1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

73 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Federal employment programmes report. Mr. Wallace — 73

Women's rights. Ms. Brown — 73

Student summer employment programme. Mr. Gibson — 74

Maclnnes rental housing. Mrs. Dailly — 74

Grant for cancer study. Mr. Cocke — 75

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance. Ms. Brown

— 76

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 76

Mr. King — 76

Mr. Speaker — 77

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 77

Mr. Stupich — 85

Mr. Davidson — 91

Mr. Macdonald — 92

Mr. Strongman — 96

Mr. Lockstead — 98

Mr. Hewitt — 99

Mrs. Dailly — 100

Mr. Barnes — 101

Mr. Kerster — 105

Mr. Nicolson — 106

Mr. Lauk — 108

Mr. D'Arcy — 111

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery and

in the precincts of the Legislature today are members of the Women's

Rally for Action committee.

I had the opportunity to meet with a delegation of them from my

constituency of South Okanagan this morning at 8:45, and I would hope

that all members will afford them an opportunity to present their views

before the day is over.

I must say that they have made good presentations and have been a

very orderly, informative group to this Legislature and I commend them

and welcome them to the building.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to

join the Premier in welcoming the hundreds of women from across British Columbia

who are meeting on the front steps of the Legislature today, representing the

hundreds of thousands of women who were unable to attend.

Sitting in the gallery are 10 women from different parts of the

province, particularly representing these women, and I would like to

name them for the House and ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

The first is Lorna Germain from Dawson Creek, and she's representing

the women of North and South Peace River. The other is Marilyn Callahan

from Victoria. There are Diane Kennedy from the South Okanagan

constituency, Susan Sanderson from Vancouver-Burrard, my own

constituency, Jane Rich from Rossland-Trail, Marie Mitchell from Fort

George, Bobbie Ford from Omineca, Fern Van Horne from

Revelstoke-Slocan, from the riding of the Leader of the Official

Opposition, Patricia Pederson from Cariboo, and Donna Tyndall,

representing both the native women and the Comox constituency.

Thank you.

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

too, would like to join in that welcome, particularly to six delegates

from my own riding of North Vancouver-Capilano, but in general to the

entire group of women from across this province who are coming here

today with a very important message that I hope all members of the

House will take very seriously.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I also had the opportunity of

meeting with the ladies in a very useful meeting this morning, a very

well-prepared brief, and I assured them that they were already

preaching to the converted.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker,

in addition to the various delegations who are with us today, I would

like to acknowledge the presence of members of the grade 10 class,

students from the McRoberts Senior Secondary School in my constituency

of Richmond, and the teachers accompanying them.

Oral questions.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMMES REPORT

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources

a question with regard to a report prepared by a committee of staff in

his department and in the Department of Labour, which has been

described as criticizing harshly the failure of federal employment

programmes and recommending that the Province of British Columbia pull

out of these joint agreements. Could I ask the minister if, in fact,

this is the main thrust of the report, and does the government intend

to withdraw from the joint agreement?

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

Speaker, in answer to the member for Oak Bay: I do not have the report,

nor have I seen the report. I don't really know as yet where the

information came from. I have asked my department to find out.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the

minister if, in fact, there is such a study being carried out to find

out about the effectiveness of federal-provincial agreements?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's out of order.

MR. WALLACE: He wants to answer, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

MS. BROWN: This is directed to the Premier. Mr. Premier, I

was very pleased to hear that you were able to meet with your

delegation this morning. I'm wondering whether you have yet had an

opportunity to read the brief which was presented, I think, sometime

earlier to you. Have you made any decisions about implementing any of

the 83 recommendations contained therein?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the

[ Page 74 ]

member: over the weekend I read the brief that was

given to us before the weekend, and had a good meeting with the

delegation. No, I have made no commitments yet but have promised the

delegation that spoke to me that I'll be discussing areas with various

cabinet ministers under whose responsibility certain of those

recommendations fall.

MS. BROWN: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, on the same. Is the

Premier aware that one of the highest rising acts of violence against

women in this province is wife-beating? Is the Premier also aware that

one of his ministers has made a decision to terminate funding to the

only place of reference to which battered women had to turn, the only

existing four transition houses in this province which had to cater to

the needs of the over I million women who live in this province? If so,

is the Premier prepared to do anything about reinstating the funding to

those houses?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member: I'll take your knowledge to

the minister responsible, but would point out that much of the

information regarding agencies and funding will be presented in the

budget this Friday by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Until

such a time as I can have a discussion, and with the information from

the budget, I think it would be improper to rule out all possibilities

in the province. But I will discuss it with the minister, and thank —

you for bringing it to my attention.

MS. BROWN: A final supplemental. If the Premier needs any

information on transition houses and the various vital services which

they do supply, would he please contact the women? Because they would

be very happy to let you have it, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no problem there, Madam Member,

because I've already met with a delegation from the transition houses

some time ago in my office.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

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

Labour. Early in February the minister announced phase 1 of the summer

employment programme for students, and at that time announced that

phase 2 would be brought forward in about two weeks. In view of the

fact that it's now been almost seven weeks, and in view of the fact

that university classes are ending in a couple of weeks, could the

minister inform the House as to when the rest of the programme will be

announced?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, to the member

for North Vancouver—Capilano: the work in the government phase of the summer

student employment is presently being completed and I expect to have an announcement

inside the next seven days.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister can

assure the House that there's no truth to the rumour that Treasury

Board has been denying funds to phase 2 of this programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary. Funds

are being made available by Treasury Board from each of the

departmental estimates which you will have the opportunity of

considering, but the programme is being designed nonetheless.

MacINNES RENTAL HOUSING

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

Minister of Housing: I've had a number of calls from constituents in

Burnaby who have phoned the Vancouver Housing Commission to ask to have

their names put down for the MacInnes rental unit, and they have been

informed that no names are being taken. In view of the fact that we

have such an extreme housing shortage, particularly in Burnaby as well

as many other areas, would the hon. minister tell us why this unit is

not being made available?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, in reply

to the hon. member: it is unfortunate that in the past two or three

days a number of people, in greater Vancouver particularly, have

equated the waiting list on the B.C. Housing Management Commission

lists with those who would be appropriate for accommodation in MacInnes

Place.

The former government, this government, and, I think, most

importantly in answering the question from the hon. member, the

District of Burnaby municipal council, made it quite clear — and there

is correspondence to support this — that as early as March of last year

no more than 25 per cent of the individuals accommodated in this

particular development would be from the low, moderate or social

assistance income levels. This government does not want — and, indeed I

believe it is correct, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I don't

think the former government really wanted — to create ghetto housing of

a particular type of income category. That is the problem as we see it

right now. We are reviewing the matter very actively.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the hon. minister's reply, but he

really still hasn't answered my basic question, I still would like to

know what your plans are and why those units are not being available.

[ Page 75 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member: the units

were advertised on six occasions in December — perhaps not the largest

newspaper advertisements, but nonetheless clearly identified as rental

accommodation in one case, family rental in another case. And the

response was very, very disappointing to the B.C. Housing Management

Commission and also to the Department of Housing. The accommodation was

offered; the response of the last two or three days is rather

surprising to all of us. But I trust that I dealt with that aspect of

the problem in the earlier answer just a moment ago.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: in view of the fact that the Vancouver Sun

has found it necessary to assign one person full-time today to answer

telephone calls from people interested in this accommodation, are you

then reconsidering your decision and giving serious consideration to

making this available as rental housing? We had no trouble in making

rental housing...filling it up in Surrey; we had no trouble in filling

it up in Richmond under this programme, and I see no reason why there

should be any trouble....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question...?

MR. NICOLSON: My question was: are you reconsidering and will

this be made available? In view of this new interest, this new-found

interest, will it be made available for rental housing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member,

the former minister of housing: the interest which has been shown may

in a very large measure be from those individuals who, as I indicated

in answering the question initially this afternoon, would create a

ghetto....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You'd rather keep them on the street, eh?

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a policy of the former government, Mr.

Speaker, and a policy of the municipality of Burnaby. The 2,400

individuals or families or groups seeking accommodation on the BCHMC

lists now would, in all likelihood, lead to the very situation that the

former minister, I assume, would have wanted to avoid and, certainly,

which we want to avoid. I think the hon. member who has asked the last

question knows the situation and knows the problems we are facing with

this particular development.

GRANT FOR CANCER STUDY

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Health. I wonder if the Minister of Health would inform

this House why he turned down the grant to the so-called cancer study

under the directorship of Dr. Richards from Calgary.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to

the member: I an not aware that I have turned down any grant to the

person to whom the member has referred. I have asked that person to

submit to me a brief of the work that he is doing, and I hope he will

do that very soon. He has said that the brief will be ready within a

matter of weeks, and at that time I will consider what that project is

doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's already got the money.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental question to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would tell the House....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, are you on a supplemental question or another question to another minister?

MR. COCKE: I am on a supplemental on this question because

the Minister of Health can't answer it, Mr. Speaker, and possibly the

Provincial Secretary can answer the same question.

MR. SPEAKER: You are directing the same question...?

MR. COCKE: I am directing the same question or a similar question to the minister, around the cancer study.

Does the Provincial Secretary recognize that the research amount

that was established by her department, and provided to the

study...does she recognize that a group to advise government, a medical

research group, which has been advising for some time — including Dr.

Webber, associate dean of medicine at UBC, Dr. Sprattley, UBC Grants

Committee, Dr. Julia Levy, an immunologist at UBC, Dr. Wilber Petit of

BCHIS, and Dr. Grants, professor and head of the Department of

Ophthalmology at UBC — reviewed the application that the Minister of

Health was alluding to, reviewed the application and advised no funds?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, would the minister or the Provincial

Secretary indicate to us whether or not she is ignoring the advice of

such a committee — such

[ Page 76 ]

an eminent committee?

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

the hon. member on your questions regarding the grant: the grant was

made on the basis of, I think, the consideration given — that all of us

give — to the concern that we all have with the incidence of cancer

among women. And, in addressing myself to that, I had some knowledge

from my department. Since the grant was given, I have had some further

knowledge — some of which the hon. member has now given me — that was

not made available to me at the time. I just would like to advise this

House that I'm having my department reassess this grant and I will

advise the House in a very few days as to the outcome.

