1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

193 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Tripling of ambulance fees. Mr. Cocke — 193

Electoral reform commission. Mr. Gibson — 193

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Wallace — 194

Participation in U.S. Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit. Mr. Levi —

Larsen-Bristowe intermediate-care report. Mr. Nicolson — 195

Wage-and-price controls. Mr. Wallace — 195

Loss of Prince Rupert tax revenues. Mr. Lea — 195

Statement

Telegram to Carter administration. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 196

Mr. Barrett — 196

Mr. Gibson — 196

Mr. Wallace — 196

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 196

Mr. Lauk — 201

Mr. Veitch — 207

Mrs. Wallace — 210

Mr.Loewen — 215

Mr. Barnes — 218

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

would like to introduce to this House and welcome here today Mr. Gibson and

a large group from the Queen Elizabeth Senior Secondary School in Surrey.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the House this afternoon is

a long-time friend and neighbour, Mr. Joe Kerr from Sicamous, a very, very

long-time resident of that area. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I in return

would like to welcome Mr. Vander Zalm (laughter) and at the same time may I

welcome a group of students from Carson Graham a Secondary School in North Vancouver,

and ask the House to join me.

Oral Questions.

TRIPLING OF AMBULANCE FEES

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct

a question to the Minister of Health. I would ask the Minister of Health if

he would outline to the House the kinds of abuses he feels warrant tripling

the ambulance service fees. I would like him to explain, if he can, his punishment

fee and the kinds of abuses that he referred to last night.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'll try to be very brief,

Mr. Speaker. The reason for increasing that fee was not to cover abuses —

although abuses have happened. The former Minister of Health knows as

well as I do that there have been cases, for instance, of social

workers advising a client to take an ambulance instead of a taxi

because the ambulance was cheaper. That's on file, and the former

minister knows that, Mr. Speaker. But the reason for increasing the

fees was a logical one, because an ambulance which costs, probably, at

least $100 a trip was too cheap to offer for $5. We raised it to $15 in

order to help raise some revenue to offset the terrible costs that were

being faced by people outside the lower mainland and greater Victoria

region.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that that fully justifies the action taken to correct

the injustices that were being made in other parts of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Interestingly

enough, hospitals on an average are 50 miles apart in the province; and

that goes for your backbenchers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: What is the amount presently collected from the $5

rate, and how much do you anticipate the increased rate will

produce...? I would also add this as a sidelight — after what the

minister said in the hall last night

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't even talking to you at all.

MR. COCKE: After listening to some of those answers, Mr.

Speaker.... The minister said in the hall last night that if they can't

afford it, they don't have to pay. Now I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker,

how much that will reduce the amount that they expect to collect from

the increased — the tripled — amount.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question

from the member for New Westminster, I wasn't even talking to him in

the hall last night — I don't recall anyway. I would suggest, first of

all, that a trip to Vancouver from Prince Rupert is much more than 50

miles, Mr. Speaker, much more. The cost will be reduced for those

people by anywhere in the neighbourhood of $400 to $500 each occasion,

and again that's justification for an increase for the people who are

being subsidized in the lower mainland by the rest of this province,

Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the member for New Westminster also

knows that the proper procedure for those kinds of detailed questions

is to put them on the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you do that, I'd be pleased to answer.

ELECTORAL REFORM COMMISSION

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

In last year's throne speech, the government promised this House that

there would be appointed a commission on electoral reform in the

province of British Columbia. Since we've now had almost a full year

pass since then, could the Premier say when this commission will be

appointed?

[ Page 194 ]

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

respond to the question from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

The government will appoint a commission to deal with this very

important subject in time to have it recommended to the Legislature in

the way of legislation before we next go to the people in an election.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of

the complexity, both of the hearings required with this kind of

commission and the legislation required to be drafted and enacted, will

the Premier guarantee the appointment of such a commission before this

House rises in this session?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have given assurances that

that commission will have a full opportunity to complete hearings and

to make recommendations in time for this House to consider them before

the next election. I can't possibly start dealing in areas of limited

time frames, but I do make the guarantee that when we next all go to

the people, the recommendations from this commission will have been

discussed in this Legislature. Indeed, we will have many new changes

made in the name of electoral reform in this province.

MR. GIBSON: As a final supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, will

the Premier assure this House that if such reforms are not implemented

by the time of the next election, he will not present himself as a

candidate? (Laughter.)

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Transportation about the ongoing negotiations with the

federal government regarding coastal subsidies to the ferries. The

Prime Minister of Canada, in answering a question in the House of

Commons on December 22, stated quite clearly that in his view there are

no inequities regarding the federal policy as applied between east- and

west-coast ferry systems. If that is the official federal position,

could I ask the minister on what grounds he believes the present

negotiations are likely to lead to subsidies being granted to our ferry

system on the west coast?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, on a number of grounds. I would like to say specifically,

however, that officials of both the federal and provincial governments

will be meeting this Friday in Victoria to pursue this matter.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think that, if need

be, I can table a copy of the Prime Minister's answer, which says there

are no inequities. Regardless of that, since these negotiations are obviously

protracted and since the winter months are the worst months for the residents

of our northern coastal communities, will the minister reconsider his earlier

decision to delay some provincial assistance on an interim basis to improve

the services to the north coastal communities?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we have made one arrangement that is continuing, namely ensuring that the Queen of Prince Rupert

stops in the mid-coast areas to pick up passengers. We have, as I've

reported to this House, already paid for launch operations on the

middle and upper coast, and we are assuming that the federal government

will continue to finance this operation over the next few weeks,

pending a time when we reach a satisfactory conclusion to this problem.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Since the minister has emphasized the importance of the ongoing

negotiations between the federal and provincial officials, can I ask

the minister if his instructions to those officials are such that

signing of an agreement is conditional upon the federal government

providing a subsidy to all the ferry routes in B.C., or would there be

room for negotiation on subsidies only to those on which the federal

government originally provided a subsidy?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we're expecting that the federal

government will make a substantial contribution to our ferry operations

on the whole coast.

PARTICIPATION IN U.S.

LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the question is

to the Attorney-General. There is in the United States an organization

called Law Enforcement intelligence Unit. It's a private association

whose purpose is to freely exchange information of a confidential

nature between members, particularly in organized-crime activity. It

lists among its members police forces not only in the United States but

in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. Could the

Attorney-General tell the House whether any B.C. police forces or CLEU

have membership in this organization?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Hon. member, I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. LEVI: Thank you.

[ Page 195 ]

LARSEN-BRISTOWE

INTERMEDIATE-CARE REPORT

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Question to the Minister of

Human Resources: has the Larsen-Bristowe report on intermediate care

been presented yet to the minister, and would the minister give an

undertaking to table it in the House?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the report is still under review. It will be presented when the time arrives.

MR. NICOLSON: On a supplementary. As plans for intermediate

care seem to be suspended in a holding pattern, would the minister give

his undertaking to give this very top priority?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can truthfully say that for the first time in many years, intermediate care is receiving real top priority.

WAGE-AND-PRICE CONTROLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the throne

speech emphasizes the government's policy of adhering to wage-and-price

controls, and since the national Conservative leader has instructed

members of his party to commence talks with provincial governments

about alternatives to controls, can the Premier tell the House of any

plans underway for himself or members of his cabinet to discuss this

matter with the national Conservative representative?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we'd respond to anyone, but I

haven't received the offer from the leader of the Conservative Party of

Canada to hold discussions with the government of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the obvious supplementary would be that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you extending the invitation? (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not extending the invitation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The postal system isn't that bad.

MR. WALLACE: Recognizing the fact that opposition parties are

talking about discontinuing controls, or pressing for discontinuance,

when the Premier has made it plain that his government believes in

continuing controls, will the Premier give us an assurance that he will

take

part in this kind of discussion, because of the long-term and

serious ramifications of controls on our economy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, upon application the

government, the Premier and all cabinet ministers are prepared to

listen to viewpoints put by the various national parties. Given the

opportunity from the leader of the Conservative Party, which is the

official opposition, certainly we'll listen to what he has to say, as

the government of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask a quick final supplementary,

Mr. Speaker? Since there is a tremendous amount of mention in the media

that all parties, perhaps even including the federal government, are

moving towards the concept of removal of controls, and since this is in

conflict with this government's policy, has the Premier taken any

initiatives to meet with the Prime Minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to clear up some

misunderstanding the member for Oak Bay has, because it was at the

First Ministers' Conference that was concluded just before Christmas in

Ottawa.... The First Ministers' conference, including the Prime

Minister, reaffirmed that the programme would stay in place until its

conclusion. That is, the date....

MR. WALLACE: In March.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, in 1978, I believe it is. But

discussions have been going on, both at a ministerial and a staff

level, between the federal government and the government of British

Columbia, and those discussions are how to make the programme work

better, and discussions on post-controls are taking place. But at that

time, with the exception of Quebec, which has opted out, even the

Premiers who had previously expressed some concern about it all felt it

was worthwhile to continue to try and fight inflation in this country.

As such, I don't anticipate, and haven't heard, that any of them have

changed their minds since that meeting, and that was held in December

of 1976.

LOSS OF PRINCE

RUPERT TAX REVENUES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): To the Minister of Finance: as

the minister is aware,

section 24 of the Assessment Act has resulted in

an Assessment Appeal Board decision which, in effect, means that the

ratepayers of Prince Rupert will lose $784,000 in tax revenues for last

year from Canadian Cellulose because of a Pollution Control Board order

that the mill clean up its operation. That retroactive loss comes on

top of an approximately $750,000 loss in

[ Page 196 ]

city taxes during the mill's conversion shutdown.

Will the minister undertake to introduce an amendment clarifying the

Act so that homeowners and small businessmen are not victimized by this

loophole found by Canadian Cellulose? I am sure the minister is aware

of the

section I am talking about, and the decision.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the member, certainly the government would not want to

interfere with the decisions of the Assessment Appeal Board which made

this decision. Now the question he asked is a matter of policy of the

government and, naturally, would be under review, but it is not our

intention to interfere with the procedures invoked or decisions made by

the Assessment Appeal Board.

MR. LEA: A supplementary: does the Minister of Finance

understand that at this point, with that decision of the appeal board,

any order given by the Workers' Compensation Board, any order given by

the Pollution Control Board, means that the company doesn't have to

pick up the share for following that order to clean it up, but that now

means that the citizens of any community will have to pick up the extra

tax load to pick up what the company should be picking up? Is the

minister aware of that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the assessment for the company named has been reduced under the appeal decision.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

TELEGRAM TO CARTER ADMINISTRATION

HON. MR. BENNETT: Today, Mr. Speaker, I sent a wire on behalf

of the government and the people of British Columbia to the new

administration in Washington, D.C. The wire goes as follows:

ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PROVINCE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, I EXTEND MY WARMEST CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR BEING

SWORN IN AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE WISH YOU EVERY

SUCCESS IN THE IMPORTANT ROLE YOU HAVE UNDERTAKEN AND WE TRUST THAT WE MAY CONTINUE

TO ENJOY THE CLIMATE OF CORDIALITY, CO-OPERATION AND UNDERSTANDING WHICH HAS

MARKED OUR ASSOCIATION IN THE PAST.

This is to the new President of the United States, Mr. Jimmy Carter.

