1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9443 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Salary of Expo '86 management consultant. Mrs. Dailly –– 9443

Mr. Barrett

Steel contract for ALRT. Mr. Leggatt –– 9443

CIPA timber allocation. Mr. Lea –– 9444

Water-licence fees. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9444

Increase in Hydro's debt-equity and interest-coverage ratios. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9444

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill 89). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 9445

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Stupich –– 9445

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9447

Mr. Cocke –– 9448

Mrs. Wallace –– 9450

Ms. Sanford –– 9450

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9451

Mr. King –– 9452

Mr. D'Arcy –– 9454

Mr. Hall –– 9455

Mr. Barber –– 9457

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9459

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 86). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On the amendment

Mr. Barrett –– 9461

Tabling Documents

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission annual report.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9466

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm very

happy to have with us in your gallery this afternoon a fellow primarily

from Fort St. James in that great constituency of Omineca, but now, for

the winter at least, living in Tsawwassen — a very longtime and close

friend of mine, Mr. John Doyle. I would ask the House to make him very

welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: It's a great pleasure for me to

introduce to you today Gladys and Ivan Arnold from Sparwood, British

Columbia. They're visiting Victoria, and I'd like the House to give

them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting from Noordwijkerhout, Holland are four friends: Mr. Nick and Loes Van Hage and Mr. Bert and Adrie Hogervorst.

MR. BARRETT:

Visiting the Legislature today is a former teacher of the Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Bill Munday, who taught in the East End of Vancouver

and saw some of his students do well; others he's still checking on.

Oral Questions

SALARY OF EXPO '86

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Was the management

consultant, Mr. Mike Burns, a former campaign manager for the Minister

of Human Resources, hired by Expo '86 at a salary of some $750 per day?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that. It must have taken place before I

became Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. I

would have to take that question as notice and bring the information

back to the member to satisfy her interest in this matter.

MRS. DAILLY:

When the minister takes that, would he advise the House when he returns

— which we hope will be shortly on an important matter such as this —

what special services were offered which qualified for payment at this

level?

Will the minister confirm that the total payment....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is it urgent?

MRS. DAILLY:

We consider it urgent in a time of restraint. I want the minister in

charge to come back and tell the House if it is true that Mr. Burns, in

a time of restraint, collected a total of $258,000 — over a quarter of

a million dollars — for payment. We will be awaiting that answer, and

the public will be awaiting that answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Burns was a consultant to Transpo '86 and Expo

'86. He filled the two positions of president and general manager while

he was a consultant. Mr. Burns is no longer a consultant or an official of Expo

'86, his contract, or his consultant role, having expired on September 7,

MR. MACDONALD: You know all about it, don't you?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

As far as the money portion is concerned, I'm not aware of the kind of

remuneration Mr. Burns has picked up from his role as a consultant. I

would be glad to take that portion of the question as notice and bring

the information back to the member. At this time I have some difficulty

in determining how long the position was filled by Mr. Burns, and this

might have a bearing on what kind of payment was received by him:

whether he was engaged for a year or for three or four years. I'm not

aware of that. I'll have to determine it, and I'm sure the member wants

that information as quickly as I do. I'll make sure I bring that

information back to the member, because she's inquisitive on this issue.

MR. BARRETT:

While the minister is checking out the $250,000-man's past performance,

could he also advise the House whose campaign manager or adviser he

will be in the forthcoming provincial election? Will it be a Social

Credit cabinet minister? If so, will he confine his activities to one

minister or to the whole cabinet — for two hundred and fifty grand?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is question period. All members are

familiar with the rules.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is a bit of a facetious question that isn't deserving of an answer.

STEEL CONTRACT FOR ALRT

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Minister of Education in his

responsibility for ALRT. Western Canada Steel in New Westminster

previously employed about 400 workers; it is now down to 235. They

expect to dismiss another 50 workers next week. Can the minister

explain why they did not receive any contracts for reinforcing steel

for ALRT? Instead, it is being supplied entirely from non-British

Columbia sources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not have all the details, but I understand there was a letter to the paper or a story in the Province

yesterday. Perhaps I can give part of the answer and check out the

balance. I understand that Commonwealth received the contract, worth

more than $11 million. The steel component referred to by the member

was about $200,000. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the manufacturer

referred to by the member would not enter into a contract with the main

contractor for the provision of this steel. Therefore the main

contractor had to obtain this particular steel elsewhere — the $200,000

worth. The hon. member can be assured that in every contract for the

completion of rapid transit in greater Vancouver there is a requirement

that a percentage of the components be manufactured in British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: Is the minister now advising me that Western Canada Steel was not invited at all by Commonwealth to put in a bid on the steel?

[ Page 9444 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'll get the correct information for the member, if it should be

otherwise, but this is the information given to me by the Authority.

They were invited to tender the $200,000 worth of material that is

being referred to here. Apparently they did not want to supply the

contractor that had the main contract; instead they wanted to do

certain other work themselves or deal through another company. That's

why it was quite legitimate, I am advised, that they didn't get the

contract.

MR. LEGGATT: I thank the minister for his

answer. The facts are clear, therefore, that this is a contract that's

gone out of British Columbia. Could the minister advise why he didn't

make a provision in all the contracts on the urban transit system that

when B.C. taxpayers are putting up the money there is a 100 percent

guarantee for B.C. jobs and B.C. suppliers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

We have a requirement in every contract for the B.C. component, but

obviously we in British Columbia do not want to rule out competitors

from other parts of Canada — in this particular instance Alberta. The

Alberta contractor apparently entered into an arrangement with the main

supplier for the $200,000 worth of material out of the $11 million-plus

contract. We would hope that, in every instance, our own companies

could not only compete but could obtain all the work possible, but we

cannot say that we would take whatever is British Columbian, regardless

of the price. If we did that, I think our taxpayers would deem that to

be irresponsible.

CIPA TIMBER ALLOCATION

MR. LEA:

In 1975 the Ministry of Forests received a report, signed by forest

ranger Jim Hart, outlining that previous timber cruises had not been

accurate and that there wasn't nearly the amount of timber on the Queen

Charlotte Islands available for logging as had been thought before. He

outlined his reasons for it. The ministry ignored that report in 1977

and allocated a further 60,000 cunits to CIPA, formerly known as Queen

Charlotte Timber. Can the minister now confirm that, because of the

ministry's refusal to accept the Hart report, the quota holders — in

other words, the small British Columbia logging operators — are being

forced to be cut back on their allocation of timber because the

ministry refused to take into consideration the Hart report, which has

now been proved accurate?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA:

Has the minister now decided — as promised during his estimates earlier

this year — to table the full data on which the allocations of timber

were made to CIPA in 1977 so that the public is aware of the

information upon which the allocation was made?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

During debate on my estimates I told the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea) that I would table the Hart-Hernandez report, as it was called,

which in fact is a two-page memo from one branch of my ministry to

another. I'm more than happy to provide that so-called report to the

member. I'll make it available to him this afternoon, if he wishes.

MR. LEA: I have the memo that accompanied the report. It's the report that I want.

Another question to the minister: has the minister decided to convene a judicial

inquiry to determine what considerations — at either the local or provincial

level — led to the suspicious allocation of timber in excess of supply to CIPA

Industries in 1977?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the memo the member refers to is the report to which he

referred earlier. As for the second part of his question, the answer is

no.

WATER-LICENCE FEES

MR. D'ARCY:

A question to the Minister of Finance. As the minister is no doubt

aware, every metal mine in the province of B.C. is either shut down or

operating in the red, idling thousands directly and forcing many small

businesses into bankruptcy. Has the minister decided to rescind the

Socred royalty on mineral production in the form of water licence fees

in order to stimulate mining and production and restore needed revenue

to his ministry?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question posed

by the hon. member is very similar to a question which was posed to

another minister yesterday and was answered at some length by that

minister in the correct portfolio. I reject the use of the word

"royalty" with respect to water rentals in this context. I think it's

very important that we understand the difference between a charge on

water which is used in this connection and royalties as we knew them

under the NDP administration. The answer to the question is no, I have

not decided.

INCREASE IN HYDRO'S DEBT-EQUITY

AND INTEREST-COVERAGE RATIOS

MR. D'ARCY: I have a

question for the Minister of Finance. The minister has been responsible

for ordering the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority to increase its

debt-equity and interest-coverage ratios from 1.1 to 1.3, even though

no known threat exists to Hydro's credit rating. The effect of this

order has been a second-tier Socred mining royalty — and, by the way, a

royalty on the production of every other product in the province of

British Columbia. The amount of revenue his ministry will get out of

this is approximately $35 million additional from an industry which has

already declared it's going to lose more than $100 million this year.

Has the minister decided to restore the former equity and interest

coverage orders in view of the depressed state of the mining industry?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The answer to that question is no, I have not decided. But it's

necessary, I think, to reflect on the number of tax options which were

open to us in preparation of the budget for the fiscal year in which we

are now operating. We reviewed — as a question on the order paper

reminds us — a number of fees and levies which were assessed by the

government of British Columbia, some of them very small and some very

large. We increased a number which have not been touched for many

years. That is a reflection on a number of British Columbia governments

going back perhaps 40 and 50 years.

We decided that this was one that was underpriced and had to be adjusted, and it was adjusted. I am not persuaded,

[ Page 9445 ]

notwithstanding

the difficulties faced by the mining industry on an international basis

— not solely on a provincial basis, I think the member would admit —

that the fee or the rental charge to which he referred yesterday and

today is significantly responsible for the difficulties in which this

mining industry finds itself in comparison with difficulties being

experienced by mining industries in other jurisdictions.

MR. D'ARCY:

Can the minister explain to the House what threat to Hydro's financial

credibility existed that the debt-equity and interest-coverage ratios

had to be increased?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was a

matter of government discussion with the minister responsible for

British Columbia Hydro. I think that to describe it as a threat is

perhaps overstating it. Nonetheless, we were particularly interested in

correcting any possible imbalance in that ratio.

MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I implore this House, and I ask

leave to introduce the amendments to the Vancouver Charter, which is

Motion 29 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, by the same procedure, I wonder if I could ask leave of

the House to proceed to deal with Motion 13 on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House that what

the government has just said no to is one of their own members' motions

dealing with commitment to the support of post-secondary education.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, prior to recognizing the Minister of

Education, I would advise members that it is not proper for one member

to raise or make a motion standing in the name of another member.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Services (Interim) Act.

Bill

89 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 81.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it seems some

time ago that we started talking about Bill 81. It was my hope that in

the interim the Minister of Finance might have produced the bill that

he spoke about in second reading, rather than the one we have before

us. You will recall, Mr. Speaker — and I'll very briefly repeat some of

what I said — that when the minister was introducing the bill he said

it was going to impose limitations on various Crown corporations and

would impose discipline on government itself. The government would also

feel constrained to increase charges within these limits. You will also

recall that the press release that came out with respect to the Rate

Increase Restraint Act said: "Effective immediately, all rate increases

in these areas are held to 6 percent for a one-year period." That

wording is not in the copy of the bill that I had. I had hoped that

perhaps the government was reviewing its position and was going to

bring in legislation more in line with what the minister had to say

than the bill before the members on this side of the House.

also discussed the effect that the implementation of the limitations in

this bill might have on the operations of B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro,

B.C. Steamship Company and B.C. Transit. I expressed the hope that the

minister, in imposing these limits on these four Crown corporations,

would insist that there not be any serious disruption in service, that

the level of service would be maintained and that there would not be

any greater unemployment caused in the province. We have more than

enough already. We have cabinet committees that are supposed to be

trying to put people to work.