MR. COCKE: Just a further supplementary on the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, the minister...we appreciate what she says with respect to

this; however, at that time there was a suggestion that there would be

a grants committee study this kind of grant in the future. I just

wonder whether or not this means that the old grants committee is one

that will be not referred to, or will it be something that lacks the

confidence of this government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't answer that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The advice of any group to advise the

government will be continued, and we will be seeking their opinions. I

would like to state that any grants that are given out.... We are

giving very serious study to the kind of information that comes to us,

and we will probably add to the advice in the future. We will augment

that advice and I fully intend to do that in the Provincial Secretary's

department.

MR. GIBSON: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, to the

Provincial Secretary. I would ask if she took the precaution on this

medical-related grant of seeking the advice of her colleague, the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) before issuing said grant.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I was given the advice by my department and was assured that it was a non-medical situation...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...that the programme that was undertaken

by this group was not going to be needed to have the department's

assistance. But my question to them, which I am following up and will

be pleased to report to the House, is why all areas of the government

weren't perused at the time. I'll be glad to report my findings to the

House.

AN HON. MEMBER: No confidence in the Minister of Health.

Orders of the day.

M S. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move

adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state the matter, please?

MS. BROWN: The matter, Mr. Speaker, is the present policy of

discrimination against more than 50 per cent of our population, namely

the women of this province, and specifically the hardship caused by the

misapplication of funds for medical research, by cutback in child-care

services and transition houses, by the closing of the office of the

provincial co-coordinator on the status of women without even the

courtesy of consultation, by the disbanding of the advisory committee

on sexism in the Department of Education, and by the lack of coverage

for farm and domestic workers under our minimum wage legislation.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Three years and you did nothing.

MS. BROWN: I therefore move, Mr. Speaker — and I'm glad that

the member finds this so funny — the adjournment of this House to

discuss this matter of urgent and public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's for the Chair to decide, not

the importance of the matter itself but whether there is an opportunity

during the stage of our discussion to discuss such a matter fully.

I hope you appreciate the fact that in the course of discussions

today and in following days, in the debate on the throne speech, there

is ample opportunity for anyone and everyone to speak upon whatever

matter they may consider to be of importance. Therefore I have to rule

that while the matter itself may be important, there is an ample

opportunity for debate during today and in succeeding days. Therefore I

rule that such a motion is not in order.

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

appreciate the ruling of the Chair in this matter, but I think the

government would be willing to recognize, as, indeed, they have thus

far, that literally hundreds of women have travelled from every corner

of this province to attend in Victoria. I would draw your attention to

the fact that with the unanimous consent of the House, the House does

[ Page 77 ]

indeed control its own business. I think the

government would be anxious to recognize that this important matter —

indeed the many important matters that the women's groups have brought

to the attention of the government and the opposition — should well be

discussed today when they've made this unusual effort to travel to

Victoria. I would ask for unanimous leave of the House to discuss this

matter, Mr. Speaker.

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

in my opinion it's not a matter of whether this item, which has been

raised by the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), is important or

not; it is a matter of the urgency of debate and whether there's ample

opportunity to discuss the matter. As I have pointed out, there is at

the present time, as soon as we embark on orders of the day, ample

opportunity to discuss the matter which you have raised in debate that

will take place. However, if it's desirable to ask leave of the House,

it's a matter of unanimous leave being granted to discuss the matter,

and I would be prepared to do that on your behalf.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of challenging the

Chair's ruling. I appreciate the validity of what you say, but I would

ask unanimous leave of the House.

Leave not granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, there's no division when asking for

leave. It's a matter of record; either it's granted or it's not

granted. Leave was not granted.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

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

was looking forward to entering this House today and discussing some of

the positive programmes that this government is bringing down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like ICBC?

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: But instead, I find that the socialists,

as usual, have to be negative. We just had an example of something that

was brought up today that they had three and a half years to bring up

in this House. They chose to play cheap political politics with a very

sensitive and very important issue in British Columbia, and the reason

it was brought up today was because the man who for the past three and

a half years has held it down is absent from the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member....

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You deny leave and then speak about it yourself. You don't want to hear the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I would remind you that we're on

a debate on an amendment to the Speech from the Throne which has to do

with auto insurance rates. Would the member please return to that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to say

that it is because a certain member of this House, the ex-premier (Mr.

Barrett), is absent from this House that this matter was brought up

today. It's time that we got rid of some of this hocus pocus that the

socialists have been talking about, and it's time this House got down

to business.

But before I begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take

this opportunity, Sir, to congratulate you and to wish you well and to

tell you that I shall not refer to you as Your Grace. I also want to

say before I start my remarks that I am proud once again to be

representing that great constituency of South Peace River, and I want

to tell the House it is a great feeling to be speaking again from this

side of the Legislature. It's been over seven years. I enjoy it, and I

certainly know that with this great government that we have now that we

shall all do a great and tremendous job.

I would be remiss in my duty, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't spend just

two seconds to congratulate those members of the Legislature who are no

longer with us. Because one of the founding fathers of the United

States, Benjamin Franklin, summed up passing from government back to

private life this way: "In a free society the rulers are the servants

and the people are their superiors and sovereigns. For the former,

therefore, to return to the latter is not to degrade them, but to

promote them." Unfortunately, some of the members of the group opposite

think that being in government is being in power and that they have the

divine right to rule and not to be the servants of the people. But

that, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between their philosophy and our

philosophy. On this side of the House we are here to serve, not to rule.

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward today to being positive about

programmes for people which were contained in the throne speech,

positive about how this government will lead by actions and not by idle

words, positive.... Yes, we're on an amendment because you wouldn't

discuss and you wouldn't recognize all of the great programmes for

people in

[ Page 78 ]

the throne speech, how we're going to help people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the people of this province what they

can do for their government, but we are asking the people what they can

do for themselves. We will lead by helping people to help themselves.

In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we also showed great concern for

the environment by creating for the first time in the province of

British Columbia....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I would appreciate it if you

would relate the remarks that you are about to offer to the House to

the amendment that's before the house. The amendment that is proposed

has to do with auto insurance rates and lack of fair treatment

concerning different parts of the province.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): The north.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll speak about the north, Mr. Member. I'll speak about insurance rates in the north.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps if I was to read the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker. I'm aware of the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'll read the amendment. It's

Monday. We haven't dealt with this since last Friday. "But this House

regrets that the speech fails to relieve the motoring public from

oppressive auto insurance rates, fails to offer fair treatment for

northern and interior drivers and fails to end discrimination against

drivers under 25." The amendment is what we are debating at the moment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate

my colleague, the Minister of Education, (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for the fine

speech that he gave on Friday, outlining the facts about the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was first

established, one of the great areas in which it was to help the people

of British Columbia was to be the investment from the funds of the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia in the province. It would be fine,

Mr. Speaker. What actually happened, we found that most of the funds —

and there weren't too many of them because there were mostly losses —

were invested in banks outside of the province of British Columbia,

those banks that the previous Minister of Finance used to refer to as

those usurious banks which are holding people down and holding people

back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it is a shame.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another aspect of those

facts by setting before this house a chronology of statements by that

former government about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a

chronology which, I believe, shows a deliberate, conscious effort on

the part of former members of the executive council to conceal the

facts and to deceive the people of British Columbia, strictly for

political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, these facts were concealed to cover up a financial

disaster in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a financial

disaster brought about by political interference, deception and

disregard for the truth, created by previous members of the executive

council and the directors of the insurance corporation who were members

of that council.

Mr. Speaker, when the insurance corporation was first brought into

being in British Columbia the previous president of the insurance

corporation, the former Minister of Transport and Communications (Mr.

Strachan) stood in this Legislature and stated unequivocally that "the

plan will be self-sustaining; all services rendered by any department

of government or otherwise will be paid for out of moneys belonging to

the plan; payments for all losses and expenses of administration will

be made from the plan."

That was the great start-up of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia, the great shining light of the previous administration.

Again, Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 1973, when being asked a question by

the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) about expenses incurred

while a director and travelling on behalf of the insurance corporation,

that gentleman, now banned to England by the previous administration,

stated again in answering the question: "For the very simple reason

that I have given a guarantee that there shall be no subsidy of any

kind toward the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No expenses will be charged back to his

office but will be paid for by the insurance corporation because "for

the very simple reason" — and I'm quoting the previous president of the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — "For the very simple reason that

I have given a guarantee that there shall be no subsidy of any kind

towards the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that in this House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Idle words and idle

[ Page 79 ]

promises. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that when

the rates for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia were brought

forward by the actuaries hired by that corporation, were brought

forward to the government, they took them to their caucus and it was

the New Democratic caucus that set the rates for the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia.

That was the first time that we saw political interference into the

corporation's activities; and even though the Member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) who is in his place today recommended against setting these

rates by the caucus and recommended against the rates adopted by the

caucus, against good sound business principles and practices, that

government and all the caucus were a party to it. They adopted lower

rates knowing full well that some day the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia would have to be subsidized by the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Or go broke.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Or go broke. When did we have the next instance of political interference, Mr. Speaker?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): After you were elected. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On June 4.... Well, there's a member who makes light of a very serious matter.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's with a party now who is leaderless.

AN HON. MEMBER: His party which was.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's with a party who should be hanging their heads in shame because of what they've done to this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A party that is guilty of mysterious actions in misleading the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now on June 4, 1974, Mr. Speaker, we have

the past Premier of this province who was not even a director of the

insurance corporation interfering in the affairs of the insurance

corporation by making public announcements, not in this Legislature but

in Kamloops, about the rates of the insurance corporation.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that he wasn't even a director, but he

thought he could make more political hay. He thought he could offer the

people of this province something for nothing when he knew, when that

Premier knew, that the insurance corporation was going broke, that the

rates were not paying the way, He announces that he's going to have

postage stamp rates throughout the Province of British Columbia.

Now what does he say? Yes, I'll talk about them in just a moment, Mr. Member.

He's starting to create this myth by stating that this would be

accomplished by assigning some of the revenues from the existing

gasoline tax and licence-plate fees to insurance purposes, thus

slashing the cash premium for insurance next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Good idea!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you listen intently as I carry on, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I doubt if you will learn anything because

you haven't learned anything. You won't listen to the facts. You don't

understand the facts when you do hear them.

Interjections.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Ask your backbenchers what they think,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But here we have for the first time the

Premier of this province interfering with the insurance corporation,

making public announcements and announcing rate decreases and stating

that we're going to build up this myth that there's going to be a great

gasoline tax, a mythical figure to subsidize the insurance corporation.

