1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist 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, MARCH 23, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Mr. Lowen — 149

Ms. Brown — 151

Mrs. Jordan — 155

Division on amendment — 159

Mr. Gibson — 159

Mr. Wallace — 169

The House met at 8 p.m.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Williams presents the report of the Human Rights Commission for the period ending December 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents the 104th annual report of the Department of Education for the year ending June 30, 1975.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, before I

charge the opposition with deceptiveness, irresponsibility and wasting

the taxpayers' money, I want to apologize. Being a novice in this House

I was about to jump up and accuse someone in the opposition also of

theft. I left the House this afternoon on an urgent meeting. Upon my

return my speech had strangely disappeared. Fortunately, I discovered

my text in a secret compartment in my desk.

Now back to the mismanagement and the deception and the

irresponsibility of the opposition party. The opposition proudly stated

that they were going to invest all the hard-earned profits of ICBC in

the province of British Columbia. It came to my attention this

afternoon, and I have in front of me a statement from the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia in respect to their investment holdings as of

February 28, 1975. There are two items that glare out at me on this

statement. First, the former government, the former administration,

spent $3.5 million outside of British Columbia — $3.5 million of ICBC

money outside of British Columbia. I find that very strange. Secondly,

and I find this even more strange, is that $1 million was placed in the

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Is Saskatchewan in British Columbia?

MR. LOEWEN: And not in British Columbia, but particularly in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: The long-term investments amounted to over $9 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many buses did they buy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: How much is in the B.C. Central Credit Union?

MR. LOEWEN: One moment — the B.C. Central Credit Union —

here's a $100 bill. A $100 bill must have bought.... I suspect it

bought one share.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But there's $1 million in the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

MR. LOEWEN: However, there is another $10 million in the B.C. Central Credit Union in short-term investments. Let's move on from there.

I think of ICBC as the unwanted pregnancy fathered as a result of

either ignorance, carelessness or selfishness. Let us not forget, Mr.

Speaker, who fathered ICBC. Let us always, and I say always, remember

who left the unwanted pregnancy, ICBC, for someone else to bring up.

ICBC should not have been, and you know it. ICBC was simply the

fabrication of a party desperate to become elected at any cost to the

taxpayer — a totally political decision of the worst type, a deception

that was so deliberate that it leaves me cold, speechless and trembling

with anger. It is hardly surprising that a large percentage of our

population today wants nothing to do with those who call themselves

political.

ICBC was the fabrication of a party that campaigned in 1972 on their

concern for people, promising this outrageous $25 premium. A party that

categorically stated there would be no subsidization of insurance

rates; a party that propagated a myth that gasoline tax was available

to offset rate increases; a party that suggested general revenue could

somehow come to the magical answer of all deficit problems; a party

that encouraged flat-rate insurance, knowing full well what would

happen if the incentives were removed; a party that put forward a false

prospectus, not spelling out the liabilities to the tune of

approximately $110 million. Let me speak to that point. Any private

director of any private corporation — the business that was directly

and indirectly maligned by your party — any director of a corporation

such as that that would have filed a prospectus would be behind bars

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what happened to Tom Scanlon.

MR. LOEWEN: Now I understand I'm not supposed to say the

former Speaker of the House, so I'll say the former member for Burnaby

Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) He came right out in debate during the election

campaign and very enthusiastically stated to the public that the

profits, the tremendous profits

[ Page 150 ]

of ICBC, would be invested in British Columbia for

the benefit of the people of British Columbia and not removed to the

United States of America as was the former custom. He categorically

denied that there were any losses whatsoever in ICBC. This is a public

official, a public individual, a politician commissioned to serve the

public, making statements of that type.

Yes, insurance rates are high today, but let's stop feigning. We

must pay one way or another, so let's stop putting up an irresponsible

smokescreen. Do you want people to be responsible? It is time, Mr.

Speaker, my friends on my right — I mean my far left — it is time that

they assumed accountability. Some members of this House obviously do

not realize the economics of a corporation. The one point that has not

been mentioned in the debate to date is all the income tax of the

different companies that were put out of business that would have come

right into the tax coffers of this province but has not as a result of

the ICBC debacle.

In fact, I'm reminded of a certain individual representing a certain

party going the length and width of this country decrying corporate

welfare burns. Mr. Speaker, do you know of any other corporation that

suits the description better of welfare burns than ICBC?

Polarization: I say some of the members here know about polarization

because they've had experience in it. The whole strategy of our

opposition has been to encourage polarization. Through the years they

have used polarization to accomplish their personal, selfish

objectives. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) referred

the other day to many thousands of signatures that he was receiving in

his office. Who is encouraging polarization to the detriment of all the

people of British Columbia?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): The Social Credit Party.

MR. LOEWEN: Who is pitting management against labour, the

young against the old, and maybe even the males against the females and

the females against the males...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOEWEN: ...encouraging short-term objectives instead of

responsible long-term planning? Interestingly enough, I come from a

family of a business background but with a tremendous social

conscience. Maybe that's a little old fashioned today and maybe some

people here do not understand that; however, I fell off the fence, like

some of the other people in my party did, because of their commitment,

because of what they saw happening in this province.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What party was that?

MR. LOEWEN: Firstly, I could see through what the former

government was attempting to do to this province. Secondly, too many

people were getting hurt because of the different programmes of the

former administration. Thirdly, too many of my friends, including

myself, felt that there might be no alternative but to move from this

province, including a number of businesses and business acquaintances.

Fourth, my personal pride and self-respect was at stake. I think there

is nothing that can get somebody off their rocker faster than an attack

on somebody's personal pride and self-respect.

Tell me, why did you run for office? Could it be that this is the

highest paying job that you have ever had? (Laughter.) Could it be

because you enjoy spending millions of dollars of other people's money,

maybe playing the psychologist for a while? Maybe you feel somebody's

done you wrong. Mr. Speaker, the NDP know, the press knows, we all

know, the people know who is telling the truth. The public did not

react — listen carefully — to your programmes on ICBC because of the

overruns per se; they reacted against the deception of a party

promising what they hoped but knew in their hearts they could not

deliver. ICBC, to be or not to be, is really a very fundamental

question.

My own position to date has been that we must do everything in our

power to serve the people of this province honourably and make ICBC

work. The action of the opposition to date in the debate over the past

few days makes me re-evaluate my position. I'm seriously wondering now

whether it is possible to make ICBC work as long as the opposition is

unwilling to assist in making ICBC work.

There are only two reasons that justify a provincial ICBC plan. The

first is that ICBC could provide cheaper rates. The second one is that

they could provide a better service, or both. I say to date that has

not been the case. Could it be that the real embarrassment to the

present opposition is that by putting the rates where the corporation

must stand on its own feet it makes clear that there was no

justification for ICBC in the first place? The amendment deals with

three points: first, oppressive rates, and I am speaking particularly

to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), if he cares to

listen.

First, oppressive rates. We cannot make costs go up or down. We can

simply do our best to improve ICBC. The motion that rates are

oppressive obviously is an admission by the hon. member for New

Westminster that ICBC was a mistake, a tragic experiment. Secondly, in

the motion, hon. member from New Westminster, fair treatment to the

northern and interior drivers. Again, obviously the

[ Page 151 ]

member for New Westminster does not know his facts.

The rates in the north and in the interior are lower than the rates in

the lower mainland. Obviously he is not interested in understanding

this. Thirdly, discrimination to those under 25 years of age. The

member knows full well that the Premier has come out in favour of a

rebate for those under 25. It is obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the

opposition is again doing what they do best: playing to the gallery and

creating a smokescreen. Mr. Speaker, I vote against this amendment.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

support this amendment. But before doing so, I realize that since this

is the first time that formally I am on my feet, it is required of me

that I should congratulate you on your promotion to the position of

Speaker. So I would like to take this opportunity to do so. I would

also like to say that you certainly follow in the footsteps of a

previous Speaker who presided over this House with impartiality and

dignity, and I certainly hope that we will see more of the same in your

case. May I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I was a little bit disappointed

in your ruling yesterday, when you refused to allow an emergency debate

on a matter of serious....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Ho, hum; ho, hum!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MS. BROWN: A matter of serious business having to do with

ICBC, Mr. Speaker, could have been debated yesterday. However, I accept

your decision, because it is your business to be impartial in this

House, and I certainly respect this. Mr. Speaker, what I also would

like to do, with your permission, is congratulate the hon. member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who has been promoted to Deputy Speaker,

and to say during his period in the House this afternoon I was very

impressed with him, and thought that really he would have made an

excellent Speaker himself.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like, if I might at this point, to suggest

that both you and the member for Chilliwack ensure that you do not fall

under the sinister influence of any Rasputins who are not members of

this House, who might try to subvert your attempts to be impartial at

all times. I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the new

members in this House, and to say how interested I was in some of the

points raised by them.

I was interested, for example, when the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon.

Mr. Mair), accused us of being the masterminds behind the 250,000 names on

that petition which was presented to the official Leader of the Opposition.

He said they were all NDP and I certainly hope that he was correct. That minister

also said that he was very proud of his role in the setting of the exorbitant

rates of ICBC, and I will certainly make it my business to see that his constituents

get that message.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Stop attacking Mair.

MS. BROWN: The member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) told us that

he considered the increases to be fair and warranted. Again, I think we

will make it our business to see that his constituents know that he

certainly found the unconscionable increases to be fair and warranted.

Mr. Speaker, the member who just sat down, the hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), another new member whom I would like to

congratulate, referred to ICBC as an unwanted pregnancy. Now I am

hoping that that member was speaking from experience because, really,

it seems to me that unless someone has had the experience of going

through pregnancy, unwanted or wanted, it's a very dangerous kind of

analogy to draw upon. So I would like to suggest to that member that in

future it might be a good idea to stick to the kind of experiences he's

very familiar with and leave the pregnancy thing to people who can get

pregnant.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you volunteering?

MS. BROWN: Well, Madam Member, it certainly is not anything that I would be ashamed to admit to.

Mr. Speaker, the final new member whom I would like to congratulate

is the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) . I was very impressed with his

speech. The only thing that bothered me about it was his attempt to

accuse the previous Speaker of issuing biased notes. He referred to the

fact that he had come across some of the "Speaker's notes" in the desk

of the member for Vancouver-Burrard — note No. 61. I think that was a

very serious accusation, and so what I would like to do at this point

is table these notes in the House, but before doing that, read from

them if I might.

First of all, it's interesting that note No. 61 deals with ICBC, so I'm certainly sticking to the point, Mr. Speaker.

It starts out by saying: "Speaker's note No. 61: questions for open-line show hecklers' guides."

AN HON. MEMBER: This was from the Speaker's office?

MS. BROWN: That's what the member said — hecklers' guides.