It's my hope that the Minister

of Finance would make sure that the implementation of this legislation

will not create even more unemployment. We've already heard of several

hundreds being laid off by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We know of

layoffs in B.C. Hydro. I'm not just talking about the administrative

people in the glass tower. In every division of the province they are

looking at the possibility of laying off the production workers. I

talked of my concern about the B.C. Steamship Company in the same way,

and of my concern about B.C. Transit.

Today I'd like to go

on and deal with the remaining entities mentioned in my copy of Bill

81. The first of them is ICBC. I'm not clear on the legislation itself,

but it's my understanding that ICBC is simply not allowed to run at a

deficit. Certainly everything the government has said up to this point

in time — right from the very beginning of ICBC, long before the Social

Credit formed a government — indicated that they were very concerned

that ICBC not run at a deficit. So I would think that they do not want

to depart from that policy

I'm told also in the reports and

advertising.... I saw one newspaper report that said that 99 percent of

the premiums are paid out in claims. I think they intended to say 90

percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 99.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, 99. If that's the case....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm getting a lot of advice. Whatever the figure was — 90, 99 or somewhere in between — it's a lot of

[ Page 9446 ]

money. It's a pretty high proportion of the total amount paid in premiums.

ICBC has to operate at a break-even position or better, and if that

proportion of the premiums is being paid out in claims, then I can't

understand how they can hope to cut staff to the extent necessary or

even free salaries to the extent necessary or even curtail service. All

of the MLAs, I'm sure, get concerns expressed to them by their

constituents about breakdowns in service from ICBC. It's not always a

one-way street — I appreciate that — but there is a concern to maintain

a certain level of service within ICBC.

I ask the minister,

when he's imposing this particular restriction on ICBC.... He did say

it was an average, in this case, but some people might find their

premiums increased much more than 6 percent. I think it would be very

hard to argue against the fact that some drivers might very well earn

the right to have their premiums increased by substantially more than 6

percent. But if the average is to be 6 percent, that means that the

bulk of the driving population will have no increase at all. If the

average increase is to be kept within 6 percent, how is the minister

going to ensure that the level of service from ICBC will be maintained

without staff cuts or staff salaries, yet recognizing that up to 99 —

whatever the figure is — percent of the premiums are paid out in claims?

it going to be against the law to claim when you've been injured? Is it

going to be against the law to claim for compensation if you have

collision insurance? How are the costs of ICBC going to be kept within

6 percent when it seems to be an almost uncontrollable situation?

Again, my concern is that there not be cutbacks in service or staff,

which would increase the already very high unemployment rolls, and that

there not be cutbacks in salaries.

Municipalities. I gather

from the legislation that it's simply referring to certain levies, not

property taxes. I ask the minister to comment on that in second

reading. It seems clear to me, but I would like clarification as to

whether the reference to municipalities is simply with respect to fees

that they levy, for example, for business taxes and things like that,

and actually has no reference to property taxes.

The

remaining one that I'd like to ask about is a very serious one. It is

WCB. There are many reasons for being concerned about a limitation like

this imposed on WCB. The assessment levied against employers, for

example, varies with the experience of that particular employer. There

is good reason for an employer to make sure that he is operating his

enterprise in a way that will reduce the risk of accident, because the

assessment on his own payroll will vary with his own experience. It may

be that we're talking here again about a total increase of 6 percent. I

don't know.

Goodness only knows that there is a great deal

of concern in the community about the level of service from WCB.

Several Ministers of Labour have agreed that the appeal board process

is very badly behind. We don't have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) or the ex-minister with us today. Certainly the immediately

previous Minister of Labour was very concerned about the length of time

that was taken up with this appeal board system, not that the appeals

themselves took up the time, but that the claimant had to wait for an

appeal in the first place, and then wait for as long as a year for the

results of the appeal to be made known, and then wait some more before

the compensation board got around to it. The Minister of Finance is

agreeing with my concern. What I want from him is some assurance that

this intolerable situation is not going to become even more

intolerable, by their simply saying: "Well, it suits our policy right

now to say that the assessments will not increase by more than 6

percent this year, whatever the cost to the claimants or to the board

in delivering service." I suppose that the one thing the board was

trying to do.... In the last auditor-general's report it spoke

optimistically about the funding of the pension system; that it would

be up to the required level, I think, by 1986 — I'm not sure of that

figure. I imagine that is one of the things that will have to go out

the window. If that has to be, so be it.

When the minister

closes debate in second reading, I sincerely hope he will be able to

reassure us that there will be no cutbacks in service. I would think

the Minister of Labour would want to enter this debate before it winds

up to tell us something about what he has in mind with respect

particularly to the whole process of appeals — the appeal board level —

but also everything else to do with the administration of the

compensation board.

I know it's a difficult thing; it's a

difficult process. I've been an MLA since 1963. I have constituents

come in with their concerns about their own experiences with the WCB.

Every time I listen to one of them, I know that there are two sides to

the question. Yet in some instances it would seem to me that the people

on the other side of the fence are seeing only one side. In many

instances I find myself obliged to pursue the WCB on behalf of a

claimant when I'm not really convinced in my own mind that that claim

is particularly justified. But there are many other instances where,

because I know the individual and something about the history of the

case — I know what's going on — I really do have a great concern that

the claimant is not getting a fair deal from WCB.

Now there

is a way of working through the system. We are getting through the

system, but unfortunately the delays are so long.... As the minister

agreed, it's a very intolerable situation.

I have expressed

concern about many areas. Apparently the government has no intention of

exercising restraint upon itself, because it does not intend to deal

with all the charges directly under its control. I've expressed concern

about all these areas that may be controlled. I emphasize again that

the legislation says only that the cabinet "may" ask the cabinet to

exercise some restraint in approving increases. In the event that

anything is done, my concern is that there not be any serious cutbacks

in the levels of service in any of these organizations, that there be

no cutbacks in the number of employees. We don't need any more

unemployment at this particular point in time. We would like to see the

rate of increase for some reduced from 6 percent.

In any

case, I would hope that the minister would accept an amendment, so that

the pressure is on him and on his cabinet not simply to say "may," but

to insist that cabinet will exercise this kind of restraint in

reviewing the charges that are being levied against the people of the

province. It's only for one year. In spite of the concerns I've raised,

it would seem to me that the government would be well advised to follow

some kind of example. If they're really going to try to provide

leadership in the province on this question of restraint, then I think

they owe the community something better than to say that cabinet "may"

ask cabinet to keep the 6 percent figure in mind when they are looking

at the rates about to be levied by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority, B.C. Steamship Company,

[ Page 9447 ]

B.C. Transit, ICBC, and the municipalities and regional districts, in respect of rates under the B.C. transit act.

that's all they're going to deal with, surely in these areas at least

they can say to themselves not "we may" by regulation limit any

increases, but "we shall" by regulation limit any increases in rates

for a period of one year to this 6 percent. As I say, we'd like to have

it even lower. That should be the minimum amendment the minister would

be prepared to accept: that the word "may" be changed to read "shall."

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on Bill 81, the Rate Increase

Restraint Act. As minister responsible for ICBC I did want to comment

on the possible impact on ICBC, but also the challenge that has been

put to them.

Before I proceed, I would like to quote from

the statement of operations for last year, for the benefit of those

present: premiums earned totalled $562 million; claims incurred

totalled $552 million. So you can see it comes pretty close to almost

one hundred cents on every dollar going back to the motoring public in

the form of payment of claims. The operating costs, of course, come

from our investment income. We have a large amount of dollars coming

into the corporation, which are invested and give us a rate of return

that comes as part of our revenues. That's why we can pay back, in the

form of claims, almost one hundred cents on every premium dollar.

The

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is quite correct when he says that

since 1976 ICBC has had a mandate not so much that it will not run at a

deficit or a loss — we've done that on occasion — but that it will not

be subsidized from the public purse. In setting our premiums, we must

take into consideration, of course, the 12 months ahead of us,

determine our premiums accordingly and try to raise sufficient dollars

to cover claims. We come fairly close to breaking even. At times we

fall a little short; at times we make a little bit of money on that

year. I think the track record of the corporation has been very good. I

would tell the member for Nanaimo that I don't see a change in the

level of service. The corporation will provide the service to the

motoring public, even though it recognizes the challenge it is faced

with by this bill.

Mr. Holmes, the president of the corporation, said it very clearly: "It

is a clear challenge to both ICBC and the motorists of this province to get

behind this legislation and make it work." I think that's the key to

how successful we'll be with this restraint program. By setting the premiums

at no more than 6 percent above the current year, we may suffer a loss in 1983;

but if we make a coordinated effort — and by a coordinated effort, I mean both

the corporation and the driving public of this province — we can meet that challenge

and possibly beat that challenge.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

need the support of every motorist out there. We need to get the

message out to the motorist. I had a meeting at lunch today with some

of the senior management of ICBC on this very topic, and asked them:

"How are we going to do this? How are we going to get the message out

to the driving public that we want to involve them in meeting this

challenge with regards to no more than a 6 percent increase on 1983

premiums?" I don't think there's a motorist out there who wouldn't like

to have an automobile insurance premium come in at no more than 6

percent over this year, or no more than 3 percent or the same as this

year or less than this year. That could happen. Very simply, all it

would take is a little more defensive driving, a little better use of

seat belts, a little more courtesy on the road. Those people who like

to go out for a drink in the evening or attend a party or a dance or

whatever, recognizing that they've had one too many, instead of taking

a car would take a taxi, or they would have somebody else drive them

home. If we had that total cooperation of effort by the motoring public

and the corporation, I'd have no problem at all with meeting 6 percent.

I'd even like to think that we could hit only 90 percent of last year's

premium, and give every person who drives a car in this province some

relief on automobile insurance costs.

If we want to make

this work — and I'm speaking now as minister responsible for ICBC —

it's important to get the message out. I'll give you some ideas that I

had in mind, which I tried out on the senior staff of ICBC. I'd like to

involve the radio and television stations of this province; every

hotliner, every newscaster. Every time a program changed, I'd like

somebody to come on and say a few words, about three seconds long: have

you used your seatbelt? Is your seat belt buckled up? How many people

in this province, driving cars up and down the highways and byways,

have the radio on? Just think: if every station had that message coming

across or if I went so far as to move beyond the radio stations and

television stations for that type of cooperation — and I guess that

type of free advertising, if you will — I could move a little further.