He goes on to say: "It is not yet known how far the revenues will

permit Autoplan to go in eliminating such a difference, but the

insurance corporation has instructions" — Mr. Speaker, the insurance

corporation has instructions — and he didn't go on to say "from the

Premier of this province," and "from the executive council of this

province," but has instructions through their minister, Mr. Strachan,

to wipe out or reduce as many differences as possible.

Who gave Mr. Strachan those instructions? "This means that the cost

of basic car insurance will not only be lowered for most British

Columbians, but it

[ Page 80 ]

will be significantly cut for those residents in the higher-rated areas," et cetera. Political interference.

But what does he say, Mr. Speaker, in that same press release?

"Revenues will involve those taxes and fees paid only by the motoring

public." But he didn't go on, Mr. Speaker, to tell the people in

Kamloops or to tell the people of this province that the revenue from

gasoline tax for years and years and years had been going into revenue

to provide services for education, hospitals, and all of the other

social services of this province. He didn't go on to explain that when

he took this money, or was going to take this money out of the gasoline

tax, that it would be reducing services to people to subsidize bashed

fenders.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should hang your head in shame because

you were a party to it, Mr. ex-Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald). You

knew what was going on, Mr. ex-Attorney-General. You should hang your

head in shame for being a party to this! You knew full well, being a

member of the executive council, exactly what was going on in the

insurance corporation and you allowed the budget to come before this

House misleading the people of British Columbia. You were a party to

it, and you should hang your head in shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) please return to his own desk?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You voted for that false prospectus. As the Attorney-General you should have prosecuted yourself.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the Attorney-General, who was then

the Attorney-General of this province (Mr. Macdonald), was voting on a

false prospectus which was the budget handed down to the people of

British Columbia in 1975. You should hang your head in shame!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You are as guilty of the deceitful actions as the rest of the members of your executive council were.

MR. MACDONALD: Try to be kind.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, it was outlined by the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) on Friday last that there was a board meeting

held in the offices of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia on June 11, 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: 1974?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: 1974. And at this board meeting it was

pointed out by the people who run the insurance corporation that the

insurance corporation was indeed going broke, was going to need funds,

and was going to have to be subsidized out of general revenue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Any cabinet ministers — directors — at that meeting?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Yes, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was at that meeting. The ex-member for Duncan was at that meeting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you whine.... You should resign

because you were a party to it. You were the director, Mr. Member for

New Westminster. You were the director. You were a director of the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and you also sat on the executive

council, and you allowed your colleagues to go on and deceive the

people of British Columbia. You were a party to it and you should

resign, and here you stand in this Legislature. You stand in this

Legislature and you second a motion about the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we have

allowed the new ministers great latitude without raising exception to

their choice of words. There are members in this House to whom he is

referring and he is imputing a wrong motive to their actions in a

previous parliament or as members of a previous executive council.

I would ask the member to indicate to this House whether or not he

does impute improper motives, and, if he does, he should be asked to

withdraw the word "deceitful".

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if I have hurt the member

opposite in any way I will certainly withdraw the word "deceitful", but

I do want the people of this province to know that that member was a

party to the actions which misled the people of British Columbia, and

you can call it by any name you want to.

MR. COCKE: All they have to do is look at their wallets.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, after this

[ Page 81 ]

board meeting on June 11, on August 30....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, I want to tell you we just called

an election and the people of this province spoke. Yes, they spoke.

They spoke, but you won't seem to accept the facts, and they spoke for

one of the very reasons that I'm outlining here today — it's because

you continued to mislead the people of this province in the financial

affairs of this province, in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia,

But the people were not fooled. They knew, and they spoke hard and they

spoke firm, and that's why you're over there and that's why you're

going to stay over there, because you will never obliterate from the

record the deceitful action of your government in hiding the true facts

about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member mind including the Chair in this debate?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: After the board meeting on June 11, August

30, the president of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia stated

that there would be a need for an injection of gasoline taxes required

in the coming year. I just wanted to put that in the record that he

stated this. He did state on the same programme that he had no

knowledge or he didn't have any report in front of him and intimated,

to the people of this province, through that open-line programme, that

he had no knowledge of a report which told that the insurance

corporation was going broke and would need to be subsidized.

Mr. Speaker, we have the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't even pronounce that. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you don't know where you're from, sir, I'm sorry. I can't help you at this late date.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know where he's been.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll quote the article. It says: "Cocke

said earlier that although well-head royalties will be used for

Autoplan grants, it is being referred to as gasoline tax money because

it is easier for the public to understand."

Easier for the public to understand. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that that

member didn't think the people of this province could understand that

their insurance corporation was going broke. Maybe that's why he

continued to hide the facts from the people of British Columbia.

Then we go on, Mr. Speaker. It was the present Premier of this

province who stated that the insurance corporation would lose

approximately $30 million. What did the past Premier, the socialist

Premier of the province say? He said: "No, the insurance corporation

might possibly lose $18.5 million."

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Is this after the June meeting?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is after the June meeting, when two

members of the executive council were sitting at that board meeting and

knew the facts. The Premier knew the facts, and he came out and stated

that the insurance corporation "might lose $18.5 million." It's hard

for you to understand the truth, isn't it, Mr. Member for New

Westminster?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Knowing it, he misled the people?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, knowing, he misled the people. That's

why he's out there now scrambling for a seat, but the people of this

province will know the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, here is the member again, the member for New Westminster,

and he says: "'As for Bennett's $30 million figure,' Cocke

said, 'I don't understand where those guys are getting their slips of

paper.'" That member for New Westminster who was at that board meeting

when those figures were outlined that the insurance corporation would need approximately

$38 million, on September 4, three months later, said: "I don't know

where Mr. Bennett is getting his figures." Shame on that member!

Mr. Speaker, again, on November 6, 1974, when I outlined to this

House some of the facts about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia,

Mr. Strachan charged me that the figures I released from an internal

ICBC mid-year report were "either erroneous, misleading or completely

false."

HON. MR. McGEER: That's after June 11?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That is after June 11th when I

outlined.... This is November; this is after the June 11th board

meeting when it was outlined to the directors that the past president,

the member for Duncan (Mr. Strachan), the Minister of Transport and

Communications....

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Cowichan-Malahat.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cowichan-Malahat. The

[ Page 82 ]

man who now represents this great province in

London, England, accused me of a falsehood when he knew full well

exactly that I had the proper figures and that the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia was going to lose. He was a party to misleading the

people of British Columbia and building up this myth. Shameful, and he

should resign his position, because I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that

that man is suitable to represent this great province in London after

those actions.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is this....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in this House hon. members on either

side of the House calling into question senior civil servants and

particularly individuals that represent this province abroad...calling

them into question on the floor of this House is a dishonorable act,

and he should be ordered to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: What's the point of order?

MR, LAUK: The point of order is that's unparliamentary and a dishonorable act on the part of the....

MR. SPEAKER: What words do you consider to be unparliamentary, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: He called into question the integrity of the Agent-General for British Columbia in London.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the member can

bring his opinion on the conduct of the style of person that represents

us. I think he has every right to make sure that this province is not

adequately represented but represented by people who will represent

this province. If that member feels he has reason in the information

he's presenting to this House to call into question the behavior of any

member who now represents this province, I think he not only has the

opportunity; he has the obligation to present that information to this

House and to the government.

I think that we're dealing, Mr. Speaker, with a question of ethical

conduct and I think, quite frankly, we should assess now the standards

that we expect directors of private corporations to accept, whether

they are at directors' meetings or not, and those directors who serve

public corporations — whether they will be accountable and whether they

will be truthful and whether they will....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think we should....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think the people of this province have a

fight to expect that those who are directors of Crown corporations will

act in the best interests of the corporation and the people of this

province.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I've never seen such a shocking performance in my life.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. I would suggest to the hon.

minister who has the floor that he temper his language a little bit,

and that there is a means of dealing with a situation about which you

feel strongly enough that you would bring into question the conduct of

civil servants or people who represent the Crown. That is by way of

substantive motion. I would suggest a little less caustic remarks,

please, Mr. Member.

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your admonition....

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, there is a member on his feet, I presume on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, following your comments to the

minister, which I appreciate very much in putting this thing in

perspective, I wish it to be pointed out that the Premier and obviously

members of the executive council wish to get through the back door what

they're not willing to do through the front door.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: They're making an insidious attack on Bob Strachan in this House. because they haven't anything else to go on.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I accept your admonition. And

I'm very interested that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) all

of a sudden is so

[ Page 83 ]

concerned and so righteous, because he was a party

to exactly what happened in this province over the three and half years

while they were government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Cover-up.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cover-up, to hide the true facts of the

financial status of this province from the people of British Columbia —

an act, Mr. Speaker, which the people of this province will long

remember.

Now I want, for just a moment....

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, Mr. Member?

MR. LAUK: I will continue to stand in this House and will not be bullied by that juggernaut of a government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Just because we are a minority in this House....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. What is your point of order?

MR. LAUK: My point of order is that he said I was a party to

deception and untruthfulness while I was a cabinet minister. I ask him

to withdraw that charge.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the

charge that that particular member of the executive council was a party

to it, because he didn't know what was going on in cabinet. He was left

out in the dark.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why that particular member, while a

member of the executive council, did not know what was going on in the

executive council, because I understand that he was kept completely in

the dark, and probably if he was there he wouldn't have understood it

if they did say it. So I'll certainly withdraw any remarks that I made

against the member.

MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. That's very funny, you know....

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order, Mr. Member?

MR. MACDONALD: You say you withdraw the charge of deception from one particular member. You must withdraw it from all.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: There was not a cover-up and you know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The government members were challenged to

stand up and speak for the north about the insurance rates of British

Columbia. They were challenged to stand up, and I know they will stand

up, particularly to the members on this side of the House. They'll

stand up and they'll tell the people in the north how the people in the

north were treated by that government while they were in power. They'll

stand up and tell how this $181 million deficit in the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia is going to be taken away from money that should be

going to build roads in the north, bridges in the north and open up the

north. Yes, you stand up, members for the north, and they'll tell you

what has happened to the money, how we have to take out of general

revenue money to subsidize the insurance corporation, a fact that was

hidden from the people of the north by that group over there while they

were government.