I would just add that those are the sentiments of this government,

and I am sure all members of this House and the people of British

Columbia, because so much depends on the good relations between our

country and the United States — and particularly for British Columbia —

that we do, indeed, wish this new administration and this new President

well.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

wish to congratulate the Premier for drafting and sending that

telegram, and assure him that the official opposition has the same

sentiments. Personally, I have enjoyed the six-plus years that I spent

in the United States and the reciprocal friendship that they displayed

to me in my own personal experience. I wish them well. We have many

common interests, some differences of opinion, but in the long run we

need each other.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier sent a very warm

and courteous telegram with which all members of this House would want

to be associated. Certainly I wish to do so.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to add my appreciation

of the initiative taken by the Premier and say that we must recognize

our undefined border as being one of the examples of the kind of

friendship that pertains between the two nations, and economically we

are so closely bound to them that it only makes sound common sense to

give them every opportunity to be good neighbours and friends.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Many members know

that it wasn't my practice for years in this House to support the

Speech from the Throne, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this

is one speech that I wish I could have been here to listen to because

when I read accounts in the eastern press that this was one of the most

productive throne speeches ever to be presented in these chambers, I

felt more than a little disappointed at being away.

I want to commend the Liberal leader for continuing in this House a

fine tradition of presenting a Liberal throne speech. I suppose it will

continue to remain a theoretical document (laughter) but I know that he

is going to support this throne speech because, although there were

many excellent points in his alternative, there is only so much that a

government can do in a single year.

I know the hon. members of the House will understand the necessity

of my being present at the Council of Ministers of Education in Quebec

City on

[ Page 197 ]

the day our House opened. It was the first national

conference to be held in that province since the election of the Parti

Quebecois. As the Premier stated, British Columbia strongly believes in

Canadian Confederation and the Canadian dream. That's why we in this

province must play our full

part in every single intergovernmental

conference that will be held in this critical time in our history.

I want to read one paragraph from the official communique of that

meeting because it was highly significant, and to my knowledge was not

recorded by the national press. It quoted the hon. Jacques-Yvan Morin,

the Deputy Premier of Quebec and Minister of Education, who for some

years was the House leader of the Parti Quebecois:

"Monsieur Jacques-Yvan Morin praised the council's dynamism, determination

and spirit of openness, and strongly affirmed Quebec's commitment to the

council's goal of interprovincial cooperation in education matters."

He was made vice-chairman of the council at that meeting.

"Mr. Morin also noted the determination with which council members have

resisted every advance, sometimes amounting to pressure, that the federal government

makes from time to time in order to invade provincial jurisdiction."

Mr.

Speaker, these statements should be one important answer to many of the questions

raised by the press regarding Quebec's place in Confederation.

The Premier has stated a position for British Columbia, and as far

as I'm aware it's supported by almost everybody but the Leader of the

Opposition. That position is that Confederation will be strengthened by

making it more flexible and responsive to regional needs. I might add,

Mr. Speaker, that this position is supported even by the NDP leader of

the province of Ontario, Mr. Stephen Lewis, who had this to say about

the PQ victory: "What we have now is a tremendous opportunity to

refashion our confederation, to seek the common ground with other

provinces and the Province of Quebec in restructuring our

confederation." How much more sensible that kind of statement is than

the inquisition proposed by our Leader of the Opposition.

Our country was created by provincial leaders who more than a

century ago sought and found the common ground upon which our nation

was built. If that common ground is disappearing today, then it's time

for the nation to turn once more to its original source of strength,

which was the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, if proper solutions could be found within federal

proposals and within that giant federal bureaucracy which the member

for Vancouver South referred to yesterday, then we wouldn't be having

talk of separation in Canada today. The victory of theParti Quebecois signals that a new approach is necessary.

I've been privileged, Mr. Speaker, to attend a number of

federal-provincial conferences in recent years. The main theme,

properly recorded by the national press, has been one of disunity among

the participants. The federal position, Mr. Speaker, at many of these

conferences has been one of having to take unilateral action because

the provinces could not agree. But surely along the way it must have

occurred to every Canadian that there is danger to pursuing, for any

length of time, policies upon which there is strong disagreement among

the provinces or regions of Canada, because such policies are not

national policies at all. They only appear to be national because

they're sponsored by a national government. If such policies are

vigorously pursued, they tend to breed disunity, not unity, in our

nation.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is what has been happening for all

these years since the Second World War and that the pigeons are now

coming home to roost. The Council of Ministers of Education does not

have this problem, as the statements of Mr. Morin so adequately point

out. That's because the policies and programmes of that council are

based not upon the wishes of the federal government, but upon the

common consensus of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want you or anyone else to interpret these

remarks as signifying that I think this should be a model upon which a

future Canada should be built. It does illustrate, Mr. Speaker, how

minimum national goals can be achieved with certainty. It says that

this is how bedrock can be found, bedrock upon which a secure

foundation may then be built. It was the method by which Canada,

including Quebec, was created and it is the method through which the

present strengths of Confederation can be identified.

Let the provinces, Mr. Speaker, agree in consultation with the

federal government upon those powers and programmes upon which complete

consensus can be found. These properly belong with the national

government. Then let us discover those policies upon which consensus

cannot be found, and place them securely in the hands of the provinces.

Place those powers in the provinces, along with the fiscal powers that

support them. Separation, Mr. Speaker, will then not be on the mind of

any single province, including Quebec. It will not be on the mind — of

the provinces, any more than it is on the mind of Quebec with respect

to matters in education. Under these terms, Mr. Speaker, our nation

will prosper in a way as never before, and the Canadian dream will

attain a reality that now eludes us.

Mr. Speaker, it was only 10 months ago, in the throne speech of the

previous session, that the government faced a non-confidence motion

from the opposition which said: "That this House regrets that

[ Page 198 ]

the speech fails to relieve the motoring public

from oppressive insurance rates, fails to offer fair treatment for

northern and interior drivers and fails to end discrimination against

drivers under 25." The government, only a few weeks in office, had

announced a policy which was bitterly attacked. The components of the

policy were these:

One: The motorists of British Columbia would be relieved of any debt

incurred by the previous administration; $181.5 million of a debt,

which ultimately turned out to be $187 million, was paid off.

Secondly, there would be no further subsidies of the automobile

beyond that $181.5 million. Henceforth, ICBC would have to be an

independent, self-supporting operation.

Three: No one group of automobile drivers would be required to

subsidize another group. Insurance premiums would be based upon

actuarially-sound policies based on the actual experience of the

corporation.

Four: As

an act of confidence, in single male drivers under the age

of 25, the government would guarantee a special fund which would permit

rebates of 25 per cent to all accident-free drivers in that single male

group.

In retrospect, Mr. Speaker, I am sure these policies will seem fair

and reasonable. But if any may forget the bitter reaction they

provoked, it certainly won't be me. The national press predicted Social

Credit would never be re-elected. The B.C. Federation of Labour

organized some of the most successful demonstrations in its history. A

certain character was repeatedly hung in effigy, ears and all.

(Laughter.) The Vancouver Sun , Mr. Speaker, almost blew its

mind. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), former director of

ICBC, said in this House: "What a difference a day makes: one of the

lowest rates in the country on December 11 — the difference the day

made was that now we go from the lowest to the very highest in the

country." I think many believed it, as page after page after page of

newspaper accounts trumpeted the so-called massive increases, implying

that the public was unfairly paying through the nose for its automobile

insurance.

MR. COCKE: Getting robbed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, almost a year has passed

and it's now time to assess the effect of those policies in the

dispassionate light of actual experience.

First of all, I want to say a word about the management of the

corporation. The decision was made to remove ICBC from the realm of

politics. The highly competent board of directors was recruited and

decision-making in the management turned over to them. Government sets

only the broad policy within which insurance should operate and the

board of directors, despite the attacks made by that member for New

Westminster, manages the operation, and I want to detail some of the

progress they have made,

First of all, the financial situation: during the first six months

the corporation recorded a net surplus of $25.8 million, the first in

its history. The $7 million loss in general insurance was almost turned

around — only $272,000 in losses. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, Mr.

Speaker, but I think that may be turned into a profit before the year

has ended.

The financial experience has continued to be good so the board of

directors has judged that it would be responsible to commit

approximately $53 million in the form of accident-free discounts on

insurance premiums for the coming year. The corporation will also bear

the full cost of the 25 per cent accident-free rebate to male-under-25

drivers that was initially sponsored by the government and which the

opposition asked to be carried by the corporation. Perhaps I'm overly

optimistic, but I am hopeful that even with these major commitments to

rebates this year the corporation will still be able to show a surplus

at the end of this year.

Now a word about the rates — rates which the member for New

Westminster said were the highest in Canada, rates which were said to

be so out of line by the media of this province. I am going to read

some of these rates into the record because, as the press itself has so

often said, the public has a right to know.

I want to say that the member for New Westminster and the Leader of

the Opposition, when they had charge of ICBC, were responsible for

policies that are causing a divisive split in the NDP of Ontario.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: It was one of your NDP members for Ontario,

Patrick Lawlor, who said that the NDP has learned a bitter lesson from

the NDP experience in British Columbia. He called the experience

"horrendous."

HON. MR. BENNETT: They're ashamed of you.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Lawlor traced the horrendous experience

of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in setting up its

Autoplan programme to an incautious use of premium rates that were not

actuarially sound.

Now the next day what happened was that the acting House Leader of

the NDP in Ontario didn't challenge the accuracy of the account but

said that the stories themselves were distorted because the member was

just joking. He was just joking, and when remarks were made in jest it

was wrong for the press

[ Page 199 ]

to take the point of view that he had made them as a serious criticism of the experience in British Columbia.

Well, the leader of the NDP, Mr. Lewis, was holidaying in Mexico; he

came back and had some further things to say. He said that the NDP

government would introduce provincially operated car insurance; he

wanted to correct the record on that. But he said: "What we've learned

from B.C. is that you have to set your premium rates realistically; you

have to calculate carefully the likely inflationary cost and" — get

this, Mr. Speaker — "you have to level with the public every step of

the way."

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean he's not going to bring Dennis Cocke as a consultant?

HON. MR. McGEER: He learned the lesson, Mr. Speaker, but I

don't think the Leader of the Opposition has yet learned the lesson,

because here he was in the throne speech the other day quoting about

the drop in retail sales as a result of the insurance programme of the

government — very careful not to quote his exact words, but to quote

someone else to leave the false impression.

Quoting Mr. Segal of Fields Stores, he said: "Last year vehicle

premiums were increased substantially, and this alone had the effect of

eliminating a large amount of consumer spending in British Columbia in

the first quarter of 1976." The Leader of the Opposition got that on

the record in Hansard . He quoted Mr. C.N. Woodward, who said in

June of last year: "Retail business is flat and the feeling is that we

won't come out of the slump in 1976. The ICBC increase in auto

insurance premiums and the recent increase in retail sales tax to 7 per

cent took about $500 million out of the consumer income in this

province."