Since

I'm the minister responsible for liquor distribution and liquor

control, I'd love to see in every neighbourhood pub, every beer parlour

and hotel dining-room, a sign on the wall saying: "Help ICBC meet the

challenge. Help us keep the 6 percent limit on insurance premiums this

coming year." So every person who left that neighbourhood pub or that

dining-room after enjoying an evening meal and a few drinks would

recognize that "Wait a minute. Maybe I've had one too many. Maybe I'd

better take a cab home, or maybe I'd better walk home" as opposed to

getting behind the wheel of a car. I'll even go so far as to say that

every liquor store in this province should have a sign right inside the

door that says: " Help ICBC meet the challenge," or "Help keep our

hospital costs down," or "Help keep our police costs down," or "If

you're going to drink that bottle that you just bought, make sure you

take care, if you're going to be driving, that you haven't had one too

many." We could do a lot. All it takes, really, is the cooperation of a

lot of people.

I tested the ICBC senior management today. I

said to them: "Between now and when next year's rates are announced,

give some serious thought to every avenue we can approach to make the

public aware that the Premier of this province has given ICBC a

challenge." He's also given the driving public a challenge. If we make

a good effort, we can beat the 6 percent — no question about it. We can

even go so far as to see a nice discount on our insurance premiums in

the coming year, if we really want to make it work.

We've

got a lot of programs, a lot of cures and everything else. We bring in

stiff penalties and jail sentences, we suspend licences and all those

things, but that's always after the fact. As I see it, the key to

making this strategy work, the key to giving ICBC the opportunity to

meet the challenge that the Premier has given them, is prevention. If

we get the message out to prevent the accident, we're going to save the

dollars and meet the 6 percent limit. If we don't, then ICBC will be

[ Page 9448 ]

faced

with a possible operating loss next year. I guess members opposite

could give us a long discussion on how bad it's going to be, but I'd

like to be positive and say that I think we can develop the strategy

now to prevent that loss and to meet the 6 percent challenge that we're

faced with.

With those comments, I support Bill 81. I think

it is necessary at this time to reassure a lot of people who deal with

public bodies: ICBC, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro. By giving them the

reassurance that their costs aren't going to continually rise, they'll

be in a better frame of mind when they're discussing labour contracts,

if there are employees, or when they're setting prices on goods for

sale to the public. I think it's a good bill, and very timely.

MR. COCKE:

I'm sorry you have to be in the chair, Mr. Speaker, because a venerable

gentleman should be very careful what he listens to. I have to say,

this flim-flam bill that we have in front of us is nothing more than

now you see it, now you don't.

Isn't it interesting? This

morning we were debating a bill which gave the government a free hand

to spend or go into debt, borrow or just have a great time. This

afternoon we are debating a piece of window-dressing. The heart of this

bill is the word "may." If the heart of this bill was the word "shall"

we might have an entirely different proposition.

Let me read

it to you: "Notwithstanding any other enactment the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by regulation in respect..." and so

on and so forth, telling us how they're going to limit the Crown

corporation — if they wish to. But implicit in the word "may" are the

words "may not."

HON. MR. FRASER: Where did you get that copy?

MR. COCKE:

I have a unique copy of the bill. If the minister feels there's another

bill available that I could be debating, then I wish he would put it in

my hands. As long as I'm debating the only copy available to me, I must

debate it the way it is.

I listened, and I listened very

carefully, to what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) was talking about in his discussion of the bill. I remember

a few words that he said. He said that he is going to ask the motorists

to cooperate to make it work. You see, they're not confident that it's

going to work. They are confident, however, with another bill that

we're discussing in this hallowed hall, that they can raise all the

money they want for their own purposes.

We have included in

this bill a word that, as far as I'm concerned, makes the bill nothing

much more than window dressing. Their friend Pierre — I'm not sure who

follows whom — Trudeau in Ottawa...his 6 and 5 program....

MR. MACDONALD: The guy you're in debt with.

MR. COCKE:

That's right, the guy you're in debt with. Mr. Speaker, their friend

Pierre has very much the same kind of program — no limits on his

spending of $20 billion. They say no limit on their spending. Then they

come and they ask: "What will we do to make ourselves look

restraint-like?" It's a word that has apparently caught on. Gallup

tells them that a lot of people like it. So what do they do? They say

that they may, if they feel like it, restrict the B.C. Ferry

Corporation to a limitation of 6 percent increase in its rates — not

necessarily, but we may.

We "may" limit B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority. I listened to what Bob Bonner had to say about that the

other day. He was talking, before this government introduced this bill,

about the fact that there's no way you can limit an electric company on

a 6 and 5 proposition. He was very definitive on CBC, and I listened

very carefully. It was a rather long interview with the chairman of

B.C. Hydro, Bob Bonner, who used to sit in this House, as I recall,

right over there where another Liberal now sits.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a member for Cariboo.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I remember when he carpetbagged up to Cariboo.

The

B.C. Steamship Company, B.C. Transit and then the Insurance

Corporation.... Then we go down to the Workers' Compensation Board. I

want to make a prediction. I'll predict that the only people who are

going to have to comply — you remember: may, could or may not — the

ones they have in the back of their minds to be "shall," will be the

Workers' Compensation Board. They'll keep their rates down. I'll tell

you why: because their rates are paid by the employers. I understand

that the employers are not all that terribly happy with the Socreds

right now. The bagmen are out and they're not having the success that

they've had in previous years. So it could be that the WCB are going to

be the ones really affected.

It's interesting that it should

come out now. It's interesting that it comes on and off the floor for

debate. But let me give you a prediction, Mr. Speaker. I predict this

bill will never go to third reading in this House, because they don't

really care. I predict that they will not take this bill to third

reading and proclamation.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Will you agree to bring in the L-G and drop the writ?

also noted that when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was

imploring people to cooperate, he met with the management of ICBC and

said: "Now look, gang, we've got to work together. We've got to do

everything right and we've got to promote no drunkenness." I am one who

believes that that is what we should all be promoting — with good

reason. But what are we doing right now in this province? We saw an

alcohol-education program funded by this government let go. We saw the

original Attorney-General in this government set up the Counterattack

program, which wasn't working badly.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's still there.

MR. COCKE: Still there, my foot!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE:

We're talking about this bill, about restraint and the possibility of

ICBC being able to stay within the guidelines — and that's all they are

— of this particular piece of legislation. Counterattack is operating

right now at far less than 50 percent of its capacity. I've heard

report after report from place after place in this province. If we

really want to make some changes in terms of driving habits....

[ Page 9449 ]

must confess that I was delighted when the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) brought in a bill with respect to compulsory

alcohol-testing.

Let's think about restraint. The government

suggested they will restrain different groups. I suggest that they do

not restrain themselves. It might be interesting to a lot of the folks

out there that the next price list of the liquor distribution branch of

this province has been printed. It's now in the hands of the liquor

stores. The minister responsible for ICBC, who is also responsible for

the LDB, would, I'm sure, jump up and acknowledge the fact that the

average price increase that will be put forward in October will be

roughly 20 percent. I'm not for or against that increase in the price

of liquor. But I am suggesting that we have different rates for

different groups. We're all over the place; we're in absolute chaos.

see a bill put forward by a very desperate government to try to take

advantage of the opinion polls — nothing more, nothing less. If it had

been more, the word "shall" would have been in this bill, which would

have committed the government not to let those rates increase under any

circumstances beyond 6 percent, the rate identified in this bill. It

would have been really courageous if they had said no increase. In any

event, they have said neither; they just say they may. If you look at

the regulations

section of this bill, it even gives the Lieutenant-

Governor-in-Council all the flexibility imaginable.

It is

not a bill of great import. I predicted that it won't come to

proclamation by virtue of the fact that I don't think any worthwhile

counsel would want this on the statute books of the province of British

Columbia. It's an embarrassment. It really says nothing, if you get

right down to it, other than the fact that they recognize that there's

trouble out there in the economy. We all acknowledge that.

suggest that there are areas we should be dealing with, way beyond the

kind of window-dressing we're discussing here today, such as getting

people back to work, such as providing a level of health care and

education that we need. Instead, here we are debating window-dressing

and waiting until the Premier finally decides to make that fateful trip

to Government House, and a writ is issued. I suspect that time isn't

far away. I hope that time isn't very far away. I believe the people in

this province need a break. That break is a long holiday away from

Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll give you a permanent holiday.

MR. COCKE: You've been trying that ever since 1969, but my majority keeps growing. Something is wrong. Your tactics are haywire.

any event, it's very difficult for we in the opposition to take

seriously a bill that really does nothing more than give the government

an opportunity, if they wish, to do what they could do without it. So

tell us it's not anything more than window-dressing. Every director of

B.C. Hydro is appointed by the government. If they don't do what the

government wants, they're gone. Why do you need a bill to tell them

what to do? Every one of them is appointed by the government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Who appointed Cass-Beggs?

MR. COCKE: We did, and he was the last decent chairman up until Jim Rhodes.

Tell

me, who appoints every director of the B.C. Ferry Corporation? Not us,

that's for sure. Therefore we can't take responsibility, can we? They

do, so why this bill? What are we doing? It's window-dressing: limiting

their power, rate structure and so on when they're all

government-appointed directors.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll do what they tell them anyway.

MR. COCKE: Of course they have to do what they're told; otherwise they get canned. We've seen that happen quite often.

Every

director of the British Columbia Steamship Company is appointed by the

government. The same with the majority of B.C. Transit. Every director

of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is appointed by the government.

The municipalities and regional districts in respect to rates imposed

on the British Columbia Transit Act.... We know who controls that. It's

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). It's almost a joke,

but it's a fact.

So here we are debating a bill that gives

the government the right to say that they may or may not — don't forget

that the may or may not is implicit in this bill — restrict their

increases to 6 percent. Is there anybody in this House that can tell me

now that this bill will ever be proclaimed, for heaven's sake? Why

would it be proclaimed when everything that is asked for in this bill

is done without a bill?

MR. BARNES: Headlines were all they wanted in the first place.

MR. COCKE: That's all you wanted. It's absolutely true.

just can't help but laugh when I think that I've been in this House

since 1969 and have been looking at some of the most incredible

legislation in the last two or three weeks that I've ever seen in my

life. It was almost as though it was drawn in some artist's garret,

creating an impression. Then I suddenly realized that that's exactly

what it's there for — to create an impression of a government actually

doing something. For heaven's sake, they could have just made an

announcement saying: "This government, under the leadership of Premier

Bill, is announcing that Hydro rates will not increase over 6 percent."

Let the directors stand up and say: "Oh, but we must." They'd get fired.

HON. MR. FRASER: What we want is your input.

MR. COCKE:

Bury it! You're getting our input: it is a piece of window-dressing.

I'm giving it probably the easiest ride that one could give it, because

there are lots of adjectives that could go with this a lot better. I

like to stay as parliamentary as I can, particularly in front of the

innocent ears of the gentle member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

There was a division called on that statement, but I don't think you're

going to take that seriously, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how the House would

divide on that one.