MR. COCKE: Who gave away the natural gas of this province?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, we'll tell them. You better

believe it we'll tell them. We'll tell them about the half-million

dollar man in the north. We'll tell the people in the north about the

half-million dollar man who spoke little and said less. We'll tell the

people in the north about your government. We'll tell them about the

wild promises for economic development in the northwest by

what's-his-name from Vancouver East. Where is he, Mr. Speaker?

Oh, yes, his grandiose plans led the people of that northwest part

of the province to great expectations, and then dashed all their hopes

and did absolutely nothing. Oh, yes, the members for the north will

stand and talk about your government, about how the previous government

killed the mining industry and held back the coal industry.

We'll tell them about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and

how the money has to be taken out of general revenue, taken away, to

subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — money that could be

going into good programmes in this coming year to develop the north and

help those people in the north. Oh, yes, the members for the north will

[ Page 84 ]

speak out, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I hope you didn't write this.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Member from New Westminster, I hope that you didn't write your script either.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it grieves me when I think about the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the promises made by the

previous government about no subsidy. Then in the first two years they

lost $181 million. That's money that could have gone into the north,

Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . But this loss was caused by

political interference by the members of the executive council and by

the entire caucus, but most of all by those members — and that member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in particular, who was a member of the

executive council and a director of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia.

Had this trend continued, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

would have cost the people of British Columbia not $181 million but

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. But they

knew. They knew that when they brought down their budget this spring

they would have to tell the people of British Columbia the sad state of

affairs.

Mr. Speaker, maybe that's why they called the election so early.

First of all, they changed the legislation to allow money to be taken

from general revenue, gas taxes, to subsidize the insurance

corporation. But then they did not increase the gasoline tax.

MR. KING: Yes, we did.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sure, you increased the gasoline tax

2 cents. But aren't the people in the north to pay for subsidy of

transit in the south? Yes, you increased the gasoline tax — 2 cents a

gallon.

MR. LAUK: They didn't; they did; they didn't; they did. What is it we did? Do you know?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If I stood here and told you.... I told

you when I was in opposition what you were doing and you didn't

remember, so I am not going to tell you again now.

Money from this source, gasoline tax that normally goes to general

revenue.... People programmes now have to be bled off because of the

political interference by that government in the operation of the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — that's why they didn't want to

debate the throne speech, because there are good programmes in there

for people. Oh, we used to hear them when they were in government talk

about programmes for people — money from services to people to

subsidize bashed fenders. That was the policy of that group over there

when they were government — taking money away from...

MR. COCKE: How can you say that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...good health programmes, education,

Mincome and Pharmacare to subsidize bashed fenders. That was the policy

of that group over there.

MR. LAUK: Hogwash!

HON, MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, after creating...all of

the press and all of the interviews.... After creating this myth that

there was a big fund being built up out of the gas tax to pay for the

deficit of the insurance corporation, they never moved one dime. Not

one dime. Here we have the budget speech, which was tabled in this

Legislature by that group over there last year: not one word about

subsidizing the Insurance Corp, of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, when they talked about Crown corporations they

somehow forgot to mention that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

would be needing a subsidy. Not one mention. They mentioned the B.C.

Railway; they mentioned the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority as going to

need more money, but not one word while they were talking about Crown

corporations. That's why this document had a tendency to mislead the

people of this province.

It even goes so far that when the Premier of this province was

reading the budget speech in this Legislature, with all the TV cameras

blazing, he conveniently left out in his speech, which went into Hansard ,

a portion out of the budget speech as it was printed that mentions

legislation approved by this Legislature last year which provides that

the corporation will have access to the consolidated revenue fund of

the province in order to assist in its operation. That statement, Mr.

Speaker, was conveniently left out of the Hansard version, and he did not say that while the TV cameras were bearing down on him; it was left out. Check it yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you checking Hansard ?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Check it yourself. The Premier of this

province, in delivering his budget speech, left out a portion of the

printed budget speech which refers to a subsidy to the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia. Very convenient.

MR. COCKE: Was that budget speech tabled?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 85 ]

the Premier of the province didn't table his budget

speech. I don't know. But he sure printed thousands of copies and sent

them all over the province. Sure! But when he was reading it to the TV

cameras he conveniently left out that portion about the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They seem quite concerned that they are learning the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here we have an economic and financial review of the

province dated September, 1975, as late as last September. Not one word

about the fact that this government intended to take money out of

general revenues to subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia!

Not one word, Mr. Speaker! They were afraid to tell the people of the

province just what kind of condition their shining example of

socialism, the insurance corporation, was in at that time. September

last year, Mr. Speaker, and not one word about money coming out of

general revenues to subsidize the insurance corporation.

Mr. Speaker, this government was faced — as outlined very ably by

the Minister of Education on Friday afternoon — with the situation we

faced when we became government and found the Insurance Corp, of

British Columbia broke, found that there was no mythical fund in

government to make up the subsidy, to make up the loss. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, we found there was no money in the budget or in the

coffers, period.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They're quiet now. Haven't they quietened down, eh?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and sorry

tale, and it grieves me to have to stand in this Legislature this

afternoon and debate this subject when we should be getting on with the

business of running this province.

There was no money in the treasury, Mr. Speaker. There was no

special gas tax fund, no money, period, and the company broke, The rest

is now on the record. But that's why we cannot support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, all of the members from the opposite side have

condemned and thrown scorn on the throne speech which the

Lieutenant-Governor read in this Legislature, a speech that outline d

people programmes. But the way they have brought in this amendment

shows that they were negative when they were government previously,

they were negative when they were in opposition before, and they're

negative again now. Mr. Speaker, that group over there is always

negative. That's why they could not lead in government.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to remember that the past Premier of this province

used to run around the province talking about Chicken Little, and the sky was

falling in. Well, now we know why he was saying that — because he knew that

the sky, indeed, was falling in, not only on the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia but, indeed, on all the financial situation in the province. That's

why he was so concerned about telling the people. It was on his mind all the

time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say that I'll have to give

the opposition benches a little credit because they worked hard when

they were in government. They couldn't possibly have created such a

mess without working hard at it.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Speaker, when the hon.

Leader of the Opposition introduced this amendment on Friday there were

several interjections across the row urging back-bench members from the

government side of the house to participate in this debate.

I guess we've just heard from the second, future, back-bench member

on the government side of the House. Because the Premier at that time

turned to the backbenchers and said they're all free to speak, to get

up and speak, and the next one to get up and speak was the hon.

Minister of Education. I suppose we're looking into the future. We're

looking ahead to the day when he will be back in the back bench,

He indicated when he got up to speak that he would be unable to

support the amendment. I think, Mr. Speaker, in his long political

career it's the first time that he's opposed an amendment to the

opening speech, and likely he'll be opposing other amendments as they

come up from time to time.

I had expected that the Premier would be in the House. I did want to

say, and I'm going to say it anyway, that his attendance has been very

good during this debate, and we've all appreciated having him here. We

realize the importance of having him in the House, particularly when

opposition members are speaking. He has been very good about attending.

He made much of the fact during his remarks when he spoke briefly

that he is making a point of answering his correspondence. I think he

is to be congratulated for that as well. I might warn him that his

immediate predecessor was also very good at answering his

correspondence; and the Premier who preceded him boasted that for 20

years he never answered a letter, and look at what happened to him. So

perhaps it's not such a good idea for a Premier to answer all his

correspondence.

But it's not just the answers, Mr. Speaker. The answer itself was

interesting, the way in which it is personalized. For example, the

date, February, 1976, sometime in February, 1976. The complimentary

salutation, now the person to whom it is addressed. The name is a

little bit out of line with the rest of the letter. Obviously the

letter has been typed separately

[ Page 86 ]

at some time before or after the name was put on

the letter. I've seen several copies of this exact same letter, the

only difference being the name of the person to whom it was addressed.

So that kind of personalized answer I'm sure will go down well with the

people who are receiving this correspondence. I hope they enjoy reading

it.

Nevertheless, he is to be congratulated. His attendance up to now

has been very good and even if he's not reading the answers, at least

he is sending them out regularly to all those who write to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you mind relating your remarks to the amendment?

MR. STUPICH: That is what this letter is about, ICBC — the

whole letter. That was my point in reading it and, since you've drawn

my attention back to it, I'd just like to refer to one other thing in

this letter and then I'll go on to a news release that is a

summary of

the letter, or perhaps the letter is an expansion of the news release,

one or the other. "Even with an increase in last year's premium rates

it would require an additional 25 to 28 cents per gallon to break

even." Now no justification to that calculation. I don't know where

they got that figure from, Mr. Speaker. Then they go on with some very

interesting reductio ad absurdum, I think you people call it. This

would cost most drivers more in the long run. Now they don't prove

that. They simple say it would cost them more in the long run, simply

because it is said in this letter that it'll cost more in the long run.

The fact that no commissions are paid on that has no bearing on it —

the fact that it's easier to collect, that the people who are paying

for it will not be paying it all at one time. They'll be paying it as

they use the service, and hence it will be cheaper to them. None of

that is mentioned. They just make the statement in this letter that it

will cost more in the long run without trying to prove it at all. But

this is the interesting part that I found.

Records show that expensive cars such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes

Benz, et cetera, are often driven less. They could have gone on to say

that records show that Volkswagens are often driven less. I've no doubt

that some Volkswagens are driven more than some Rolls Royces and some

Rolls Royces are driven more than some Volkswagens. But what does it

mean to say that? It clutters up the letter. It makes the letter

longer. It covers up the paper, but it really doesn't mean anything,

does it?

MR. KING: It's your philosophy.

MR. STUPICH: So much of the stuff in this letter doesn't

really mean anything. They're not facts. They're words thrown together

so that they can be signed and released.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Typical Social Credit philosophy has been said.

I prefer to call it by the words they use in the news release about

this same subject. "In fact, the costs were so much higher that,

unwilling to tell the public the true facts...." Mr. Speaker, facts are

facts. If they're facts you don't have to say that they're true because

by virtue of the fact that they are a fact, they are a fact.

(Laughter.) And when they use those two words together the only

interpretation you can put on what they call "true facts" is that they

must mean something else. I'm only trying to show you, Mr. Speaker,

that when they use the words "true facts" what they really mean you to

understand from those two words is Bennett-McGeer garbage. So we can

talk about facts on the one hand or we can talk about Bennett-McGeer

garbage and try to compare the two and see where we come out in reading

some of the stuff in this press release, some of the stuff that is

repeated in the letter; or, as I say, I'm not sure which came first.