Mr. Speaker, while all these stories were being written up in the

press and while business leaders were making statements of this kind,

later to be quoted by the socialist Leader of the Opposition, this is

what was taking place. During February, the overall Canadian average

growth in retail sales was 12.4 per cent; the province of Ontario had

an overall growth of 11.2 per cent. But during February, 1976, the

month when British Columbians were paying their insurance premiums, the

growth of retail sales was 14.5 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: In March, Mr. Speaker, the average growth in

retail sales in Canada was 15.6 per cent. The province of Ontario —

that's a province that doesn't have a Crown corporation operating an

insurance monopoly — had a growth of 16 per cent. British Columbia, the

province that had all this retail money taken out of the consumers'

pockets by this wicked government, had a growth in retail sales of 18

per cent. Those figures don't come from McGeer computers. Those figures

come from Statistics Canada — the revised and final figures of

Statistics Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean Dave was wrong again?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm just wanting to correct the record,

because we've found time after time after time, Mr. Speaker, that the

statements of the Leader of the Opposition are inaccurate and

irresponsible. They are reported in the press; they leave false

impressions with the public. These have to be corrected. It's best to

correct them in the light of experience and not counter-claims.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, why has ICBC had such a good

financial experience? It's mostly because of the reduction in claims.

In 1974-75 there were 532,000 claims; in 1975-76 this had climbed to

622,000. It was the calculation of the actuaries of the corporation

that with the revised insurance programme this would drop to about

490,000. That's not what has happened. Insurance claims are calculated

now for the year to be only 372,000.

Autoplan is a trust fund, and as a consequence of this, there will

be more money in the pockets of every motorist in British Columbia.

Despite what the press said ICBC auto insurance rates in 1977-78 — this

coming year — will be the lowest non-subsidized rates in Canada. Even

for this year we're among the lowest in Canada.

We did rate comparisons — 750 of them — across Canada between the

B.C. rate and that of other provinces which do not subsidize their

automobile insurance — you must exclude Manitoba and Saskatchewan

because they do. In 93 per cent of those cases the rates next year for

ICBC are lower than the rates this year for those other provinces in

Canada, and they have obtained permission from the national

Anti-Inflation Board to increase the rates for this coming year.

Because the public has a right to know, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read a

few of these comparisons into the record.

Here's one: Accident-free, over 30 years of age, driving a 1966

Chevrolet station-wagon: Vancouver, $226; Calgary, $280; Toronto, $294;

Montreal, $388; Halifax, $301. Our next year's rates; their this year's

rates.

A 1966 Chevrolet station-wagon in Mission, $173; Drumheller, $252,

Barrie, Ont., $286; Dorval, Que., $388; Stellarton, N.S., $267.

Prince Rupert, B.C., $214; Drumheller, Alta.,

[ Page 200 ]

$252; London, Ont., $266; St. Hyacinthe, Que., $380; Fredericton, N.B., $314.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, and there are no hidden subsidies, either.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): No hidden subsidies.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Subsidized, yes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, how about the under-25 drivers. These are some

accident-free rates. This is the group that we were supposed to have

treated so unfairly. A 1970 Datsun station-wagon for a 20-year-old

single male, accident-free for three years in these other provinces:

Vancouver, $601 — yes, that's high; Calgary, $713; Toronto, $745;

Montreal, $1,000; Halifax, $792. Same thing, Mr. Speaker, for Victoria,

$381; Edmonton, $713; Ottawa, Ont., $674; Hull, P.Q., $862; Moncton,

N.B., $735. In every case, it is less than half. Is that unfair? But

I'll tell you this: it's non-subsidized, and the corporation will still

have a surplus.

Well, how about the situation, Mr. Speaker, for people who have had

accidents? This is somebody who doesn't qualify for the safe-driving

discount and is having to pay the full penalty in British Columbia for

indiscreet driving, having had a blameworthy accident; a 1974 Chevrolet

Impala in Vancouver — the under-25 driver will pay $994; in Calgary,

$1,446; in Toronto, $1,425; and in Montreal, $2,022.

If you are over 25 and have had an accident, and drive a 1975

Volkswagen Beetle for pleasure, and you've had an accident — Victoria,

$166; Lethbridge, $S63; Ottawa, $475; Quebec, $682; $166 to $682.

Well, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of differences, and I could

read several hundred of them into the record, but I don't intend to do

that. I merely want to tell the public of British Columbia that they

are being fairly treated; that there are no hidden springs, no

subsidies. All the financial cards of the corporation are there on the

table for everyone to see. It's a trust fund. Therefore, any surplus

that accumulates will be returned to the people in the form of lower

premiums.

MR. COCKE: You're admitting you're overcharging with those premiums.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Member, you tell me how many

claims are going to be laid against the corporation next year and we

can tell you what, precisely, the rates should be. But I think, Mr.

Speaker, that the record speaks fairly well in the dropping claims from

622,000 to an estimated 374,000. That represents a real saving to the

motoring public, whether they pay the cost in premiums or whether they

pay the costs in general taxes. It represents a real saving to the

motoring public.

In addition to these discounted rates of 17.5 per cent, plus 10 per

cent for under-25 females, and plus 25 per cent for under-25 males who

have been free of blameworthy accidents, in this coming year there will

be an increase in coverage. The third-party limit of liability is

raised from $50,000 to $75,000. The weekly indemnity accident benefits

are increased by 50 per cent, from $50 a week to $75 a week. I regret

to say this, but burial and funeral expense benefits are also increased

by $250, to $750 from $500. I hope that's one that we would never have

to use.

The board of directors, Mr. Speaker, has been tough in its

contracts, but fair: the towers who do business with the corporation

are effectively doing them at the same rates as last year; the body

shops were given an increase, but only within the guidelines; and the

agents are accepting reduced commissions.

At the same time, the corporation has been successful at giving

better service. I made inquiries as to the number of complaints the

corporation was receiving. These have gone down from 1,000 a month by

telephone in April to 300 a month in November. Complex investigations

went down from 550 a month in April, to 100 in November.

There was a question on the order paper, which I'll answer in

detail, regarding investigations of fraud in the corporation. During

the first eight months of 1976, there were 300 investigations, 73

criminal charges and 40 convictions. Mr. Speaker, the significant thing

is that fire and theft claims dropped from 430 per month in March to

270 per month in November. I mention all of these factors because they

are part of the stronger management of the corporation, which is giving

better service at reduced costs. I think that we've only begun to

derive the benefits that can come from this better service and better

management.

I want to mention one or two programmes that will be coming forward

next year which we think will bring ultimately substantial savings, and

which should result in even greater benefits to the motoring public.

This is the last year for which there will be a full-year's insurance

premium paid by everybody at the same time. Next year, commencing on

March 1, what's called the "cyclical renewal system" will begin, where

people will eventually be transferred so that one-tenth of all drivers

will renew each month. This will spread the work load around and result

in a very major saving to the overhead of the corporation.

We are going to pay much more attention to safe driving, because

ultimately the way to save on automobile insurance and the way to save

on the

[ Page 201 ]

major cause of death — namely, severe automobile

accidents — is by programmes for safer driving. I wish to commend, Mr.

Speaker, the initiative of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in

his campaign against drinking driving. This will be intensified

because....

MR. LEA: He lets them go.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it: drinking drivers in British Columbia are not going to be let go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. McGEER: They are going to be nailed, Mr. Speaker,

because the major cause of death in this province on the highways is

accidents associated with drinking-driving. The majority of all deaths

on the road are caused by drivers who have alcohol that goes beyond the

.08 per cent acceptable limit.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that if these safety programmes are

successful, if the motoring public of British Columbia continues to

drive as carefully as they're driving now.... If the corporation is

successful in its efforts to reduce cost, then, Mr. Speaker, it's

possible that the board of directors of ICBC a year from now might be

able to recommend that people who have a two-year accident-free driving

record will have even lower rates than those who have a one-year free

period. But that's in the future, and again it depends upon performance.

MR. SPEAKER: I must draw your attention, hon. minister, to the fact that you're on your final three minutes of time.

HON. MR. McGEER: All right, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say one word about the head office of ICBC, because

that's a question repeatedly raised by the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke). At the present time we do not know what the ultimate size

and role of ICBC will be in the province. The private insurers have

been invited back to British Columbia to sell optional insurance if

they wish. The member may say that this was an attempt by the Social

Credit government to pay off the private insurers, but it's been a very

small payoff, because none of them, so far, has come back. The

invitation is there if they wish to compete with ICBC. We don't know

the extent to which they will.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, because we don't know what the ultimate size

of the corporation will be, it's going to be difficult for us for some

time to predict what kind of a head office will be required. It's for

that reason that ICBC has returned the land that it had reserved in New

Westminster to the B.C. Development Corporation so that it can be put

to better use in the time between the present and when ICBC might be

able to make an ultimate decision that better use can be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, ICBC is but one facet of the government operation but

it illustrates what can happen when you have fair policies that are

pursued despite attacks from the opposition, and which give the

opportunity for the public to benefit from them. The end result of

those policies for ICBC are here to see now. But the same philosophy is

being applied to the general economy of British Columbia. It's

beginning to appear in the initiatives that were described in the

throne speech. Before very long the damage that was incurred by that

administration will be overcome, and British Columbia will soar to new

heights of success and prosperity,

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The hon. Minister of

Education delivered a very interesting speech, Mr. Speaker. He suffers

today, as he has always suffered, from a bad case of selective recall;

to put it another way, selective research. He carefully selects his

facts to support his arguments, and in that way, I am sure,

inadvertently hopes that the public might not know the real situation.

He said that accidents were down. The RCMP say that accidents are

up, but people are not taking in their automobile accidents in making

claims to ICBC. They know that they'll be penalized by punitive rates

for enforcing their contract of insurance whether or not, it seems,

they are blameworthy in any of these accidents.

When he mentioned comparative rates across the country, Mr. Speaker,

he talked about every jurisdiction that did not have government

automobile insurance. There are no subsidies in the provinces of

Saskatchewan and Manitoba where they do have government insurance. The

rates in those provinces are, in some areas, 400, 500 and 600 per cent

below the rates in this province. But he didn't mention that — that's

selective use of the facts.

What really disturbed me about the hon. minister's speech, Mr.

Speaker, was his comments with respect to Confederation. No one can say

that I, as a minister of the Crown, was recalcitrant or shy in dealing

with the federal government in getting a fair deal for the province of

British Columbia. I'm delighted when I see, in some instances, Crown

ministers do exactly that. The NDP administration fought long and

hard....

The question for all of us in this province — not just the Minister

of Education, but for all of us — is: which side are we on? It's not a

question of whether we're on the side of Trudeau or the side of

separatism; it's are we on the side of Canada or separatism?

If the government wishes to take a hard negotiating stand with the federal government, that is

[ Page 202 ]

one thing. But this glib soft-sell, I fear, will

slide us into a disintegration of our beloved country. A wolf in wolf's

clothing is what I fear the position being sculptured by the government

will be.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're a sheep in sheep's clothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that was a good one.

MR. LEA: Did you make that up, Bob?

MR. LAUK: Here is the Minister of Health yesterday who

claimed that people are phoning up the ambulance service and asking for

free rides to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. Here is a man who says that

people at an accident scene with two broken legs will say: "Gee, maybe

I'll take a taxi if its $15." (Laughter.) Here's a man who's made

outrageous charges of abuse in the ambulance service, and hasn't

catalogued or documented those charges with one single case — not one.

Why doesn't he talk to them, as we have? There is no abuse, Mr.

Speaker. This is just a way to punish those who are old and sick.