I suggest to you that this piece of

legislation is only called before us today, as it was a few days ago,

to try to create an impression of a government doing something. This

government is so caught up in inertia that they can only manage to

[ Page 9450 ]

move

themselves slowly but surely from one fire to another and from one

crisis to another. If there had been any planning in this province, we

wouldn't be standing here today discussing this piece of legislation —

this piece of utter flim-flam. The Premier's back, and he's going to

defend it. We're just waiting patiently and desperately to hear him get

up and tell us why it is that he has to bring legislation forward in

this House when he has full control over every one of those groups he's

suggesting they're putting controls on here. Where is it? Where's the

reason? The only reason is that they want to create those headlines and

create that impression. Mr. Speaker, what can we do with a government

like that?

MR. KEMPF: You just can't stand our success, eh? Is that it?

MR. COCKE:

Your success! You broke the province, and we can't stand their success.

Mr. Speaker, we're just waiting to see, when that test comes, whether

or not that member for Omineca has all the answers. He's going to need

every answer he has when he finally goes back to his riding, after

these months and months away, and runs against the WCC. He's going to

have some difficulty, I would think.

Mr. Speaker, let's see what the rest of this House has to say about this piece of window-dressing.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I get disturbed when I see a bill like this, which, as my

colleague has said, is a nothing bill, taking up the time of the

Legislature and being brought in by a government that has the power to

undertake the very things that are included in this bill.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's

not funny, Mr. Speaker. It's sad that a government is so desperate that

it stoops to this kind of measure to attempt to delude the electorate,

to pretend that they are going to take some steps to protect people who

are hurting desperately out there; people who don't have the money to

pay their hydro bill — and believe me there are many of them; people on

low incomes who are letting those bills slide. Check with your Hydro

offices and find out how many disconnects are going forward; find out

how many people in this province are doing without hydro because they

can't afford to pay the bill. And you bring in a bill like this that

pretends to say that you're going to hold those increases to 6 percent

— and that is all it does, pretend. "May" means one thing and "shall"

means another. "May" is something you can do right now, as has been

pointed out by my colleague. You have every power. If you disagree with

Mr. Bonner, you can tell Mr. Bonner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire him.

MRS. WALLACE:

If he doesn't like it, you can fire him. You have that power, and you

have the power now. You have the power to actually control, but you're

not prepared to say that you will. You bring this in to pretend that

you're going to do something, to pretend that you're going to hold

these increases to 6 percent. That is what makes me very angry. It

makes me very upset for the sake of people who are so desperately in

need of help to have this kind of a bill presented. I'm surprised at

the Minister of Finance for bringing in this bill. I really am

surprised that he would come in with a bill like this — a nothing bill.

B.C.

Ferries — he may control the rates and he may not. We've had this

government talking about restraint for a long time, and really, what

this government has been doing with its programs is aiding and abetting

the recession that we find ourselves in in this province. Every move

that is taken, every step that is introduced, has led to less

employment. It's aided and abetted the downward spiral that our economy

is in; it's a program of recession, not of restraint. This is

supposedly a bill that is going to do something to improve the

situation. I just don't understand why the bill was presented. I guess

I do understand, but I am surprised and shocked that the government

would move to this kind of level to pretend that they are going to do

something to help the general public.

They're talking about

ICBC, and the minister responsible made a great speech in the House

about how he wanted programs on every radio station and every TV

station. Sure, we have to do something about our driving problem. Yet

when we were discussing other legislation in this House and a motion

was put by this side of the House that we should include, in order to

help the police, an amendment to make illegal the use of radar

detectors in private cars to detect where the police were located with

their radar equipment, what happened? It was turned down. Surely

speeding is one of the big problems that causes these costs to ICBC,

and yet that government is prepared to turn down that kind of an

amendment. They really don't have a commitment to getting at the root

cause. They come in with a simplistic kind of bill with no meat in it,

no meaning, nothing, and ask us to debate it and discuss it.

colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned that I am really

concerned about why Workers Compensation Board is included in this

list. We've had bills in this House before — I recall one — that

recouped various funds, bills that included funds that just should not

have been recouped. A case in point, of course, is the Farm Income

Insurance Fund, which was made up of contributions from the farming

community. I'm hoping the minister will have a good look at why Workers

Compensation is included here. I don't know what it means. What is it

going to cover? Is it going to cover the assessments on employers so

that they don't go up more than 6 percent? If that's the case, it

certainly is a licence for employers to operate unsafely. Or does it

mean that allowances paid to injured workers as a result of appeals, or

whatever else may come before the Workers Compensation Board, are going

to be limited to 6 percent? If that is the case, it is unjust, unfair,

and it's riding on the backs of injured workers.

The only

bright spot in the whole thing is that it will probably never come to

anything because of the way the bill is written. It's an unnecessary

bill; it has absolutely no meat in it; it should never have arrived on

the order paper. I can only say again that I'm surprised at the

Minister of Finance for bringing it in. I'm surprised he would use this

chamber as a means of fanfare and propaganda for political purposes,

and that's all this bill is.

MS. SANFORD: It has

already been pointed out by a number of my colleagues that this is an

unnecessary bill and just represents straight politics on the part of

the government. They are hoping the public will really think this 6

percent will be applied to all of the Crown corporations listed in the

bill. It's strange that just after B.C. Hydro and ICBC have huge rate

increases, they bring in a bill which says the government

[ Page 9451 ]

may apply a 6 percent increase limitation on the rates they charge.

want to follow up with respect to the Workers Compensation Board. We

have a very serious situation here with respect to injured workers in

this province. If this bill does actually come to fruition and they

apply a 6 percent limitation on Workers Compensation Board, as the bill

states, then injured workers in this province are going to be denied

the compensation they are entitled to under the Workers Compensation

Board. A formula has been worked out. Workers on compensation receive

75 percent of their actual salary, up to a maximum rate. This is

determined under the Workers Compensation Act itself. That maximum rate

is calculated through a formula which determines the ratio of wages in

1974, when this

section came into effect, to the wages now. In 1974 the

maximum wage rate was $11,200; in 1982 it is $24,700, and it will rise

to $27,600 next year, by applying the formula to reflect cost-of-living

increases; so injured workers can survive without having to turn to

Human Resources or some other source for their income. That's why we

have a Workers Compensation Act and a Workers Compensation Board. In

1983 it is to rise to a maximum of $27,600, but if we apply the 6

percent limitation, it means that those injured workers are going to be

denied part of the income they are entitled to under the formula

developed to accompany the Workers Compensation Act. So it's a rather

clever way of limiting the income of injured workers to a 6 percent

increase in spite of the fact that the cost of living is much higher

than that. Not only does the worker have to suffer because he is

injured and has to accept only 75 percent of his normal income; he is

also penalized by this bill, which will keep the increase at 6 percent.

What's

going to happen now? Some 80,000 letters go out each year to the

employers in the province, telling them what their assessments are

going to be for the next year; 20,000 have already been mailed. The

Workers Compensation Board commissioners have stopped the rest of the

notices from going out, because they don't know what all this means.

They don't know whether those industries that have not shown a good

record in terms of the rate at which injured workers are making

application under the provisions of the board are going to be held down

to 6 percent, as this bill would indicate, even though their record in

industrial health and safety is bad. Are we going to reward those

companies and industries with a bad record in terms of providing a safe

environment for their workers? Are we going to reward them by keeping

their assessments down to 6 percent'? That is what it appears to be

under this bill. Twenty thousand letters have already been mailed out;

they're withholding 60,000, waiting to find out what this government is

up to. I don't think those people have had any consultation on this.

They are hoping that at least they will be informed by somebody in this

government about what the whole thing means. Can they now continue the

mailing? Do they have to recall the 20,000 already sent? Do they have

to restructure the whole basis on which they calculate what the

assessments are going to be next year? What is that going to do to the

unfunded liability that is already at half a billion dollars?

These

people bring in legislation that has been dreamed up for political

purposes only, without ever thinking what kind of effects their actions

will have on a service as important as that provided by the Workers

Compensation Board. Injured workers will be penalized. The deficit of

the Workers Compensation Board is going to be increased. Do you know

what that means? There is going to be even more pressure on government

to come up with money to try to bail out the Workers Compensation

Board, because they are already down half a billion dollars of unfunded

liability. It's going to make it worse. And it provides an incentive

for those employers who don't take an interest in industrial health and

safety, because they'll be held down to 6 percent just like everybody

else, no matter what their record is.

These figures are

calculated after a lot of thought and study to determine what

assessments will be for each

section of the various industries. They

are based on the unfunded liability, on projections, on penalizing

those employers who have a bad record, and the whole thing is dismissed

through this one

section under this bill, which says that the whole

thing will be limited to 6 percent — or may be limited to 6 percent.

Let's not forget that. We don't know yet whether the government is even

going to implement the provisions of this bill. They may. The workers

are going to be penalized because, if they're going to be held down to

a 6 percent increase, they will not be entitled to receive what they

would otherwise be entitled to receive under the provisions of the

formula which was worked out and established some years ago.

It's

not too long ago that this government imposed again, without any

consultation with the Workers Compensation Board, a $35 surcharge for

any patient who had to go to the hospital. If they'd been injured in

this province and had to be hospitalized, there was a S35-a-day

surcharge added, even though the Workers Compensation Board pays for

those hospital costs. Now that was a pretty neat way of bringing more

money into the treasury. Again, the board had to scramble in order to

readjust its figures and its budget to meet that $35-a-day surcharge.

Right out of the blue, just overnight, they applied a $35 surcharge for

each patient who required hospitalization.

We know that

they're pretty desperate for money. We know how they've mismanaged the

money in this province over the last six years they've been in office.

We know that they have spent all of the moneys contained in

special-purpose funds. We know that they are facing a deficit of over a

billion dollars and that they're going to have to borrow. But for them

to try to make political points out of a bill like this, when they

already have the authority to limit any of those Crown corporations to

any amount that they want at any time, is pre-election politics

designed to convince the voters that this government is finally going

to do something in the interests of the voters of this province. It

doesn't matter what they do to something like the Workers Compensation

Board or the injured workers of the province or assessments, rewarding

those companies that fail to provide a safe working environment for

their employee — none of that matters. This government is so keen on

perpetuating itself in office that it will bring in this kind of

legislation — redistribution legislation, add new Socred seats and

borrow any amount of money without any reference to the Legislature.

They will do anything, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the

government will immediately contact the Workers Compensation Board

people to let them know exactly what this 6 percent means to their

unfunded liability, to their assessments and to the injured workers of

the province.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to make a few comments on this very important piece of legislation, the Rate Increase

[ Page 9452 ]

Restraint

Act, and to respond to the remarks the silly socialists on the other

side have been making. Imagine accusing the government of playing

politics in the Legislature! It's the most ridiculous thing I've heard

in my life. They don't do that in here, and neither does this side.

want to make the observation, after listening this afternoon to the

silly socialists who have spoken on this bill, that we could have done

this by edict. The individual corporations could have done this by

edict, and it shouldn't be brought into the Legislature. It seems that

no matter what the government does.... If we had done it by edict, we

would have been hammered by them for not bringing it into the

Legislature. Now, for the first time, we're being hammered for bringing

it in and discussing it in the most democratic institution in the

world. I just can't understand their approach, other than that it is

consistently negative. It doesn't matter what it is; good or bad, they

have to be opposed to it. It will be interesting to see whether they

vote for or against it. Yes, they talk a big story, but they end up

being "me too" and voting with the government to save their own

political hides.