"Our party campaigned in the last election to open the books of ICBC

to the public." They were going to show that we had closed the books,

Mr. Speaker. Well, what are the facts? It said right in the letter.

They say we were unwilling to tell the public, to open the books. Mr.

Speaker, you will recall that the ICBC legislation called for an

independent audit of ICBC accounts. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that

the legislation called for this report to be tabled in the Legislature

as soon as it was received. I'm sure that you will recall that the

regular annual report for ICBC for the last fiscal year-end, dated

February 28, 1975, was dated April 22, 1975. As soon as it was received

it was forwarded to the Lieutenant-Governor and made available in this

House. Now that's a fact, Mr. Speaker. The Social Credit garbage is

that we refused to reveal true information about ICBC. The facts of the

matter are that as soon as the report was ready it was tabled in this

House.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation calls for the accounts to be audited by an independent firm of chartered accountants.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot lately about another independent firm

of chartered accountants and what they had to say, and not much has

been said on the other side of the House quoting from that report. They

have talked about the report. They've misused information in it, but

they haven't apparently read the report itself. But let's read the

report from Deloitte, Haskins & Sells about the operation of ICBC

and see what they say. "We have examined the balance sheet of ICBC as

at February 28, 1975, and the statements of general insurance

operations and changes in financial position for the year then ended.

In our opinion...." I'm not reading the whole report, but I'll read

this part.

[ Page 87 ]

"In our opinion, these

financial statements present fairly the financial position of the

corporation as at February 28, 1975, and the result of its operations

and the changes in its financial position for the year then ended, in

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a

basis consistent with that of the preceding period."

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is an auditor's report. It is an unequivocal

report about the financial status of ICBC at that date, the last date

for which such facts are available.

They talk about deficit, an ICBC deficit, in that period of $34

million — of $36 million. But what do the auditors say? What do the

financial statements show — the financial statements that are commented

upon by the auditors? They show a deficit at that date of $2.7 million.

Let's look at some of the auditor's comments, the basis of reporting.

I want you to recall, Mr. Speaker, some discussion in this House

about another auditor's report about another Crown corporation, reports

that were tabled in this House by a previous administration, previous

to our administration, and recall some of the comments on what happened

to that particular auditor. Nothing like that has happened to this

auditor.

"Basis of reporting: As prescribed by

sec. 18(3) of

the ICBC Act as amended June 20, 1975, the financial statements of the

corporation are presented in accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles. In this respect" — and this, Mr. Speaker, is

important — "the reporting conforms to that suggested in a 1974

research study of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants."

By all standards, Mr. Speaker, there can be no questions asked of

this report. These are facts. These are reported on by the auditors,

and the auditors insist that everything is being done in the way that

is most endorsed by the people who are — best qualified to rule on

these things.

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. All this talk about losses, about

going broke, about the need to borrow money: that is all what they call

"true facts" but what I suggest should be called "Bennett-McGeer

garbage".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. STUPICH: In the course of his speech, the hon. member

responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made several comments that I

would like to refer to.

He said, in effect, that the corporation was in receivership. There

was no cash for salaries of the personnel of the corporation, salaries

could not be paid, no money for claims. As of November 30 of last year

— that would be 1975, the last month the NDP was in office — the unpaid

claims of ICBC were $169 million. Unpaid claims of $169 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. STUPICH: No money for claims, no money for salaries,

people were not being paid their salaries; Mr. Speaker, more

Bennett-McGeer garbage.

What are the facts? On the day the NDP went out of office ICBC still

had some cash on hand. On that day ICBC still had $17 million in

investments that could have been sold had they chosen to sell them at

that time.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: They still had those long-term investments.

Interjections.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): What about the claims?

MR. STUPICH: They still had those investments. When they

sought my advice at that time, as Minister of Finance, should they sell

these investments, I said: "No, there is no need to sell them. You

don't need the cash now. When the day comes that you need the cash you

can get it either from the government...

MR. HEWITT: The government didn't have any money.

MR. STUPICH: ...or you have a line of credit of $100 million

in the bank waiting to be used if you want. There is no need to sell

those long-term investments." That was my advice.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: So what are the facts? Mr. Speaker, I suggest to

you that if the facts were that people were waiting for their salaries,

if the facts were that people were waiting to be paid their claims,

then it was the responsibility of that new administration to make sure

that those funds were made available to meet those salary cheques and

to meet the claims.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We did.

MR. STUPICH: He says they did. Mr. Speaker, they did. Yes,

they followed my advice. ICBC went to the bank and borrowed money. How

much did they borrow to meet these $169 million in outstanding claims?

How much did they borrow to meet the salaries that were not being paid?

Well, the

[ Page 88 ]

Hon. Minister of Education was quoted recently as saying they

borrowed, Mr. Speaker, not $169 million, not $200 million; they

borrowed $30 million from the bank. That's all the money they needed to

finance the operations of ICBC until premiums started coming in late in

February, premiums that we had expected would have started coming in

early in January.

MR. COCKE: Right on.

MR. STUPICH: So $30 million was all they needed, in spite of

the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they dilly-dallied for a couple of months

trying to make up their minds how much they were going to hook the

people in the province for ICBC premiums. Those are the facts, Mr.

Speaker. All they had to borrow was $30 million. They would not have

had to borrow that amount if they had moved quicker on determining what

would be the rates.

The speaker said during the course of his remarks that all ICBC had

was a few million dollars in assets of any kind of the corporation.

Well, how many are "a few"? It's kind of hard to determine. It reminds

me of a Liberal cabinet member one time who said: "What's another

million?" His attitude seems to be much the same with respect to a

"few" million dollars.

He does go on to say that in the way of fixed assets they had $39

million; in the way of investments we know they had $17 million, and we

know they had some cash. So add that all up together and you're

getting at least up around $60 million of assets. Now that's "a few"?

From where I sit that's quite a few, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless

we'll get that information because I'm sure the administration on the

other side of the House, when the true facts in the way of another

report from Deloitte, Haskins & Sells become available, I'm sure

that government will table this kind of information in the House as

well. In April, next month, we hope to have a report telling us just

exactly what is the true situation at that time.

In the course of his remarks the Minister of Education said that

this money — and he's talking about accumulated deficits, not debts,

Mr. Speaker, but deficits — accumulated deficits must be paid out of

current taxes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not what Clarkson, Gordon said. Clarkson,

Gordon didn't say that any of this money had to be paid out of current

taxes. What did Clarkson, Gordon say? For those of you on the other

side of the House.... And I note in particular the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) didn't seem to be able to read the

amendment that we're discussing, didn't know what we were talking about

until you read it for him, and we appreciate that. We think he should

be read to when he's not able to read himself. But for his edification,

I'll repeat the words out of the Clarkson, Gordon report with respect

to the grant of ICBC of $175 million: "We have been advised by the

government that this money will be paid by March 31, 1976, and therefore

we have included it in the expenditures for this fiscal period." Simply

because the government had said they were going to pay it by that date,

not because ICBC needs the money. Because right today, Mr. Speaker,

ICBC must have somewhere between $300 million and $400 million sitting

in the bank in the way of short-term deposits. We'll give that

information too.

Don't shake your head so much, it might fall off. I don't think there's very much holding it there. (Laughter.)

It doesn't have to be paid out of current taxes, Mr. Speaker, and

the Premier of the province is the one that I can quote as an

authority. I'm not often going to quote him as an authority, but on

this I will quote him, because he said, when he was talking about

borrowing this money to give it to ICBC: "Not only do they not need the

money, but they will be able to invest it and earn the interest that

will be used at some future date to lower the premiums."

They don't need the money, Mr. Speaker; the Premier said that. He

knows it, you know it, but the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

apparently doesn't know very much about the financial status of ICBC,

and he still thinks they need money, they need cash. A corporation that

has between $300 million and $400 million in the bank is going to be

given another $181 million just so that you can go out and borrow it

and then say that it was our fault. Great politics, Mr. Speaker, but

very poor economics!

During the course of his remarks also, the hon. Minister of

Agriculture — again somebody must have been reading to him, but they

didn't read the whole thing — said that we were in favour of flat

rates. No charges for driving records. Mr. Speaker, you know that's

nonsense. I wouldn't expect him not to know. But you know that we were

going after people because of their driving record. Mr. Speaker, I'm

surprised from what I know of — his driving that he didn't have enough

points so that he was surcharged himself. You know that people were

being charged....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a personal attack.

MR. STUPICH: All right, I'll withdraw my personal attack, Mr.

Speaker; I'll withdraw that. It's just that he encourages one to

indulge in personal attacks because of his continuing interruptions.

But that's okay; I don't mind that a bit. It's funny.

But you certainly know that we were trying to penalize drivers on

the basis of their individual driving records. You know that from

speeches in this House and by speeches from the directors of the

corporation that we were moving further into that, that we felt

[ Page 89 ]

the point system itself was not adequate as a way of measuring

people's driving records, and that we were going to see that the people

responsible for causing accidents were the ones that were going to pay

for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, we were not prepared to attack drivers unless they

did show that they had personal responsibility for these accidents. For

example, Mr. Speaker, we weren't prepared to take everybody under the

age of 25 and say simply "because you weren't born before 1951, you're

going to pay more for your insurance." What kind of discrimination! You

talk about discrimination, the hon. Minister of Agriculture often used

to talk about discrimination. Well, let's look at some of the

discrimination. Let's look at some of the people that are paying for

this money that ICBC is going to be investing.

A 40-year-old man convicted of drinking and driving pays $372 to

insure a 1974 Plymouth Valiant. He's 40 years old, he's convicted of

drinking and driving and he pays $372 for $200,000 liability, $ 100

deductible on collision and $50 deductible on comprehensive. Now for

drinking and driving he should be paying more than the person who is

not drinking and driving. Isn't that right?

But if that person had no conviction for drinking and driving, but

happened to be guilty of being younger than 25 years, then he doesn't

pay the $372 for that same coverage, He would pay $845. From $372 to

$845 — yet one is guilty of drinking and driving, the other is guilty

of being below the age of 25 with a completely clean record of driving.

MR. KING: Shame on you!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask you: is that being fair? Hon.

Minister of Agriculture, did you know it was that far out of line? Did

you know that people under the age of 25 were being discriminated

against in that way?

What about the other backbenchers, the people that are there now —

not the ones that are going to the backbench, but the people that are

there already? Do they know that a person is being discriminated

against to that extent, in spite of the fact that they had a completely

clean record, just because they are below the age,

whereas a person

convicted of drinking and driving, in this case, is paying $500 less

for the same insurance?