"ICBC: you say ICBC will lose $100

[ Page 152 ]

million, and you say a Socred government will

not give any money from the gasoline tax to ICBC. This surely means

that you will make huge increases in premiums which are now the lowest

in Canada. How else can you replace the alleged $100 million that you

talk about?"

The second thing mentioned on the speaker's notes was campaign funds.

"The Imperial Oil Co. revealed in their report to

shareholders in June this year that they made donations averaging

$234,000 for the last five years to the Social Credit, Liberals and

Conservatives, including the provincial sections of these parties. How

much do you get from them and from other business corporations?"

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Right. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) said that these notes came from the Hon. Speaker.

We talked about the civil service — when it accused Mr. Bennett, at

the time before he became the Premier, of saying that there would be

massive firings in the civil service, because that was the only way in

which belt-tightening measures in the provincial government could take

place. Certainly, we have seen that happen.

Probably the most important thing in the statement, Mr. Speaker, is

the editor's note. It says very clearly on the last page: "editor's

note: please do not use this material for political purposes," which is

precisely what the member for Esquimalt did.

I would like, before tabling these notes, to confess that the notes

were prepared by John Wood, the executive assistant to the then

Premier's office — a person described by the Speaker himself, in terms

of indoctrinating the new members, when he said: "John Wood, I think,

is still with your caucus. He's a master at drafting questions, so if

you have any, be sure to consult him."

MR. SPEAKER: Did I say that?

MS. BROWN: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table these notes.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted to table documents?

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it was brought to my attention by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that probably the member for

Esquimalt still doesn't understand that the speaker's notes are not

notes prepared by the Speaker of the House. They are notes prepared by

the executive assistant to the caucus for use of the members of the

caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: While speaking.

MS. BROWN: Yes, while speaking, and not the Speaker.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I apologized, didn't I?

MS. BROWN: No, no, I'm not worried about the apology. It's

just information given, Mr. Member — part of the educational process.

It's information given.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: With your permission, Mr. Premier, I would like to continue. Thank you very much.

What I'd like to talk about in terms of supporting the amendment

seems to be the major idea of discriminating against, not just young

drivers, drivers under the age of twenty-five, but certainly an

additional discrimination against those drivers who are single. Now

there seems to be some apprehension or misapprehension on the part of

people who make these kinds of actuarial tables that getting married is

part of the maturing process. This is not necessarily so. In many

instances the very act of marrying can be very immature indeed, and I

think that is a very arbitrary and questionable basis on which to

decide whether a person should pay high insurance or low insurance.

Why do you have these kinds of categories? Why is it possible for a

person over the age of 25 with a very poor driving record, a person

over the age of 25 with a large number of points against them, to end

up paying less insurance than a person under the age of 25?

And I want.... Just a minute, Mr. Minister, alleged Minister of

Health, definite Minister of Education, sometime minister responsible

for ICBC; let me give you a specific example. A 40-year-old man, Mr.

Minister, convicted of drinking driving, who drives a 1966 Ford

Fairlane — and I was very careful to choose an automobile that you were

familiar with — carrying $200,000 liability and $100 deductible

collision and $50 deductible comprehensive pays insurance of $318. This

is a 40-year-old man convicted of drunk driving, a 40-year old man.

A 24-year old male with no accidents, no points whatsoever, driving

exactly the same car with the same kind of coverage, pays $675. This,

despite the fact from your own statistics — your own statistics, Mr.

Minister — which said that of the 3,450 convictions for drinking

offences last year, 82 per cent of them involved persons of over 25

years of age.

[ Page 153 ]

It's interesting that even in your own press release what you show

us is what the 17-year-old driver does, what the 19-year-old driver

does, what the 21-year-old driver does. But when you start penalizing,

you penalize from the 25-year-old down. You penalize a person who

doesn't get married. You even penalize people with absolutely no

offences, with no points, no accident record or whatever against them.

This is justice Social Credit style. That's what that is. You're not

interested in a person's driving record. You're not interested in the

careful driver. You promised that sometime in the future, if a person

doesn't get any accidents and if they continue to remain single, and if

they do this, and if they do that, and if you are still the minister

responsible for ICBC, then something will be done about it.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You should be on the back bench, Mr. Minister.

These great actuarial tables, we are very familiar with the actuarial

tables. Those are the same actuarial tables which, in terms of

computing pensions, penalize women for allegedly living too long. You

know, they always work to your benefit. It has nothing to do with what

is fair. It has nothing to do with what is just. If you are really

serious about what is just, you discard a person's sex. You discard

their marital status. You discard their age and you make your judgment

based on their driving record, That's what justice is all about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where are the records?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's the mess that you left.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unruly, very unruly.

I want to go to my second point, if it is possible to get the

minister responsible for ICBC to listen. I recognize, as the Leader of

the Opposition said, his ears are very busy these days with various

objects being stuck in them. But if I can get him to listen just for a

few minutes, I want to talk specifically about a topic which I know is

very dear to you, Mr. Minister, the topic of women.

I first of all want to start out by saying thank you very much for

meeting with that delegation yesterday afternoon, after the Premier

insisted that you do so.

Thank you very much.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Unanimous consent? Okay. Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, the business of the hardship which is wrought on those people

living in the parts of British Columbia that have no public transportation system:

you know, we've heard lots of speeches from various members from the north

saying how very supportive their constituents are. Well, I happen to have had

the opportunity of meeting some of the women from South Peace and from your

own riding, Mr. Speaker, from North Peace River, who were down yesterday. I

listened to them talk about the kind of hardships which these ICBC rates have

placed on them.

What we have in the north, where there is no public transportation

system, is people who are very dependent on use of their automobile.

It's not a luxury.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I have been to the Peace River; it's beautiful

country and that's why I can't understand why they returned you as

their member. Beautiful country, beautiful people, but we all make

mistakes, Mr. Member, and they've made theirs. Okay — and they're going

to have to live with it.

In fact, a second car to those people is not a luxury; it is actually essential. It is absolutely vital.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And you should know because you used to sell them.

What happens? Let's look at a day in the life of a typical married

woman living in the constituency of South Peace River. Let us look at a

day in her life: there is one car, so she has to get up in the morning

and she has to drive her husband to work. She drives the children to

school and home again. Then....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Member, at least you know the name of your constituents. You're doing pretty good there, yes.

Then they return home. In the afternoon if there are errands to be

done, if the children have a dental appointment, if there is an

emergency, a medical appointment or whatever, out goes the car again.

Then at the end of the day, out goes the car again to pick up the

husband and bring him home.

What we have, Mr. Member, is what is commonly known as the "wagon wife". The "wagon wife", Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 154 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I have been to the Peace River. You were with me. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame! How soon they forget. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: Yes, the "wagon wife", Mr. Minister, is what we

have, the woman who spends all of her days chauffeuring her husband,

her children, everyone, around. In fact, if it happens that it's not

possible to do this, that he has to have the car, then what we have is

her isolation, her total and complete isolation. Added to all the other

kinds of hardships visited on her, we have this additional burden.

Every single time you speak to those women from the north they tell

you what it means to have to exist without that car because of the

unconscionable increases in the ICBC coverage for that. The

alternative, of course, is that they can hitch-hike. But we all know

that we discourage that, that nobody is encouraged to hitch-hike.

So maybe the Premier — oh, he's left sorry — who was so

understanding about the plight of the under-25-year-olds, maybe he

should start looking at the plight of those women in the north who are

so dependent on their cars and, at the same time, consider some kind of

change for them in the new rates next year.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Did she tell you about the back roads up there?

MS. BROWN: What I want to talk about now is the agents' fees.

All those beautiful commercials — "Thanks for the memory." Thanks for

the memory; now the time comes to pay for those beautiful memories.

MR, E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): We've already paid for them.

MS. BROWN: Now the time comes for those beautiful memories.

We've got to hand it to you over there, they really are being paid for

those commercials. It's true the firm went bankrupt, but they're still

being paid for those commercials.

Let's have a couple of examples of what happens to the agent's

commission. I found it really interesting. I listened all day to see if

any of the backbenchers who stood up and gave their rousing speeches

would once mention the agents, and mention what happened to the

commission that the agents now earn. Nobody did, but it was very

interesting. Nobody mentioned the women in the north either, and nobody

really cared about the under-25 drivers and the kind of unconscionable

increases they were being faced with.

MR. LOEWEN: I did!

MS. BROWN: You mentioned the unwanted pregnancies, Mr.

Member. (Laughter.) You may not realize it, but from now on in this

House you're going to be an authority on that little topic. (Laughter.)

I want to give just a couple of examples. I want to use, first of

all, the lower mainland, Mr. Minister, if you are taking notes, also

Vancouver Island and northern B.C. A 1974 Ford Galaxy: when the

commission was 7 per cent in 1975 the agent would have made $16.77,

just basic coverage. The commission for the basic coverage is now

lowered to 5 per cent. But what we have to take into account is, of

course, that because the amount of money involved is higher there is

also an increase, and also because the compulsory part of the insurance

has been cut down just to PL and PD; there's 10 per cent addition on

everything, collision and everything additional. So in 1976 that person

got an increase of 94 per cent, because on the same kind of coverage

their commission was $29.40. On Vancouver Island, for a 1973 Toyota

compact the agent's commission would have been $7.51 and in 1976 it

became $13.75, another increase of 95 per cent. In northern B.C., on a

1974 Ford Galaxy, the agent's commission would have been $75 in 1975,

and for exactly the same amount of coverage in 1976 the agent's

commission becomes $208. Thanks for the memories! Thanks for the

memories!

MRS. JORDAN: How much does your husband make at the university?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take the day off.

MS. BROWN: Madam Member, I am not responsible for my

husband's income, nor is he responsible for mine. I am an independent

individual, and would you please deal with me in that respect? I am not

a dependant of his. If you are interested in his record, I can assure

you he is still taking patients. Get in line. Make an appointment.

I have a note here that says something about: "They keep saying no

driving record when, in fact, the point system is based on driving

record."

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: What are they really doing over there, Mr. Speaker

— aside from saying "thank you" to the insurance companies that worked

so hard for their re-election? What you really are doing is paving the

way for the return of the private insurance companies. That's what

you're doing over there. You've got a nice, neat little way of doing

ICBC in.

[ Page 155 ]

Who stands to benefit from these irrational rates

that have been set by the minister? Allstate, Bankers and Traders

Insurance Company of Australia, Canada Accident and Fire Insurance —

all these people who took us to court. They're all here.

We've got the Great American Insurance Company, Hartford, Liberty

Mutual, London Insurance, Maryland Casualty, Pearl Insurance,

Prudential Insurance. Everyone is sitting there waiting until you have

driven the rates up so high that ICBC is no longer competitive, and

then the private boys swoop in. They'll cream off the least-risk

drivers and then you'll come back and crocodile tears will pour in this

House. ICBC is losing money. Let us sell it. Let's get rid of it.

Suddenly, out of nowhere a friend will appear and say: "I'll take ICBC

off your hands for you."