The point regarding individual boards is, I

guess, correct to a degree, in that they could have imposed that 6

percent restraint. I think, from the Premier on down in the government,

it's a good thing to show leadership, and that's what this bill does.

It's what the government wants to achieve, and that's a 6 percent

maximum.

Two of the Crown corporations mentioned in Bill 81

are a responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

which is the main reason I wanted to get up. The opposition has also

said they may institute a 6 percent ceiling, making a story that it

sounds like window-dressing because the legislation says "may." On

behalf of the two Crown corporations which are my responsibility on

behalf of the government, I want to tell this House that it will be

"shall " in the case of B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Steamships;

they will not increase their rates by more than 6 percent. The boards

of directors of both these Crown corporations agree with this and have

been organizing to do just that.

In the case of B.C.

Ferries, policy was made some two or three years ago that we would

review the rates of the Ferry Corporation once a year. The way it works

in law is that under the B.C. Ferries act, the B.C. Ferries board of

directors recommends to the executive council — whenever they wish, but

we lay it down once a year — what the rate increase should be. Then

it's up to the executive council to decide. Speaking for the board of

directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, they decided quite some time

ago not to go for any more than 6 percent. The recommendation has not

yet been made to the cabinet, but it will be shortly. I want to assure

this House and the users of that fine transportation system that

they're not looking at more than a 6 percent increase this year, and it

certainly won't happen before the first of November, which is a policy

item.

I'm not saying that 6 percent will be asked for; we

don't increase rates unless it's necessary. But it appears, from what I

can find out from operations of B.C. Ferries so far, that they probably

will be asking for an increase of something in the area of 6 percent.

That's caused mostly by the escalation of fuel costs. As far as B.C.

Steamships is concerned, the last I heard from management is that they

don't intend to increase the rate by even 6 percent. But under this

legislation, which the opposition has been calling window-dressing, I'm

saying, on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it will not be more

than 6 percent, it won't happen until November 1, and it won't happen

then unless a good story is made to substantiate it. The other thing is

that they say we could do it. That's correct, but I don't know a better

or more democratic way.

I'd like to mention B.C. Hydro for a

minute. The last I saw, prior to this bill's coming in, B.C. Hydro was

asking for about a 20 percent increase rate and they were before the

Public Utilities Commission. It was public knowledge. The government

has decided it's going to be 6 percent. I think B.C. Hydro can live

with 6 percent. I think maybe they can practise some restraint, like

other people have been practising it. Maybe they have been, to some

degree, but now they've got a firm guideline on how much restraint to

practise when you talk in percentage lines. That did not exist before.

The same applies to B.C. Transit and the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia. I listened to my colleague the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) regarding ICBC, and I agree.

One thing that hasn't been said is that it's my information that their

claims are down substantially. I don't think we should even be worrying

about what will happen to them — whether they lose or win in 1983. I

think that overall people are driving better each month that goes by,

and that is going to reflect. Along with them practising restraint, I

don't think we're going to have difficulty.

The point is that the government has put out a policy that they want these Crown corporations to follow. I'm sure they will.

The

Workers Compensation Board. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

mentioned that. I note that she made quite a play regarding the injured

workmen and so on, but I'm getting from my riding, as an MLA, a lot of

complaints regarding the employer and the cost to the employer for the

assessment of workers' compensation. This bill says that it will not go

higher than 6 percent. What I am saying is that the employers,

particularly in the forest industry.... It is very excessive. Surely

they can hold with.... The government is only asking all these things

for 12 months. I believe the date this expires is September 30, 1983;

it isn't forever.

We all should share in the restraining of

public funds. That's what the majority of the citizens want. The

opposition has never come out and said where they stand on restraint,

and I have to assume they're opposed to it. There has been some

indication that they are definitely opposed to it; that's fine. I

invite them to vote against a bill like this that imposes restraint.

Thank you very much for listening.

MR. KING: I want

to advise the Minister of Transportation and Highways that we're

against this kind of restraint. We're against the blowing of taxpayers'

money for Social Credit advertising. This is going on throughout the

length and breadth of the province at the moment: this government

hypocritically imposes restraint on the citizens of this province while

using their tax dollars for self-aggrandizement through this kind of

advertisement, which is costing thousands and thousands of dollars

daily. We're against that kind of restraint. If the government is

serious about an intelligent restraint program, certainly we'll debate

that. We'll debate that in very serious terms.

What has me

concerned about the bill before the House at the moment, as the

minister knows very well, is that one or two of his cabinet colleagues

sit on the board of B.C. Hydro. One or two of the ministers of the

government sit on the board of ICBC — indeed, on the board of the B.C.

Ferry Corporation; in fact, every one of those Crown corporations

resides

[ Page 9453 ]

within

the precise jurisdiction of one of the government ministries. This

legislation is not at all necessary to direct those agencies in terms

of the permissible increases in costs for the coming year. They have

the statutory authority to do that. They have political representation

on those boards. What this is, Mr. Speaker, is just an appeal to the

electorate, saying: "Look, we are getting serious about curbing the

cost that we have heaped on the taxpayers for the last seven years."

It's an empty political gesture, is what it is.

It's more

serious than that in terms of its implications for the Workers

Compensation Board. The Workers Compensation Board is unique. It is not

a Crown corporation. It is an agency which was designed and set up,

very carefully, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, but

which operates independently and at arm's length from politicians. It

has a board of commissioners who have their mandate outlined very

strictly in terms of the statute. That agency has been in existence in

this province since 1937 — well, since 1917 in one form or another —

and it has always been a principle of that statute that the Workers

Compensation Board would be insulated from political interference and

tampering, whether it be the Social Credit coalition, a New Democratic

Party government or one of any other political stripe.

What

we have here in this statute is language that places the new bill

directly in conflict with the statutory language of the Workers

Compensation Act.

Section 39 of the Workers Compensation Act requires

that there be an assessment for an accident fund. It says:

(1) For the purpose of creating and maintaining an adequate accident

fund, the board shall every year assess and levy on and collect from

independent operators and employers in each class, by assessment rated

on the payroll, or by assessment rated on a unit of production, or in a

manner the board considers proper, sufficient funds, according to an

estimate to be made by the board, but the established practice of

assessment and levy shall be varied only with the approval of the

Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council " — which is the cabinet — "to (

a) meet

all amounts payable from the accident fund under this part during the

year; (

b) provide a reserve in aid of industries or classes which may

become depleted or extinguished; (

c) provide in each year capitalized

reserves sufficient to meet the periodical payments of compensation

accruing in future years in respect of all injuries which occur during

the year; (

d) provide a reserve to be used to meet the loss arising

from a disaster or other circumstance which the board considers would

unfairly burden the employers in a class; and (

e) provide and maintain

a reserve for payment of that portion of the disability enhanced by

reason of a pre-existing disease, condition or disability.

(2) Assessments maybe made in the manner and form and by the procedure

the board considers adequate and expedient, and may be general as

applicable to a class or subclass, or special as applicable to an

industry or part or department of it."

Section

40 deals with that assessment being made each and every year that is

required by the statute — with notice. It requires the board to give

full notice to the employer of assessment rates or percentages

determined by the board in respect of the industries in which the

employer is engaged. This is what my colleague the member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) was talking about. The notices for those assessments have

in fact been issued by the board in large measure. It's my

understanding that some 18,000 to 20,000 notices have gone out to the

employers. Now the government comes along and pulls the rug out from

under the board, and says that any increase in assessments is going to

be limited to 6 percent. I have some questions regarding the legality

of that policy imposed on the board, because it's directly in conflict

with

section

Section 39 already gives the cabinet the authority to

validate the rates recommended and imposed by the board.

But

the interesting

part is that this is a government that in the past has

talked about financial responsibility and proper accountability. The

fact of the matter is that the Workers Compensation Board has been

analyzed, scrutinized and criticized by employers, newspaper reporters,

actuarial experts and firms of accountants out of a concern that their

reserves were inadequate to meet their unfunded liabilities. Along

comes the government on the eve of an election and says: "Because we

have been taking heat over the large increases in cost that we have

heaped upon all and sundry in the public, we are going to arbitrarily,

across the board, limit all Crown corporations to a 6 percent

increase." They're paying absolutely no heed to the fact that a 6

percent increase may put the Workers Compensation Board in the position

of having inadequate reserves to meet their unfunded liabilities.

It's

my understanding, based on a report by a reputable accounting firm,

that the board had increased assessments to amortize their debts — in

other words, to increase their reserves to meet unfunded liabilities

over a nine-year period. By imposing this 6 percent limitation on

assessment increases, this government is saying to the Workers

Compensation Board: "Those reserves you had set up in the plan of

payment to meet those reserve requirements are going to be deferred,

and your unfunded liability is going to grow. The actuarial soundness

of your financial accounting system is going to be jeopardized simply

because we wanted a political plum to go to the electorate with

something that sounded good on the hustings." That is the mark of

crass, total and blatant irresponsibility. I suggest that the Minister

of Finance had no dialogue whatsoever with the Workers Compensation

Board and totally misunderstands the position he is placing that agency

in.

Mr. Speaker, there are other implications in terms of

the impact on the Workers Compensation Board. Under the formula for

partial-disability claimants and for those who have been totally

injured and are on the 100 percent disability pension — that is not

only injured workers but also their widows and families — there is a

cost-of-living adjustment provided for in the statute. That rises from

year to year, based upon the cost-of-living index in this province. In

a given year, depending upon the inflationary rate that this government

has been feeding over the past seven years. that rate may be 8 or 9

percent. The government is not saying to the widows and children of

injured working people in this province that the statutory benefits to

which they have been entitled since 1937 are being pared down. They are

not going to give them that statutory cost-of-living increase. As I

read it, the bill says compensation. It includes "assessment, budget,

charge, collection, fare, levy, premium, tax, toll and workers'

compensation and other items...." The benefits that widows receive and

the benefits that injured workers receive, either in

[ Page 9454 ]

partial-disability

or total-disability pensions, are in fact compensation. It's

compensation, Mr. Speaker, and if the government doesn't understand

that, they have either not read their own statutes or they're extremely

careless, because that is compensation. You are going to deny the

victims of industrial accidents the full applicability of

cost-of-living increases that would be statutorily due to them. It

could be that economic circumstances this year would not entitle them

to any more than 6 percent; but you don't know that and I don't know

that. What you are saying is: "If it goes beyond that range, you shall

not be entitled to more than 6 percent." I say that is an awful thing

to do. Of all the people who should not be gouged any further in this

province, those who have been injured in the mines, factories or in

other working places of British Columbia.... They and their families

have paid the price, and they should not be penalized while the

government has its own particularly frivolous way of demonstrating its

own restraint.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

There's another way. Yes, compensation does include medical aid too. So

when the Minister of Finance calls across to me and says, "No, the

cost-of-living benefits under workers' compensation will not be

affected," I think he's wrong. I think he should seek some advice, not

only from the board but also from someone in the Attorney-General's

(Hon. Mr. Williams) department, on the proper

interpretation and

understanding of the statutes — I wouldn't recommend the

Attorney-General, but perhaps one of the staff people could help him.