Do you think that they really know that back there? Would they sit

silent, Mr. Speaker, if they knew that? I think some of them might. But

I'm hoping that there are one or two of them back there. And I had

hoped that even the Minister of Agriculture would listen to the pleas

from these people who have good driving records, no records of

conviction at all...and to say that they should be paying, in this

case, two and a half times as much as a person older but who has been

convicted of drinking and driving! I had hoped that they would listen

to pleas from people such as that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess in all seriousness I didn't hope it. I

didn't hope for that kind of constructive action from the people on

that side of the House. But I think it's well to say that I hoped for

it, because maybe someday some of them will listen and maybe someday

some of them will speak.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Education, during the course of

his remarks — and this is something I agree with, too — said "we had to

do some very unpopular things." We had to do some very unpopular things

ourselves at times. He went on to say it was an extraordinarily

difficult period for himself, for his family and for the government.

But that's the price of responsibility, if you are prepared to accept

it.

Mr. Speaker, certainly people in government have to accept

responsibility, have to pay that kind of a price at times. I think it's

very commendable on the part of the hon. Minister of Education that

when he was being asked to pay this price on one occasion, the TV

cameras, I believe it was, took note of the fact that while he was in

the house and they approached him to ask questions, it was not the hon.

minister who came to the door, but his wife who came to the door. Now

that's pretty good; he has only one wife to throw into the fray, but he

offered unselfishly the one wife that he had to take on this

responsibility for the attack against the ICBC premiums. And in another

case his son. I don't know how many sons he has; maybe he has more than

one so he can afford to be a bit more generous in the case of his sons.

In another case when he was called upon to account for his plans with

respect to ICBC, unselfishly again — and I say again; he has only one

executive assistant — but unselfishly he threw that executive assistant

into the fray,

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is really an example of accepting

responsibility. Very commendable to have a minister who is prepared in

that way to accept responsibility for the actions of himself and the

government that he is advising. We would hope, perhaps on some

occasion, that he will be available to throw himself into the fray.

Perhaps that will happen when he has no one else to throw into the fray

on his behalf.

Mr. Speaker, they have talked a lot about the subsidy that ICBC

needs. I quoted earlier in my remarks the Premier himself saying that

ICBC does not need cash right now. We never looked on the gasoline tax

method of collecting premiums as a subsidy; it's a way of collecting

premiums. It is not more expensive; it is more economical for the

people paying the premium.

They quoted the remarks of Mr. Barrett in a speech as saying that there would be no subsidy, and

[ Page 90 ]

from the beginning we maintained that position. Gasoline tax is a method of collecting the premium.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a subsidy from general revenue.

MR. STUPICH: We never said that the tax would not be

increased if we found it necessary to do this. You recall, Mr. Speaker,

we did say that in next year's budget, at a time when we knew that the

cash would be needed, not one penny....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That's right, Mr. Speaker, Not one penny of

consolidated revenue has gone in. We did not anticipate that one day

there'd be a change in administration — that people determined to wreck

the system and hand it over to the private insurance companies to live

up to their campaign promises would come into power, and that they

would hand this business over to the private companies and that there

would be subsidies to ICBC. We didn't anticipate that when we said

there would be no subsidies. We said there would be no subsidies and we

meant it as long as we were controlling it, but we didn't expect that

you would be heading the government one day and that there would then

be a subsidy of $181 million that the people of this province will be

paying. Not the drivers; everybody in the province will be contributing

to that subsidy that your government has paid to ICBC, and it just

isn't necessary.

As you said yourself, the cash isn't needed now. You said that the

premiums will be sufficient to cover the cost of claims and running

ICBC this year. The cash is not needed. You are paying a subsidy that

is not needed. You said that yourself about the gasoline-tax premium

method. It is not a subsidy, Mr. Speaker. It's a way of collecting

premiums.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a subsidy.

MR. STUPICH: Those of you who were referring to the then Premier's remarks at a meeting in Kelowna didn't read it all...

AN HON. MEMBER: Kamloops.

MR. STUPICH: ...because he did say in Kamloops that the

legislation allows up to 10 cents per gallon on gasoline tax to be used

for ICBC in addition to premium payments, although so far...

HON. MR. BENNETT: In addition to premiums. He didn't call it premiums; he called it in addition.

MR. STUPICH: ...the tax has been raised only 2 cents. We knew that

if the tax was going to be used as a form of paying the premium, we knew there

would be some adjustment in the gasoline tax rate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right, a transfer.

MR. STUPICH: That was a transfer tax. That's exactly it, a

transfer of revenue — the 2 cents was. That's right. The 2-cent

increase in gasoline tax was a transit tax revenue.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Will you leave that 2 cents for the moment and get on to the next phase of it?

We also knew that we would not be transferring. We also knew that

ICBC would not need massive infusions of cash in the fiscal period 1975

to 1976. We talked about that when you were out. ICBC did not need

massive infusions of cash in the period ending February 29, 1976.

We did say in our speech in December that it was proposed that in

the next budget there would be an amount of $150 million provided from

gasoline tax revenue provided for ICBC. But we never said, Mr. Speaker,

that there would be no change in that gasoline tax in that period. We

didn't say there would, and we didn't say there wouldn't.

We're not talking about the 2 cents; we are talking about the next

budget year because we said very carefully that in the next budget year

there would be a transfer to ICBC, but there was no transfer in the

current year. As the Premier himself has said, it has not been

necessary to make that transfer. It's not necessary. The money is being

transferred to ICBC so that it may invest the money and use the

interest some day to lower the premiums. Now those, Mr. Speaker, are

the Premier's remarks as I saw them reported in the Victoria Times ,

dated January 27.

Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition has made a good case for supporting this amendment.

I don't expect from his reaction right now that the Premier has

listened to all that case in the way that he should have, so I don't

expect that he will be voting with us. But I do expect that we will get

support from a substantial number of people in the House, and I think

there are a lot of people in the community outside of this House who

would support this amendment, people who are very concerned about the

way in which the government has started to attack ICBC, the corporation

that even they admit — it was reported quite widely — that if it were

not for ICBC coming into the business, rates in B.C. today would have

been much higher even than they are now with the vastly increased rates

imposed by the present administration.

I believe it was the president of the Canadian Federation of Insurance Agents who said: "If private

[ Page 91 ]

insurance companies had continued in B.C. after 1972, B.C. motorists

would be paying more for their car insurance in 1976 than they do now,

despite the staggering increases imposed by the Social Credit

government."

So even if they succeed in making ICBC very unpalatable during what

I hope will be their short term in office, even if they do accomplish

that, the B.C. motorists will have benefited from the establishment of

ICBC.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Last week, the hon. member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and again today the hon. member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich) asked to hear from the back bench of this party

concerning the amendment to the motion presently before this House. I

am therefore more than pleased to take this opportunity to speak

against that motion.

In the entire financial history of this province, never has such a

total disaster faced the people of British Columbia. From its outset

ICBC was subjected to the most blatant political interference that any

Crown undertaking has ever had the misfortune to suffer.

Notwithstanding the initial pledge by the now official opposition — a

position in which they now so deservedly find themselves — that total

insurance costs would be paid totally out of revenues, what do we find?

After the first year of operation, the corporation experienced a loss

of some $ 34 million, a fact that was known by the directors of the

corporation and the president of that corporation while denials to that

effect were commonplace.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame! Shame!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame!

MR. DAVIDSON: There can be no question, following the

dramatic revelations made by the Education minister, the minister

responsible for ICBC, on Friday, that the people of British Columbia

were deliberately misled by those same individuals who now so

self-righteously sit here in condemnation of a policy that this

government has put forward in an attempt to rectify the serious

imbalance in Autoplan payments.

MR. KING: Author! (Laughter.)

MR. DAVIDSON: If criticism is, in fact, deserved, Mr.

Speaker, it belongs not to this government but to the former

administration who attempted to use ICBC for its own political ends.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIDSON: No amount of phony criticism or rhetoric from

the opposition can justify the deception or the scheming ineptitude of

the directors of that corporation.

It has become commonplace among some shoddy salesmen trying to sell

an inferior product to take their weak point and try and turn it around

as a sales benefit.

MR. KING: A used car salesman? Don't attack used car salesmen.

MR. DAVIDSON: Nothing could be more similar than the

situation the opposition has put forward on this amendment. They know

they are wrong. They have been proved wrong. The people know they are

wrong, and they are still trying to say they're right.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up!

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Hey Don, did you write that?

MR. DAVIDSON: With the facts alone, as outlined on Friday,

the former minister responsible for ICBC, Mr. Strachan, should be

immediately recalled to answer these grave and serious charges. Rather

than the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) attacking this

government, he as the former director of ICBC should be trying to offer

some excuse for remaining as a member of this House.

MR. KING: Dan Campbell strikes again.

MR. DAVIDSON: That the former Premier of this province, now

knowing that the facts of the deceit of his government are now known

and part of the public record, should dare to parachute himself into

another riding vacated for his convenience and inflict himself on the

people of Vancouver East is simply beyond comprehension.

Mr. Speaker, while this government may not always take the most

popular stand, it is always going to take a responsible stand.

Government dollars are people's dollars and should be spent for the

benefit of people, not for fenders and certainly not on grandiose

political cover ups.

How could any government after experiencing a dramatic financial

loss in its first year of operation even consider lowering premiums in

its second year of operation, despite rising costs experienced in the

auto repair industry and the rising costs of their own administration?

The answer is simple: they told us it would be good, so no matter what

it cost the taxpayer it was going to be good.

Mr. Speaker, ICBC was intended to be the jewel in the crown of the

NDP; it has turned to be the thorn in their side. Neither scare tactics

nor massive

[ Page 92 ]

programmed demonstrations will alter the fact that their

administration bungled through political interference and misled

through deliberate misstatements. The architect of the disaster was

sent thousands of miles away to hide in London, and now we see why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIDSON: Again I say that rather than attacking this

government for its responsible dealings in an attempt to remove itself

politically within the next year from the corporation, members of the

operation should hide their heads in shame on the entire ICBC issue.

Mr. Speaker, I do not stand before the members here stating that

ICBC is presently without fault and that there's no room for

improvement. Far from it. Certainly there's room for improvement; there

will always be room for improvement, and this improvement is being

worked on daily.