MR. LOEWEN: Sell it to Barrett for a dollar.

MS. BROWN: Yes. That's right. Did you hear what he said? He's

going to sell it for a dollar. We all know that's what they have done.

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said the same thing.

MS. BROWN: Right. Unwanted pregnancies; ICBC for a dollar. We

have a real dilly over here, I'll tell you. But that, in fact, is

precisely what this whole exercise that we've been listening to and

witnessing over there is all about. You have no concern for people. All

you are interested in doing is getting those private insurance

companies back over here. You want to go back to the old days when

everybody ended up in court, fighting over who was at fault and who was

not at fault. That's what you want. And that will take care of the

legal beagles over there.

So we are going to take care of the lawyers. We are going to take

care of the insurance salesmen. We are going to take care of the

automobile dealers. Everybody's going to be taken care of over there —

everybody except the people. They are the only ones who you don't care

one hoot about over there.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We have heard from the financial wizards over

there about how poor ICBC is. I don't know how many of you watch TV.

Apparently it was on the news tonight, and I have a note here

somewhere, that it was admitted that in premiums alone up to now — $275

million in premiums alone up to now.

MR. VEITCH: What was it last year?

MS. BROWN: And then there are short-term investments. You

keep complaining about no money being spent in the province. Short-term

investments, roll-over investments as you call them on Howe Street or

whatever; I have no idea what a roll-over investment is, but I know

what a short-term investment is: $600 million put into the economy of

this province — $600 million.

But I have to hand it to you, you really represent your

constituents. But the people of this province are not your

constituents. Poor people are not your constituents, women are not your

constituents, children are not your constituents; the insurance

corporations, those are your constituents, and you're looking after

them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I must confess that that's

a very difficult act to follow, an absence of talent on my part that I

don't regret. I had some difficulty in following the hon. member and

really deciding what she was talking about, but again, I don't feel too

lonely because I have some doubt as to whether or not she in fact knew

what she was talking about.

Mr. Speaker, before discussing the matter of ICBC further, as this

is my first opportunity to stand in this chamber, in this new

parliament, I would like to first congratulate you on your elevation to

the position of Speaker and to assure you that in my opinion, and in

the opinion of many people in British Columbia, you have the confidence

of the people and you have the confidence of this House, We feel sure

that you will preside with sincerity and with diligence and

impartially, I'm sure, somewhat to the dismay of all members of both

sides of the House. I would say as a friendly note that you will have

nothing but cooperation from the member for North Okanagan. I speak

with confidence in light of the many happy hours that we've spent

together...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: ...sitting as colleagues in this House.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Now, now, don't judge others by yourself. I said

sitting as colleagues in this House. I would also like to congratulate

my colleague on the right who has been elected Deputy Speaker (Mr.

Schroeder), and I'd like to extend a warm welcome to the socialist

hordes who returned somewhat thinned down in numbers...

MR. CALDER: How the hell did they get back? (Laughter.)

[ Page 156 ]

MRS. JORDAN: ...and to freshmen and freshette. I'm sure we're

going to have many happy hours debating principles and many happy hours

disagreeing on the philosophy.

I'd also like to express a warm welcome to the two that I can only

describe as the Simon and Garfunkel of the political world: the hon.

leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. leader of the

Conservatives (Mr. Wallace), I would just say, Mr. Speaker, in all

humility, I'm very pleased to represent once again the North Okanagan.

I feel — all of us feel — most deeply the responsibility that is placed

upon us when we are elected by constituents, and I would just suggest

that as time goes on and one has the privilege of serving for a number

of years, that responsibility rests ever more heavily.

I would like now to turn my attention to this amendment, which I

would say in the beginning comes as somewhat of a surprise. I think had

I been in the opposition and had I known what is now quite evident that

the opposition did know about ICBC...with that record, had I wished to

move an amendment I would have chosen any other subject but ICBC. This

shame must not be one of the major shames of the NDP government, but it

is the albatross of the NDP government that they leave on the backs of

the people of this province.

I don't intend to go into a great many of the details that have

already been stated. It certainly would not be too wise to dwell on the

oft-repeated concern of who in the cabinet did actually know what was

going on, and who in fact in the cabinet were the architects of this

cruel and shameful hoax that was played on the people of British

Columbia. We have heard incessantly that any company starting up might

have these problems, and this has been used as an excuse. Yet we have

record after record quoted in this House — and I don't intend to repeat

them — by the former Premier of this province and by other ministers

who sat on Treasury to say that ICBC was to stand on its own feet,

We also have a record in the message to British Columbia motorists,

dated 1974, from Hon. R.M. Strachan, Minister of Transport and

Communications, president of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

He says very clearly...which is a fact which seems to be forgotten on

this date as this opposition seems to move around and glean a position

and tries to find a position which they can sell to the public, because

he said, and I quote one line: "It is important to remember that

Autoplan is a motorists' fund." In 1974 the president of that company

states very clearly in a public message to every driving citizen in

this province that ICBC is a motorists' fund. It must be independent

and it must stand on its own feet.

Yet just today in the debate when the Hon. Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) asked when the government decided that ICBC

should be subsidized, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald)

called across the floor and said: "From the beginning." Yet we have a

message from the president of the company to the public in 1974, and

oddly enough it is repeated in 1975, remembering that the former

Attorney-General and the present member for Vancouver East, who sits in

this House, and was an architect of the former government policy, said

that ICBC was to be subsidized in the beginning. The Premier didn't say

this; he said the opposite.

Mr. Strachan said in 1974, and then the same thing in 1975 — this is

from a message to British Columbia motorists: "For vehicle owners this

may be in the form of higher insurance rates." Again he is stressing

that ICBC must be a driver-sponsored programme. "While Autoplan

premiums are being held at their present low levels through 1975,

climbing accidents must ultimately be reflected in the cost of

insurance." The president of that corporation said that the drivers

must be responsible, the record of the drivers will set the premiums,

and that government, that president of that ICBC corporation, would act

accordingly in setting the rates. Yet today we hear from the former

Attorney-General that from the beginning they were planning to

subsidize ICBC.

We've heard nothing but conflicting statements from directors of

those ICBC programmes; not one has stood up and outlined to the public

what in fact were the facts. This opposition has, to the embarrassment,

I am sure, of themselves, tried to hang a political movement, and a

very logical action on the part of the opposition, on one of the

greatest mistakes and cruellest mistakes their government ever made.

I don't lay any blame on the part of the two new members of this

party. But what is astonishing to the public, to this side of the House

and certainly to this member, is that this opposition party never seems

to learn, They are involved themselves in a continuation of a hoax, a

falsehood and a cruel cost to the people of this province.

Ministers who sit in this House as opposition now — the same old

gang that led them into these difficulties — that are back in this

House, are leading them on, failing to learn from experience, and

failing to recognize their responsibilities and their need for

accountability as ministers when in government, as in the members of

this opposition when sitting in this House.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and some of her

colleagues should stand condemned with those former ministers because

they know today, and they knew at the time, what those ministers were

doing to the people of British Columbia. And they were part and parcel

of a deceitful action on the part of the former government on the

people of British Columbia.

[ Page 157 ]

I listened with great interest to the member for Vancouver-Burrard

talking about discrimination, and its always an interesting subject

when she gets into this area. She was talking about the driver under 25

— the male driver. I think everyone recognizes that the premiums for

the sound male driver without accidents, single and under 25, are

indeed high. I believe that under this administration — under the new

ICBC management — that matter will be corrected. It has already been

stated that they will receive a 25 per cent refund at the end of the

year if they are accident-free.

Madame Member, had your government, had the president you appointed

been a responsible administrator of that company, the records would be

there today in order that those people would receive the benefit of a

good driving record — as would every other good driver in this province,

You talk about discrimination, and you stood up for the wagon-wheel

mother. Why don't you stand up for the wagon-wheel young girl under 25?

Let me just read you a few examples.

The demerit points for the under-25 male: 45 per cent; and with

those having some points, 10 or over: 24 per cent. The under-25 female:

11 per cent, and those with over 10: 4 per cent. Talk about

discrimination. Under your government they all had to pay the same rate

and none of them had any hope of a merit system to reward them for safe

driving. And you talk about discrimination. Under your government, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the senior citizen was not only

discriminated against under your policy then, but would be

discriminated against under the semi-policy that you're trying to

advocate in this House...

MR. COCKE: Ask them which they prefer, Pat,

MRS. JORDAN: ...because your party has taken the position —

or part of the position in this debate — that everyone should pay for

driver errors in this province. I wonder if it would interest the

member to know that the male claims for people over 65 are 15 out of

100. The average cost of servicing these is $77. The female claims for

over 65 are nine out of 100, or 9 per cent, and the average cost $48.

Under the Social Credit administration, these people have already

received a 25 per cent refund on their premiums and they will receive

greater benefits as this company gets on its feet and we can get into a

system of meritorious charges for insurance for good drivers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. JORDAN: Your policy of asking all the citizens to

pay.... And this is what has happened now, through mismanagement — all

the citizens whether they drive or not have had to pay for ICBC bumper

and tire insurance. But over 65 is a population of 308,200 in British

Columbia and only 105,758 drive; 29.2 per cent of all people over 65

drive. But 70.8 per cent do not drive. Yet the member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and her colleagues in this debate and in

their semi-policy are suggesting all the senior citizens should pay the

cost of bumpers and fenders and poor driving in this province.

MS. BROWN: Dollars and cents.

MRS. JORDAN: Furthermore, under the NDP government.... It's

in effect now. It's my hope and belief that this will be changed.

Senior citizens, regardless of driving records, all paid the same

insurance rate, and that was based on actuarial figures. But what

happened when they had an accident and they had bodily harm or wanted

to claim their public liability? Their government pensions were

deducted from the payment that they received from ICBC. This is a

deplorable state of affairs, and when ICBC gets on its feet and can

meet its responsibilities, I certainly would hope that the minister

responsible will charge ICBC that this discrimination is no longer

practised in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. JORDAN: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the other members keep

saying: "Oh, all you talk about is money. All you talk about is money."

I mentioned before that they never seem to learn, and this is true.

They practised this type of idealistic non-responsible call when they

were in opposition formerly. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) believed in free transportation, a most worthy cause, but he

championed free transportation from Pattullo Bridge to Stanley Park, A

worthy cause, but never did he mention how it could be paid for, and we

see what happened when the NDP got into the transportation business —

millions and millions of dollars as a deficit, and the question as to

how it is to be paid for.

And the hon. member for Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly), the former Minister

of Education, when she sat in opposition the first time, had all the

answers to education. She got into office and she told the school

boards: "Spend. Don't worry about the money. We don't want to talk

about money. We want to talk about education." We all know what

happened there. This same philosophy is the philosophy they practised

with ICBC.

And the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), that aspiring leader

of the NDP, who has got a bit of competition from chubby-wubby and

others.