MR. BARRETT: Empress Hotel welfare cases.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When were you talking to them, Gary? Yesterday?

MR. LAUK: Recently. I'll look it up in my diary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us who you talked to.

MR. LEA: Bob, I think you'd be a lot happier if you didn't find out. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I want to deal with the M.E.L. Paving case. On

Christmas Eve we had a further example of the likeness of the present

administration to the Nixon administration that was discredited in the

United States.

After approximately 42 days of court hearings, the government of this province

ordered the B.C. Railway to finally admit that they were guilty of fraud involving

the old Social Credit directors of the railway and settle out of court with

M.E.L. Paving. This was carefully timed for December 24 in the hope that it

would get very little news coverage. I want to take some time today to make

sure that at least Hansard records the sordid history of this particular case.

On June 6,1975, the then Premier, Dave Barrett, told the Legislature — Hansard .

June 6, 1975 at pages 3166 to 3175 — that M.E.L. was suing the railway

and Joe Broadbent, former vice-president of the railway, for fraud and

conspiracy relating to a construction contract on the Dease Lake

extension.

M.E.L., it should be pointed out, subsequently dropped the charges against Mr. Broadbent.

On December 11, 1974, Premier Barrett met with Joe Broadbent after

he requested financial assistance for legal costs. At that meeting, Mr.

Broadbent told the Premier that all of the actions he took related to

the Dease Lake extension were taken on the advice, consent, and with

the instructions of the board of directors of the British Columbia

Railway. That board was made up of W.A.C. Bennett, Ray Williston and

Einar Gunderson.

On December 20, 1974, Mr. Broadbent's solicitors wrote to the

Premier confirming, on behalf of Mr. Broadbent, that the statements he

made to the Premier, in his office, were correct. On that basis,

Premier Barrett gave authority for the Crown to indemnify Mr. Broadbent

because he was acting on behalf of the Crown by virtue of the

instructions he received from the board of directors.

Premier Barrett said in the House that the former Social Credit

government had told the public in 1972, just prior to the 1972 general

election, that the Dease Lake extension would cost only $69 million.

Barrett filed details with the House on the various contracts that had

been let by the Social Credit government, including a report showing

that the Dease Lake extension would in fact cost at least $227 million

— not $69 million. We now know that it is $279 million. He then tabled

several financial and engineering reports relating to massive overruns

on B.C. Rail contracts.

The comptroller-general's report said that as of April 1973 overruns

of $17 million had occurred because proper pre-engineering had not been

done by B.C. Rail. An independent engineering report by Swan-Wooster

condemned the lack of proper engineering by B.C. Rail on the Dease Lake

line. A report by the railway's chief engineer confirmed the lack of

engineering:

"Throughout the entire route, only centre line and the

limits of right of way were surveyed. Centre-line profile only was

recorded throughout the route. This meagre information was used to

estimate quantities for all contracts let. Since this information was

insufficient to obtain reasonable estimates of quantities of earth to

be moved in the construction of railway grade, there resulted excessive

overrun of work actually performed over the quantity specified in the

contract."

By the way, recently I have had information that part of the line

was washed out because it was not properly pre-engineered in the first

place.

The present government made a decision to continue with the trial

involving M.E.L. Paving. On October 4, 1976, the trial started before

Mr. Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and Mr.

Allan McEachern was lawyer for M.E.L.

[ Page

203 ]

Paving. He opened his case. In his opening statement to the court he made the following points:

1) Prior to August, 1971, the railway chief engineer prepared the

first estimate of $80 million on the Dease Lake line. This was the same

engineer who, by the way, had given Premier Barrett the written report

I have quoted from earlier, and stated that proper engineering had not

been done before the estimates.

2) Mr. Broadbent, the railway's then vice-president, told the chief

engineer that the $80 million estimate was too high because he had

already promised Premier Bennett that the job could be done for $68

million.

3) The chief engineer then went away and altered his figures, on

August 10, 1971, to $68 million — a triumph of the eraser over

engineering.

4) Mr. McEachern said he would produce evidence a to confirm a long tale of

incredible overruns on the Dease Lake line based on lack of elementary engineering

by B.C. Rail, which resulted in preposterous errors in quantities, and conduct

of B.C. Rail amounting to a conscious indifference to the real truth.

5) Massive overruns on the Fort Nelson line, based on the same B.C. Rail techniques,

were already known to B.C. Rail before they let the M.E.L. contract.

6) Mr. McEachern then read the chief engineer's report which I quoted a

few minutes ago.

7) Mr. McEachern then referred to an independent report by Swan-Wooster which

said that the railway's a limited pre-construction engineering contributed

to the low estimates which were used to forecast the cost of the line.

8) On August 31, 1974, M.E.L. had actually performed $11.3 million worth of

work on the $5.4 a million contract, and the railway estimated it would take

another $8.5 million to complete the M.E.L. contract. Further estimates added

another $15.5 million to the contract.

9) The opening statement then lists all of the contracts let on the

Dease Lake line to the various companies involved and gives details of

the large overruns in each case. To give you some examples, there was

$4.5 million overrun to Kotra in construction. Keane industries, two

contracts: one had a $4 million overrun, the other a $15 million

overrun. So on, and on it goes.

10) Mr. McEachern concluded his remarks by quoting from the

Swan-Wooster report which said I that the overruns were not due to any

poor construction practices by the construction companies which

followed normal, well-proven and accepted procedures.

How would this court's statement, by the way, have been reported in the

press of the day if the NDP government were involved? You could imagine the

Vancouver Province and Sun front-page headlines: "NDP Railway Accused of

Fraud. Engineer's Estimate Changed After Promise to Premier Barrett. NDP

Accused of More Massive Overruns." Then would have followed a detailed

story of McEachern's opening statements which would cover 44 pages and was,

by the way, easily understandable to any reporter.

What actually happened? The Vancouver Province had no coverage at all. The

Sun covered it in six inches of space on page 2. The Times and Colonist carried

parts of the Sun story. No mention was made of the alleged promise to the directors

to keep the estimate at $68 million. No quotes from the chief engineer's

reports on the Swan-Wooster report. No mention of the millions involved in the

whole line and, of course, no anti-government headlines — anti-Social Credit

government headlines.

The case then continued on a daily basis with Mr. McEachern calling

witnesses to spell out the details of his case, and no coverage at all

in the press. A witness named D.V. Krefting, of Swan-Wooster and

Company, an engineer, testified to a marked lack of pre-engineering by

B.C. Rail, and overruns, the result of unrealistically low preliminary

cost estimates.

Krefting then gave some startling testimony about his meeting with

the railway's chief engineer, Mr. Wakely, in 1973, using notes that he

took at the meeting. He testified that the chief engineer told him that

the railway directors originally gave the go-ahead to build the Dease

Lake line with no cost estimates and that he, the engineer, was

informed that no financial appropriation of any kind had been made to

pay for the line. He then prepared the $80 million estimate and

presented it to Mr. Broadbent who told him it was too high because he,

Broadbent, had made a commitment to Mr. Bennett for $68 million.

Krefting then went on to testify how he tried to find out where the

original total estimate was, and out of that we found out there really

wasn't one. He said he wasn't able to obtain any written material on

the $80 million and $68 million estimates. The railway told him they

were not available. On cross-examination, Krefting agreed with council

for the railway that the $80 million estimate, if you can all it that,

was pretty wild or seat-of-the-pants. Again you can imagine what the

headline, if the NDP were he government, would be: "NDP Okays $250

Million Line With No Estimates." "Estimates altered between Barrett and

Broadbent," and so on. In fact, not one line of that testimony was

reported at the time it was given.

Another witness was Derril Warren, the former provincial

Conservative Party leader. He had acted as legal adviser to M.E.L. at

one time but gave his evidence as an expert on construction matters,

which make up in excess of 60 per cent of his practice. He testified

that in his extensive experience: "I have

[ Page 204 ]

never come across overruns of the magnitude

involved in this case. I found them incredible." He referred to two

specific quantity overruns to illustrate his point. So the case

continued on a daily basis. Not one word appeared in the press until

October 22, when the Nelson Daily News carried a front-page story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's hear it for the Nelson paper.

MR. LAUK: The story quoted the various excuses given by the press for not covering the trial. The Sun , they said: "We watch it from time to time." The Victoria Times and The Columbian

were surprised they had not seen wire stories from Canadian Press,

which they normally pick up, and they pointed out that it was the

responsibility of the Sun and The Province to cover the story.

The Nelson story also covered the testimony relating to W.A.C.

Bennett and Broadbent and the altering of the original estimate figures.

MR. BARRETT: Pat, you brought this whole thing up in the House....

MR. LAUK: The Vancouver Province 's excuse was the

prizewinner, Mr. Speaker. At first they said that they didn't have

enough staff, but later changed this to: "We are keeping a daily tab on

the case." A daily tab, I thought, was a bill kept in a bar. "The story

is of no interest to the average reader, " they said, "because of the

technical nature of the case." Only one paper, the Victoria Times , covered the Nelson news story.

To illustrate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the strange media silence

on evidence involving W.A.C. Bennett and the old Socreds was not

accidental, it is worth reading into the record what Mr. Storey said in

an interview with Monday magazine here in the city of Victoria, January 17, 1977:

"Storey tells Monday

further investigation by him into the charges " — about the press

silence — " made by Barrett were blocked personally, on the orders of

David Radler, one of the owners of the Sterling newspaper chain, which

includes the Nelson Daily News . "

Mr. Radler is now sitting on the board of the British Columbia Development

Corporation, appointed by the present Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mr. Phillips). The story goes on to say:

"Storey says Radler contacted him and told him he had

'become an embarrassment to the chain' by being so persistent in

seeking answers from the government to Barrett's charges."

Freedom of the press?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): How about the Washington Post ?

MR. LAUK: Both Mr. Storey and his publisher are to be congratulated on refusing to be threatened into silence.

Finally, on November 3, one month after the trial started, the Vancouver Sun carried a page 11 story summarizing the evidence. The final line of the Vancouver Sun story said: "The hearing continues today." On November 6, Allan Fotheringham, a columnist for the Sun ,

commenting on the M.E.L. case, conceded that press coverage was meagre,

and said: "Although some evidence was complicated it is fascinating

because it deals with the way our taxes are spent." He noted it was to

be one of the most expensive trials ever for the poor taxpayer. Well,

the case went on.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Vancouver Province in

particular, with their publisher, Paddy Sherman — another Social Credit

appointee to one of their boards — obviously made a political decision

not to embarrass the Social Credit government and completely ignored

the trial until the day the out-of-court settlement was announced.

MR. LEA: Christmas Eve.

MR. LAUK: This is a shameful decision and a shameful direction for a newspaper to take.

The annual auditor's report on the railway was tabled in this House

on January 2, 1976, by the current Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips). Page 5 of that auditor's report had this to say

about the M.E.L. case:

"In the opinion of counsel, the railway should be successful

in defending this action. No provision has been made in the accounts for any

liability that may arise out of this action."

Was that a true statement? Was that a true statement by the auditors

of the railway? If it wasn't a true statement, why did it take so long

for this government to settle the case? If it was a true statement, Mr.

Speaker, why did they settle the case at all?