As a backbencher in this party I am proud of the stand that the

Minister of Education and the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) has taken on this entire matter. The people of this province

are proud of the stand he has taken on this matter. Major changes have

been made in Autoplan, and thousands of motorists who received their

premium notice were shocked to find that they were not looking at $

1,000 or $1,500, as many had led them to believe; they were finding, in

fact, that their rates were comparable with those of other

non-subsidized private insurance programmes.

Several significant factors must be considered in the analysis of

the present Autoplan programme. These include the fact that the

government is going to pick up all the past debts of the corporation,

which are in fact $181 million. Collision coverage is no longer

compulsory. To obtain the necessary decal drivers are only required to

purchase the public liability and property damage insurance. Insurance

premiums are being set on a break-even basis for all types of

insurance. Financing is available to all motorists. Special reductions

have been introduced for senior citizens and handicapped people. And

lastly, there's a 25 per cent rebate for those under 25 who are

accident-free and free of up to five points, which is not out of ICBC

but out of the government revenues.

The people of this province have every right to ask what happened to

the money that was earmarked for ICBC. Where has it gone? Like

everything else, it was spent. But as time progresses....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Flying helicopters.

MR. DAVIDSON: But as time progresses the people of British Columbia...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Building roads.

MR. DAVIDSON: ...will find that responsible government has

once again returned to British Columbia and, further, that backbenchers

of this party are never hard-pressed to defend the policies of this

government; we're proud of the opportunity.

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

hear the hon. member for Delta being so proud of his ministers; the one

who's just leaving the house there, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Phillips), was severely criticized by the member for Delta for not

meeting those vegetable growers. He wasn't so proud the other day, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm kind of confused by these figures. You know, I listened to the

speech of the Hon. Minister of Education, and I thought that the

Premier would be backing up that hon. minister and agreeing with him.

But somebody gives me a letter here — it's kind of a form letter; it's

probably gone to all kinds of people — and this is what the Premier

says publicly about the Minister of Education.

Yes, one of your letters under your signature. He says:

"It has been little more than a month since the

election. During that time we have been extremely busy forming a

cabinet and coming to grips with the problems of government and the

Crown corporations. The problems are greater than anticipated" — and

listen to this, and he is telling the public this in a letter — "and we have created a few of our own since taking office,

e.g. Dr. McGeer's unfortunate ICBC statement...." (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Is there tribal warfare going on in the Social

Credit cabinet? Do you really believe, Mr. Premier, the kind of figures

and facts and statements that the hon. minister tried to give us the

other day? You have got a funny way of backing him up. Are you afraid

that he is going to put a knife in your back, or are you putting one in

his first? (Laughter.)

You know, it is one thing for a Minister to make an unfortunate

statement, but to have the Premier of the province going around in

letters to the public calling attention to that — " e. g. that

unfortunate...." Oh, yes, you've been a good propagandist because I don't

think you really agree, and I find it very hard to find his story about ICBC hanging together myself.

You know I'm not all that good at finances, and I

[ Page 93 ]

must admit, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes I get confused. You know,

you all know my wife won't let me have anything to do with the

household finances. Although, you know, when it comes to the really big

questions like ordering a couple of hundred million from the Arabs,

then she lets me make that kind of a decision. (Laughter.) But I can't

understand, Mr. Premier, I can't understand. I listened to the speech,

and it was a darned good speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: And he quoted you as saying that you were going to lend to ICBC...

AN HON. MEMBER: To give.

MR. MACDONALD: ...to give $175 million which ICBC doesn't

need. Now that is confusing. You know, if we listen to sad stories of

financial woe, which have been retailed to us in this Legislature, then

you would think that the last thing that anybody would want to do that

was in dire financial circumstances would be to go to a finance company

and borrow money they don't need. (Laughter.) And you are the one that

said that.

MR. LEA: The only way to fly!

MR. MACDONALD: You're the one that said that. Premier Bennett

says: "But that money will not be needed right away, and ICBC can

invest it and earn millions of dollars."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Making the people pay!

MR. MACDONALD: But you look at the other side of the

question, Mr. Premier, and you have to wonder what kind of a game is

being played here. How much interest are you going to pay on that

money? You are going out on the money markets of the world and you are

going to borrow $175 million to give to ICBC so that they can lend it

out, and they can be a money-lender, eh? — not an insurance company but

a money-lender. But you have to pay interest on that sum, eh? The

people of the Province of British Columbia have to pay interest on that

$175 million.

I hope that you are going to answer some of these questions. How

much interest are you going to pay? What is going to be the effect on

the general credit rating of the province of going out to the money

markets and borrowing money that we don't need?

Because, you know, the school boards are out and they are looking to

borrow money, the municipalities and B.C. Hydro — and these are needed

moneys. They need it for schools, they need it for the municipalities,

they need it for Hydro, and yet you — why are you doing this Mr.

Premier? I mean, why are you borrowing money that you don't need?

Did you suggest this...when you told Clarkson, Gordon.... I don't

think you should have done this to them. (Laughter.) Did you suggest

the other day in the House, Mr. Premier, that this was on the advice of

the comptroller-general that you told Clarkson, Gordon that they would

have to get $175 million from the government — $181 million I think was

in the report — by March 31? Was that on your advice, Mr. Premier, or

the comptroller-general's?

Because you suggested it the other day, and I would hate to think

that you were hiding behind the comptroller-general on a subject of

that kind. Because what you are doing, Mr. Premier, is taking a date,

March 31, when ICBC doesn't need the money, and making a loan at the

expense of the credit rating of the Province of British Columbia to the

whole world, driving up the costs of the other borrowings that this

province will have to make, and you are doing it for political reasons.

Why else? Why is it March 31?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: It's to try to blame the NDP. It's a political

decision. That's right! You don't need to borrow the money, but you

want to try and show how bad the NDP was, and so for the first time in

the history of this province, you are bringing politics into the

operation of the Department of Finance. There is no other explanation.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: And, Mr. Premier, you have been going around making speeches, telling everybody who wants to listen...

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: ...including the financial money markets, British Columbia is in bad financial shape.

MR. LAUK: Old jet-lag is moving over.

MR. MACDONALD: Thereby you're injuring the credit of the

province in the money markets of the world. Now why don't you forget?

You're playing politics, aren't you? You're playing politics with this

$175 million. My did you choose the date March 31 to borrow $175

million that we don't need?

MR. KING: Can't even run a hardware store.

[ Page 94 ]

MR. MACDONALD: This is a political game, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you sell haywire in that hardware store?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, do you want me to answer that? There's no cover-up.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: You wanted me to answer the question. I answered it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not prepared to defend it.

MR. MACDONALD: I answered the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a audit. Do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have a Social Credit review.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What we're seeing for the first time in the

Province of British Columbia.... (Laughter.) Oh, let me get off that,

because I'm getting so much help I can't use it all.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I think, Mr. Premier, this is a political game plan.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Why wouldn't you let the Anti-Inflation Board look at these huge ICBC rate increases?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll tell you what happened. The first

thing you did...and you said that when you came into government you

found out the thing was broke. Before you had a chance to do anything,

you sent three of your ministers down to Ottawa, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams),

and the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair).

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

MR. MACDONALD: Consumer Services. I used to be a minister. I should get it right.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What did they do down there in Ottawa, Mr. Premier?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: They went and met Hon. Macdonald, Hon. Ouellet.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and the Hon.... Yes, Ouellet was there. Wasn't he there?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Macdonald was there, eh?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Macdonald was there and Labour Minister John Munro.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't help him. Don't help him.

MR. MACDONALD: And you met in the glass bell in Ottawa.

HON. MR. MAIR: Wrong again.

MR. MACDONALD: The building, the bell building. You sent

those ministers down there to tell the federal government in no

uncertain terms that you would not participate in the federal

anti-inflation guidelines unless ICBC was taken out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and that's why Jean-Luc Pepin and Beryl

Plumtree have been out here threatening that if they had a look at the

exorbitant ICBC rates they would roll them back as unjustified.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I quote from the Vancouver Sun and you'll have an opportunity to tell us exactly what happened.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you ever around?

[ Page 95 ]

MR. MACDONALD: You'll have an opportunity to tell us exactly

what happened and not chatter quite so much in your place in the House.

You'll be able to get up on your feet and tell us exactly what happened

in Ottawa.

MR. LEA: He wouldn't do that.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, Pepin came out here and he made it

pretty clear that the Anti-Inflation Board would be prepared to take a

sharp pencil and look at those ICBC increases and roll them back

because they're totally unjustified. He can't do it because of the

action of this government. You put it up to Ottawa saying that there

would be no cooperation unless ICBC was exempt.

HON. MR. MAIR: Pepin was in Mexico.

MR.MACDONALD:

"With both Wolfe and Macdonald worried, the two

ministers quickly came to an understanding. If B.C. joined the

programme, the federal government would not allow the anti-inflation

programme to interfere with the increases in ICBC rates."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Were you quoting Hans Christian Anderson?

MR. MACDONALD: "This was not an implicit understanding," It's an

article by John Sawatsky in the Vancouver Sun of March 1, and he's a very capable reporter. Let me finish this.

"This was not an implicit understanding or a vague

promise by Macdonald to do everything he could. It was a carte blanche

undertaking from the federal Minister of Finance to exempt ICBC from

the anti-inflation guidelines. This verbal pact has been checked and

confirmed through both parties."

MR. LAUK: Under-the-table dealings.

MR. MACDONALD: And, Mr. Speaker, that has been in fact what

has happened. Because while everybody who works for a living is

controlled by the anti-inflation guidelines, there has been one

conspicuous exception of exorbitant charges in a period of inflation,

and that has been ICBC in the Province of British Columbia. This

government has refused to sign an agreement with Ottawa as to the

public sector solely because you know those ICBC rates would be rolled

back as exorbitant in a period of inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful conspiracy!

MR. MACDONALD: And when you look at the whole picture you see

that it all falls together, don't you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier

through you. Right from the time of December 23, when you were sworn

into office, the game plan was on: to hike up the ICBC rates to a level

where your friends the private insurance companies would feel

comfortable.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, before you even looked at the books, that

was the decision — to run down to Ottawa and get exemption from

anti-inflation guidelines and try and blame it all on the NDP. What you

were plainly doing was paying off an election debt to those private

insurance companies, even though not one of them — Allstate, you name

it; Farmers' Union, the whole works — none of them would increase their

insurance rates, even if they did have financial difficulties, by 200

or 300 per cent in one jump. It's never been done anywhere in the

insurance world. But in B.C. you had an obligation to those private

companies. They had financed you and supported you in the election and

you paid it off on December 23 with an agreement from Ottawa that

Ottawa had to keep hands off. You've been adding to the fires of

inflation, and you've been playing a political game in the Department

of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up.