[ Page 158 ]

MR. COCKE: Look who's talking.

MRS. JORDAN: Right, right. I'm very sympathetic to the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) . I just hope I'm better natured.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: The former Minister of Health, when he was in

opposition, talked with great enthusiasm about the programmes the NDP

would bring in, some of them very commendable, but never a thought

about the realities of life that these had to be paid for. That same

member became Minister of Health and practised his philosophy, and

within a year he was running back to the hospital boards saying: "Whoa,

whoa! There's such a thing as money. Something's got to be done." He's

quoted by some of his greatest admirers and greatest friends, who liked

him and admired him, but said, in fact, he had absolutely no concept of

money management.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: You would think, Mr. Speaker, that they would

learn. Here they are back in opposition preaching the same type of

hocus-pocus, preaching the same type of irresponsible attitude, and yet

you look at their.... Speaking of abortions and umbilical cords, their

mother party in England who practised this same type of government for

30 years...and just the other day, on Monday, March 22, 1976, there was

an interesting

article in The Province which said: "U.K. State-owned Industries In Turmoil."

The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) should listen to

this because it fits in very well as a contradiction to what she said

before she sat down. They say:

"Britain's nationalized industries, most of which the

government took over to protect consumers and workers from industrial

abuse, are in turmoil. Labour problems within the companies ironically

are among the severest in the state companies in Britain. Consumers are

angry because the prices government-owned companies charged are rising

faster than those in private industry. The men who run the companies

have been accusing the government of massive interference."

Does that sound familiar, hon. members? This is in England.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell me about it.

MRS. JORDAN: This is in England. You would think that this

party would learn because in England they've turfed out their leader,

and this group is out clutching for the leader who led them down the

same path. It's very interesting to see:

"The trouble of the nationalization of the industries

results from a new attitude within the government. For years the

socialist government paid industries heavy subsidies to keep men

working, often in antiquated plants, to keep prices down."

To keep prices down.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Where did the money come from?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, hon. member, where did the money come from

to keep prices down because it was politically desirable? Because it

was politically desirable! But you're right, Mr. Member, that got

expensive and the socialist government in England finally woke up and

finally realized the problems they were creating for their own people;

and, as you say, Mr. Member, where did the money come from? Twenty-six

billion dollars in debt — twenty-six billion dollars out of the

taxpayers of England's money.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm having a little difficulty

relating your remarks to the amendment that is before the House.

Perhaps you could get back closer to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to point out is

that it took the people of England 30 years and the party of England 30

years to wake up. It took the people of British Columbia three years to

recognize what this socialist government was doing, and, after all

that, those members still haven't woken up. They're still running after

the leader who led them down the path that Harold Wilson led the people

in England down. I say: will the real Harold Wilson stand up over

there? You have shown that you have no understanding. You should be up

supporting the moves taken by this government in relation to ICBC. If

nothing else, you should be as concerned as we that we don't leave a

legacy of crippling debt to the next generation — having today what we

can't pay for tomorrow. This adds to the shame that should be borne by

the members of that party in relation to ICBC and its mismanagement.

But, Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to dwell further on many

subjects which have been repeated because I believe it's sufficient to

say that while the concern regarding ICBC is province-wide, the

fascination with an unbelievable medley of idealism, mismanagement and

obvious deceit is country-wide. People of knowledge simply cannot

understand how a supposedly responsible Canadian government could have

lived with their conscience and, as such, proved to be so inept, to be

kind. The people of British Columbia are stunned into a state of hostile

[ Page 159 ]

suspension as to how this could happen to them and how they should be left to pick up the pieces.

MR. LAUK: Both ears to the ground. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the debate of the last few days has

brought forth an unbelievably weak and very embarrassing defence of

government policy from the opposition. The blind following the blind,

obviously still the same old gang trying to lead the people of British

Columbia down the same old path. But, Mr. Speaker, when one listens to

the debate and one reads the facts, nothing, one thinks, can condemn

this government more than those,

But I would suggest more than the facts, more than the statements in

this debate, more than anything else, the words from the member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder) condemn this opposition in the former NDP

government. In his very sincere and frank way, he spoke, He took a

record of 20-odd years service, more than 20 years service in this

Legislature — an honourable record — and put it on the line.

It would have been very easy for him to sit as others are doing,

sitting in silence and not to admit the indecency that was committed by

that government. But he chose the honourable route and he chose the

most difficult route and he chose to run in an election on his concerns

about the mismanagement of his former party in relation to ICBC and the

finances of this province. He sat here today expressing his respect for

the founders of the NDP, his respect for many members of that party,

but his complete inability to live with the practices of the past three

years and the current practices of that party. Mr. Speaker, it's my

belief that his feelings and his words, above all, condemn the NDP

policies in ICBC more than anything else.

Amendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 32

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Chabot

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

On the main motion.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It's a pleasure

to take my place in the debate as television sets all over the country

are switching on to the "Midnight Special."

The hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) had some kind,

musical things to say, as she opened her remarks, about the hon. member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and myself. I've been given authority by the

hon. member for Oak Bay that if I want to talk for the next hour and

three-quarters, he has no objection at all. (Laughter.)

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Okanagan referred to us as Simon and Garfunkel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it you?

MR. WALLACE: Actually, I'm a yodeller.

MR. GIBSON: Simon and Garfunkel have written some great songs

that the hon. member should study — you know, "Scarborough Fair" and

the "59th Street Bridge" song, and "The Boxer." They wrote the music

for "The Graduate, " Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sing a song.

MR. GIBSON: "Mrs. Robinson...." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: They wrote a great song that I would recommend to the hon. member — "The Sounds of Silence." (Laughter.) A beautiful song!

It was an elegant debate, though: new phraseology not normally known

to this House (laughter), hostile suspension by Warners —

"chubby-wubby" — who he? Or who she? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Good fun!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to start out by

congratulating the new members of this Legislature, and congratulating

the government, the new Premier, the new members of the executive

council. Good wishes to the mover and seconder of the Speech from

[ Page 160 ]

the Throne. It seems such a long time ago that it was moved and seconded.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

I was puzzled by what one of the members said in seconding the

Speech from the Throne. He talked a good deal about individual

enterprise, which is a good thing, but then he spoke of his

determination that the state should not turn people into robots. I had

to come to the conclusion that he doesn't understand how the Social

Credit caucus works yet. (Laughter.)

Hon. members over there, Mr. Speaker, were applauding the words of

the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) as he was telling them how

things used to work in the former government caucus. I don't know if

that was a good description or not. But they don't know yet; they don't

know why there is often said to be a similarity between members of a

government caucus and mushrooms. You know that story, hon. members,

that they are both kept completely in the dark and fed a diet of solid

manure. (Laughter.) I don't think they perhaps know as yet the

difference between a caucus and a cactus, which answer is available

from me by private application. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Obscene, but not heard, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I have to say something about the tone of

the debate so far, because we have had a large number of maiden

speeches which are traditionally positive, traditionally not

particularly partisan. It may have been just a necessary conclusion of

the subject we are discussing, but we have unfortunately seen in the

past few days an incredible outpouring of venom and viciousness and

partisan feeling in this House, which I do not think is a good way to

open it.

The last government, hon. members opposite, I would suggest to you,

spent three years after 1972 fighting the 1972 election in this House.

I think that was a very unfortunate mistake on their part. I think it

led to their downfall. I would most earnestly urge you not to spend the

next three years refighting the 1975 election in this House, and that's

what's been going on for the last few days. That's your business, but

that's my comment on your business because I say to you that many hon.

members have taken their place in this debate and said that they are

proud to be members of this House. I can't say on the basis of the

debate that has taken place in the last three days that I'm proud to be

a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker, most British Columbians unquestionably want this

government to work. It was elected with an enormous majority. It is,

one way or another and whether we like it or not, the only government

we have for the next three years. I think it is incumbent on us in the

opposition to help it out as much as we can, to give the best advice we

can. But I ask the government not to make the mistake of thinking that

all of that — what was it? 49 per cent, roughly — all of that 49 per

cent of the electorate that favoured you was doing so in a particularly

positive spirit of mind. There were a number of people who voted for

you with considerable reservation, who felt that you were the lesser of

two evils and who wish you well but are watching you carefully. I would

beg the government, Mr. Speaker, to bear that in mind and not to

consider that they have any royal mandate to treat the province in that

way.

Looking at the throne speech, I thought it was a rather good throne

speech, as things go. It covered a lot of areas. According to a

tabulation done by Mr. Neale Adams just before the election, there were

something like 60 major promises that the government had made by

election day, by December 11. As nearly as I could see, counting in the

throne speech — and people can perhaps change these figures by one or

two — the throne speech dealt with about 16 out of those 60. There are

a tremendous, tremendous number yet to come, Mr. Speaker, of which no

mention was made.

Right at the top of the list, right at the top of Mr. Neale Adam's

list, and I draw this to the attention of the Minister of Mines:

"...change the Mineral Royalties Act and tax profits of mining

companies." In the mind of the public, certainly, that was one of the

very first promises of the new government. I tremendously regret that

the throne speech makes no mention of that. I think the minister must

regret that too, because I know from an early speech he gave to the

B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and it was an excellent speech, that

he favours exactly such a change. But I ask him and I ask the

government, Mr. Speaker, through you: what on earth is holding them

back when we had this bad news from Granduc today? The minister knows

the figures very well. The estimate is something like $1 million a year

out of the economy of that town because of the lay-off of 80-plus men.

When the minister stood up in question period and made clear that he

understood that even though the company was losing money they were

still paying very considerable royalties — which in a sense makes it

uneconomical for them to continue that particular phase of activity —

it's urgent, Mr. Minister, it's urgent, Mr. Premier, that that

legislation be brought in at this session, and that it not await the

fall session.

Its going to be difficult enough to rekindle the mining industry in

British Columbia because some important years have passed us by. It is

urgent that the work not be delayed by another six months.

[ Page 161 ]

There were a few other things that weren't

mentioned in the throne speech — "place an anti-inflation freeze on

taxes." I think we would like to see that, hon. members, but I fear for

Friday. "Place an anti-inflation freeze on all government spending."

Well, I see little doubt of that, but it wasn't mentioned in the speech

specifically. "End non-elected boards and commissions in government."

No mention of that. Return to the merit system in the public service.

Those haven't been the actions of the government so far, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to have some things to say about that later when I talk about

the early moves of the government and some of the firings. No obvious

return to the merit system in the public service.

"Pay operating costs of independent schools through local school

boards." Mr. Speaker, what do we have on that old chestnut? We have a

promise of another review. That's all we had out of the last government

— a promise of a review. They reviewed it for years and years because

it was a hot potato, and they never planned to do anything with it. I

fear that three years from now we will be going into another election

with a recycled Social Credit promise — to pay the costs of independent

schools. That's not good enough. There should be specific action in

this budget to honour that promise, a promise which I suggest got that

government a lot of votes because it was a flip-flop in long-term

policy, one much required by a large

section of the public of British

Columbia. You don't need to study it, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker. You know the figures — $25 million. That's what it costs.