Mr.

Speaker, there's another way that workers will be gouged as a result of

this particular amendment. My colleague from Comox has explained that

and I want to reemphasize it to the minister. On the one hand, the

partial-disability pensioners and the total-disability pensioners will

be restricted to a maximum potential increase of 6 percent. On the

other hand, the average time-loss claimant under workers' compensation

— and at any given time there are something like 15,000 in the province

of British Columbia who are temporarily injured in their day-to-day

occupations — is, as it stands at the moment, entitled to receive

time-loss benefits representing 75 percent of his income up to a

maximum of $24,700. But under the statute there's a built-in formula

whereby each year the permissible ceiling on wages on which time-loss

benefits are calculated increases. That increase this year was slated

to take the ceiling from $24,700 to $27,600. In other words, someone

working in a construction job or a sawmill as a millwright or sawyer

and earning $27,600, which is hardly a luxurious salary in this day and

age, would be entitled to draw 75 percent of that salary as time-loss

benefits were they injured on the job.

The amendment that is

now before the House that the government has brought in, the rate

increase restraint bill, means that that statutory increase that was

due this year in the maximum range salary will be reduced. It cannot

rise to $27,600 this year. So every worker who is injured during the

coming year will be receiving less than the statute originally provided

to him. I say to the government that I think the people of the province

of British Columbia will agree with the need for restraint, but how is

it that this coalition gang always inflict the restraint on those least

able to afford cutbacks? How is it that they provide handouts to their

millionaire friends? How is it that they provide all kinds of

incentives to some of their political friends? The man who is an

adviser to B.C. Place got $750 a day. There was no restraint for him,

but there are cutbacks for injured workers.

I say that that

priority is wrong and immoral. You should not be gouging injured and

handicapped people in this province to make the Social Credit fortunes

in an upcoming election a bit more rosy. That's what's happening. On

three counts under this particular bill you are gouging injured

workers, their widows and their children. That's demonstrable. I say

that that is absolutely unconscionable. I'm certainly not going to

support this bill with that provision in it.

I hope that the

Minister of Finance will have a second look at this particular bill. I

hope he will consult with the Workers Compensation Board. They are

there as a board of professional people. They are not political; they

represent neither Social Credit nor NDP. They are a commission to

ensure that we have intelligent and accountable management under the

Workers Compensation Act. I think it would behoove the Minister of

Finance to consult with them and to find out the implications of this

particular bill in terms of the administration and the proper financial

accountability of that agency, and certainly with respect to its

deleterious impact on injured workers and their widows throughout the

length and breadth of this province.

If he ignores that, he

shows what I fear is a consistent insensitivity by Social Credit to the

people who are least able to defend themselves in British Columbia,

while handing out to certain gluttonous friends all of the incentives

that this government can put together. Incentive, I fear, is just a

euphemism for political grease, in many cases. I think that's a

shocking situation. I urge the Minister of Finance to withdraw this

particular bill and reconsider its applicability to the Workers

Compensation Act.

MR. D'ARCY: This bill, as far as it applies to the Crown corporations

of this province, is a welcome commitment from government in limiting the increases

that those corporations might impose upon the public of B.C. At the same time

it's a hypocritical bill because, as the minister well knows and as every

member on that side of the House knows, the government already has within its

grasp, through order-incouncil, all of the powers proclaimed in this bill. In

fact, the only reason the government is bringing this bill in is for political

window-dressing.

What

is starkly absent from this bill is any limitation on the government's

ability to receive increased income taxes by changes in the brackets

due to inflation, through their agreement with the federal government;

any limitation on the government's ability to raise fuel taxes; to

raise water royalties, as discussed earlier today in this House; to

raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco; and to raise a whole variety of

other discretionary charges which this government, in the last year or

so, has taken upon itself to charge the public of B.C. In this session

alone, the session which began early last April, the government has

brought in a number of bills, including a number of sections — about

three dozen — which remove prescribed fees, rents and taxes, and which

give — and I quote, Mr. Speaker, because the wording is always the same

— "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to prescribe fees."

What

itself the right to change and raise fees, rents and taxes in a whole

variety of ways which are no longer

[ Page 9455 ]

spelled

out in detailed amount. They simply have the discretionary powers to

raise these things in the secrecy of the cabinet chamber. It's possible

that the government may not want to raise these fees, rents and taxes

in a public way, that they may not want to raise them at all. If that

is the case, they should be open and above-board and be upfront and

tell the public about it by including those fees, rents and taxes

within this bill.

The minister well knows that his budget

this year is in the neighbourhood of $7.7 billion. He also knows...and

here's where we had a whole lot of extra hypocrisy from the Minister of

Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser), when he talked about Hydro, Transit

and ICBC as though they were corporations separate from the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Just one moment, please, The member is not imputing any dishonourable

motive to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, is he?

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Speaker, if I'm going to impute a dishonourable motive to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways, I haven't got to that point

yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I presume you won't. Thank you.

MR. D'ARCY: If I do, Mr. Speaker, I hope you would immediately bring me to order.

The

Minister of Transportation and Highways, and every member across the

way, well knows that the Crown corporations are in fact political arms

of the government. The government has an energy arm, and that energy

arm is B.C. Hydro. The government appoints, by a stroke of a pen — the

Premier does — every member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro,

including the cabinet ministers who sit on that board of directors.

Hydro policy is government policy. It's made in a cabinet room in

Victoria. ICBC policy is government policy. The minister knows that.

Transit policy is government policy. The minister knows that. B.C.

Ferries policy is the policy as laid down by the head of that

corporation, which is the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

also know that the entire gross income of all corporations controlled

and limited by this bill — which the government can limit anyway,

without the bill — comes to a mere 20 percent of total government

revenue. The total take of all these corporations is around $2.2

billion, or slightly less than $2 billion. The total budget of B.C. is

$7.7 billion. Eighty cents on the dollar of what the government

controls is not controlled by this bill, yet the government would have

us believe they are moving to limit their own right to raise fees and

taxes on the province of British Columbia. It's absolute balderdash,

absolute hypocrisy and absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

note that this bill does not limit the government's right to transfer

the costs of local services to municipal governments and school boards.

We have seen a disturbing tendency over the past few years,

particularly in this fiscal year, for the government to pass a greater

share of education costs to local government, a greater share of local

costs to municipal governments and regional boards. These increases had

nothing to do with increased costs at the local level. It's simply that

the province paid less of a share and the local governments therefore

had to charge more. So while there may be a limitation on the ability

of local government to increase their budgets, their spending, at the

local level, there is no limitation placed on the government not to

require them to raise a greater share of their costs through taxes on

property and industry at the local level.

Again, it is

absolute and total hypocrisy. If they really believe for an instant

what they say, they would show good faith by establishing that they are

not going to increase costs to local government in this province. Every

school board trustee in this province, every alderman, every mayor,

every regional district director knows what I'm saying is true, and

they know how hypocritical this bill is.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

in the opposition are not going to hold up passage of this bill. Even

though it's window-dressing, even though it's flim-flam, it does show

that the government is at least sensitive enough to be concerned about

increased taxes, rents and rates in the public sector.

would, however, show a lot more concern if they would only apply the

same restrictions to the $7.7 billion of revenue that they control

directly, not indirectly through the Crown corporations. I would like

to see that change. I would hope that the Minister of Finance, if he

wishes to retain any of the credibility he has left, would see fit to

make a declaration before this House that they are going to apply the

bill to all government operations, not just to the Crown corporations.

MR. HALL:

I think the bills that we've been debating today are two examples of a

latter-day conversion of the minister. I made passing reference this

morning to a total, radical change of policy by the government. Now

this bill picks up the cry of restraint for its own operations. They

are examples of conversion to policies that have been called for. I

think there's a principle in this bill that can be supported,

particularly in view of some amendments that we'll be placing before

the Speaker in due course.

The principle of trying to bring

our Crown corporations under some control is one which, I think, would

find favour with any member of the New Democratic Party administration

from 1972 to 1975. I suppose one could smile at that, from a number of

points of view that have been expressed over the years. Certainly I

know I share some concern with this minister, both privately and

publicly, over, for instance, B.C. Hydro and the way that particular

beast has an insatiable appetite for its capital requirements, which

are now becoming almost impossible to meet.

Control over our

Crown corporations is an admirable target for this Legislature. But

these late converts to the program of even-handedness bring a wry smile

to the faces of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that

when you were the Deputy Speaker earlier this year we on this side of

the House called for equality of sacrifice. We called for

even-handedness on the part of the government during the past 16-week

session, which ended during the last few days of July. You will recall

that those cries for even-handedness, for equal treatment, were ignored

by the Treasury benches opposite. We pointed out that it was not good

enough to try to run the province by press release, wringing one's

hands and calling for restraint and at the same time not applying those

kinds of rules to those things over which you had direct control.

[ Page 9456 ]

What's

happened in the tax-increase field since we first saw, during those

fateful days in February, the Premier demand time and tell us about his

restraint program? What's happened on the user-charge side of

government endeavour this past year, since the first rumblings of

restraint, the first cries of "pay as you go" came floating over from

that minister in this particular fiscal year? He talked about the

solutions he was going to offer — short-term, mid-term and long-term —

as the Minister of Finance introduced those bills following his address

on budget day. What has happened to the government's restraint in the

treatment of our basic industries?

Farmers and fishermen

have had to pay a 26 percent tax increase for coloured gasoline.

Business licence fees went up 15 percent last December. Free-miner

certificates went up 150 percent in the corporate-mining field and 400

percent in the individual field. Guide-outfitters had a 100 percent

increase. Fisheries have gone up 100 percent. Fish-buying stations have

a new fee. Fish-processing plants have had a 100 to 300 percent

increase in fees. Water rates increased 300 percent. B.C. Hydro has had

a general rate increase of 31.5 percent, April 1, 1982, for industrial

users — after the Premier first started talking about restraint. In

other words, when the government was talking about freezing the public

sector's income and the workers of B.C. having to tighten their belts,

we saw the government get its share out of our basic industries.

What

about the poor old taxpayer? On this list we've seen — while the

Premier has been talking about the clouds on the horizon and fighting

his way through — medicare go up in the last two years ranging from

76.5 percent for a single person to 50.6 percent for a family.

Nursing-home fees have gone up 61.5 percent in the past two years.