MR. MACDONALD: Certainly, for the first time in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no cover-up.

MR. MACDONALD: What have you been doing with Clarkson, Gordon

when you give them that kind of instruction? A respected auditing firm

throughout Canada, supposed to be making an independent review of the

situation, and what do you do? You say: "Don't upset our political game

plan, We want you to show a debt. We want to make sure of that before

March 31, because that's the vital date to blame it on the NDP."

Are you going to make that deadline, Mr. Premier? Do you think

you'll be able to get that political money to ICBC in the next few

days? Because, you know, that's your political commitment, isn't it?

Yes, make the debt look big. Never mind if it hurts the province. Never

mind that you've interfered and intermeddled politically with a

respected auditing firm and....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right, giving them instructions — telling them to make an independent

[ Page 96 ]

review and then giving them political instructions. I don't think

you should do that to a respected auditing firm. I think they should

have quit and packed up the job and not taken that kind of instruction

from a political Premier.

What kind of an independent review is it where the politicians tells them how to insert the figures?

MR. HEWITT: Are you questioning the integrity of Clarkson, Gordon?

MR. MACDONALD: What kind of review is that?

Mr. Premier, I bet you're in a race now with your political game

plan to try to paint the picture of the state of this province's

finances as black as possible by March 31. Do you think you'll be able

to rush that money to them in time?

But I'll tell you this, Mr. Premier: when you do this for the first

time you're beginning to use that Department of Finance for political

purposes.

MR. LAUK: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: That's right — for the first time. You said

the other day it was the comptroller who advised you to do this.

Nothing of the kind. That's not true at all. You did it yourself.

I say that the finances of this province should be put on.... Let

the Department of Finance govern according to real needs and borrow

according to real needs and not according to the political game plan of

the Social Credit Party, because what you're doing is running down the

province. Once you start down that slippery path of playing politics

with the finances of the province, there's no turning back. That's

something we never did. That's what you're doing — playing politics

with the finances of this province, and it's time you put the province

first.

Interjections.

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

take exception to some remarks that were made last Friday by the hon.

member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). He took exception to the

quality of the back bench of this party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm here to say that we won't stand for that type of thing, Mr. King. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on!

MR. LEA: He's going to get you, Bill.

MR. STRONGMAN: We know what the quality was in the last back bench, and it was devastating to this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Hide his curlers. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: We want Agnes.

MR. STRONGMAN: Last Friday Mr. King said, and he quoted me, or a quotation was alleged to me in the....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could I just interrupt you for one

moment? You don't refer to another member in the House by name. You

refer to him by riding, please.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm sorry. I don't have all the ridings straight, but I'll try and do that. Please correct me again if I make the mistake.

MR. LAUK: Particularly Vancouver South.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for...

MR. KING: Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR, STRONGMAN: ...Revelstoke-Slocan accused me and said that I had said in the Vancouver Province

that the debt should be paid through gasoline taxes and general

revenue. I admit that I made that statement. I meant it, and I think I

should thank you for bringing it out because it indicates that the back

bench of this party are listening too. We are now paying for the $180

million out of general revenue.

The back bench of this parliament, of this government, unlike the

back bench of the last government, has great ability and strength of

purpose. Our Premier has great reserves to draw from where he decides

to do it.

MR. KING: I can see that.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is very unlike the situation that occurred in the last government.

It seems to me, although I was not in the House, that it took your party three years to find a Finance minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Three years to bring in....

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: And I can only deduce there wasn't anyone strong enough...

MR. LEA: You'll have three years too.

[ Page 97 ]

MR. STRONGMAN: ...in the former cabinet or in the back bench so he selected the best he had — the best he had, the very best.

If the performance of the former Finance minister is the standard of

the ability and competence of the former back bench, then, Mr. Speaker,

I can only conclude the cabinet and back bench had to be less than

competent.

It was brought out again; it was embellished today by the hon.

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and the hon. member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) who said that they didn't understand the financial

statements of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. And then on top

of that, the hon. member for Vancouver East admitted that lie couldn't

add.

Thank goodness the electorate recognize their lack of expertise and

drummed the Finance minister and a good number of his associates out of

office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STRONGMAN: The hon. member for South Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) made a remark Thursday or Friday in the House. He

indicated that one of the members on the opposition side of the floor

couldn't run a peanut stand. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say to you that I

don't think any of them collectively could run a peanut stand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not even with a subsidy!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: That was Capozzi's line.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'd like to take this opportunity to warn the

opposition that the back bench of this government has a strength of

purpose which was not be found in the last government of this province.

The back bench of this government will be heard and will fight, and

I've just indicated thanks to the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) —

how we are heard because he's pointed it out very nicely for me.

MR. LAUK: Where is Agnes? Where is Agnes?

MR. STRONGMAN: I believe she's in Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: Fortunately, in our party — to answer the

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — fortunately our party has a

grass-roots organization that allows anyone to stand for nomination. I

happened to be fortunate enough to win our nomination with Mr. Rogers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Steam-roller!

MR, STRONGMAN: One of the points that has been brought out

repeatedly by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is an accusation that we're going to be

drummed out of the cabinet or we're not going to get a cabinet post.

All of a sudden I wonder: what is so important about a cabinet post to

the members from the NDP?

I didn't personally....

MR. LEA: Once more with a little feeling, fellows! (Laughter.)

MR. STRONGMAN: What is so important to the opposition party

about cabinet post appointments? "The party of the people," they call

themselves. What is so important? It's a hard job. I didn't run to get

into the cabinet. I ran to represent a constituency.

MR. COCKE: All the millionaires in B.C.

MR. STRONGMAN: I would like to go on now to the amendment itself. I have to find it here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is his first speech, maiden speech. Where are your manners?

MR. STRONGMAN: The amendment says: "This House regrets that

the speech fails to relieve the motoring public from oppressive auto

rates, fails to offer fair treatment for northern interior drivers and

fails to end discrimination for drivers under 25." I would like to

speak to the first point.

It is my contention that insurance rates in this province are very

similar to all regions in Canada, with the exception of Quebec because

they are higher than we are. I have lived in eastern Canada. I know

what insurance rates are there and we have a reasonable deal in this

province.

One of the points is that we have been unfair to people in the

northern areas and the interior — and I'd like you to compare some

notes that I have made with regard to rates in those areas: $ 113 in

the north Island; $114 in northern B.C.; $104 in the southern interior;

$137 in the lower mainland.

I don't know, it seems that the former Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald) is unable to add as well as the rest of your party. I can't

see how you can compare and say to us that our rates are higher in the

northern and interior areas when it's pointed out that they're not in

almost every category that exists.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Facts never bothered them before.

[ Page 98 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt again.

MR. STRONGMAN: In the amendment you say that we have

oppressive auto rates and that we aren't thinking about the people.

We've arranged for a 25 per cent down payment on our rate this year

which was not expected, but we were able to do it. You can pay for your

rates over six months at 13 per cent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was never done before.

MR. STRONGMAN: Thirteen per cent bank interest. All it's

costing someone to carry a $200 debt for six months is something under

$10. I think if the back bench or if the opposition parties could get

together, they might check my arithmetic and collectively they might be

able to come up with a similar answer.

Two categories of needy people have been subsidized by our

government. Senior citizens and handicapped people have been given a 25

per cent discount. We've also made it possible for under-25 drivers to

have a 25 per cent rebate if and when they are able to drive one year

without more than five points, or without an accident.

Gentlemen, I think that we are presenting a very fair package in

ICBC. I think you people have attacked our back bench in such a way

that we are going to fight back. I don't think that we are ever going

to stand for the innuendo that was passed in the House last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, in summation, the government of this province has

walked into a colossal mess. The previous government has misled the

people and misrepresented the facts. If they had been directors of a

public company, they would be subject to criminal action. The directors

of ICBC were misrepresenting a financial statement to the stockholders

of the company, which is the province in this case, which is every

citizen that lives here. They would be subject to criminal action. I

ask the former president of ICBC and all of the directors that are in

this House or in government posts elsewhere to resign promptly. Thank

you.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I too have received literally

hundreds of letters and petitions, as have most other members of this

House, protesting the exorbitant rate increases in ICBC, but I thought

I would....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): All from Girl Guides?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He looks like one, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would spend a

few moments discussing a particular aspect of the exorbitant rate

increase in ICBC, and that is the cost to the working people and the

poor people of this province.

In a riding like mine, which has very limited or no public transit,

everyone depends on a vehicle to get to work, or to go shopping, or to

drive their children to the school bus stop, in some cases five or six

miles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or a boat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, you won't build roads. We have to use

boats. But for example, it's 24 miles from Sechelt to the mill at Port

Mellon, 15 to 17 miles from Lund or Stillwater to the mill at Powell

River. In the Bella Coola valley, some people must drive up to 30 miles

to get to their jobs. People need their vehicles. We have no choice. We

have to pay those brutal rates. Vicious is right. In some instances in

my riding, Mr. Speaker, even in cases of health and emergency, people

must use their vehicles because they live a long distance from the

ambulance service or from transit of any kind. So you see the effect

that these brutal rates are having on people in ridings like mine and

other rural areas of the province. This government has discriminated

against young people in a cruel and heartless way. I assure you, Mr.

Minister, that these young people will not forget. The minister

expresses concern about how many dollars the corporation is not

receiving because people cannot afford to insure their second vehicle.

I know many, many people, Mr. Speaker, who under ordinary circumstances

would insure their second vehicle and are not doing so this year. So

that in effect means a loss of revenue to the corporation. Or they're

buying only the basic coverage, and this, by the way, I think, will

result in damaged and unsafe vehicles on our highways and roads because

people simply will not spend their own funds for the needed repairs.

Well, what should be done? Well, I suggest a specified portion of

the total premium should be collected at the gas pumps and remitted to

ICBC and licence and insurance rates kept low. Secondly, drivers should

not be discriminated against on the basis of age, sex or territorial

location, but should be surcharged as warranted by their individual

driving records, Mr. Speaker.

Just very quickly before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, and just to

answer the second member for Vancouver-South (Mr. Strongman), who said

nothing that was insu