That's the long and short of it, to support independent schools at the

same level as public schools — accredited independent schools that

submit to a proper inspection process. So what are they going to do?

They are going to study it. That's a breach of faith, Mr. Speaker, a

breach of faith with what was promised in the election campaign.

"Ban the right to strike by police and firemen, making their contract

negotiations subject to compulsory arbitration" was another promise — no

mention in the throne speech. "Administer rent review on a local level"

— no mention.

Now here's an interesting one: "Let private insurance companies

compete with the ICBC." We don't have an answer on that one, Mr.

Speaker, which is very curious. We have the memories, we have the

thanks for the memories, but we don't have the government policy on

that one yet. I'd like to know why not, when they seemed so sure about

it during the election campaign.

"Involve local government in welfare administration to screen

applicants." That's an interesting one, Mr. Speaker, because what we

have seen, and I'll get to this later too, is a ruthless cutting out of

a local level of administration from the social assistance process and,

instead, a centralization back in Victoria. Some promise that was!

"Remove gift tax and succession duties" — no mention. Who knows,

perhaps on Friday. "Return some Crown corporations purchased by the

government to the private sector" — no mention.

"Tie Mincome and provincial pensions to the cost of living." Far

from that, Mr. Speaker, far from honouring that promise, they are starting to

allow Mincome for persons 65 and over and Mincome for persons 64 and under,

for the first time in this province, to drift apart in the most recent letter

issued by the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and approved by his minister.

This is a very definite retrograde step. Mincome is Mincome. It costs you as

much to live if you are 64½

as it does if you are 65½. That is a clear breach

of the promise to tie Mincome to the cost of living.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reneging.

MR. GIBSON: A very good word, Mr. Member — reneging.

"Return planning powers to municipalities in regional districts" —

no announcement. "Increase financial aid to school districts and

community colleges."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they say that?

MR. GIBSON: They said that, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they say it in Nelson?

MR. GIBSON: I don't know if they said it in Nelson. Maybe the hon. member for Nelson will be able to tell us about that later.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their candidate said it in Nelson.

MR. GIBSON: Their candidate said it in Nelson? Isn't that shocking?

AN HON. MEMBER: Peter Hyndman said it.

MR. GIBSON: Who's he? (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: A freshette. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: What else have we got here? "Establish a

denticare programme when economically feasible." Well, that's got the

usual weasel words in it. (Laughter.) "Extend Pharmacare to chronically

ill children" — no mention. "Extend the homeowner grant" — no

announcement. "Remove the 5 per cent provincial sales tax on building

materials" — no announcement.

"Guarantee municipalities a fixed percentage of

[ Page 162 ]

resource taxes." There's another cruel one, Mr.

Speaker, a very clear promise. Instead, what are they doing? They are

just studying that one too. The municipalities can't live on studies.

The municipalities have to set their budget at a specific time of year,

and it is only fair that they should be able to do that in the

knowledge of what the provincial grant is going to be, rather than

having to come crawling to the executive council on their hands and

knees, saying: "Please, will you give us something?" They deserve it as

a matter of right and they deserve it as a matter of right this year,

not at some indefinite time in the future.

"End the political use of government aircraft by cabinet ministers." Well, we'll wait and see on that one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus that trip down to Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: "Place the Princess Marguerite in the B.C. ferry system" — no announcement on that.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Oh no, they said they wouldn't.

MR. GIBSON: They said they wouldn't? I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I missed that one.

MR. LAUK: The minister said he wouldn't.

MR. GIBSON: You mean to tell me they've already contradicted another one of their election promises?

MR. LAUK: Well, he found out it went to a foreign country.

MR. CHABOT: Is that a Charlie McCarthy show over there? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: No, this is Simon and Garfunkel, Mr. Member. Keep your channel straight, Mr. Member.

"Work toward a national programme to control foreign land

ownership." All they want to do is control foreign land owners.

Remember during the election campaign somebody wrote a letter, wasn't

it? From which northern constituency was it that somebody wrote a

letter to foreign landowners and said: "Would you contribute to the

Social Credit Party?" Do you remember that? The member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) didn't mention that in his speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a mistake. He forgot.

MR. LAUK: Selective recall.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe he may have something to say about that when we get on debates of the appropriate minister.

"Expand the community college system." Well, the minister has

certainly raised the consciousness of some of the college board

members. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what they meant by expand?

MR. GIBSON: You know about the parent who was very relieved

about their youngster when they came home from college and said: "At

least the kid's not taking any mind-expanding drugs." (Laughter.) You

got that, Scotty. Thank you.

"Lease Crown grazing land to ranchers for longer tenure." Well, that's a good idea, but no announcement.

"Bring in a new expropriation law" — no announcement.

"Reduce the powers of B.C.'s marketing super board" — no announcement.

And this is something, I think, that is very close to the heart of

the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . I'm sorry the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) isn't here but they'll have some good

cabinet debates on that one. Maybe that's why there's no announcement

so far. "Renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty, if more favourable

terms can be obtained."

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. GIBSON: Well, that has to wait until the minister

concerned is better, I think. (Laughter.) The man who can tell us about

that, unfortunately, hon. members, is not in his place tonight — the

hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who has been the definitive

expert on the Columbia River Treaty, who had some things to say about

his new party on the subject of the Columbia River Treaty.

MR. LAUK: Politics in Paradise.

MR. GIBSON: Politics in Paradise.

MR. LAUK: A good book.

MR. GIBSON: You know, I think we ought to have selected

readings. I didn't bring my copy tonight, but I have an autographed

copy: "To a great Liberal". That's right.

Let's see, what else here?

MR. LAUK: I'm enjoying this speech. I hope I continue to do so.

MR. GIBSON: "Establish provincial universities in

[ Page 163 ]

more than one area in the interior."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Are you sure that doesn't read disestablish?

MR. GIBSON: No mention in the throne speech, naturally enough.

"Ask the federal government for power to set up a provincial agency

to regulate the B.C. Telephone Company." I don't know why that was a

Social Credit promise. That was an NDP promise, I thought. Steal other

people's clothes — I suppose that's allowed in this business.

"Sell shares of B.C. Telephone now owned by the government and use the proceeds for social services."

"Give local trustees, parents and teachers authority to decide

whether corporal punishment is to be used in their school districts" —

no announcement in the throne speech on that one. I guess they've got

the teachers mad enough at them already for one term.

"Remove transit from B.C. Hydro."

AN HON. MEMBER: And they removed transit.

MR. GIBSON: That must have been before they appointed Bob

Bonner to be head of B.C. Hydro, because he's in charge of transit now,

isn't he? Isn't he, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Curtis)? I think he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the same fellow who investigated the Sommers case?

MR. GIBSON: No, the same man who didn't investigate the Sommers case. (Laughter.)

Oh! "Increase the frequency of B.C. Ferry sailings."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: That's a promise. There's no announcement in the throne speech about it, though.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I remind the member to please address the Chair? You've been doing so well up until recently.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You at least, Sir, have

the graciousness to look interested. So it's a pleasure to address you.

(Laughter.) It's a difficult job to sit there with your eyes staring

off into space looking interested. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.

But all in all, while there were a lot of things not mentioned, Mr.

Speaker, there were a few things in the throne speech that were all

right. There were some other things that were very, very curious.

For example, there was the suggestion that the new office of

inter-governmental affairs is doing just a super job in bettering our

relations with Ottawa and with the other provinces, and a specific

example of the good relationship, Mr. Speaker, was between British

Columbia and the Province of Alberta. The extent of this good

relationship is very clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Premier

had to admit in this House that he did not have any advance

consultation from the government of the Province of Alberta in the

matter of Pacific Western Airlines, in the matter of PWA...

AN HON. MEMBER: Dan forgot to tell him,

MR. GIBSON: ...which, were it carried to fruition, according

to the public estimate of the former president of PWA, Mr. Don Watson,

a highly competent airline executive, would have resulted in the theft

— and I use the word advisedly, Mr. Speaker — of 500 head office jobs

and 300 maintenance jobs from the province of British Columbia. It took

weeks of pushing to get this government to move on it and they finally

moved today in the form of a request to the Canadian Transportation

Commission — the air transport committee — to issue a cease and desist

order to PWA to require them not to make any moves without the

permission of that agency. They should have done that a long time ago.

In the meantime, they should have been talking to the Province of

Alberta, saying: "Listen here, Alberta, we want to be good neighbours

with you. We have a lot of things in common, We have coal fields to

develop. We have transportation links. We have the ports that you need

to get the produce of your fields and mines to market. We want to keep

being a good neighbour with you and you be a good neighbour with us."

Why haven't they done that, Mr. Speaker?

Let me tell you just how rough Alberta is in this proposition. A

meeting of the board was called in Calgary on a Friday some weeks ago.

The responsible Alberta minister, Dr. Hugh Horner, is not a member of

that board. He walked into the meeting and told the board members

something. He did not consult with the board members. He told the board

members that in a couple of hours he was going to make a public

statement that the head office of PWA was being moved to Calgary and

maintenance workers were being moved to Edmonton. That's how Alberta

runs that airline — when a minister who is not even a member of the

board of directors takes that action, completely against the interest

of British Columbia, without a word of consultation to our government

which has struck up this wonderful relationship with the Province of

Alberta.

[ Page 164 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: This is a theft, Mr. Speaker. I used that word

before. It is economic aggression. This government has to fight it with

every means available to it.

Now the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, was silent on some of the early

moves of the government that they seemed proud enough of at the time

and yet they didn't choose to include in their record as of March 17.

The throne speech didn't say anything about the dismissal of the

officer responsible for the coordination of the status of women in the

government. It's strange that wasn't mentioned, especially since the

minister at the time seemed to feel it was the first move that she made

in her department. She must have put some importance on it and it

wasn't mentioned in the throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Lieutenant-Governor forgot.

MR. GIBSON: The Lieutenant-Governor forgot, No, I don't think

they gave him a cue, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. That was a

disgrace. It was a chippy, petty, miserable little thing to do. Whether

this government likes it or not, and I suspect it doesn't, there is

underway in these years, particularly in the last decade, one of the

most consequential revolutions in human affairs that has occurred in

this century, and that is reflected by the women's movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: This government isn't going to turn back the

clock on it. They can make it more difficult, though, and that's what

they seem determined to do — the refusal to continue the office of the

Status of Women's coordinator, the disbanding by the minister

responsible for cars of the-advisory committee on sex discrimination in

the educational system...

MS. BROWN: Shocking!

MR. GIBSON: ...and the firing of the adviser on that subject

in the department. Chicken feed in dollars, Mr. Speaker; very, very

important in human affairs.

