, as takes place today; and we

witnessed it here. There is no concept in our media today of the need

for everyone to practise fiscal restraint; no encouragement of that,

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that national and provincial governments

in this nation will rack up debts of over $40 billion this year. It

wasn't very long ago that our hearts went out to the country of Poland,

because they had incurred debts to the west over a period of years of $23 billion, and how would those poor people pay it off?

While

ve had concern for Poland, all across this land people are still

encouraging government to spend. In one year alone this small country

of Canada — smaller in population than Poland — racks up a debt almost

twice as large on current account in a single year. That's the degree

of irresponsibility that has been allowed to accumulate in this nation,

with the media and the opposition not saying, in heaven's name, bring

some common sense, work to reduce that, but, more, more. more: repeat

the errors of the NDP: magnify the errors of the NDP; to hell with

fiscal responsibility and satisfy today's demands however voracious

they may be. No thought for tomorrow.

Well, Mr. Speaker,

this is one small bill that says that it's not easy to pay tomorrow for

the waste of today and the waste of yesterday. We find no insight, no

repentance, no desire to reform, no vision, no glimmer of

responsibility from the opposition: not even a willingness to attend

the House and be present for divisions — not even that. One can

appreciate and understand why the public of British Columbia wisely

rejected that party and heir philosophy in 1933, why they rejected them

in 1937, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956,

[ Page 8842 ]

1960,

1963, 1966 and 1969. The people knew, during all of those elections,

what would happen if the NDP were ever elected. Then, woe betide an

unsuspecting public; in 1972 they lowered their guard, and look what

happened. They left themselves a debt. Here we are a full decade later,

still trying to cope with the wild excesses of that brief period of

time. That's why the public rejected the NDP in 1975 and why they will

continue to reject them again and again and again until, at some time

somewhere along the line, there is the slightest indication — however

slight, and none has appeared to date — of an understanding of that

major and first responsibility of government: fiscal responsibility.

Remember that you're spending the taxpayers' money, not your own.

Remember your responsibility to your children and your children's

children, and not just to try to curry votes on whatever short-term

basis you may. Until that measure of responsibility infiltrates that

socialist party — mind you, Mr. Speaker, it would be a first for the

world if such were to happen in a socialist party — the people of

British Columbia will retain their wisdom and reject that party

thoroughly and totally.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reject the philosophy of the members opposite.

MR. BARBER:

The official opposition opposes the bill for three principal reasons.

First of all, because this bill adds another

chapter to the long and

sad history of the use of the big lie in politics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the member knows that that word is unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: I attributed it to no individual, Mr. Speaker, on which basis it is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The word itself is unparliamentary, and I must ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: What word is that — "chapter"?

MR. SPEAKER: The word "lie." Withdraw it, please.

MR. BARBER:

Well, I'll withdraw it, but I will rephrase it at the same time and

talk about the political history of the big-lie technique as practised

by others. You may come to see a parallel, Mr. Speaker.

The

first reason we reject it is because of the deliberate fictions, the

political novellas, written by the coalition to try to misstate,

misrepresent and mislead in regard....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I would recommend to the member that he remind himself

that the hallmark of debate is temperance and temperate language. He

has now encroached for the second time on the list of unparliamentary

words. Deliberately attributing an improper motive to any member of

this House is out of order. I would ask the hon. member to use the

vocabulary which he has to carry on parliamentary debate. Please

proceed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, in the last three minutes it has not been me who has made reference to any individual; it's been you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. We will not debate with the Chair. The responsibility of

the Chair is to maintain orderly debate in parliamentary language, as

the member is well aware.

MR. BARBER: As long as the Chair doesn't debate with me I won't debate with the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will come to order.

MR. BARBER:

I am in order, Mr. Speaker, and I am in such order as to argue that

this bill is unacceptable because it misrepresents, misstates and

misleads. I do not attribute that to any other feature of circumstance

than the bill itself — I have not done so; I will not do so. The bill

misstates, misrepresents and misleads. That is the first reason we

reject the bill, and I will return again to the political history of

the big lie as a political technique practised by some people.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please hon. member. I'll ask the second time for the withdrawal

of the unparliamentary word "lie." It is not acceptable in this chamber.

MR. BARBER: I attributed it to no one, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The word itself is unparliamentary and the member will withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: What? I withdraw the word, but I ask you....

MR. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw the word "lie."