It would be interesting to see who signed the auditor's statement,

Mr. Speaker, for the board. So as of last January legal advice was to

go ahead, and yet the Vancouver Province , who suppressed the

trial evidence, has the gall to suggest that the NDP administration

should have settled out of court, admitting that the former Social

Credit board, which consisted of the former Premier of this province,

Premier W.A.C. Bennett, committed fraud.

AN HON, MEMBER: You're part of the coverup.

MR. LAUK: Although Mr. Bennett, the former premier, was a

political enemy, on a partisan basis, to this party, do you think it

would have been ethical for us, flying in the face of legal counsel's

advice, to

[ Page

205 ]

make a tacit admission of fraud on his part?

MR. BARRETT: Let the courts decide.

MR. LAUK: He had a right to defend himself in court.

MR. KING: The coverup gang.

MR. LAUK: In addition, the present chairman of the railway

wrote to the minister on January 17 of this year and the Premier tabled

a copy of that self-serving letter in the House this week. Page 5 reads

as follows:

"The executive was kept informed by its legal counsel

of the progress of the trial, but it was difficult to make a proper

assessment of the railway's case until its evidence had been presented.

At the conclusion of the evidence and before filing of written

argument, the board requested counsel for the railway to review the

case and to give his opinion as to the probable outcome, based on all

of the evidence which was now available."

MR. BARRETT: Which counsel?

MR. LAUK: They never consulted the counsel in that respect; they consulted Mr. Gray. They never consulted the trial counsel.

MR. BARRETT: Not the trial counsel; the railway counsel.

MR. LAUK: Again, further confirmation of the fact that no

government should interfere politically with the normal course of

justice before, as the chairman's letter says, all of the evidence is

available. We refused to cover up the allegations of fraud.

MR. BARRETT: Two hundred million dollars.

MR. LAUK: But the present Premier, once all the trial

evidence was in and he knew there was no escape from a judicial verdict

of fraud involving the former board of directors of the railway, did

not hesitate to make a political decision to bypass the judicial

process and to try to save his political bedfellows. What he has

actually done is to plead guilty on behalf of his political friends and

plead guilty to fraud on their behalf. They have been cut off, Mr.

Speaker, from a hearing. The charge of fraud is still there; it has

never been dealt with and the former railway board, made up of the

former Premier Bennett, Mr. Williston and Mr. Gunderson, are all tarred

with the same brush arising from the charges of this civil fraud case

and they've never had an opportunity to defend themselves, not once.

The sworn testimony given at the trial relating to the actions of

the directors and the vice-president was not challenged. So the public

is entitled to conclude — and even if they're not entitled, some will

conclude — that the evidence must have been true. If it was not true,

why was Mr. Broadbent not called as a witness? Why was Mr. W.A.C.

Bennett not called to rebut the evidence? Why was Mr. Williston not

called? Why was Mr. Gunderson not called? Maybe the Premier of the day

knows why. He knew the railway board was guilty. He did nothing about

it, and he did not want a judicial record of the fact. That is the

inescapable conclusion.

There you have it: a major fraud case against a Crown corporation

whose directors included a former Premier, a former cabinet minister

who is now chairman of one of the most important Crown corporations of

this province; startling, easily understandable evidence alleging a

rail line being built with no estimates, no proper pre- engineering,

ending up with incredible overruns in the area of $200 million of the

taxpayers' money. All this with a virtual press blackout. We finish up

with an admission of guilt, not by the accused parties, but by their

successors. The chief architect of this has been given a patronage

appointment in a Crown forest corporation. He was a member of the

board; and, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, he was a member of the board

when we proved in this chamber two or three years ago that that board

acquiesced and, indeed, directed the auditors of B.C. Rail to cook the

books.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That case was proven; this case is still to be

proven or not proven. There is a concept in law that the hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) may understand; it's called "similar facts." The

public forum is entitled to look at similar facts. If they acquiesced

in the cooking of the books, hiding the real profit-and-loss situation

of the BCR for so many years, is it not likely that they would be

directly involved in deliberately deceiving the public as to the real

cost of the Dease Lake extension, especially when it came just prior to

a general election in this province? It is also noteworthy that we have

the revelations of the Pearse report concerning Mr. Williston,

indicating favourable but illegal treatment for MacMillan Bloedel — a

man with that character heading one of the most important Crown

corporations in this province.

On December 29, as if that wasn't enough, Mr. Speaker, an

order-in-council was released. It had been passed on December 21, three

days before the out-of-court settlement had been reached in the M.E.L.

case. The order, No. 3729, dated December 21, 1976, signed by the

presiding officer, the

[ Page 206 ]

presiding member of council, granted a retiring

allowance — as it's euphemistically put — of $8,164.80 to none other

than Joseph Broadbent, the man who should have been a key witness in

the trial to either admit or deny the testimony that was given relating

to his instructions to the chief engineer to alter the figures in the

estimates. He never took the stand. Three days before the settlement

this council order comes forward giving him over $8,000. Why was he not

called to give evidence? He has already admitted acting on the

instructions of the board. But even more, what would have come out

during cross examination?

We telephoned the superannuation commissioner's office to see if he

was given that allowance by virtue of any statute regulation. The

answer was no. The superannuation commissioner's office informed us

that

section 49 of the Act only applies to public service appointees,

and it provides for lump sum gratuities for them in addition to the

superannuation, and it did not apply to Mr. Broadbent. Therefore the

cabinet had to pass a special order-in-council on an ex gratia basis —

that means gift — to give Mr. Broadbent this money to which he was not

entitled by law. Again I ask why, and why 11 months after his

retirement, and five days before the out-of-court settlement with the

M.E.L. case?

On November 21, 1974, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Hon. Mr. Gardom), then a Liberal MLA and now the Social Credit

Attorney-General, raised the M.E.L. case in the Legislature. He said

that M.E.L. is suing for fraud and conspiracy, and that the original

estimate for the M.E.L.

section of the job was $5.2 million and that

now it's $20 million. "In view of this, and the scathing remarks of the

B.C. comptroller-general on B.C. Rail financial practices, the

government should order a judicial inquiry into B.C. Railway affairs."

That was a good speech, Mr. Attorney-General, and it was a very

responsible speech on your part.

This is the second scandal under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . In one, the Grizzlygate, the

Premier has stepped in and is boasting about the fact that he is making

sure that a judicial inquiry will be the final outcome, with no

political interference. In this case, the M.E.L. case, he has stepped

in and done just the opposite: he has ordered a charge of fraud

withdrawn from the courts to try and protect those involved.

MR. BARRETT: How do you feel, Mr. Attorney-General?

MR. LAUK: Why this double standard? Is it because of who was

involved? Why should they be protected and those involved in the

Grizzlygate scandal have to face due process of law? The Socred leopard

has not changed its spots. It has not even changed families; the name

is the same and the game is the same. The people of B.C. will no longer

be passive or tolerant, as they are anywhere in North America, to

dishonesty in government or on the part of any of its elected

officials. It is no longer passive and tolerant of the flim-flam,

wool-over-the-eyes technique.

Why was the former board not called to give evidence? Why was

Broadbent given a gift once the court case was over? There is only one

way to settle this sordid mess....

MR. BARRETT: Before the case was settled.

MR. LAUK: Yes, before the case was settled.

In the speech of the present Attorney-General, the one he made on

November 21, 1974, he wanted a judicial inquiry. Nothing less will do!"

Nothing less will do now, Mr. Attorney-General. Nothing less will do

now. We must have a judicial inquiry. We must have a judicial inquiry,

and Mr. Bennett — the former Premier — Williston, Gunderson and

Broadbent must be given an opportunity to give evidence under oath and

clear their names in this province. They must be given that

opportunity! They are under a cloud of suspicion of fraud and

conspiracy. It has never been settled in a Judicial tribunal; it has

not been settled here. Where will it be settled? Are you going to allow

these men to go into history with that cloud of suspicion upon them,

that mark against their records, with not even an opportunity to answer

for themselves in a proper forum?

MR. BARRETT: And remembering what you said in this House yourself.

MR. LAUK: If the government continues to hush this up, there

is only one answer: they are admitting fraud on behalf of people for

whom they have no right to admit fraud. They are pleading guilty on

behalf of the former board of the British Columbia Railway.

I repeat the present Attorney-General's demand: I say that there

must be a judicial inquiry to clear the names of those who have been

charged with fraud and conspiracy because of silence and hushup and

coverup that remain in this province, Mr. Speaker.

The people of the province can assume that silence means guilt. If

we do not get that answer, if we are not cleared, those involved will

be taken in history as being guilty of fraud and conspiracy, and will

have had no opportunity in the proper forum to clear their names.

You expected us to settle this under the table in the back room?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

[ Page 207 ]

MR. LAUK: You demanded that of us? You accuse us of upgrading the railway? We've been attacked for upgrading the railway.

MR. BARRETT: And protecting the environment.

MR. LAUK: If one life were lost, as several have been on

other lines of the BCR because of poor construction, who's going to put

a price tag on that? Who is going to put a price tag on that kind of

deception, that kind of irresponsibility? The public has a right to

know. Yes, indeed, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), they

paid. They paid then; they're paying now for this case. Who has a right

to know any better than the public, who have paid so much, Mr. Member,

for this settlement? I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only way to

clear their names is to do the same thing that the present Premier did

in the Grizzlygate affair: let the sun shine in.

One concluding word, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this case. All of

the evidence was not presented in the trial before Mr. Justice Hinkson.

I have stated that clearly, and I want to state it again. There is

more; there must be more. We want to know what the real contract was

between M.E.L. Paving and the British Columbia Railway. We want to know

if there was an understanding. If there was, who gave reason for that

understanding? Who put forward a position on the part of the B.C.

Railway and the government? Or, we want those charges denied and the

names cleared.

MR. SPEAKER: You're in your final three minutes, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the opposition

going on a witch-hunt in this case; it is not a question of digging up

old skeletons; it is not a question of besmirching the names of people

who have served this province, and who apparently have served it well.

It is a question of political honesty in office.

What price do we pay for the present government in office? What

price did the public pay? What is the standard of conduct? What are the

ethics? How are we to be seen, not only to the people that we serve,

but as a province to the rest of this country, and indeed to the rest

of this world? When are we going to stop being constantly embarrassed

by these coverups and acts of deception that bring ridicule and shame

to the province as a whole?

The government of the day is elected by people. They do us no

service; they bring shame upon us. Honesty in one case and not another

is not honesty at all; being open in one case — picking and choosing

your cases about what you're going to be honest about — is not honesty

at all. That's hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. The demands made by the official

opposition are clear and precise.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): It's always with some

trepidation that I follow the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. I

understand that he won a case in court recently. That has given him

some courage; I congratulate him on that.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): He's going on TV now.

MR. VEITCH: I think, of course, that he probably did not present his case too well here this afternoon.

Yesterday afternoon, when I had the honour of taking your place in

the chair, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy)

mentioned that I was a very easy-going chap. I hope that at the close

of my address today, he still holds that opinion of me.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate Your Honour on your

performance at this early stage in this present session. I know from my

small experience that your job is not an easy one. It is hoped that all

of the hon. members will aid and abet in the effective carrying-out of

the business of this place.

It's also with great satisfaction that I commend the members of this

House in their wisdom in re-electing the hon. member for Chilliwack

(Mr. Schroeder) as Deputy Speaker of the Legislature for the ensuing

session.