Emergency-room fees are up 100 percent in the past two years. Bus fares

have gone up 25 percent for adults and 50 percent for seniors and

children. Drivers' licences have gone up 100 percent. Licence plates

have gone up 38.9 percent. Vehicle inspections have gone up 66.7

percent. Provincial camping parks have had an increase in fees from 17

to 33 percent. You'll notice that there's no 6 percent in these

figures. They're all more than 6 percent. Angling licences are up 100

percent for B.C. residents. Hunting licences are up 100 percent for

B.C. residents. ICBC rates went up at the beginning of the year by 21

percent and 18. 2 percent, depending on which of the two major cities

we're talking about. Court fees are up 86.5 percent in the past two

years, for just doing simple business with our courts.

Those

are the ones that are published and you can easily find out. What about

the hidden tax increases? The Business Licence Act, which we passed in

this House.... From information in a news release from the Ministry of

Finance at the end of last year — there are no detailed figures given —

we've worked out that, on average, there has been a 15 percent increase

for a business licence. Clear gasoline, clear diesel, propane — the

favourite subject of the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) —

aviation fuel, bunker fuel, propane, butane and marked gasoline for

farmers and fishermen have all gone up ranging from 8.8 to 26 percent

in the period October to April. Since then, in the minister's own press

release number 46, June 29, 38 cents [sic] a litre was added right

across the board due to tax purposes.

Health premiums have

gone up 21.7 percent, as I mentioned, across the medicare field in

terms of people with taxable income. Pharmacare fees have gone up 21.7

percent. Acute care per diem has gone up 15.4 percent. Acute care,

emergency care, day-care surgery and every figure you can think of has

gone up considerably more than the figure in the bill in front of us.

the Land Act — not, I suggest, a revenue source that would produce an

awful lot of money for the Minister of Finance, but I'm sure it

produces a fair amount — we see instances of 566 percent increases in

charges. These are new fees and other horrendous increases in simple

administrative procedures to do with the Land Act.

The Marriage Act. A marriage licence for a native Indian has gone up 900 percent. There's a 100 percent increase for all others.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

I'm not going to mislead the House. I agree that the figures we're

dealing with are $1 and $5 that have gone to $10 each. I want to give

the House the full information. Nevertheless, that's a 900 percent

increase....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't you think it's worth $10 to get married?

MR. HALL:

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm not putting worth on this. I'm

saying that by your actions you are to be judged. I'm saying that

you're late converts to the whole question of controlling your appetite

for taxes. You're late converts to the side that has been calling for

restraint. You've voted against every single amendment we've made on

advertising, travel and so on.

Registration under the Marriage Act increased by 100 percent. Marriages by a justice of the peace increased 166.7 percent.

MR. RITCHIE: Are you against marriage?

MR. HALL:

It would appear that you are if you put it up 300 percent. You're

certainly not making it any easier, let me put it that way. I'm not

saying that you're going to make it any harder by putting it up from $1

to $10, but you're not making it any easier.

Mr. Speaker,

under the Coal Act applications for licences, permits and leases to

produce coal and to extend terms of lease are all up 100 percent to 150

percent, and in one case 1,100 percent. The Mineral Act and mining and

petroleum acts have had a 100 percent increase in all their fees. Motor

vehicle licence plates, as I mentioned before, are up a tremendous

amount of money. Drivers' licences are up 100 percent. The cost of

licensing an average vehicle is up 16 percent. Passenger vehicle

inspection is up 66 percent. Commercial vehicle inspection is up 40

percent. Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is up 200 percent.

The Park Act.... All of these miscellaneous fees and charges are up

tremendous amounts of money.

All I'm saying here, Mr.

Speaker — and I don't want to go on to all of these minor things in

terms of the number of dollars.... I agree that the percentages are

high but the numbers of dollars are low. They pale to insignificance

again when you get to B.C. Hydro, when we are talking about real money

and large amounts of money. It's about time that we saw this bill in

front of us; the same with ICBC and the same with the Urban Transit

Authority.

Mr. Speaker, the province dealt with this at length at the beginning of the year, when it pointed out that government

[ Page 9457 ]

fees

hit those the least able to protect themselves against this kind of

activity. So I say that while we can support the principle of the bill,

in view of the amendments that we are putting forward, one of the

things I want to reiterate for the benefit of the House is that when

we, during discussion of the budget.... Amendments and estimates

pointed out that the government — the treasury benches — were late

converts to the program of even-handedness. We now congratulate the

government for coming across to our point of view and indeed meting out

fair and equal treatment to both sides of the ledger, to both sides of

the activity that's going on in this province, and not just simply

scapegoating one side of the industrial equation. In fact, they're not

saying, "do as we say, not do as we do," but at least they're making a

late effort to start behaving as they've been trying to tell other

people to behave.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, New

Democrats believe in a policy of restraint. New Democrats believe in

fiscal prudence. New Democrats believe in cutting back the appetite of

Social Credit to spend and spend like drunken sailors on the longest

weekend spree you ever saw. Social Credit has the worst — repeat, the

worst — record of fiscal mismanagement under which British Columbia has

ever suffered. The Minister of Finance presenting this bill has himself

the lamentable reputation of being the least able Minister of Finance

this province has ever had in regard to his ability to forecast

revenues and expenditures with any accuracy or credibility at all.

New

Democrats believe in a program of restraint, and even though the record

of this government is none too commendable, we will support the bill —

better a late conversion than none at all. For two years Social Credit

voted down every proposal made by New Democrats for restraint. For two

years we have proposed to reduce in every estimate, in every area of

non-essential spending. For two years New Democrats have advanced

motion after motion asking that this government abandon its wasteful

and corrupt practice of spending public money on partisan advertising,

partisan television and partisan propaganda of every disgusting sort.

asked them to cut back on the amount of money that they spent on travel

for cabinet ministers. We asked them to cut down on the amount of money

that they spent on renting luxury office accommodation around the

province. We asked them to cut down on office expenses in their own

ministries. For two years, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have been

first and foremost in preaching restraint. We led the way in asking the

wasteful coalition opposite to cut back in every conceivable area of

non-essential spending. We proposed cuts amounting to almost $200

million and led the way in favour of restraining non-essential public

expenditures. And for two years the coalition opposite has voted

against every single remedy we have advanced.

They made a couple of small improvements this year. First of all, they got rid of Hyndman; this was an improvement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is fully aware of the rules of this House.

MR. BARBER: Well, he's no longer a minister, so I can't call him that.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is aware of the rules of the House.

MR. BARBER:

They got rid of the second member for Vancouver South and that was

good. Now they've gotten rid of the member for Okanagan North, and

that's better. However, the government remains in power, and that's bad.

As long as that Premier remains in office, the wasteful expenditures of Social

Credit will remain in effect. Social Credit, coming as it does from a party

of high livers, big business, big spending — fancy wine, fancy limousines, fancy

Broadway shows, all paid for by the taxpayer, by tax loopholes, by the customer,

and never by the individual business person.... Social Credit, deriving as

it does from that philosophy and that culture, has no difficult at all in making

the transition to the kind of irresponsible and wasteful spending that we've

seen. Social Credit is a very recent convert to the program of restraint. Let

me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago the New Democrats pioneered a

program of fiscal restraint in British Columbia. For the last two years the

Socreds have voted against every single motion we have made to cut back non-essential

spending in the fields of advertising, travel, ministerial allowances and so

on. The public reaction to Socred indifference and waste was the firing of two

cabinet ministers, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr.

Hyndman) and the former Minister of Tourism (Mrs. Jordan). Both of them were

bounced because they had the nerve to do explicitly what the government has

been doing implicitly for the seven years of its administration.

Two

years after the New Democrats pioneered a program of fiscal restraint

in British Columbia, finally the Socreds propose to take up the banner.

They haven't done it very convincingly. Let's review the record for a

moment. How much did the Socreds waste on their maladministration of

the Princess Marguerite , the Rupert and the Surrey , and how much do they propose to save today? When you compare the two today and yesterday....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Clearly, while we have some scope in

debate, the member must now and then at least refer to the bill so that

there is some context for his remarks.

MR. BARBER: I'm currently discussing the then, Mr. Speaker, and shortly will proceed to the now.

The then was the Marguerite

and the waste of $20 million; the now is the claim by the Socreds that

they've learned their lesson. Frankly, the people of British Columbia

think the Socreds are wonderful slow learners at best. The government

that wasted $20 million on the Marguerite

fiasco now purports to believe in restraint. The House may wonder why

the opposition is skeptical about the sincerity and knowledgeable of

the incompetence that riddles Social Credit. The Socreds, to make a

brief comparison again, wasted $15 million on an unworkable,

unmanageable and now unavailable compulsory heroin treatment program.

Every experienced person in the field told them it wouldn't work, but

they went ahead anyway. Fifteen million dollars later they found out it

wouldn't. Today they tell us they believe in restraint, after wasting

$15 million on that particular fiasco, and they wonder why we doubt

them.

Although we will support this bill, because we ourselves have advanced its principle — the notion of fiscal restraint in

[ Page 9458 ]

tough

times, which was pioneered by our side two years ago — they wonder why

we doubt their motives. We doubt both their motives and their

competence.

To repeat, this is the single most incompetent

administration British Columbia has ever seen. Proof of that may be

seen in the fact of this bill's presentation. If they actually believed

in, and could manage, a policy and program of general application

called fiscal restraint, there would be no need for such a bill. If

they had their own house in order on a day-to-day basis, the policy

they've enunciated in this bill would be unnecessary. You see, all it

would need is for a minister who cared about restraint to order that

such a policy be carried out within his own department, through the

deputy and the public service. A Minister of Finance who cared about

restraint would do the same through the Treasury Board.

point of fact, there is no need for such a bill. If this were a

well-managed administration, they could achieve every single one of

these proposed restraints through better management, through Treasury

Board, through their own membership on the boards of directors of Crown

corporations, through their own direct control of the entire apparatus

of the Social Credit state in British Columbia. There are two reasons

why they don't do it that way. First of all, they are not competent.

They are clearly and provably not competent. Do you remember the

Ministry of Deregulation? Do you remember Seaboard? We have hundreds of

proofs of the glaring incompetence of Social Credit.

The

reason they need this bill is that they are not competent to manage

their departments correctly. They need, they think, the superior

authority granted by statute, because their own inferior administration

makes it impossible to introduce such policies. Do they need a law that

restricts, for instance, the board of the British Columbia Ferry

Authority to keep its prices down next year? They don't, because they

control that board. That board is appointed exclusively and entirely by

Social Credit. Every one of its members is entirely beholden, in their

tenure on that board, to the political will and whim of the Socred

ministers responsible. If the Socred ministers knew what they were

doing they would simply order a policy of restraint in fees and fares.

If the Socreds knew how to manage the business of this province, they

would do so directly. They would not need the subterfuge of a bill like

this.

This bill is here today for two reasons: first of all,

because of their hopeless ineptitude, their proven incompetence and the

demonstrated fact that if incompetence were a criminal offence this

cabinet would be in jail — every one of them. But it is not a criminal

offence; it is merely a political offence, and they are not in jail;

they are in office. At least, they are not all in jail; some Socreds in

the past have been, but currently I don't think any are. If

incompetence were a Criminal Code offence, the whole coalition would be

doing time in one of the Queen's hotels. However, it is a political

offence, and it is that for which they are being held accountable today.