MR. BARBER:

I have withdrawn it, but, Mr. Speaker, with respect.... If some

member of this House accused you of having green hair, you would know

that to be a lie. If you were to call it a lie, would that be out of

order?

MR. SPEAKER: The word "lie" is unparliamentary, hon. member. It cannot be allowed in this chamber. The member has withdrawn the word.

MR. BARBER:

For the second time, the first reason we oppose the bill is the way in

which it misstates, misrepresents and misleads. Secondly, we oppose it

because this bill puts us further into debt and into obligation to the

money-lenders. I resent that in a time of restraint and recession

Social Credit has decided to put us more into debt to the

money-lenders. The fiscal consequence of this bill is that we will pay

more in interest than should be paid even if you could accept the phony

premise of the arguments which put forward the bill we're amending

today.

Thirdly, I oppose the bill because it further

tarnishes the reputation of the Minister of Finance, who should not be

associated with such a bill. The Minister of Finance, like the

Attorney-General, has always had a unique obligation to remain somewhat

distant from politics. The Minister of Finance has always had an

important obligation to keep himself separate from the world of

controversy in order that the statements he makes will be understood by

every person in the legal and financial community to be accurate,

impartial and fair. The third reason that we oppose this bill is that is

[ Page

8843 ]

tarnishes the reputation of the Minister of Finance because he has

associated himself with those who deliberately misstated the case in

regard to the province's financial condition in the period of 1972 to

Let me talk, first of all, about the technique

practised by some who.believe that if they tell a story often enough

and loud enough, it will be believed by others. In North America, this

practice has been made particularly well known by someone named

McCarthy. I'm referring, of course, to the gentleman from Wisconsin,

who has followers. I will not mention, except in passing, the secret

police. This political fib was invented by a follower of McCarthy. It

had no foundation. In fact, it had no basis in reality. It had no

justification in truth.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker,

on a point of order, earlier in the debate when another member alluded

to a company, with respect, I think the Chair pointed out that that

reference was not appropriate to the debate on second reading of this

bill. I wonder if the same would not apply to a reference such as the

member for Victoria has made. I don't think the member was in the House

at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has also

heard, I believe, the member who is now debating suggest that it was a

passing remark. Should he embark on a debate on that subject, he would

be cautioned, as were other members. But I don't think we could take

objection to a passing remark.

MR. BARBER: It remains

a matter of tragic public record that someone in this province created

a fiction about a secret police force that was supposedly in existence

in the period of 1972 to 1975. The person who made that comment has yet

to apologize for it. It was a fabrication from beginning to end.

ask you to consider that if the senior leadership of the government in

power has already demonstrated that it is capable of those fabrications

— and we know about the secret police — then what further fabrications

might they also be capable of? Could they, for instance, fabricate a

debt, attribute it to their political opponents, and have people

believe that it was a real thing? If they could fabricate a story about

a secret police, maybe they could also fabricate a story about a debt

allegedly created by the NDP but in fact manufactured for political

purposes in the spring of 1976.

On of the McCarthys was from

Wisconsin, the other from another place. We oppose the bill because we

oppose the continuing attempt by Social Credit to rewrite history, to

refight the 1975 election, when they should be dealing with the

problems of today. They prefer to dwell on the past. No matter how much

they may misrepresent that past, nonetheless they prefer to dwell on

it. We know that the political history of this province includes in

1974 certain fictional reference to a non-existent secret police force,

allegedly created by the government of the day. It's a totally phony

story, which has never been corrected or apologized for.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The Premier says "the bank." You know, when one

of our guys makes a mistake, we own up to it in public and apologize. We've

done that. When I make a mistake, I'll do that too. The person who made

— shall we be charitable? — the mistake of inventing a secret police force has

yet to apologize for that one. That person is a senior member of the coalition.

When we hear an apology from that person, maybe we'll be a little more prepared

to accept the pious preachments of the Premier, who asks other people to behave

in a way that he himself is not prepared to do.

The

first reason we oppose it is because it is consistent with the history

of political fabrication. The history of Social Credit is consistent

with the history of political fabrication. They will say anything about

their opponents, no matter how wild or untrue; anything at all goes,

when you're a Socred.

Secondly, this bill puts us further

into debt to the moneylenders. Because of this bill we will pay more

interest than we should have — hundreds of thousands of dollars more

will now be paid in interest than should have been paid, even if you

can accept the fake premise upon which the original bill was founded.