Mr. Speaker, allow me also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Kahl) and

seconder (Mr. Lloyd) of the Speech from the Throne. There is a great

deal of substance contained in both addresses, which can provide

substantial food for thought and action by all hon. members.

To all hon. members, regardless of on which side of the House they

may sit, let me say that it's great to be back with you again.

Regardless of political philosophy, this place promotes a strange kind

of kinship which is hard to attain in any other arena of life.

I commend the Lieutenant-Governor on the items contained in the

Speech from the Throne. I hope sincerely that there are not too many

members in the House who will attempt to discredit the government at

any cost, while completely abrogating the reason for which they were

elected — that of serving their constituencies, and hence all the

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying philosophy of the government that was

elected on December 11, 1975, is that British Columbia can only remain

strong and competitive if it lives within its means. However, my

present concern is that some members of this House do not share that

concern, and indeed, they feel that by some magic wand they can extract

more from the system than the citizens of British Columbia are able

[ Page 208 ]

or willing to put into it. If we, as legislators —

and in fact, all British Columbians in all sectors of our economy —

have failed to accept this responsibility to live within our means, our

province could conceivably price itself out of the international

marketplace and we could become a have-not province. The message that

should go forth from this place — indeed, from all British Columbians —

to the rest of the world is that we realize that British Columbia may

have suffered a competitive disadvantage, and that the people are

willing to lock arms and do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the challenge that the citizens of

British Columbia are throwing out to government and to opposition alike

in this parliament. They are looking for leadership, leadership which

produces confidence, confidence not only between our people in this

wonderful province and its government, but between people, governments

and our trading partners wherever they may be dispersed over the globe.

Your Honour, I commend the present government, for in just one short

year they have brought the finances of this province back into line,

and put us back on the road that will regain the confidence of those

people, wherever they may be throughout this country and throughout

this world, who will invest, provide jobs, pay taxes and eventually

provide benefits for all of the citizens of British Columbia.

Conversely, I abhor the double-faced attitude possessed by some

individuals who will say one thing in Halifax and another in Victoria.

Your Honour, I quote from the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) in his reply to the Speech from the Throne a couple of days

ago. The quotation is this: "Oh, laugh! Oh, laugh about it! Perhaps the

memory will fade. Hypocrisy pays. A sense of responsibility? A sense of

duty? A sense of commitment to the traditions of this House? Not on

your life! Say anything, do anything, promise anything, promise anyone

just to get a vote."

Your Honour, in an

article entitled "Barrett's Political Primer" in the Vancouver Province ,

December 13, 1976, on page 7, the former Premier was quoted as saying

to a group of social workers in Nova Scotia that the key to social

change is "action, not dialectic — going for bloody power." If they get

involved in politics, social workers would find that "like sex, if it's

done right it's not dirty." He continued: "The system is wide open. You

can do anything you want with it. It is there to use."

That former Premier of ours, that paragon of virtue, that advocate

of building up the economic base of British Columbia, that former

Premier, who, in righteous indignation, brought forth a phony amendment

aimed at the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips),

further stated, in that same speech in Halifax, always attempting to

spread the good news about British Columbia:

"The province has not received a cent of free

enterprise investment, because 40 per cent of the electorate voted NDP

and only a coalition of opposition parties brought down the government.

"Crown corporations based on natural resources are

keeping the province going. The Social Credit government will not spend

any money to develop resources, and things are getting worse in the

province — and I'm loving every minute of it!"

That man who once was, and aspires to be once again, the Premier of

this province, made that speech in Halifax, and yet he stands here on

the floor of the Legislature in Victoria and waves his arms in

righteous indignation demanding economic improvement.

Your Honour, it seems that the Leader of the Opposition is one who

conveniently presents different faces at different places. Mr. Speaker,

as evidenced by these two conflicting statements, it is clearly evident

where the former Premier stands. It's obvious, to quote Diefenbaker,

that the hon. member "has both feet firmly planted in the air." On

January 18, 1977, he was described by Frances Russell, in her Vancouver

Sun column, as one of over-ripe vintage. I would rather describe

him as akin to the weather off the Bay of Fundy — all wind and no

change.

The former Premier is very fond of quoting from the classics. I believe in his opening speech he has already quoted from Julius Caesar , Macbeth and Hamlet . Mr. Speaker, perhaps he remembers those lines from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet that go something like this:

"But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks? It speaks and yet says nothing."

The speech by the Leader of the Opposition proved one thing:

vaudeville is not dead. It is alive and well in Vancouver East. The

jokes are old and corny, and his second banana timing is slightly off,

but who cares, Mr. Speaker? Get a laugh, make them plead for more — not

to matter about British Columbia. Remember what he said in Halifax:

"the system is here to use" — remember?

The extensive schooling of that member, the broad academic

background, was evident in that speech. He has the advantage, of

course, of an expensive education — a very expensive education. I stand

to be corrected. I believe Seattle university, St. Louis university,

Panco Poultry, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, over $100

million overrun in Human Resources, 48 companies failing in which the

NDP had invested our province's resources...a very expensive education

for the people of B.C. indeed.

The member for Vancouver East is also well versed in Shakespeare, and very well versed in Gilbert and

[ Page 209 ]

Sullivan. I can't possibly think of anyone who can

misquote classics better than the Leader of the Opposition. The hon.

member states that Hamlet is different from himself. Is he? Is he

really different? Hamlet goes around talking to himself. He wants to

regain the throne from his uncle, an uncle who brought stability and

security to a country that for a few years had been in a complete

chaotic condition. Mr. Speaker, the parallel to the Leader of the

Opposition is remarkable. No one would say that Hamlet was mad — he may

have been feigning madness — but he was certainly power-hungry;

power-hungry at any cost. Remember the speech? "The system is there to

use. The system is wide open. You can do anything you want with it if

you have the power." That appears to be the philosophy of the hon.

Leader of the Opposition.

The second member for Vancouver East, in quoting Hamlet, Act III,

where Hamlet was speaking to Ophelia, said: "Get thee to a nunnery."

But he didn't continue. Hamlet continued:

"Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?

I am myself indifferent honest.

But yet I could accuse me of such things that were better my mother had not

born me.

I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious,

With more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in, imagination

to give them shape, or time to act them in."

It is evident that the Leader of the Opposition has not the vast

wealth of academic experience he would have us believe; not the vast

wealth, but certainly he has a half-vast wealth.

Well, enough of that, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday evening, the hon.

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked the question in this

House: "What are you doing for Burnaby? What's happening in Burnaby?"

Your Honour, I am extremely proud to represent the constituency of

Burnaby-Willingdon and to inform that hon. member — and I wish he was

in his seat — that for the first time in many years they have

representatives who are looking after the needs of their constituents.

As a long-time resident of that area I can assure Your Honour that it

is something that was absent in the past.

I was very pleased in the Speech from the Throne that His Honour

alluded to the fact that rapid transit would be given high priority.

Burnaby certainly is in need of this sort of consideration. We also

look forward, Mr. Minister of Highways, to an early start in

construction of a Marine Way, which will alleviate the horrendous

traffic problem which now exists on Marine Drive.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the Lower Mainland

Regional Correctional Institute, known as Oakalla, removed from my

area. I realize that in all practicality this cannot be done at this

particular time, but I would urge the government to give it top

priority. It is indeed unfortunate that we have had so many breakouts

from that institution in the past few weeks, and the Attorney-General

has assured me that he has instructed the officials to take the

necessary steps which will eliminate this problem.

The residents of Burnaby-Willingdon are not unlike those of the rest

of this province. Their wants and desires, in the main, run parallel to

mine: they want a right to the pursuit of happiness; they want the

right to conduct their affairs in their own way as much as possible,

without the heavy hand of big government; they want representation and

action from their elected representatives. And, hon. member from New

Westminster, they are receiving that action.

Yes, hon. members, I look forward to that day somewhere in the

future when another election is called, when, hopefully, this

individual will meet your candidate in the hustings. I'm sure that the

confidence many of my constituents have expressed to me in private will

be amplified at the polls.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: That's the Minister of Give-away down there who eats $ 10 worth of eggs on the ferries.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace)

in his speech the other day, I believe, expressed the concern of the

writers of the Journal of Commerce .

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't sell eggs on the ferries.

MR. VEITCH: He ate them all.

The concern cited was that restrictive legislation passed in 1974

and rescinded in 1976 could possible be re-imposed via the election

once more of a New Democratic administration. The writer suggested that

this is one reason why industry was not flocking back to British

Columbia.

In his speech in Halifax the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett)

told the social workers that the easiest way to be angry is to become a

Christian. He said that if you were a Christian, you get angry. Hon.

members, Christianity is not anger. The founder of Christianity, while

he was hanging on a cross said: "Father forgive them, for they know not

what they do." Hon. members of the opposition, hon. Leader of the

Opposition, the people of British Columbia are, on the whole,

Christians. In time they will probably forgive you, but they will never

re-elect you.

Hon. Leader of the Conservative Party, hon. members of this House,

tell your friends that British Columbia is a safe place in which to

invest, to grow and to do business. The people of British Columbia are

far too intelligent to repeat the mistake they made in 1972,

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been some strong but

[ Page 210 ]

necessary measures taken over the past year and I commend the

government on the courage they had in making those decisions. It would

have been much easier to run away and borrow ourselves into debt that

would have hamstrung our children and our childrens' children for years

to come. We have had to travel a very rocky road, but I believe the

worst is behind us.

Now the government requires the confidence and support of all the

citizens in order to create that confidence that will propel British

Columbia into a state of optimism and growth. I realize, Your Honour,

that this will not be an easy task, that great events do not emerge in

a single moment. Only through concerted effort, coupled with faith, can

one win. Who was it who said that the noblest heights that great men

reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but while their

comrades slept, they were toiling upwards through the night?

We tried the left side in British Columbia, Mr. Member, for three

and one half years. Under your regime Lotus-land was turned into a

give-away land and it was a dismal failure. Do you remember that man

about 2,000 years ago, while he was gathering his followers together,

happened to be on a fishing ship and the fishermen complained: "Master,

we've been toiling all these days but barely a few fish do we catch."

That great man said: "Cast your nets on the other side." They did, and

they garnered so many fish that the weight almost broke the nets.

British Columbia has cast its nets on the other side, the right

side. We've got to push the positive button in British Columbia, not

run around saying that British Columbia is going down the tube and that

we're loving every moment of it. Push the positive button and no one

can prevent us marching British Columbia into a brilliant future. Let's

forget what some cynics say; we can't afford the luxury of cynicism in

these times.

I know that every once in a while, we must personally sit down and

hold a fire sale on some of this negative garbage that clutters up our

mental attics. Hon. members, all of us gathered here are very

privileged, privileged in that we are here to provide leadership for

the people of this great province. All right then, let's join in

dropping every iota of negativity. We know where our province has been,

we know where it stands, and we can build from hereon out. Let's not

deride British Columbia; let's sell the virtues of British Columbia to

each and every person we meet, wherever we go. British Columbia cannot

afford divisiveness at this point in our history. The Speech from the

Throne indicates, and I firmly believe, that our government is now

ready to launch a programme with a positive time-table for getting

things done, positive things which, with all of our help, confidence

and support, will go a long way towards getting British Columbia moving

again.