They

do not need one single word in this bill to enact a policy of

restraint. They already can do it and should have been doing it.

Through every legislative device that exists to control the many

agencies, arms, departments, ministries and corporations of government,

they already have all the power they need. But they don't command the

respect of their underlings. They are openly laughed at by senior

public servants. They are openly ridiculed and jeered at by people in

their own administrations. They are openly held up to contempt by

public servants within and without the government agencies and the

Crown corporations of this province. They need the force of law,

because the weight of their own office does not command sufficient

respect.

That's one reason they need this bill. The second

is that they're trying at long last to ally themselves to the cause

that New Democrats have been promoting for two years. Two years ago,

when we started to move what turned out to be a total of $90 million

worth of budget cuts in one fiscal year, they thought we were being

negative, unnecessarily cautious and punitive. We said: "Not so. We

read that bad days are ahead. We read that tough times are upon us. We

read that we should start saving money now, cutting down on

non-essential expenditures today, in order to prevent an even worse day

in the weeks and years ahead." The Socreds laughed and giggled, in the

immature way they always deal with these matters, and voted down every

single proposal we made to cuts in budgets in areas of advertising,

travel, office expenditures, etc. This year the New Democrats advanced

the same strategy from the point of view of the same principle. The New

Democrats, at least, have consistently advocated fiscal restraint. We

have consistently advocated cutting back nonessential areas of public

spending, and the Socreds have just as consistently voted against those

cuts.

This year we advanced similar cuts in every single

estimate. This year the Socreds voted against all of them — but with a

difference. This year we caught them misspending public funds. This

year we had documented proof that cabinet ministers were spending money

without any proper authority, without any correct accountability,

without any justification and apparently without any qualms. Why, the

Minister of Finance himself had to pay back money that he admits was

misspent, he says, on his behalf and without his direct control, in

order that his colleagues and friends in New York — whoever — could go

to Broadway shows. I guess a lot of people would like to go to Broadway

shows, but most people think it's more honest to pay your own way. The

Socreds apparently think it's more appropriate to get someone else,

preferably the taxpayer, to do it for you. The former Minister of

Energy went to Broadway in limousines; he spent a lot of money. He got

caught too. He too was forced to pay back the money. These Socreds are

awfully late converts to a policy of restraint. The former Minister of

Tourism got caught. We only had her at onePublic Accounts meeting, and

within a few dozen hours she was out the window. It took three meetings

to finally put to rest the political career of the former Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the second member for Vancouver South.

It only took one meeting to catch the former Minister of Tourism. In

every instance on every account, at each and every opportunity, when

the Socreds have had a chance to waste money, preferably on themselves,

they have taken it. When they've had a chance to waste money on their

friends as well as themselves, they have taken it. But when they have

been given the opportunity to vote for a program of restraint, such as

that which we have carefully advanced in every estimate for the last

two years, they have turned down that opportunity. "Yes," they say,

"we'll go to Sugar Babies." "Yes," the minister says, "we'll go to a

show, or I'll have my friends go to a show, called The Best Little

Whorehouse in Texas." "Yes," the former Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs says, "I'll get the taxpayers to pay for my fancy

wine and my 60-cent cartons of milk." "Yes," the former Minister of

Tourism says, "I'll

[ Page 9459 ]

sponsor

$9,000 breakfasts in Peking." They say yes to all those opportunities;

but when the more important opportunity presented itself to vote for

budget cuts in their own departments, they said no to that for two

years.

Now we have this bill, and we're expected to treat

the Socreds with some sort of non-contempt, some sort of non-disrespect

or some sort of non-laughter at their most recent conversion. The

Socreds have at least been consistent in their disregard for their own

philosophy. It's another bill that represents yet another turn. It's a

bill that will establish uncontrolled borrowing for uncontrolled

purposes.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has

been very tolerant of the member's remarks. I have been hoping that the

member would somehow return to the bill presently before us for debate.

I would remind the member that we are neither in a throne-speech debate

nor a budget debate. At this time our remarks must be strictly relevant

to the bill at hand. Had the member been in the House to listen to the

remarks of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), he would have heard

a very relevant debate on this particular topic. I must advise the

member that if he is not prepared to make his remarks relevant, then he

must take his place and give way to someone who will.

MR. BARBER: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

What

we have seen today in this bill is a failure of administration, the

patent admission that they are so incompetent to give directions within

the current law, which is, in fact, entirely adequate to their

purposes, that they must summon up the spectre — we know who's pulling

Bill's strings — of the additional weight of this law in order to find

a way to stop their own public servants from laughing at them behind

their backs, which is what they've been doing for the past many months

on this issue. We also know they need this bill today for

public-relations purposes. They know that their public relations on the

question of restraint are in fact dreadful. It has led to the firing of

two grossly wasteful cabinet ministers. It has led to the end of the

entire political career of one minister; she has been an MLA for 16

years. It has led to the fact that the Premier continues to dangle in

the wind on the question of whether or not to call an election, because

he's getting contrary poll advice. One of the things advising him is

this bill. He wonders whether or not he can persuade the people of

British Columbia, through this bill, that he finally believes in

restraint — restraint of his own appetite, of his own government's

ambition to tax and tax more and more, until finally all small

businesses are gone, swallowed up by their pals in big business, which

may in fact be part of the political agenda of the coalition.

will support the bill because for two years we have taken the lead in

advocating cuts in non-essential areas of public expenditure. We will

support the bill because we will support any measure that helps even

one person manage a bit better during the time of a recession

significantly aided and abetted by the Trudeau-Bennett policies that

govern this coalition. We will support any bill that helps even one

citizen to fare just a little better in tough times. What we cannot do

is support the notion that Social Credit is sincere in these efforts.

If they were sincere, then two years ago they would have supported our

budget reductions. One year ago they would have supported our budget

reductions. And come this spring, if they continue to do the chicken

dance around the election that the Premier's been doing for the last

week, and if they're still in office, it's easy to predict that we will

be advancing further budget cuts. They will have a third opportunity to

prove whether or not they mean it when they say they want to ease the

burden and reduce the load. If they really meant it, they would have

done it two years ago when we first gave them the opportunity. If they

mean it this year they can do it without the aid of this bill.

they require the bill for their political purposes we will support it

because it is a principle we supported long before them, and will

continue to support long after: fiscal prudence, fiscal restraint, good

management and careful husbanding of the taxpayers' dollar. The New

Democrats believed in that and did it when they were in office. We

believe in it now, and we will do it again when we are returned to

office after the next general election.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: End of career.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

That member has been predicting my demise for a number of years. He's

never been able to forgive the fact that I was one of those who

succeeded in seeing the defeat of the government of which he was a

member. The comment doesn't bother me, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I've listened very quietly to the debate. I ask, as a single member of

the House, to have the same courtesy of the House in closing debate.

Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard

this afternoon will make interesting reading for those people who

somehow feel that there is a team effort on the other side of the

House. We had, prior to today, a first critique of Bill 81 by the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). Fair enough. I will attempt to answer

some of his comments, as he is the official critic of the Ministry of

Finance in this chamber. Then we were told by the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is in the chamber, that the bill was

meaningless and unnecessary. That was a theme developed by several

other socialist members who participated in the debate. The member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) picked up the same theme.

want to return to one comment made by the member for New Westminster,

who is studiously appearing not to hear what I am saving. "This bill

will never be taken to third reading." That was his first statement. A

little later he added: "This will never be taken to proclamation." Then

he expanded further. As he leaves the chamber, let's stay with his

first statement: "This bill will never be taken to third reading." At

the close of debate today I will ask if we can move to committee stage.

If that is not permitted, as is the right of the members opposite, then

it will be on orders of the day for committee stage at the next sitting

after today. It will be taken to third reading, Mr. Speaker. And it

will be enacted, and it will be put in place on behalf of the people of

British Columbia.

I have to paraphrase the comments by the

member for Cowichan-Malahat. If I do not quote her precisely, certainly

I have the essence of her comments with respect to the Rate Increase

Restraint Act. I think she came close to describing it as empty, as

meaningless, as posturing, if she not in fact did

[ Page 9460 ]

so.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the comments of those two members,

i.e. the member for New Westminster and the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, who described the bill as unnecessary, empty,

meaningless, one which we do not intend to proceed with and one which

will go no further. We see that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich),

while perhaps not agreeing with everything in the bill, nonetheless

views it seriously enough to put amendments on the order paper. Which

is the official view of the NDP? Is it empty and meaningless? Is it not

to be proceeded with? Or is it a serious document with which the

official critic takes some difference, as is his right and duty as a

member of the opposition, and offers some amendments which will be

debated at a later stage?

I get a little tired of the

sanctimonious approach of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). I

assure the member that I don't lose any sleep, but I get a little tired

when he tells this House and those interested citizens of British

Columbia in the galleries that somehow he invented restraint. Mr.

Member, you've told us repeatedly — I do not want to stray too far from

the principle of this bill — that you and your colleagues offered up

savings of something in the neighbourhood of $90 million in the budget

before last. Mr. Member, that isn't even a pathetic start on the kind

of restraint we introduced and imposed on ourselves.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

You can laugh. There was $90 million in the first Treasury Board cut on

the 1981-82 budget. We cut many times more than the $90 million which

the member repeatedly cites in this House. It is the job of government

to review ministry requests.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think I touched a nerve. They're cackling. I won't pursue it much

further, but Mr. First Member for Victoria, you don't know anything

about restraint. You don't understand anything about the budgetary

process. You have no idea how tough we were on ourselves in reviewing

our budget.

MR. BARBER: Who believes that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Laugh if you will. Hansard

will note that the first member for Victoria chuckled and banged his

desk. I simply say, very quietly, that he doesn't understand the extent

to which we reviewed, cut, trimmed and reduced constantly for months on

end before we came to this chamber with an expenditure level which

would maintain services in British Columbia, and yet would not lead to

higher taxes for the people of British Columbia. So much for that.

I commend Hansard

this afternoon to those people who wonder if that group opposite is, in

fact, as it claims, ready for government. You certainly didn't have

your act together today. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) had

very good critical comments. I have a few words to say about some of

his comments. Other members stayed strictly with the bill, explaining

why they believe that certain restraints should be imposed on these

Crown corporations and agencies. Others, however, wandered all over the

ballpark, giving us a rerun of speeches which have been trotted out and

placed in Hansard for a good number of months, if not for the last couple of years.

The

government of British Columbia made the decision quite some time ago

that restraint was going to be necessary in the current circumstances.

I alluded in my opening remarks to Bill 28, which flowed from the

statement made by the Premier of the province in February regarding

compensation stabilization. That was the cornerstone, the fundamental

part to go into place with respect to our total restraint program. We

made it clear at that time that Bill 28 was by no means the end of the

program to control government expenditure. Indeed, events through the

summer and into