What we learn at school, what our children learn at school about

such things as how they view the role of men and women in our society,

shapes all of their lives. It particularly shapes their lives since

this government doesn't seem to be prepared to have them able to do

anything with day care in the future, so their previous education will

have been gained from the television tube. Then they get to school and

they find they're still going to be confronted by outmoded attitudes

and outmoded textbooks on the subject of how men and women relate to

each other in today's society, how they relate to the work environment

and so on.

I read in a newspaper some of the comments of the members of the

executive council in response to this excellent brief that was

presented to all hon. members yesterday by the representatives of the

women's organizations that were here. It's a first-rate brief, Mr.

Speaker. I think most hon. members should be able to endorse most of

the sentiments therein. There are some practical difficulties with some

of the recommendations, but the spirit is good.

The very first representation relates to the question of how women

are to be represented within government. The office of provincial

coordinator is absolutely keyed on that. I would go a little bit

further than the groups that were here yesterday, because they

suggested that the office of provincial coordinator be re-established,

reporting, they suggested, to either the Attorney-General or the

Provincial Secretary. I think that office should be accountable to the

Premier.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I think it should be right at the top.

The second general set of recommendations related to family law.

Most of the members of the government did not evidence a close

familiarity with the sixth report of the family commission on family

law, to put it mildly.

Mr. Speaker, it's about time we had recognition in a throne speech

that the legal equality of entitlement of male and female partners to

financial assets accumulated during the marriage contract is recognized

by this government. The way in which that should proceed — to make my

position very clear on this question; it's such an enormously

complicated question in all its details — is by this government

drafting a bill with all possible speed, introducing that bill and

putting it out for debate in the community to allow groups in all walks

of life to comment on it, because there are more than two million

individual situations in British Columbia, most of whom will be

affected one way or another by such a change in law. It's important

that a draft bill be issued that a committee of this Legislature can

then hold hearings on before the passage into law.

The next general topic of the brief related to education, I've spoken on that already.

The next topic related to child care, and I will speak on that later.

Human rights — the next topic. I generally support the recommendations of the brief.

Maternity protection; rape; health care for women; pensions for

homemakers; farm and domestic workers' labour standards — good

suggestions in all of

[ Page 165 ]

these areas, Mr. Speaker. I very much hope that the

government will show some kind of a turn-around in its initial

neanderthal attitude towards the women's movement.

So that was one of the little benchmarks we have about how this government is going to proceed.

Then we started to get some other indications. Firings not to put

too fine a word upon it, Mr. Speaker firings of members of the public

service. There's one particular name I want to bring up in this debate,

because I want the name of this person cleared, and that is the former

Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: ...Mr. Bob Prittie. By common consent of the

mayors around this province, a good deputy, a man whose apparent sin,

Mr. Speaker — because the minister declined to comment on the firing to

any substantive extent that I was able to find in the press — was, you

know, he had once been a Member of Parliament for the New Democratic

Party in Ottawa.

But that's not why he was Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. He

came into the public service on a competition. He was not an

order-in-council appointment when he entered the public service; he

came in at the associate deputy minister level on a regular

competition. Let me emphasize that again — he was not a political

appointment.

When he was made a deputy minister, then, as all deputy ministers

are, he became a political appointment, because that's an

order-in-council job. But to the best of my knowledge he did not behave

in a partisan way in that particular job.

In spite of the fact that I'm certainly not a New Democrat and was a

vocal critic of the government on his department, nevertheless any time

I phoned he was a man who was good enough to make a quick response,

which I believe he would have made to any MLA. He was-of assistance to

people with problems in my municipality. He was a man that in every

way, as far as I could see, was doing his job well. I say to the

government: either afford us and afford him the dignity that he

deserves of knowing why he was dismissed, or else clear his name.

Then, after that, tell us about the deputy ministers' revolt and why

four of the senior deputy ministers in that government felt constrained

to issue an ultimatum saying that the senior personnel practices of

this government were such that it had to stop or they were going — and

thank God that for a while the blood stopped.

Now the next item I had on my list was ICBC, but, God knows, we have covered that one enough.

The next sort of general fix and reading we got on the intentions of

the government relate to the community resource boards. I wonder how

many Socred backbenchers had community resource boards in their

ridings. I wonder how many of them supported the chop decision. The

minister said it was to save money, Mr. Speaker. Do you know how much

money he saved by terminating the community resource board in my

riding? Zero dollars, because they weren't costing zero dollars — or

they were costing zero dollars, as the case may be.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: That's an interesting fact, Mr. Speaker, which I

had not appreciated — that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ran for a

resource board. I congratulate the member for that. Mr. Member, after

you've been in this place for a while you might wish you'd been elected

to the resource board instead of here,

But it's a tribute by that member, and I'll issue a tribute to those

resource boards. Let me stand up right here in this House, Mr. Speaker,

and say that I voted against the CRB legislation when the former

government brought it in because I was very concerned about it. I was

worried that these institutions might be taken over by small

special-interest groups and that they would not reflect the community.

That was perhaps the case in one or two areas, but not generally —

any more than in a general sense school boards fail to represent a

community, or councils fail to represent a community.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Norman, I didn't think I'd be saying it, but I

have to regard it as a very, very promising experiment. I don't say it

was yet proven, but it was very promising.

I know in my community the Capilano-Northgate Resource Board

represented that community, and they took not a cent out of it for so

doing. They were elected by the people in my constituency and they were

not given the courtesy of being allowed to do their job for even one

year — and I say that's a disgrace — based on a technicality that

certain orders-in-council weren't issued. I say that's completely

wrong. That is a betrayal of the voters who voted for those people in

the belief that they were choosing a group that was going to represent

their interests in the social welfare field. And this government took

it away, not saving much money in the process, Losing money, Mr.

Speaker, because they would have gotten good advice from those boards.

It's a tendency towards centralization which bothers me very, very much.

MR. LAUK: Which usually costs twice as much in

[ Page 166 ]

welfare.

MR. GIBSON: Which usually costs twice as much; that's right, Mr. Member.

Our province over the past century has seen the wisdom of local

control in the matters that are administered by the municipal council,

and of local control in the matters that are administered by school

boards. There has been a great gap in that system of local control, and

it has related to the system of social welfare. Councils were supposed

to have it. They, generally speaking, didn't accept the responsibility.

Here was a new vehicle that showed great promise of doing that, and it

was killed.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a tragic blunder. I suggest

further that it was politically motivated, like many of the more stupid

mistakes that this government has made to date, based on some kind of

fuzzy fear that the community resource boards might form effective

political action groups against the government. I think that's

short-sighted; I think it's incorrect.

MR. LEA: They see enemies of the state.

MR. GIBSON: That's maybe the enemies of the state that they were talking about. That's right, enemies out there — arrgh! (Laughter.)

Then, Mr. Speaker — and I regret that the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is not in his place tonight — then we

come to the case of the B.C. Institute for Economic Policy Analysis.

There was

an Act passed by this Legislature in 1974. The Act places

certain responsibilities on the minister, who is the Minister of

Economic Development, and requires him to do certain things. It does

not, Mr. Speaker, say that he may do certain things. It says he shall

do certain things, and one of the things that he shall do is pay the

income from the fund that was established by this Act to the board that

was established by that Act to be administered as the board sees fit.

Are we talking about a big budget, Mr. Speaker? We are talking about

a budget of $400,000 a year to provide some independent economic advice

to the government. I say that the minister has no right, on his own

authority, to suspend

an Act of this House, I hope — I devoutly hope —

that he was only flying a trial balloon and that the government will

recant and say there may be something in this that could give us some

good advice, I would rather that the previous government had set up an

economic council for British Columbia with a somewhat wider-ranging

mandate than this Institute for Economic Policy Analysis, But they've

done some good things within the terms of their mandate.

I just want to describe some of the recent research they have done.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, they do research themselves, they support

research by visiting dignitaries, and they support a certain amount of

student research in the province. As to staff research, they have

produced a document entitled "Optimal Economic Pricing for B.C. Ferry

Systems," 113 pages, to be issued, I gather, very shortly. I think this

House is entitled to know from the Minister of Transportation and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) whether this report was not of

assistance to him and his staff in drawing up the policy proposals they

are working on with respect to the ferry system.

Let's assume that just this one report was useful, Mr. Speaker.

That's paid for their budget for the year. They've earned their money

for the year — just one piece of good advice to a government that

thinks they are pretty darned economically smart but can still maybe

use some outside good advice.

There's another one: "Exclusionary Municipal Policies and the Supply

of Housing" — not published yet. Another one: "Critique of Copper Task

Force Report, " issued in the fall of 1975. I hope that the Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has read that one. You know, the critique is

better than the report, Mr. Speaker. It makes some good points. Mr.

Minister, you need that kind of advice. Don't throw the institute out

with the bathwater. "Future Coking Coal Prices and the Economics of

British Columbia Coal, " "Mineral Leasing and Taxation." They were

doing a lot of work on mineral taxation, Mr. Speaker. It's a difficult,

vexatious area as to how you wrest the so-called economic rent from the

industry without destroying jobs in the province of British Columbia.

They were doing some good work on that.

One of the more interesting proposals was a sort of a guaranteed

base rate of return with escalating profit taxes after that. But that's

for another debate. The fact of the matter is that some good

suggestions were coming out of this policy group: "Objective of

Government Policy in Leasing Mineral Lands, " "The Aim of the Central

Government to Motivate Local Government in the General Interest, "

"When to Build What — Pricing Policies for Municipal Services, " "The

Many Faces of Site-Value Taxation." It runs on and on, Mr. Speaker, the

titles that have come out. It was just starting to get rolling.

I ask the government — if this is their concern — not to consider

this institute a tool of the NDP, because I don't believe that it was.

I think it was set up to be independent. I suspect that the then

Minister of Lands and Forests attempted to have rather more control

over the operation than he should have, and was rebuffed. I think there

was some genuine conflict between the institute and the former

government, and I think that many of the analyses that they have

produced, and I have quoted some of them, directly contradicted NDP

policy. So I beg the government not to feel that this is a nest of

socialists that they have to root out, as they feel in some other areas

[ Page 167 ]

their jurisdiction. This is a group of people

trying to give some independent economic advice, and, God knows, we are

going to need it in British Columbia over the coming years.

Well, I promised I would say something about day care. I am saying

it at this time in the hope that irrevocable decisions in this area

have not yet been made. I happen to believe that day care is one of the

most important investments that the community can engage in. I would

like to just put on the record some of the reasons in favour of this

wise investment. It is a programme that is limited in time, and

therefore in financial cost, because the child automatically grows out

of it. You are investing in perhaps a two- or three-year segment of a

child's life. During that period day care is much, much less expensive

than fully supporting a mother and child on social assistance, where

day care offers a way out of that. A mother who is employable should

have the opportunity to get quickly back into the workforce, if that is

her wish, or else she becomes less and less employable as time goes by,

and once again day-care centres provide a root for this.