I firmly believe the government's job as that of an economic janitor

is at an end. The Speech from the Throne clearly stated that our

administration is moving in a positive direction to provide the impetus

and basis for industrial expansion. Mr. Speaker, as I see it, the duty

of each and every member of this Legislature, if we truly want to help

British Columbia, is to engender confidence — confidence in the

government, confidence in British Columbia, and thus sow the seeds

whereby investors will have confidence in themselves. Governments

cannot do the job alone. The throne speech clearly points out that the

biggest job is still up to those individuals out there whom we so often

call the "private sector." This government may call upon people, both

without and within this building, to stand fast and come to aid in

defence of tough decisions which will still have to be made with

respect to many things. There may be many roadblocks which will

confront the administration along the recovery route. But recover we

must; and recover we will.

Hon. members and citizens of British Columbia, when the call is

issued, let us not be found wanting, or fail to respond. British

Columbia requires and demands the strength of your determination. We

live in a wonderful province; let's do our best to make it economically

stronger. We live in a wonderful country; let's by our prayers and

actions ensure that it stays united.

A year ago last November, on nomination night, I promised the people

of my constituency total commitment. I want to assure the government

and the citizens of British Columbia that that promise, made

approximately 13 months ago, still stands today. Thank you.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, we've had our

to try and take you back to the throne speech. But before I do that,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to you my

compliments for 1977 — somewhat belated compliments — and to thank you

and other members of the cabinet, and even some members of the back

bench who were kind enough to send me greetings of the holiday season

recently passed.

As I take my place in this throne speech debate today, I must

confess I'm just a little confused. The throne speech seems to be a

strange mix. In some points it's very definite, very exact; it comes

through very loud and clear. In other points, it's very vague; just a

brief mention, a passing touch on something.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I've read it. My friend over here says:

"Read it again." I want to mention just a couple of things to make my

point. There's more

[ Page 211 ]

than half a page devoted to a highway project: 70 miles of highway;

location, Hope-Merritt; the cost; exact figures all the way down the

line. And yet the day after the throne speech was delivered, Mr.

Speaker, we had that Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), in response to some comments from local residents, come out

and say, well, he would do an environmental study before he embarked on

the project. It seems very strange to me, Mr. Speaker, if he has

studied the question sufficiently to provide all that detail in the

throne speech, that he didn't take time to do the environmental study

before he included that item in the throne speech.

Then we have something like Pharmacare. Just imagine, we're going to

have universal Pharmacare; nothing more, nothing less. Is it going to

be contributory, Mr. Minister? Is there going to be a means test? Is

there going to be $25 deduction? Is it only going to pay 80 per cent?

You're not telling us, Mr. Minister. It's a very vague commitment.

We'll have to wait and see. Playing games again, Mr. Minister, playing

games.

On page 2 of the throne speech, there are a couple of very

interesting statements. It's those statements that I want to talk about

today. It says about halfway down the page: "My government has done

so-and-so and so-and-so, and those positive actions have provided our

people with tangible benefits." I want to talk about those tangible

benefits. Where are they — in the field of health care? Perhaps that's

where they are — tangible benefits in the field of health. Cutbacks in

hospital service; cutbacks in public health care; cutbacks in public

nurses, therapists, child psychologists — you name it. Right down the

line, it's pared to the bare bone. For the privilege of that kind of

service, we're entitled to pay four times as much when we go into

hospital. Is that a tangible benefit to the people of this province,

Mr. Speaker?

How about ambulance service? Road ambulance fees are to triple and

add mileage. I wish the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) were

here because he has really come up with an innovative way to bring

improved services to this province. Last year he cut back on ambulance

service — he calls it a tangible benefit — and now he's going to

improve the service by returning that ambulance service at three times

the rate, plus mileage. That's a very innovative approach, Mr. Speaker.

Human Resources — more tangible benefits. I know the minister (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) is very proud of his GAIN legislation, but that legislation is a disaster.

There have been more cutbacks, more reductions, because of GAIN legislation

than anyone has ever received in the way of benefits. It was a firm election

promise that Mincome would not only be kept, but would be improved. It has been

wiped right from the face of our legislation. It's gone; there is no Mincome.

No longer are senior citizens entitled by right to a fair and

equitable kind of monthly allowance; instead, they're part of the whole

welfare system. They have to apply for welfare, social assistance, the

same as anyone who is in that category. No longer is it their right,

Mr. Speaker. No longer are there any additions of cost-of-living

allowance for those under 65. The amount received by the people under

65 on the senior citizens' allowance, the old Mincome programme here,

has not increased one penny since this government took office — not one

penny, in spite of the amazing and astounding cost-of-living increases

that those old people have had to face.

The handicapped pension is the same: not a right anymore, just

another welfare case. By definition, Mr. Minister, you have changed the

handicapped pension to such a limited scope that a person has to be

practically hospitalized in order to even qualify. Oh, you shake your

head, but I have had case after case that's come to my attention where

that has been the case, Mr. Minister. You can shake your head, but it

doesn't change the fact.

What about education? The same thing: more tangible benefits;

larger-sized classes; less alternative choice; more cost at the local

level — lots of tangible benefits, Mr. Speaker. And so it goes on.

Crown corporations. That's another nice quote from this speech. I

love this one: "To improve ferry service in the province, the ferry

system became the responsibility of a Crown corporation." Beautiful,

Mr. Speaker! I ride those ferries quite a lot, and if that's improved

service, deliver me from any more! They're never on time; they're

cancelled. The cancellations, in my opinion, are in inverse ratio to

the size of the line-up. I've seen it happen time and again. If there's

a small line-up, the ferry is cancelled. Now that may be good

economics, but it certainly isn't good service. The food is utterly

impossible, and that in the name of an improved service. Ridiculous,

Mr. Speaker!

[ Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Of course, don't forget the increase in fares with the ferries. Yes,

let's talk about the increase in fares for that so-called improved

service. It's even worse than we thought it was. "Ferry Traffic,

Plunged 14.6 Per Cent" — that's the headline. That's 14.6 per cent, Mr.

Minister, busy reading your mail over there. You say, "Well, it's the

weather." As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said last

night, you blame it on the weather, you blame it on the Olympics and

you blame it on the Bicentennial. Well, maybe it was the weather that

caused the drop of 33.8 per cent in June, 20.8 per cent in July and

17.7 per cent in August on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen run. It's a little

worse on the Departure Bay–Horseshoe Bay run.

[ Page 212 ]

But remember September. Do you remember September, Mr. Minister? It

was a beautiful month. There was no Bicentennial; there were no

Olympics. What happened to the vehicle traffic on the ferry in

September? It was down 23.5 per cent on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen and

down 24 per cent on the Horseshoe Bay–Departure Bay run.

In October it was the same thing. In beautiful October — no

centennial, no Olympics — it was 27.5 down, Mr. Minister, on the

Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay run. In November — the most outstanding November

we've had in the history of B.C. almost, as far as weather goes — what

happens to the ferries? The vehicle traffic was down 28.2 per cent on

the Tsawwassen run.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, and that's a point that should

well be made, Mr. Minister. That 14.6 per cent includes the months in

1976 before you increased the fare and decreased the service. So there

are a lot of good months in there where we had a normal growth rate

that's bringing down the overall total to that 14.6 per cent. A very

big tangible benefit to the people on Vancouver Island. Ask the motel

owners, ask the tourist industry, ask the small businessman on

Vancouver Island — great, tangible benefits; great improvement in

service.

Hydro rates increased last year 12 per cent. Now they're going up

again. I hate to think what they're going to be — I wonder if it's

going to be 60 percent, like Mr. Bonner's talking about. It could well

be. We talked about a loan last year; we gave permission to borrow $200

million and we had an increase of 12 per cent in rates. This year we're

asking for $650 million, so maybe we're going to have an increase of 60

per cent in our hydro rates. Who knows?

I'd like to point something out to you, Mr. Minister. You're

listening to me so attentively over there. Hydro, by its own

advertisement, says that if a homeowner insulates his home he can save,

in annual fuel costs, up to $400 a year. The estimate is that it costs

about $880, at average cost, to insulate a home. Barbara Ward, when she

was speaking at Habitat in Vancouver, indicated that, according to her

information, we could save 30 per cent of our heating fuel across

Canada by proper housing.

Instead of borrowing $200 million plus another $650 million to build

more dams to cover up more of our little remaining flatland here in

British Columbia, I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that we use that in a

building programme to provide insulation in the homes here in B.C. — to

provide proper, adequate housing for our citizens. We could cut down

our power usage and save untold millions of BTUs. And we wouldn't need

those dams, Mr. Minister.

We talked about the small businessman and what's happened to him

here on the Island. We've talked about how the tangible benefits have

affected the people here on Vancouver Island, but we haven't really

talked about the economy generally. Ever since...well, not since the

election; long before the election, Mr. Speaker....

Oh, welcome back. I didn't realize we'd changed speakers, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Long before the election we had untold promises about getting the

economy going again. Elect us, we'll get the economy going. We've heard

nothing since then except that we're getting the economy going. It's

going to get going; it's almost going; it's just about to get going.

It's the proverbial prosperity around the corner; it's always coming

but it never gets here.

Last fall, the Premier went on TV and told us that we'd finally made

it. The economy had turned the corner. And the day afterward MacMillan

Bloedel gave us an announcement saying they had laid off thousands of

their workmen because the economy was just not going. And so it goes.

B.C. Tops Jobless — I have a headline here somewhere: "B.C. Tops

Jobless Jump — 8.8 Per Cent." Mr. Speaker, that was the highest ratio

increase in Canada last month. Why are we in B.C. facing this kind of a

situation? I suggest to you that one of the major contributing factors

to this desperate situation is the restrictive and restrained policies

of this government. The layoffs; the withdrawal of funds; nurses

unemployed; teachers unemployed; unemployed ferry workers — right down

the line. Every one of those people contributes that much more to the

general fall-off of the economy and to the job position.

Government should never get into industry, never get into providing

jobs, you tell us. There's certainly nothing in the throne speech to

indicate that you have any intention of doing such a thing. Leave it to

private enterprise, to private industry. Well, I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, and members of this House, that that is not private industry's

main concern. Private industry's main concern is getting a corner on

the market; and they're having a problem doing that anywhere in the

international marketplaces of the world today. We're in a general,

internationally depressed economic state. They're having a problem, but

that is their main concern, their main interest, and always will be

their main interest — not job creation.

In my own constituency, in the little village of Lake Cowichan, just

the other week there were 80 employees laid off. Now 80 doesn't sound

very much, Mr. Minister. I can tell you that in the village of Lake

Cowichan that represents a fair percentage of the work force. Why were

they laid off? Because there was some kind of a hassle, between

Rayonier and B.C. Forest Products, taking place over in Howe Sound —

something to do with chips. Was Rayonier

[ Page 213 ]

or B.C. Forest Products interested in saving jobs in Lake Cowichan?

Not a bit. Chop them off, lay them off, let them go; we're far more

interested in our own power struggles between the two companies. That's

the kind of treatment, that's the kind of result you got when you leave

job-finding to private industry.