Let's assume that the Socreds were, for once, telling the truth when

the first bill came down, that there was a real debt that had to be repaid with

real money, and real interest had to be paid on top of that. Let's presume

for a moment they were telling the truth, unlikely as that may sound. If they

were, you'd think — were they responsible — that they would be interested

in paying off the debt as soon as possible in order to get us out of hock to

the money-lenders and thereby reduce the interest that had to be added to the

debt. If they were responsible, you'd think they would try to pay off the

debt as soon as possible.

You

know, Mr. Speaker, the last four years they tell us they've been

running surpluses. If you and I ran a surplus and had a debt at the

same time and are paying interest on that debt, we would be prudent and

pay that off right away, would we not? Are the Socreds prudent? No,

they're not. I'll get to that in a minute. The imprudence and

foolishness of Social Credit is such that they are actually adding to a

debt that they themselves manufactured. The debt was, in the first

place, phony and contrived. It was a political fiction which they have

tried to sell, in the same way that others have tried to sell equally

big fibs in the past, starting in 1933. Even if you could accept the

reality of it — a reality which exists nowhere except in the minds of

its authors — you would have to also accept that it is in the interests

of this province to pay off that so-called debt as soon as possible.

But

no, this bill prolongs that so-called debt. This bill means we pay more

interest to the money-lenders. Why would they do that? Why do they want

to drive the province even further into debt? Why do they want us to be

even more greatly obligated to the money-lenders? It's probably because

they don't really care about that. All they care about is continuing to

bash their major political opponents in this province, which of course

consists of the New Democratic Party. That is not an adequate reason to

support this bill. The additional interest that will be paid to the

money-lenders as the result of the prolongation of this so-called debt

is an interest we should not be paying at all. The money should be

spent to create jobs; it should not be spent on the moneylenders. This

bill puts us further into debt over a longer period of time to the

money-lenders, on which basis it is not acceptable to prudent people.

At least New Democrats are prudent, and in a time of world recession,

which is stumbling rapidly into depression, we should not be further

into debt and we should not be paying further interest.

great American journalist by the name of I.F. Stone pioneered a

technique in the 1950s. I.F. Stone decided that in order to deal with the

problems of American governments in terms the American people could

understand, he would do no

[ Page

8844 ]

more and no, less in each of his, papers than to quote from

published government documents. I.F. Stone made a magnificent

reputation as a first-class journalist, by doing nothing more and

nothing, less. The lesson of I.F. Stone was practised again this

morning, by my colleague from Nanaimo. This man, himself a chartered

accountant who was, a minister of finance, did to Social Credit what

I.F. Stone did to the American government for two and a half decades:

he simply quoted from their own sources. He pointed out the

contradictions, he demonstrated the inconsistencies. This morning my

colleague from Nanaimo, quoting from Public Accounts, from audited statements of Crown

corporations, from Clarkson Gordon's own report, did to Social Credit

what I.F. Stone did to Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. What I.F. Stone

did was simply cite the documents and ask: how is it possible for a

government to say one thing when their own publications say something

else? For instance, how is it possible for the government to allege

there was a debt which Clarkson Gordon exposed, when Clarkson Gordon,

in its own report, indicated quite clearly, the instructions they were

under, and demonstrated quite clearly, the option a government has to

create or to restrain debt.

colleague from Nanaimo did no more this morning than what I.F. Stone

did, so magnificently for decades: quoted government sources only, and

drew obvious conclusions clearly. My colleague from Nanaimo, ended his

remarks with a challenge, and asked any member of the coalition to find

contrary figures in those same government documents. He asked any

member of the coalition to find some contrasting statement in Clarkson

Gordon, Public Accounts , the vouchers, or the audited

statements of the Crown corporations. My colleague from Nanaimo

challenged any one of them to contradict the factual basis of his

remarks by finding some other government document that did so. Not a

single member of the coalition replied. Not one of them could meet that

particular challenge, because it was a honest challenge. His remarks,

and the factual basis for them were drawn from published government

documents.

We wouldn't ask the Socreds, to accept material that we produced from our

research office, any more than they would ask us to accept material produced

from theirs. Obviously our political biases could interfere. The member for

Nanaimo did no more than to quote — if I may repeat it, Mr. Speaker,

so that it sinks in — from government publications, each of which, singly and

cumulatively, indicates that the so-called debt was a fabrication from beginning

to end, manufactured in desperate haste during a period of three months

in the spring of 1976 in order to attempt to discredit the government they

had beaten on December 11, 1975.