When it comes to single fathers rather than single mothers, it gives

single fathers some kind of a chance of carrying on their family

responsibilities without going the foster care route. The day care

environment, I am going to suggest to the House, is often much

healthier for the child than having to live in a household with a

mother or father who may feel bitter and cooped up and trapped there by

the child, and who often just sets the child down in front of the

television set all day long. There is an alternative here, an

investment in a human being. There is also more than one case where the

child will get better parenting in a day care situation, than they will

get with their natural parents.

That is not a decision which the state can or should make, but it is

an alternative the state should leave open. The early exposure of

children to outside professionals gives a chance for the identification

of mental or physical problems that they might be helped with, that

otherwise would not come to the attention of the community at large.

And the parents might not have the expertise to appreciate the problem

— and any preventive programme, of course, is less costly in the early

years.

The day-care system, Mr. Speaker, I suggest should be carefully

nurtured and expanded, and to do that it must be properly financed. I

want to suggest to the minister the route that he could go with, I

suggest, the least problem for himself and the best results in terms of

local control and in financing — that is, in negotiation with the

school districts of our province, to provide for a gradual but complete

integration of the day-care programme with our school system.

We already have the school system in many parts of the province

providing kindergarten to five-year-olds. It is not a radical step to

move further down the line, year by year, age four perhaps next year,

perhaps to age three. Not the entire solution to day care by any means,

but a very, very important step, a step that gets the minister out of

his very difficult problems, of negotiations with day-care workers and

negotiations with the financial particulars of each individual centre.

I know this is a problem he is grappling with, and it is a very

difficult one, because it varies all across the board. Some have

professional qualifications and some don't. Some pay rent, others

don't. Every case is a little bit different. But all of them are very

badly starved for funds and all of them could benefit greatly from the

care and attention they would get from their local school district

administration, a local body that is already set up for democratic

controls and the raising of funds through taxes and a proper

administrative system.

It solves at one blow the minister's problems of certification for

day-care centres. This then becomes a function of the school district.

I think it is something he should take very seriously under advisement.

From there, Mr. Speaker, that naturally leads me into a consultation

of school finances wherein we have also had some alarming comments from

the minister concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Day-care insurance.

MR. GIBSON: That's a good point.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the problem with it.

MR. GIBSON: But that's the kind of thing that could perhaps be negotiated with the senior government.

The problem with school finances is the uncertainty that has been

cast on the school system by statements of the Minister of Education

who said quite recently, if I can find his press release here

somewhere, that school districts should not expect grants for the

coming year in excess of what he called federal guidelines. He

clarified this at a later interview to mean not the 10 per cent that

most people think of but, rather, 8.5 per cent. The minister, in that

press release, said that operating budgets are up by 19.3 per cent for

the coming year, and he is saying that provincial government assistance

is going to go up by not more than the federal guidelines.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So where does this leave the school districts? It leaves them in a

real pickle. As the president of the BCTF said the other day at a press

conference, very, very little can be done in the next few months

[ Page 168 ]

because the salaries for the period up to July are

fixed. The school operating costs are all fixed up until then. It is

only in the next school year, starting in September, that much can be

done, and at that point there is only four months left out of 10 to

effect an overall reduction of 10 per cent in the budget, and a little

quick arithmetic lets you know that means cuts of 25 per cent in the

fall, which is unthinkable. The school system simply cannot be cut by

25 per cent in the fall. Let's not kid ourselves.

That means the alternative is a tremendous increase in local taxes,

a tremendous increase. The foundation rate is now 26.5 mills. The

calculations that the BCTF has made show that the foundation rate is

going to have to go up something like eight mills or so to make the

minister's promise — if that's what you can call it — to make his

promise good. Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of 30 per cent in the

foundation rate. That eight or nine mills has to be passed right on to

the local taxpayer. It has to be passed right through. There's nowhere

else it can go, because we know those programmes can't be cut by 25 per

cent.

MR. COCKE: So much for election promises.

MR. GIBSON: So much for election promises, indeed. I remember

when that minister, when he was of a different persuasion, endorsed the

concept that school taxes should be removed from local property as

quickly as possible. What's his first move? He pushes the taxes back on

to local property, which is wrong from every conceivable point of view

— from the taxation of pensioners to the attraction of industry to

various parts of the province. It's just wrong right across the board.

School costs should be met predominantly out of the central

treasury, because the education of children is a common responsibility

that all of us share as citizens. It is not a responsibility that

relates to property. That same press release, Mr. Speaker, had an

insulting little grace note in it for connoisseurs of such things.

Listen to this. He said: "The overall percentage increase for salaries

is in administration, which is up 33 per cent to $15.7 million." A

cruel irony, Mr. Speaker. And do you know why? Because a large part of

that increase in administration costs is as a result of bookkeeping

changes ordered by that minister's department. He orders the changes

for superintendents' support staff to be changed from academic to

administration and then he criticizes the school districts for a jump

in their administration salaries. That is the statement of a man who

either doesn't understand his department or is as stupid as a brain

scientist.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. Where did he find that minister?

Mr. Speaker, I have almost done my duty by the hon. member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace), but.... He's writing out his remarks, I think. But

just to give him a little more time, I will do the traditional thing

which should be done in the throne speech.... I didn't mean to call you

back, Scott. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Oh, were you talking about me behind my back. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Are you Simon or Garfunkel?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Get together, you fellows.

MR. GIBSON: I want to spend a little bit of time talking

about my own constituency. I have had an opportunity to meet with the

city council and hope soon to have an opportunity to meet with the

district council, and they have asked me to bring some messages to this

Legislature.

The first overwhelming message which I submit to the Premier (Hon.

Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is their great concern

for revenue-sharing, their great need for certainty in funding.

A second concern which I have alluded to, but I should add the

endorsation of at least one member of the North Vancouver city council,

is a great concern with the funding of day-care centres. I will as well

relate to the House the wish of the mayor, the concern of the mayor,

over the lack of police authority to charge a juvenile without a

probation officer's prior agreement. I should say that the hon. member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis) and myself had a most

useful joint meeting with the North Vancouver city council and I

expressed at that time the hope and intention that we would be able to

work together in spite of party differences on matters of common, North

Vancouver concern.

Some of those concerns are things like roads, our long-standing

grievance on the matter of interchanges at the Lonsdale and Westview

crossings on the Upper Levels Highway, which I will perhaps raise in

greater detail at the time of the Highways estimates. The Lower Levels

Road is a question that the Department of Highways, with great

foresight, entered into a study with the three municipalities concerned

and the Squamish Indian band to consider the question of a new

arterial, basically along the North Vancouver waterfront, as a result

of the growing congestion on Marine Drive. This arterial, of course,

will be an important feeder to the new ferry system — the cross-inlet

ferry system — and thus is, in my view, a

[ Page 169 ]

provincial responsibility. The ferry service; I am

glad to see the new minister has given his blessing and that it will be

opening up in the fall. Mr. Minister, that's a progressive programme

that I'm glad enjoys your support.

I hope that in developing that process your government will afford

the city of North Vancouver more cooperation than did the last in the

matter of consultation on the waterfront lands that were expropriated

by the government, lands that constitute the core of the downtown of

the city of North Vancouver and are enormously consequential for its

development.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): They were kept in the dark.

MR. GIBSON: They were kept in the dark, that's right. That's

right, Mr. Minister, and I would welcome any expression of attitude on

your part, any indication that the city will not be kept in the dark

any longer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's changed already.

MR. GIBSON: That's wonderful, Mr. Minister. Now if I can just

get you to change the BCR taxation situation. As you know, this has

been a long-standing injustice. The minister, Mr. Speaker, has a good

understanding of these problems of municipalities, and I have great

hopes that in the budget that's coming down on Friday we will finally

hear....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: He's disclaiming responsibility for the budget,

Mr. Speaker, which maybe means this isn't in it. I was hoping we were

finally going to hear that the British Columbia Railway would pay taxes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're jumping to conclusions.

MR. GIBSON: Now I know that the BCR is in trouble, in

financial trouble. It is not going to go under or anything like that —

it has the credit of the province behind it — but it didn't make a

profit last year. But that's no reason why particular communities

should subsidize that railway along its route. North Vancouver, as the

southern terminus, is one of the most important sufferers from this

policy. Other communities such as Squamish and Prince George, of

course, also have important adverse effects, In the district of North

Vancouver alone, something like $125,000 would be added to tax revenues

if this elementary amendment in equity should be made.

I would not want to let this opportunity pass without congratulating

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on his intention

to change the inequity in terms of welfare administration costs, which

has long been a disadvantage to my municipality. As the minister knows,

in some areas the local municipalities have to bear the burden

themselves.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: He's going to do it. He said in the newspaper he was going to do it. I believe what I read in the newspaper. He looks bemused.

I have to urge the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), in the

context of his responsibility for Indian affairs, to press on quickly

with the solution of the Indian cut-off lands question.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's still dragging on. The progress that the

Indian people expect has simply not come to pass. We made a great

breakthrough last June when finally the government admitted its

responsibility and established a committee that was supposed to deal,

within a certain timetable, on the disposition of these ancient

grievances, and the new government has simply not produced on that. I

will, at this time, without getting too upset about it, simply mildly

urge the minister to accept, and quickly accept, his responsibilities

in this area. He knows the situation well. Part of the lands concerned

are in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I wish to say in this throne speech debate, except

for this: I wish the government much wisdom, much fortitude in dealing with

the difficult issues that will come up day after day. I beg you not to be motivated

by a pursuit of the former government and of the sins of the past, as has been

the case in the debate over the last few days. The past is over. You are the

government now. I don't think you should poison your own attitude by a single-minded

concentration on trying to fix all of the difficulties of British Columbia on

the shoulders of your predecessors.

The problems that you have to deal with, many of them were there

when your predecessors came in and many of them will be there when you

are gone. There are continuing problems in this province that will

yield, if at all, only to the good will and intelligence of positive

thinking by members of the government and members of this House. I most

earnestly hope, and will do all I can, to express that kind of thinking

and give that kind of advice to the government. I wish you well.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I may say it's no exciting delight to rise at 10:30 in the evening after

[ Page 170 ]

all the many speeches we've heard today, and the

many issues that have been covered. I had hoped that perhaps not only I

but the rest of the House would be a little fresher than we all are in

the one opportunity that this party has to try and cover a wide range

of issues which must, of necessity, be touched upon in the throne

speech debate.

I would like to add my congratulations to those other members who

have spoken, congratulating the new members to the House, and the

pleasure I take in welcoming some old friends back to the House, such

as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the member for Skeena

(Mr. Shelford), and, of course, my good friend who fought a very tough

and exciting battle in North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Coalition.