I read the throne speech through and through, and apart from the

Highways department's proposed spending, there seems to be little or

nothing as far as job programmes. There's some small mention of summer

employment. You know, there's a familiar ring to the mention of the

Labour minister coordinating the summer employment — that was a

disaster last year. I would hope that by writing it into the throne

speech this year perhaps the other ministers in cabinet can be

encouraged to be a little more cooperative with the Minister of Labour,

and that we can see some jobs made available for our young people this

summer. But that's a mighty slim prospect to solve the 8.8 per cent

unemployment. Apart from that, the throne speech is strangely silent on

job creation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with a lot of varying things and

perhaps those should be considered my opening remarks because now I

want to, shall I say, get down to earth. I want to get into some

comments about the area of main importance as far as I am concerned —

my main area of interest. I'm glad to see that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is still here one of the few cabinet

ministers remaining because I want to talk a little bit about

agriculture and its position in today's economic situation here in B.C.

First of all, I'm very pleased to see that we do have a full-time

Minister of Agriculture. I believe that the Premier made the best

possible choice in choosing the present Minister of Agriculture. He's a

very courteous gentleman — in fact he's so courteous he even introduces

me to gatherings of farmers when we both happen to be there together.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): She's a nice gal.

MRS. WALLACE: He's very pleasant, very articulate, but I am afraid he doesn't know too much about agriculture.

Last November at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture he gave us a five-point programme:

(1) adequate protection against imports;

(2) improved marketing and advertising of products;

(3) acquisition of new markets;

(4) improved efficiency in farm operation;

(5) encouragement of young people to farm.

Very fine-sounding.

Good sentiments.

Well, I heard him speak just the other day in Vernon. He's learned a

few things in the month: he's learned that import controls are really

not very much to do with provincial governments. There's a lot more

involved than just saying that you're going to put on import controls

here in the province. It's a federal and international thing — seasonal

tariffs, dumping tariffs, all kinds of problems. The province doesn't

have much to say about those. They can go hat-in-hand and do a little

pleading. But I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

that there are ways, but strangely silent is the throne speech on

anything that you might be proposing to prevent those imports from

coming into our province. Strangely silent is the throne speech.

You talk about productivity, about making the farm economically

viable. When you talk about that to the apple growers, to the fruit

growers of the Okanagan Valley, you're talking to one of the most

sophisticated segments of agriculture in British Columbia. You are

asking them to be more viable and more efficient. They're going to have

to increase that efficiency a great deal, Mr. Minister, in order to

offset things like a 52- to 78-cent-per-box differential in freight

between shipping fruit from the Okanagan to eastern Canada and shipping

it from Washington to eastern Canada. They're going to have to increase

incredibly. It's impossible, Mr. Minister. Some things are impossible.

The farmers in this province must be protected. They're not asking

for a handout, Mr. Minister, and I was rather shocked to hear your

statements that you are proposing to discontinue farm income assurance,

because that's what it amounted to. You can protest, Mr. Minister, but

that's what it amounted to. In answer to a question from the floor of

the House yesterday, you said: "I would like to make the comment that

the contracts are five-year contracts and, as any good operation should

be carried out by any business or any government, they will be

reviewed, and at the time they come due we will have something to

present to agriculture."

Mr. Speaker, the farmers came through loud and clear in Vernon. They

don't want to have something presented to them; they want to be part of

that negotiation. They don't want a gift, a handout; they want to know

and have a

part in negotiating the end result, not have something

presented to them when their contract expires.

I think perhaps for the record we should just clarify what farm

income assurance provides to the farmer. It's not a handout; it's

nothing the farmer can milk or take advantage of. It provides him with

not more than 75 per cent of the difference between his selling price —

the price he receives — and the cost of the production of that product

as calculated on a provincial average basis, something worked out

jointly between the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Department

of Agriculture. He must sell that product through a recognized,

organized sales agent —

[ Page 214 ]

he can't just give his own figures. The protection is there

complete. There is no way that programme can be milked. I would wonder

what other industry would continue to operate in British Columbia, or

any other province, with not more than 75 per cent of the difference

between the price he gets and the price that it costs him to produce

that product — not very many, except the farmer, but he's prepared to

do that. I would like to suggest to you that the importance of keeping

our farm population intact is one of extreme urgency.

You know, California is probably 10 or 15 years ahead of us in this

suburbia and growth. This month, I guess it was — quite recently anyway

— I had occasion to travel around the area of the Imperial Valley. Palm

trees that take 25 years to grow and bring into productivity are being

rooted up because it's more lucrative to go into suburban development.

Grapefruit orchards, orange trees, the same thing — suburbia moving in.

Cotton fields? Yes, some cotton is still there, but as you drive

through those cotton fields you find house after boarded-up house that

had once housed a farm family that had once been part of a thriving

community. Now those farms have fallen under a corporate agribusiness

trend.

We went through the little town of Ripley and, believe it or not,

Ripley was once a thriving community. The store now has the windows

boarded up; nothing there. Two gas stations are simply derelicts —

pumps gone, windows gone, everything gone — just a stark reminder of

what had once been there. House after house is empty, vacant, windows

gone, doors gone — a stark reminder of what had once been a thriving

community, and now nothing. Where have those people gone? What had

become of them? You can't pull up and down like window blinds, Mr.

Speaker. You have to find alternatives for people.

Some time ago, Adlai Stevenson made quite an extensive study on two

very similar farm communities in southern California. One was Arvin and

one was Dinuba. One of these farm communities was made up primarily of

the family farm or the private, small, individually operated farm. The

other community was made up of large, corporate-farm-type agribusiness

development. This study revealed some very interesting facts, and I

would just like to review some of the facts that were found by this

study made by Adlai Stevenson. It was made back in the early '70s, Mr.

Speaker, and, as I indicated earlier, we in B.C. are perhaps 10 years

behind the trends that are taking place in California.

This study found that the small-farm community supported 62 separate

business establishments and the agribusiness community supported 35.

That's almost two to one, Mr. Speaker. The volume of retail trade in

the small-farm community during the 12-month period was 61 per cent

greater than that in the other community; the expenditure for household

supplies and building equipment was three times as great in the

small-farm community.

What was found regarding the social development of those two

communities was very significant, too. In a local community the small

farm supports a larger number of people per dollar value of agriculture

production than in the area devoted to the larger-scale enterprise.

Notwithstanding the greater numbers of people in the small-farm

community, there is a better average standard of living than in the

community of the large-scale farm. Over one-half of the breadwinners in

the small-farm community are independently employed businessmen; in the

large-farm community the proportion of persons in white-collar

employment or farmers is less than one-fifth.

This is a very revealing document, a revealing study as to what

happens. What could happen in Chilliwack if this trend were to take

place here in British Columbia? Less than one-third of the breadwinners

in a small-farm community are agricultural wage labourers — that's

characteristic: the landless, low-paid hourly worker — while the

proportion of persons in this position is nearly two-thirds of all

persons living in the agri-business type of community.

Paved streets, sidewalks, garbage disposal, sewage disposal and

other public services: there are far less in the agribusiness type of

community than in the other. Schools are more plentiful in one than in

the other. Churches — two to one; newspapers, the same. And so it goes.

I would suggest that the people who are shaping the future of the

agricultural community, the rural community here in British Columbia,

would do well to study these facts, because that is the direction that

we in B.C. are going if we don't take a good, hard, long look at making

sure that the farm community is maintained in a state of viability.

Not only that, but if we don't maintain that community, two other

things are going to happen. We are going to be subject to a

monopolistic food industry here in B.C. If that happens, I suggest that

if we think we are paying high costs for food right now, we don't even

know what we are talking about. Because now we are in an area where

there is competition — good, healthy competition — and this is to the

benefit of the consumer. But if the control of our agricultural

production falls completely into the hands of large, vertically

integrated concerns, then we are going to be in trouble.

Just one more quote from this study, if you'll bear with me. I think

it is rather critical. "Nearly half of the agricultural land in the

State of California is owned by a tiny fraction of the population. In

the State of Maine more than one-half the land is owned by 12

corporations." This may not be of concern to

[ Page 215 ]

members of the government bench, but it is of concern to a great

many people in British Columbia and in Canada. "In Maine, 80 per cent

of the land is held by absentee owners. In California, in 1969 40,000

farms" — that's less than 2 per cent of the total number of farms —

"accounted for more than one-third of all farm production."

It goes on to say: "Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith, those durable

figures in American folklore and American reality, are being displaced

all over America by newcomers to the farm, newcomers with names like

Tenneco, Gulf, Western Goodyear, Monsanto, Union Carbide, Kaiser,

Boeing, Dow Chemical, to name a few." That's what has happened as long

ago as 1969 and 1970 in the United States of America, and that's what

will happen here if we let it happen, Mr. Speaker.

If we are to maintain our farm family unit and a viable farm

industry here in British Columbia, then we are going to have to

continue the two-pronged programme that was initiated by the former

administration. In the two and one-half years that administration held

sway there was more done for the farmers of this province than had been

done in the last 22 1/2 years. Farming was becoming a viable entity. We

were attracting young people to the land; we were making it possible

for them to come. There was some incentive for them to come.

But now, Mr. Speaker, we are facing a situation where there is no

further assurance that condition will persist, where there is no

further assurance that the farm community will be maintained, will be

continued. If that happens, and if we become subject to the whims of

Monsanto and Dow Chemical, Weston and Safeway, then you and I, your

children, my children and our grandchildren, are going to have to pay

through the nose for food, if they can get it at all.

There is one more point on the agricultural scene that I would like

to make, and that has to do with the purity of food. I don't know if

any of the other members happened to catch the TV show the other night

about the chemicals in cattle feed in the State of Michigan. It is a

frightening thing, not only affecting the stock herds that had to be

slaughtered, but also affecting the people who were eating the meat,

and millions and millions of pounds of that meat have been imported

into Canada. How much, if any, came into British Columbia? How much, if

any, have we British Columbians eaten of that chemical?

Not long ago we had a problem with hormones in beef. We import

fruits and vegetables from countries that use herbicides, pesticides

and defoliants that are forbidden in Canada. Are we going to continue

to let these, shall I say, polluted forms of food come into this

province? Are we going to be faced with the situation that that's all

that's available to us, that we don't even have a choice? Because

that's where we'll go when we reach the point where we are no longer

able to produce our own food here in British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that cabinet over there is in a sort of

a lock-step going backward and they are taking the farmers of this

province, the workers of this province and the pensioners of this

province backward with them. They are toying with the welfare of the

people of this province, with the citizens who voted them into power.

They are toying with their welfare. It's time they stopped being a

kindergarten and started being a cabinet, started being a government.

It's time they got on with it; either got on with it or got out.

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

pleased this afternoon to extend my greetings to the Deputy Speaker as

well as to the members of both sides of the House. I'm also very proud

to rise today as the legitimate, elected representative of

Burnaby-Edmonds and, according to the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), the illegitimate member for New Westminster. Actually I don't

think I adopted New Westminster, as this news

article suggests in the

Columbian , but actually I believe New Westminster adopted me.

Because of the importance of what I have to say in respect to

Burnaby-Edmonds and New Westminster today I am going to reserve some of

the things I would like to say, and which traditionally are said in the

response to the throne speech, for my budget speech.

When I was first elected my overwhelming concern was that this

Social Credit government would truly recognize the importance of the

suburbs. After all, it is in the suburbs that most of the peopl