Why are the Socreds doing this? Because they cannot challenge the factual

basis of the comments made by my colleague from Nanaimo. Because they know full

well that they will lose the next provincial election, and it is of course easier

and headier to simply relive the glory days of having won the 1975 election.

They know which election they'd prefer to fight, because they know what

the outcome is in advance. The Socreds are trying to fight the 1975 election

all over again. They did so in the first three months of 1976, when they manufactured

a debt, and got us further in hock to the money-lenders. They're doing

so again today when they prolong the so-called debt, add to the real interest

payments and thereby add to the crushing burden of debt which is the legacy

of Social Credit.

During

their remarks, Mr. Speaker, the Socreds talked about incompetence, and

they said: never forget, for instance, the so-called $100 million

overrun. Well, I have a somewhat longer list of "never-forgets" I'd

like to read into the record in order that we can deal with the

competence of a government that brings forward a bill like this.

Mr.

Speaker, when you talk about incompetence, you talk about Social

Credit; they are one and the same thing; you say them in the same

breath; it is the same idea; it is the same record. The record of

Socred incompetence is the worst this province has ever seen.

Let

us never forget the Ministry of Deregulation, a $20 million experiment

in disaster which set this province back in its public reputation by

years. When you talk about incompetence, as they did in their debate

earlier on this bill, Mr. Speaker, let us never forget the Ministry

of Deregulation, a $20 million blunder which the Premier himself

announced to the people of British Columbia. Let us never forget, in

further passing reference, Mr. Speaker, the primary accomplishment of

the discredited Ministry of Deregulation. Seaboard. Do you remember the

night we had to come back here, Mr. Speaker? Now it's only a passing

reference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: But they talked about incompetence, and so can we.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate must be within the bounds of Bill 35.

MR. BARBER: I agree, Mr. Speaker. It must be, and it is.

Let us never forget the heroin treatment program concocted by these guys.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did it work?

MR. BARBER: Did it work! It did nothing for anyone; it wasted $15 million; it was illegal, unconstitutional and unworkable.

Let

us never forget the saga of the Princess Marguerite , the Surrey , the

Rupert and the jetfoil — another $20 million down the drain. Later we

do not forget the incompetence of Social Credit.

Let us

never forget the $100,000 wasted on a study for a tunnel and a bridge,

or some hybrid variant of both, from Vancouver to Victoria, that study

commissioned by the guy from Point Grey who told us we mustn't ever

forget the waste of money under the New Democratic Party — the waste of

yesterday, he said. We're looking back to just one of those yesterdays,

Mr. Speaker; we remind ourselves of the 100,000 bucks wasted on a

ridiculous, insupportable and fiscally irresponsible scheme to build a

bridge and a tunnel, or both, from Vancouver to Victoria.

Let

us never forget the day this government appointed one minister too

many. The limit was 19. They appointed a twentieth and discovered they

had bungled again; then they had to rewrite the Constitution Act. Let

us never forget the day that by accident they broke the law and had to

rewrite it retroactively in order to appoint the member for Okanagan

North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) as the Minister of Tourism. Let us never

forget that Socred incompetence.

[ Page

8845 ]

Finally, for today's purposes — but the list is much, much longer —

let us never forget BCRIC, $270 million worth of stock losses later.

That's how much people have suffered because of the incompetence of

Social Credit. We do not forget BCRIC. This monument to Socred bungling

will stand for years to come as a laughable reminder of what happens

when a guy who runs a hardware store thinks he can run a province. Let

us never forget BCRIC.

I said the second reason that we

cannot support the bill is because of the great principles of I.F. Stone.

Public documents, government publications themselves, make it clear

where the fabrication occurred and what its nature is. The history of

incompetence of Social Credit, including the Ministry of Deregulation,

Seaboard, the heroin treatment program, the Princess Marguerite , the

$100,000 tunnel study, the extra cabinet ministers and BCRIC — just a

few among many — is such that we cannot be persuaded that these guys

know what they are doing running half a peanut stand, much less the

whole one to which they think they're entitled.