MR. WALLACE: No, it's not a coalition. You see, there's the

paranoia over there, Mr. Speaker. The minute you say something balanced

and constructive and complimentary, you're immediately accused of

having some hidden political motive.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: At any rate, that election which was held was a

very significant one for British Columbia because the mood of the

voters, as someone has referred to earlier on tonight, was such that

many people went to the polls, not voting for the Social Credit Party,

but voting with the very clear and definitive intent of defeating the

then existing NDP government. I would just like to make a brief

comment, and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) can shake his

head any way he likes...

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm only shaking it one way.

MR. WALLACE: ...but that, in fact, is the mood in which people went to the polls.

I respect the basic system by which we exist, that the voters

express their opinion for whatever motives, and it is up to the

politicians to respect and to respond to the wishes of the majority. I

hope that system still pertains in the minds of every one of us in this

chamber.

But it was an election where positive issues were not an outstanding element

in the total campaign. Certainly, in the Liberal leader's speech tonight

he's pointed out the very fact that many of the programmes which were put

forward by the party which subsequently won the election are surprisingly absent

from the first throne speech of the new government. I notice that there are

many escape clauses in the throne speech, vague phrases such as "when the

economy improves" or "when the financial situation of the province

permits" — phrases of this nature.

I agree that one cannot possibly expect any government to attempt to

complete its programme of commitments in one session, so I am prepared,

from my position in the House, to watch the progress of this government

and analyze the programmes and make comment according to the merits of

the government actions.

I would say one personal note, that I have decided that hard work is

not its own reward in this matter of politics. I worked very hard in

Oak Bay; I was running for the third time. I had more workers. I

managed, or my friends managed, to raise more money than ever before.

We put in more effort and more hours than ever before, and my majority

was cut in half. So, apart from the provincial scene, I have decided

that within a riding hard work is not its own reward.

There has been one other important political event since we sat in

this House, Mr. Speaker, and that is the fact that the national

Conservative Party has elected a new leader. I think it is a

significant event for all Canadians, including British Columbians, and

deserves some mention in this debate because our new leader,

nationally, is a young man, the youngest man who has ever led the

party, I understand. He is not only a westerner, but is also a man with

a national overview and, even more importantly, a strong commitment to

Confederation and to national unity. He is a man with a surprising

amount of political experience for one so young and for one who is now

holding such vital office in the political scene in Canada. He is also

a man who greatly appreciates the importance of federal-provincial

relationships and will listen to provincial voices.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very pleased to mention in this

House tonight that the new leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Joe

Clark, will be visiting British Columbia on May 4. It will be my

pleasure and responsibility to ensure that he does meet with the

Premier of this province, in the same way that the former leader, Mr.

Stanfield, met with the Premier of this province at that time so this

government and the people of British Columbia can be aware that the

national leader of our party does indeed shoulder the breadth of his

responsibilities by making himself known to the provincial Premiers

across Canada, and by assuring this Premier in British Columbia, and

this government, that as far as our national party is concerned there

will be no problem whatever in communication, and that on matters

affecting British Columbia our party, nationally, will not only have an

attentive ear but a responding action.

I might say also in passing, and, I suppose, in a partisan sense,

that I am delighted that the new national leader has a strong grounding

in provincial

[ Page 171 ]

politics. He played a large role in the early days

when Peter Lougheed started to make his real impact on the political

scene in Alberta. So Mr. Clark has a very strong awareness and a great

degree of experience in the importance of having strong provincial and

federal liaison within a political party.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that our political system and many of

our politicians are frequently maligned these days, we were interested

that the national leadership convention seemed to arouse the attention

of Canadians generally. I read somewhere that the television audience

equalled in numbers those who watched Russian hockey series. I think

that is a sign of healthy interest by Canadians generally in our

political system. A large national party was choosing its leader right

in the open through the express wishes of the delegates, and not

through the action of power brokers or king-makers.

Even more importantly, I think it proved to many Canadians that in

one of the important national parties in this country the leadership

cannot be bought for cash. It seems to me this is good for Canada, it's

good for the political system and, of course, good for our party.

Of course, I suppose I could make the obvious comment that one

reason many people were interested in watching the PC national

leadership convention was that they were pretty eager to cast their

eyes upon the man whom they desperately hope can defeat Prime Minister

Trudeau at the next election.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, as I have done on several occasions in this

House, that as we start a new parliament, each one of us bears a heavy

responsibility, not only towards the people in our riding who elected

us but also towards the people of the whole province, because each of

us representing different parties may well and sincerely differ in the

means by which we seek to achieve our goals, but the goals themselves

are the same for all of us. We are all here because we feel we can

contribute something to creating a better quality of life for all

British Columbians in a free society.

Despite the

interpretation placed by some on the debate which took

place on opening day — namely that the opposition parties were simply

being obstructive — I have no wish to intrude upon or reflect upon a

vote of this House, but I just want to make it very plain and place it

on the record that in the rest of this session, as in former sessions,

at least from this desk in the House, I will try to be a responsible,

positive and constructive critic. I would say with some feeling that in

adopting that approach in past years. I have merely succeeded in being

branded as being pro NDP. No doubt, if this government brings in sound

policies which I will support, I am likely to end up in this session

being branded a Socred.

One of our journalists, Jack Wasserman, wrote in his column the

other day that the Oak Bay member and the North Vancouver-Capilano

member (Mr. Gibson) hold rather old-fashioned views about their

political roles. He mentioned that the members of the two main parties

in this House view their political activities as some kind of holy

crusade. What I really think the columnist was saying, Mr. Speaker, was

the point I made a moment ago — that, by and large, the people of this

province who go to the polls are divided into two very distinct camps

and the political scene is very clearly polarized.

When any two groups in any sphere of human endeavour are poles

apart, their deep differences serve only to foster extremism. I think

it is clearly on the record through history that few, if any, problems

were ever solved by extremism. It seems to me that if the Liberal

leader and I have any real purpose to serve in this Legislature, other

than the party's end purpose, it must be to present a reasonable and

moderate position on the issues, and in response to government

initiatives to be fair, honest and accurate in our criticisms. If that

approach is considered old-fashioned, I would with great respect, Mr.

Speaker, suggest that in the acutely polarized political climate in

British Columbia today is that kind of moderating influence which is

badly needed in this House and, indeed, across the province.

The throne speech is fairly typical, and I say that without being

snide. It is generally vague. It touches on some subjects and quite

obviously, and in a purposeful way, leaves other important issues

unmentioned.

An earlier speaker tonight has pointed out that some of the fairly

important issues which were highlighted in the government's election

platform have been omitted from the throne speech. But again, I say

that as far as I am concerned I am here to take a positive and

constructive approach to the actions and the legislative programme of

this government.

I think it would be premature to make sweeping criticisms from what

we have had made available to us in the throne speech. Our party would

like to make useful contributions and try to contribute amendments

where necessary to the legislative programme of the government. We are

in sympathy with the basic premise which has been repeated very many

times since the government took office, mainly that what this province

needs above all else at the present time is sound financial management.

But we believe that there is more to modern government than simply

being able to balance the ledger.

If there is one very sombre and distressing note in the government's

behaviour before this session began, and in some of the speeches I have

heard in this House, it is simply this: that admittedly this party has

come into power at a time of a financial deficit and there seems to be

already a clear attitude by the

[ Page 172 ]

government that this financial deficit and the

attendant problems which it causes will be the oft-repeated excuse for

this government not carrying out the kind of commitment that it made in

the election of December 11.

We had the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), when he was

debating the other day and explaining some of the facts and figures of

ICBC, I think sound a very clear note that right through this session

and I don't know how many succeeding sessions, we are going to hear

time and time and time again, that the reason the government isn't

doing certain things is because of the financial mess that it inherited

and the fact that this deficit is preventing the government from

carrying out various social programmes. I just want, at this point in

the debate, to make it very plain that I don't accept that argument.

The fact is that at one and the same time the Social Credit Party in

the election was running in opposite directions. On the one hand it was

saying to the people of British Columbia: "Your present government has

mismanaged the finances. We are in a deficit position and there is a

real financial mess." But on the other hand: "Put us into government

and we will do the following things." I just have to say, Mr. Speaker,

that this government can't have it both ways. It was correct in stating

that there was a substantial financial deficit. We'll get into the

details and we'll debate that in greater detail in the budget debate

which is the appropriate place to discuss this kind of matter. But I

think in trying to evaluate the throne speech and to recall the very

fundamental appeal to the voter by this party in the election campaign,

it is hard to deny that on the one hand this party was asking for the

voters' support in order to correct the financial mess but at the same

time was making commitments, in many cases to very worthwhile and

much-needed programmes, was making commitments to implement these if

elected.

But now that it is elected, it is adhering to the first part of the

formula. It says: "Yes, we have a financial deficit." But the second

part, the commitment part, for example, a commitment to a top priority

in the construction of intermediate-care facilities....

I might say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I've got a page of Hansard

here from February 12, 1974, when the then leader of the official

opposition made the statement — and that's two years ago — criticizing

the government of that day for not bringing in a programme of funding

to intermediate care as recommended by an all-party legislative

committee in the spring session of the Legislature. That was two years

ago when the now-Premier was Leader of the Opposition and was making

that kind of criticism. Here we are two years later with the very same

kind of vital issue which in the election campaign he agreed was a

priority.

I'm certainly glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education

returned, because I was sort of waiting for him. I happen to have the

Blues which, for those new members of the House behind me, is the

technical term we use for the first issue of Hansard . This

quote from the Minister of Education.... He's referring to the ICBC

losses and I'm sorry I have to repeat this really because we covered

this ground a moment ago.

These losses — and I say this particularly to the member for Oak

Bay, who had so much to say about this heartless government — must be

paid out of current taxes. They will be general taxes. As the Minister

of Education, I don't welcome funds being used for today's taxes that

would otherwise go to education. I don't welcome funds being used out

of today's taxes that could otherwise go to hospitals. But, Mr.

Speaker, this is going to happen, this year, next year, the year after,

and until this debt is paid.

Is that right? Is that what we can expect from this government? Is

that what you told the people of British Columbia on the election

platform?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no. The story was a little different. The

story then was: "Yes, we have a terrible financial mess because of the

NDP government, but put us in office and we will give you the

following...."

Well I won't impose on the House by reciting the long list of

election commitments which the Liberal leader chose to mention earlier

on tonight.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I think, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one

important central message from the throne speech, accentuated in the

clearest possible way by the comments of the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), it is that this government is going to penalize the

people of British Columbia for the sins of the NDP by denying

education, hospitals and various programmes this year, next year, the

next year.

MR. LOEWEN: Ridiculous.

MR. WALLACE: I say to this House, Mr. Speaker, and I say to

the minister, and I say to the Premier who has made it very plain, that

because of the financial mess there will be restraint. As far as

restraint is concerned, I think that is a very reasonable proposition

up to a point, but that point does not consist of continuing to have

the deplorable health and hospital services we have in Vancouver and