MR. SEGARTY: You couldn't run a pee up in a brewery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. BARBER: With any luck Hansard will exempt the comments.

oppose the bill on the second ground of Socred incompetence, the

provable public record, the challenges made by my colleague for Nanaimo

and the fact that this bill draws us further into hock to the

money-lenders. The old Socreds would never have approved of that. They

knew what the banks were up to. The old Socreds had a powerful vision

about the ways in which people have to recapture control of their own

economy from the great banking interests. The old Socreds would have

understood what it meant to get further into debt, as this bill pushes

us further into debt. The old Socreds knew what it meant to be burdened

for generations with interest payments that you can never meet. The old

Socreds knew what it meant to be indentured to the moneylenders. The

old Socreds would never have approved a bill like this which prolongs a

debt and adds to the interest, even though the debt itself was

manufactured by Social Credit.

The third and final reason we

oppose this bill, as I said at the outset, is the way it further

tarnishes the reputation of the Minister of Finance. He, like the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), should be above this fray. He,

like the Attorney-General, has a unique obligation to keep himself

apart from the political controversies of the day in order that his

statements in regard to fiscal matters, like those in regard to law

enforcement, shall be viewed as ones of real integrity and as

statements that are impartial and disinterested.

Every time the Minister of Finance associates himself with the fictions of

1976, he further impairs his ability to be taken seriously within the world

financial community, and within the larger community of those who care about

the representation of the public interest in British Columbia. When the Minister

of Finance was the mayor of Saanich, he had a very good personal reputation.

I commend him for it. I've referred to it before and I'll do so again

now without hesitation. When he was the mayor of Saanich. he did'not identify

himself with phony statements about debt, obligation or deficits. It stood him

in good stead, and the man got elected for years. That's to his credit.

But

now that he's a Socred, the rules have changed, and he appears to be

willing — at least as long as he's a member of the coalition, although he

was once a Conservative, once a Liberal and once had something to do

with Action Canada.... He appears to have less concern about his

reputation and he appears to be a lot more willing to be publicly

identified with the specious nonsense that is the principle of this

bill. That's something that shouldn't occur lightly. If the

Attorney-General were to misstate the law as badly as this bill

misstates the public record. he would have to resign. The

Attorney-General has a unique obligation. free from political

interference, meddling and interest, to represent public policy and to

accurately and wholly state the burden of the law.

The

Minister of Finance has a similar obligation: it is to state the fiscal

position of the province of British Columbia in a disinterested and

truthful way. In 1976 that position was deliberately misstated by the

government of the day. We fought it then and we have fought it every

year since then. We do so doing no more than what I.F. Stone did. We

quote from Clarkson Gordon. We quote from Public Accounts . We

quote from the vouchers of the day. We quote from the audited

statements of the Crown corporations themselves. One need do no more

than that in order to make the case that we have made. That case is

that this bill is a kind of forgery, Mr. Speaker. It purports to

represent something which is not represented in fact. This bill, as a

political forgery, is not acceptable to this House or to the people,

and it further impairs the reputation of its current author. As with

the Attorney-General, so with the Minister of Finance, and that should

not be allowed to happen.

This bill is a bill which comes in

in order to serve the political purposes of the coalition. It clearly

does not serve the fiscal interests of the province; were it so, it

would have been paid off long ago, if it was a debt to be paid at all.

It is not. Again, if you accept the premises of its authors, it should

have been paid off long ago. The reason the Socreds continue to bring

it back, year after year — this year in a particularly bizarre form —

is in order to refight the 1975 election, dwelling in the past as they

do. and in order to avoid the real issues of today, which are the

collapse of our economy, the shutdown of our hospitals, the decline in

health care, the failure of confidence in the credibility of Social

Credit itself, the now-known public waste and extravagance of several

coalition ministers, and the fact that the Socreds have no vision for

the future and no vision or belief in a fundamentally civil and humane

community. They believe in competition and in greed. They believe that

selfishness is an adequate motive to inform public policy. They believe

that competition rather than cooperation should be the rule of the day

in the jungle of British Columbia that they attempt to create and have

succeeded in creating in the many years they have been in office.

Mr. Barber moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8846 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as this House ends on such a high note

today and we adjourn, I wonder if I could bring into the proceedings a note

of good wishes for one of the members of our press gallery who celebrates his

thirty-fifth birthday today. Will the House join me in wishing Brian Kennedy,

of Broadcast News, many happy returns of the day.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report of the director of trade practices for the year ending December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada