[ Page 73 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Federal employment programmes report. Mr. Wallace — 73

Women's rights. Ms. Brown — 73

Student summer employment programme. Mr. Gibson — 74

Maclnnes rental housing. Mrs. Dailly — 74

Grant for cancer study. Mr. Cocke — 75

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance. Ms. Brown — 76

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 76

Mr. King — 76

Mr. Speaker — 77

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 77

Mr. Stupich — 85

Mr. Davidson — 91

Mr. Macdonald — 92

Mr. Strongman — 96

Mr. Lockstead — 98

Mr. Hewitt — 99

Mrs. Dailly — 100

Mr. Barnes — 101

Mr. Kerster — 105

Mr. Nicolson — 106

Mr. Lauk — 108

Mr. D'Arcy — 111

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery and in the precincts of the Legislature today are members of the Women's Rally for Action committee.

I had the opportunity to meet with a delegation of them from my constituency of South Okanagan this morning at 8:45, and I would hope that all members will afford them an opportunity to present their views before the day is over.

I must say that they have made good presentations and have been a very orderly, informative group to this Legislature and I commend them and welcome them to the building.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join the Premier in welcoming the hundreds of women from across British Columbia who are meeting on the front steps of the Legislature today, representing the hundreds of thousands of women who were unable to attend.

Sitting in the gallery are 10 women from different parts of the province, particularly representing these women, and I would like to name them for the House and ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

The first is Lorna Germain from Dawson Creek, and she's representing the women of North and South Peace River. The other is Marilyn Callahan from Victoria. There are Diane Kennedy from the South Okanagan constituency, Susan Sanderson from Vancouver-Burrard, my own constituency, Jane Rich from Rossland-Trail, Marie Mitchell from Fort George, Bobbie Ford from Omineca, Fern Van Horne from Revelstoke-Slocan, from the riding of the Leader of the Official Opposition, Patricia Pederson from Cariboo, and Donna Tyndall, representing both the native women and the Comox constituency.

Thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver—Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join in that welcome, particularly to six delegates from my own riding of North Vancouver-Capilano, but in general to the entire group of women from across this province who are coming here today with a very important message that I hope all members of the House will take very seriously.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I also had the opportunity of meeting with the ladies in a very useful meeting this morning, a very well-prepared brief, and I assured them that they were already preaching to the converted.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the various delegations who are with us today, I would like to acknowledge the presence of members of the grade 10 class, students from the McRoberts Senior Secondary School in my constituency of Richmond, and the teachers accompanying them.

Oral questions.

FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMMES REPORT

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources a question with regard to a report prepared by a committee of staff in his department and in the Department of Labour, which has been described as criticizing harshly the failure of federal employment programmes and recommending that the Province of British Columbia pull out of these joint agreements. Could I ask the minister if, in fact, this is the main thrust of the report, and does the government intend to withdraw from the joint agreement?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Oak Bay: I do not have the report, nor have I seen the report. I don't really know as yet where the information came from. I have asked my department to find out.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister if, in fact, there is such a study being carried out to find out about the effectiveness of federal-provincial agreements?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's out of order.

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

Interjections.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

MS. BROWN: This is directed to the Premier. Mr. Premier, I was very pleased to hear that you were able to meet with your delegation this morning. I'm wondering whether you have yet had an opportunity to read the brief which was presented, I think, sometime earlier to you. Have you made any decisions about implementing any of the 83 recommendations contained therein?

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

[ Page 74 ]

member: over the weekend I read the brief that was given to us before the weekend, and had a good meeting with the delegation. No, I have made no commitments yet but have promised the delegation that spoke to me that I'll be discussing areas with various cabinet ministers under whose responsibility certain of those recommendations fall.

MS. BROWN: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, on the same. Is the Premier aware that one of the highest rising acts of violence against women in this province is wife-beating? Is the Premier also aware that one of his ministers has made a decision to terminate funding to the only place of reference to which battered women had to turn, the only existing four transition houses in this province which had to cater to the needs of the over I million women who live in this province? If so, is the Premier prepared to do anything about reinstating the funding to those houses?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member: I'll take your knowledge to the minister responsible, but would point out that much of the information regarding agencies and funding will be presented in the budget this Friday by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Until such a time as I can have a discussion, and with the information from the budget, I think it would be improper to rule out all possibilities in the province. But I will discuss it with the minister, and thank — you for bringing it to my attention.

MS. BROWN: A final supplemental. If the Premier needs any information on transition houses and the various vital services which they do supply, would he please contact the women? Because they would be very happy to let you have it, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no problem there, Madam Member, because I've already met with a delegation from the transition houses some time ago in my office.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Early in February the minister announced phase 1 of the summer employment programme for students, and at that time announced that phase 2 would be brought forward in about two weeks. In view of the fact that it's now been almost seven weeks, and in view of the fact that university classes are ending in a couple of weeks, could the minister inform the House as to when the rest of the programme will be announced?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, to the member for North Vancouver—Capilano: the work in the government phase of the summer student employment is presently being completed and I expect to have an announcement inside the next seven days.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister can assure the House that there's no truth to the rumour that Treasury Board has been denying funds to phase 2 of this programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary. Funds are being made available by Treasury Board from each of the departmental estimates which you will have the opportunity of considering, but the programme is being designed nonetheless.

MacINNES RENTAL HOUSING

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Housing: I've had a number of calls from constituents in Burnaby who have phoned the Vancouver Housing Commission to ask to have their names put down for the MacInnes rental unit, and they have been informed that no names are being taken. In view of the fact that we have such an extreme housing shortage, particularly in Burnaby as well as many other areas, would the hon. minister tell us why this unit is not being made available?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member: it is unfortunate that in the past two or three days a number of people, in greater Vancouver particularly, have equated the waiting list on the B.C. Housing Management Commission lists with those who would be appropriate for accommodation in MacInnes Place.

The former government, this government, and, I think, most importantly in answering the question from the hon. member, the District of Burnaby municipal council, made it quite clear — and there is correspondence to support this — that as early as March of last year no more than 25 per cent of the individuals accommodated in this particular development would be from the low, moderate or social assistance income levels. This government does not want — and, indeed I believe it is correct, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I don't think the former government really wanted — to create ghetto housing of a particular type of income category. That is the problem as we see it right now. We are reviewing the matter very actively.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the hon. minister's reply, but he really still hasn't answered my basic question, I still would like to know what your plans are and why those units are not being available.

[ Page 75 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member: the units were advertised on six occasions in December — perhaps not the largest newspaper advertisements, but nonetheless clearly identified as rental accommodation in one case, family rental in another case. And the response was very, very disappointing to the B.C. Housing Management Commission and also to the Department of Housing. The accommodation was offered; the response of the last two or three days is rather surprising to all of us. But I trust that I dealt with that aspect of the problem in the earlier answer just a moment ago.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: in view of the fact that the Vancouver Sun has found it necessary to assign one person full-time today to answer telephone calls from people interested in this accommodation, are you then reconsidering your decision and giving serious consideration to making this available as rental housing? We had no trouble in making rental housing...filling it up in Surrey; we had no trouble in filling it up in Richmond under this programme, and I see no reason why there should be any trouble....

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

MR. NICOLSON: My question was: are you reconsidering and will this be made available? In view of this new interest, this new-found interest, will it be made available for rental housing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, the former minister of housing: the interest which has been shown may in a very large measure be from those individuals who, as I indicated in answering the question initially this afternoon, would create a ghetto....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a policy of the former government, Mr. Speaker, and a policy of the municipality of Burnaby. The 2,400 individuals or families or groups seeking accommodation on the BCHMC lists now would, in all likelihood, lead to the very situation that the former minister, I assume, would have wanted to avoid and, certainly, which we want to avoid. I think the hon. member who has asked the last question knows the situation and knows the problems we are facing with this particular development.

GRANT FOR CANCER STUDY

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the Minister of Health would inform this House why he turned down the grant to the so-called cancer study under the directorship of Dr. Richards from Calgary.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to the member: I an not aware that I have turned down any grant to the person to whom the member has referred. I have asked that person to submit to me a brief of the work that he is doing, and I hope he will do that very soon. He has said that the brief will be ready within a matter of weeks, and at that time I will consider what that project is doing.

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

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

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

MR. COCKE: I am on a supplemental on this question because the Minister of Health can't answer it, Mr. Speaker, and possibly the Provincial Secretary can answer the same question.

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

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

Does the Provincial Secretary recognize that the research amount that was established by her department, and provided to the study...does she recognize that a group to advise government, a medical research group, which has been advising for some time — including Dr. Webber, associate dean of medicine at UBC, Dr. Sprattley, UBC Grants Committee, Dr. Julia Levy, an immunologist at UBC, Dr. Wilber Petit of BCHIS, and Dr. Grants, professor and head of the Department of Ophthalmology at UBC — reviewed the application that the Minister of Health was alluding to, reviewed the application and advised no funds?

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, would the minister or the Provincial Secretary indicate to us whether or not she is ignoring the advice of such a committee — such

[ Page 76 ]

an eminent committee?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member on your questions regarding the grant: the grant was made on the basis of, I think, the consideration given — that all of us give — to the concern that we all have with the incidence of cancer among women. And, in addressing myself to that, I had some knowledge from my department. Since the grant was given, I have had some further knowledge — some of which the hon. member has now given me — that was not made available to me at the time. I just would like to advise this House that I'm having my department reassess this grant and I will advise the House in a very few days as to the outcome.

MR. COCKE: Just a further supplementary on the same thing. Mr. Speaker, the minister...we appreciate what she says with respect to this; however, at that time there was a suggestion that there would be a grants committee study this kind of grant in the future. I just wonder whether or not this means that the old grants committee is one that will be not referred to, or will it be something that lacks the confidence of this government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't answer that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The advice of any group to advise the government will be continued, and we will be seeking their opinions. I would like to state that any grants that are given out.... We are giving very serious study to the kind of information that comes to us, and we will probably add to the advice in the future. We will augment that advice and I fully intend to do that in the Provincial Secretary's department.

MR. GIBSON: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary. I would ask if she took the precaution on this medical-related grant of seeking the advice of her colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) before issuing said grant.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...that the programme that was undertaken by this group was not going to be needed to have the department's assistance. But my question to them, which I am following up and will be pleased to report to the House, is why all areas of the government weren't perused at the time. I'll be glad to report my findings to the House.

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

Orders of the day.

M S. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent importance.

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

MS. BROWN: The matter, Mr. Speaker, is the present policy of discrimination against more than 50 per cent of our population, namely the women of this province, and specifically the hardship caused by the misapplication of funds for medical research, by cutback in child-care services and transition houses, by the closing of the office of the provincial co-coordinator on the status of women without even the courtesy of consultation, by the disbanding of the advisory committee on sexism in the Department of Education, and by the lack of coverage for farm and domestic workers under our minimum wage legislation.

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

MS. BROWN: I therefore move, Mr. Speaker — and I'm glad that the member finds this so funny — the adjournment of this House to discuss this matter of urgent and public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's for the Chair to decide, not the importance of the matter itself but whether there is an opportunity during the stage of our discussion to discuss such a matter fully.

I hope you appreciate the fact that in the course of discussions today and in following days, in the debate on the throne speech, there is ample opportunity for anyone and everyone to speak upon whatever matter they may consider to be of importance. Therefore I have to rule that while the matter itself may be important, there is an ample opportunity for debate during today and in succeeding days. Therefore I rule that such a motion is not in order.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ruling of the Chair in this matter, but I think the government would be willing to recognize, as, indeed, they have thus far, that literally hundreds of women have travelled from every corner of this province to attend in Victoria. I would draw your attention to the fact that with the unanimous consent of the House, the House does

[ Page 77 ]

indeed control its own business. I think the government would be anxious to recognize that this important matter — indeed the many important matters that the women's groups have brought to the attention of the government and the opposition — should well be discussed today when they've made this unusual effort to travel to Victoria. I would ask for unanimous leave of the House to discuss this matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Replying to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition: in my opinion it's not a matter of whether this item, which has been raised by the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), is important or not; it is a matter of the urgency of debate and whether there's ample opportunity to discuss the matter. As I have pointed out, there is at the present time, as soon as we embark on orders of the day, ample opportunity to discuss the matter which you have raised in debate that will take place. However, if it's desirable to ask leave of the House, it's a matter of unanimous leave being granted to discuss the matter, and I would be prepared to do that on your behalf.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of challenging the Chair's ruling. I appreciate the validity of what you say, but I would ask unanimous leave of the House.

Leave not granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, there's no division when asking for leave. It's a matter of record; either it's granted or it's not granted. Leave was not granted.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to entering this House today and discussing some of the positive programmes that this government is bringing down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like ICBC?

HON. MR, PHILLIPS: But instead, I find that the socialists, as usual, have to be negative. We just had an example of something that was brought up today that they had three and a half years to bring up in this House. They chose to play cheap political politics with a very sensitive and very important issue in British Columbia, and the reason it was brought up today was because the man who for the past three and a half years has held it down is absent from the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member....

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I would remind you that we're on a debate on an amendment to the Speech from the Throne which has to do with auto insurance rates. Would the member please return to that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to say that it is because a certain member of this House, the ex-premier (Mr. Barrett), is absent from this House that this matter was brought up today. It's time that we got rid of some of this hocus pocus that the socialists have been talking about, and it's time this House got down to business.

But before I begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, Sir, to congratulate you and to wish you well and to tell you that I shall not refer to you as Your Grace. I also want to say before I start my remarks that I am proud once again to be representing that great constituency of South Peace River, and I want to tell the House it is a great feeling to be speaking again from this side of the Legislature. It's been over seven years. I enjoy it, and I certainly know that with this great government that we have now that we shall all do a great and tremendous job.

I would be remiss in my duty, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't spend just two seconds to congratulate those members of the Legislature who are no longer with us. Because one of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, summed up passing from government back to private life this way: "In a free society the rulers are the servants and the people are their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return to the latter is not to degrade them, but to promote them." Unfortunately, some of the members of the group opposite think that being in government is being in power and that they have the divine right to rule and not to be the servants of the people. But that, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between their philosophy and our philosophy. On this side of the House we are here to serve, not to rule.

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward today to being positive about programmes for people which were contained in the throne speech, positive about how this government will lead by actions and not by idle words, positive.... Yes, we're on an amendment because you wouldn't discuss and you wouldn't recognize all of the great programmes for people in

[ Page 78 ]

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking the people of this province what they can do for their government, but we are asking the people what they can do for themselves. We will lead by helping people to help themselves.

In the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, we also showed great concern for the environment by creating for the first time in the province of British Columbia....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I would appreciate it if you would relate the remarks that you are about to offer to the House to the amendment that's before the house. The amendment that is proposed has to do with auto insurance rates and lack of fair treatment concerning different parts of the province.

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'll read the amendment. It's Monday. We haven't dealt with this since last Friday. "But this House regrets that the speech fails to relieve the motoring public from oppressive auto insurance rates, fails to offer fair treatment for northern and interior drivers and fails to end discrimination against drivers under 25." The amendment is what we are debating at the moment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Education, (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for the fine speech that he gave on Friday, outlining the facts about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was first established, one of the great areas in which it was to help the people of British Columbia was to be the investment from the funds of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia in the province. It would be fine, Mr. Speaker. What actually happened, we found that most of the funds — and there weren't too many of them because there were mostly losses — were invested in banks outside of the province of British Columbia, those banks that the previous Minister of Finance used to refer to as those usurious banks which are holding people down and holding people back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

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

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another aspect of those facts by setting before this house a chronology of statements by that former government about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a chronology which, I believe, shows a deliberate, conscious effort on the part of former members of the executive council to conceal the facts and to deceive the people of British Columbia, strictly for political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, these facts were concealed to cover up a financial disaster in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a financial disaster brought about by political interference, deception and disregard for the truth, created by previous members of the executive council and the directors of the insurance corporation who were members of that council.

Mr. Speaker, when the insurance corporation was first brought into being in British Columbia the previous president of the insurance corporation, the former Minister of Transport and Communications (Mr. Strachan) stood in this Legislature and stated unequivocally that "the plan will be self-sustaining; all services rendered by any department of government or otherwise will be paid for out of moneys belonging to the plan; payments for all losses and expenses of administration will be made from the plan."

That was the great start-up of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, the great shining light of the previous administration. Again, Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 1973, when being asked a question by the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) about expenses incurred while a director and travelling on behalf of the insurance corporation, that gentleman, now banned to England by the previous administration, stated again in answering the question: "For the very simple reason that I have given a guarantee that there shall be no subsidy of any kind toward the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No expenses will be charged back to his office but will be paid for by the insurance corporation because "for the very simple reason" — and I'm quoting the previous president of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — "For the very simple reason that I have given a guarantee that there shall be no subsidy of any kind towards the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia."

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Idle words and idle

[ Page 79 ]

promises. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that when the rates for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia were brought forward by the actuaries hired by that corporation, were brought forward to the government, they took them to their caucus and it was the New Democratic caucus that set the rates for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

That was the first time that we saw political interference into the corporation's activities; and even though the Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who is in his place today recommended against setting these rates by the caucus and recommended against the rates adopted by the caucus, against good sound business principles and practices, that government and all the caucus were a party to it. They adopted lower rates knowing full well that some day the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia would have to be subsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Or go broke.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: His party which was.

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

Interjections.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now on June 4, 1974, Mr. Speaker, we have the past Premier of this province who was not even a director of the insurance corporation interfering in the affairs of the insurance corporation by making public announcements, not in this Legislature but in Kamloops, about the rates of the insurance corporation.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that he wasn't even a director, but he thought he could make more political hay. He thought he could offer the people of this province something for nothing when he knew, when that Premier knew, that the insurance corporation was going broke, that the rates were not paying the way, He announces that he's going to have postage stamp rates throughout the Province of British Columbia.

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

He's starting to create this myth by stating that this would be accomplished by assigning some of the revenues from the existing gasoline tax and licence-plate fees to insurance purposes, thus slashing the cash premium for insurance next year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Good idea!

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I doubt if you will learn anything because you haven't learned anything. You won't listen to the facts. You don't understand the facts when you do hear them.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But here we have for the first time the Premier of this province interfering with the insurance corporation, making public announcements and announcing rate decreases and stating that we're going to build up this myth that there's going to be a great gasoline tax, a mythical figure to subsidize the insurance corporation.

He goes on to say: "It is not yet known how far the revenues will permit Autoplan to go in eliminating such a difference, but the insurance corporation has instructions" — Mr. Speaker, the insurance corporation has instructions — and he didn't go on to say "from the Premier of this province," and "from the executive council of this province," but has instructions through their minister, Mr. Strachan, to wipe out or reduce as many differences as possible.

Who gave Mr. Strachan those instructions? "This means that the cost of basic car insurance will not only be lowered for most British Columbians, but it

[ Page 80 ]

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

But what does he say, Mr. Speaker, in that same press release? "Revenues will involve those taxes and fees paid only by the motoring public." But he didn't go on, Mr. Speaker, to tell the people in Kamloops or to tell the people of this province that the revenue from gasoline tax for years and years and years had been going into revenue to provide services for education, hospitals, and all of the other social services of this province. He didn't go on to explain that when he took this money, or was going to take this money out of the gasoline tax, that it would be reducing services to people to subsidize bashed fenders.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should hang your head in shame because you were a party to it, Mr. ex-Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald). You knew what was going on, Mr. ex-Attorney-General. You should hang your head in shame for being a party to this! You knew full well, being a member of the executive council, exactly what was going on in the insurance corporation and you allowed the budget to come before this House misleading the people of British Columbia. You were a party to it, and you should hang your head in shame!

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the Attorney-General, who was then the Attorney-General of this province (Mr. Macdonald), was voting on a false prospectus which was the budget handed down to the people of British Columbia in 1975. You should hang your head in shame!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

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

MR. MACDONALD: Try to be kind.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, it was outlined by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) on Friday last that there was a board meeting held in the offices of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia on June 11, 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: 1974?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: 1974. And at this board meeting it was pointed out by the people who run the insurance corporation that the insurance corporation was indeed going broke, was going to need funds, and was going to have to be subsidized out of general revenue.

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

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

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you whine.... You should resign because you were a party to it. You were the director, Mr. Member for New Westminster. You were the director. You were a director of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and you also sat on the executive council, and you allowed your colleagues to go on and deceive the people of British Columbia. You were a party to it and you should resign, and here you stand in this Legislature. You stand in this Legislature and you second a motion about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we have allowed the new ministers great latitude without raising exception to their choice of words. There are members in this House to whom he is referring and he is imputing a wrong motive to their actions in a previous parliament or as members of a previous executive council.

I would ask the member to indicate to this House whether or not he does impute improper motives, and, if he does, he should be asked to withdraw the word "deceitful".

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if I have hurt the member opposite in any way I will certainly withdraw the word "deceitful", but I do want the people of this province to know that that member was a party to the actions which misled the people of British Columbia, and you can call it by any name you want to.

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

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

[ Page 81 ]

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, I want to tell you we just called an election and the people of this province spoke. Yes, they spoke. They spoke, but you won't seem to accept the facts, and they spoke for one of the very reasons that I'm outlining here today — it's because you continued to mislead the people of this province in the financial affairs of this province, in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, But the people were not fooled. They knew, and they spoke hard and they spoke firm, and that's why you're over there and that's why you're going to stay over there, because you will never obliterate from the record the deceitful action of your government in hiding the true facts about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: After the board meeting on June 11, August 30, the president of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia stated that there would be a need for an injection of gasoline taxes required in the coming year. I just wanted to put that in the record that he stated this. He did state on the same programme that he had no knowledge or he didn't have any report in front of him and intimated, to the people of this province, through that open-line programme, that he had no knowledge of a report which told that the insurance corporation was going broke and would need to be subsidized.

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll quote the article. It says: "Cocke said earlier that although well-head royalties will be used for Autoplan grants, it is being referred to as gasoline tax money because it is easier for the public to understand."

Easier for the public to understand. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that that member didn't think the people of this province could understand that their insurance corporation was going broke. Maybe that's why he continued to hide the facts from the people of British Columbia.

Then we go on, Mr. Speaker. It was the present Premier of this province who stated that the insurance corporation would lose approximately $30 million. What did the past Premier, the socialist Premier of the province say? He said: "No, the insurance corporation might possibly lose $18.5 million."

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is after the June meeting, when two members of the executive council were sitting at that board meeting and knew the facts. The Premier knew the facts, and he came out and stated that the insurance corporation "might lose $18.5 million." It's hard for you to understand the truth, isn't it, Mr. Member for New Westminster?

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, knowing, he misled the people. That's why he's out there now scrambling for a seat, but the people of this province will know the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, here is the member again, the member for New Westminster, and he says: "'As for Bennett's $30 million figure,' Cocke said, 'I don't understand where those guys are getting their slips of paper.'" That member for New Westminster who was at that board meeting when those figures were outlined that the insurance corporation would need approximately $38 million, on September 4, three months later, said: "I don't know where Mr. Bennett is getting his figures." Shame on that member!

Mr. Speaker, again, on November 6, 1974, when I outlined to this House some of the facts about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, Mr. Strachan charged me that the figures I released from an internal ICBC mid-year report were "either erroneous, misleading or completely false."

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That is after June 11th when I outlined.... This is November; this is after the June 11th board meeting when it was outlined to the directors that the past president, the member for Duncan (Mr. Strachan), the Minister of Transport and Communications....

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cowichan-Malahat. The

[ Page 82 ]

man who now represents this great province in London, England, accused me of a falsehood when he knew full well exactly that I had the proper figures and that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was going to lose. He was a party to misleading the people of British Columbia and building up this myth. Shameful, and he should resign his position, because I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that that man is suitable to represent this great province in London after those actions.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in this House hon. members on either side of the House calling into question senior civil servants and particularly individuals that represent this province abroad...calling them into question on the floor of this House is a dishonorable act, and he should be ordered to withdraw.

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the member can bring his opinion on the conduct of the style of person that represents us. I think he has every right to make sure that this province is not adequately represented but represented by people who will represent this province. If that member feels he has reason in the information he's presenting to this House to call into question the behavior of any member who now represents this province, I think he not only has the opportunity; he has the obligation to present that information to this House and to the government.

I think that we're dealing, Mr. Speaker, with a question of ethical conduct and I think, quite frankly, we should assess now the standards that we expect directors of private corporations to accept, whether they are at directors' meetings or not, and those directors who serve public corporations — whether they will be accountable and whether they will be truthful and whether they will....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think the people of this province have a fight to expect that those who are directors of Crown corporations will act in the best interests of the corporation and the people of this province.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. I would suggest to the hon. minister who has the floor that he temper his language a little bit, and that there is a means of dealing with a situation about which you feel strongly enough that you would bring into question the conduct of civil servants or people who represent the Crown. That is by way of substantive motion. I would suggest a little less caustic remarks, please, Mr. Member.

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

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, following your comments to the minister, which I appreciate very much in putting this thing in perspective, I wish it to be pointed out that the Premier and obviously members of the executive council wish to get through the back door what they're not willing to do through the front door.

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

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I accept your admonition. And I'm very interested that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) all of a sudden is so

[ Page 83 ]

concerned and so righteous, because he was a party to exactly what happened in this province over the three and half years while they were government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Cover-up.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cover-up, to hide the true facts of the financial status of this province from the people of British Columbia — an act, Mr. Speaker, which the people of this province will long remember.

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

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

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

MR. LAUK: My point of order is that he said I was a party to deception and untruthfulness while I was a cabinet minister. I ask him to withdraw that charge.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the charge that that particular member of the executive council was a party to it, because he didn't know what was going on in cabinet. He was left out in the dark.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why that particular member, while a member of the executive council, did not know what was going on in the executive council, because I understand that he was kept completely in the dark, and probably if he was there he wouldn't have understood it if they did say it. So I'll certainly withdraw any remarks that I made against the member.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The government members were challenged to stand up and speak for the north about the insurance rates of British Columbia. They were challenged to stand up, and I know they will stand up, particularly to the members on this side of the House. They'll stand up and they'll tell the people in the north how the people in the north were treated by that government while they were in power. They'll stand up and tell how this $181 million deficit in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia is going to be taken away from money that should be going to build roads in the north, bridges in the north and open up the north. Yes, you stand up, members for the north, and they'll tell you what has happened to the money, how we have to take out of general revenue money to subsidize the insurance corporation, a fact that was hidden from the people of the north by that group over there while they were government.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, we'll tell them. You better believe it we'll tell them. We'll tell them about the half-million dollar man in the north. We'll tell the people in the north about the half-million dollar man who spoke little and said less. We'll tell the people in the north about your government. We'll tell them about the wild promises for economic development in the northwest by what's-his-name from Vancouver East. Where is he, Mr. Speaker?

Oh, yes, his grandiose plans led the people of that northwest part of the province to great expectations, and then dashed all their hopes and did absolutely nothing. Oh, yes, the members for the north will stand and talk about your government, about how the previous government killed the mining industry and held back the coal industry.

We'll tell them about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and how the money has to be taken out of general revenue, taken away, to subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — money that could be going into good programmes in this coming year to develop the north and help those people in the north. Oh, yes, the members for the north will

[ Page 84 ]

speak out, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

You know, Mr. Speaker, it grieves me when I think about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the promises made by the previous government about no subsidy. Then in the first two years they lost $181 million. That's money that could have gone into the north, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . But this loss was caused by political interference by the members of the executive council and by the entire caucus, but most of all by those members — and that member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in particular, who was a member of the executive council and a director of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Had this trend continued, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia would have cost the people of British Columbia not $181 million but hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. But they knew. They knew that when they brought down their budget this spring they would have to tell the people of British Columbia the sad state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, maybe that's why they called the election so early. First of all, they changed the legislation to allow money to be taken from general revenue, gas taxes, to subsidize the insurance corporation. But then they did not increase the gasoline tax.

MR. KING: Yes, we did.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sure, you increased the gasoline tax 2 cents. But aren't the people in the north to pay for subsidy of transit in the south? Yes, you increased the gasoline tax — 2 cents a gallon.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If I stood here and told you.... I told you when I was in opposition what you were doing and you didn't remember, so I am not going to tell you again now.

Money from this source, gasoline tax that normally goes to general revenue.... People programmes now have to be bled off because of the political interference by that government in the operation of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia — that's why they didn't want to debate the throne speech, because there are good programmes in there for people. Oh, we used to hear them when they were in government talk about programmes for people — money from services to people to subsidize bashed fenders. That was the policy of that group over there when they were government — taking money away from...

MR. COCKE: How can you say that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...good health programmes, education, Mincome and Pharmacare to subsidize bashed fenders. That was the policy of that group over there.

MR. LAUK: Hogwash!

HON, MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, after creating...all of the press and all of the interviews.... After creating this myth that there was a big fund being built up out of the gas tax to pay for the deficit of the insurance corporation, they never moved one dime. Not one dime. Here we have the budget speech, which was tabled in this Legislature by that group over there last year: not one word about subsidizing the Insurance Corp, of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, when they talked about Crown corporations they somehow forgot to mention that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia would be needing a subsidy. Not one mention. They mentioned the B.C. Railway; they mentioned the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority as going to need more money, but not one word while they were talking about Crown corporations. That's why this document had a tendency to mislead the people of this province.

It even goes so far that when the Premier of this province was reading the budget speech in this Legislature, with all the TV cameras blazing, he conveniently left out in his speech, which went into Hansard, a portion out of the budget speech as it was printed that mentions legislation approved by this Legislature last year which provides that the corporation will have access to the consolidated revenue fund of the province in order to assist in its operation. That statement, Mr. Speaker, was conveniently left out of the Hansard version, and he did not say that while the TV cameras were bearing down on him; it was left out. Check it yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you checking Hansard?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Check it yourself. The Premier of this province, in delivering his budget speech, left out a portion of the printed budget speech which refers to a subsidy to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Very convenient.

MR. COCKE: Was that budget speech tabled?

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

[ Page 85 ]

the Premier of the province didn't table his budget speech. I don't know. But he sure printed thousands of copies and sent them all over the province. Sure! But when he was reading it to the TV cameras he conveniently left out that portion about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we have an economic and financial review of the province dated September, 1975, as late as last September. Not one word about the fact that this government intended to take money out of general revenues to subsidize the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia! Not one word, Mr. Speaker! They were afraid to tell the people of the province just what kind of condition their shining example of socialism, the insurance corporation, was in at that time. September last year, Mr. Speaker, and not one word about money coming out of general revenues to subsidize the insurance corporation.

Mr. Speaker, this government was faced — as outlined very ably by the Minister of Education on Friday afternoon — with the situation we faced when we became government and found the Insurance Corp, of British Columbia broke, found that there was no mythical fund in government to make up the subsidy, to make up the loss. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we found there was no money in the budget or in the coffers, period.

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and sorry tale, and it grieves me to have to stand in this Legislature this afternoon and debate this subject when we should be getting on with the business of running this province.

There was no money in the treasury, Mr. Speaker. There was no special gas tax fund, no money, period, and the company broke, The rest is now on the record. But that's why we cannot support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, all of the members from the opposite side have condemned and thrown scorn on the throne speech which the Lieutenant-Governor read in this Legislature, a speech that outline d people programmes. But the way they have brought in this amendment shows that they were negative when they were government previously, they were negative when they were in opposition before, and they're negative again now. Mr. Speaker, that group over there is always negative. That's why they could not lead in government.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to remember that the past Premier of this province used to run around the province talking about Chicken Little, and the sky was falling in. Well, now we know why he was saying that — because he knew that the sky, indeed, was falling in, not only on the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia but, indeed, on all the financial situation in the province. That's why he was so concerned about telling the people. It was on his mind all the time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say that I'll have to give the opposition benches a little credit because they worked hard when they were in government. They couldn't possibly have created such a mess without working hard at it.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Well, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Leader of the Opposition introduced this amendment on Friday there were several interjections across the row urging back-bench members from the government side of the house to participate in this debate.

I guess we've just heard from the second, future, back-bench member on the government side of the House. Because the Premier at that time turned to the backbenchers and said they're all free to speak, to get up and speak, and the next one to get up and speak was the hon. Minister of Education. I suppose we're looking into the future. We're looking ahead to the day when he will be back in the back bench,

He indicated when he got up to speak that he would be unable to support the amendment. I think, Mr. Speaker, in his long political career it's the first time that he's opposed an amendment to the opening speech, and likely he'll be opposing other amendments as they come up from time to time.

I had expected that the Premier would be in the House. I did want to say, and I'm going to say it anyway, that his attendance has been very good during this debate, and we've all appreciated having him here. We realize the importance of having him in the House, particularly when opposition members are speaking. He has been very good about attending.

He made much of the fact during his remarks when he spoke briefly that he is making a point of answering his correspondence. I think he is to be congratulated for that as well. I might warn him that his immediate predecessor was also very good at answering his correspondence; and the Premier who preceded him boasted that for 20 years he never answered a letter, and look at what happened to him. So perhaps it's not such a good idea for a Premier to answer all his correspondence.

But it's not just the answers, Mr. Speaker. The answer itself was interesting, the way in which it is personalized. For example, the date, February, 1976, sometime in February, 1976. The complimentary salutation, now the person to whom it is addressed. The name is a little bit out of line with the rest of the letter. Obviously the letter has been typed separately

[ Page 86 ]

at some time before or after the name was put on the letter. I've seen several copies of this exact same letter, the only difference being the name of the person to whom it was addressed. So that kind of personalized answer I'm sure will go down well with the people who are receiving this correspondence. I hope they enjoy reading it.

Nevertheless, he is to be congratulated. His attendance up to now has been very good and even if he's not reading the answers, at least he is sending them out regularly to all those who write to him.

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

MR. STUPICH: That is what this letter is about, ICBC — the whole letter. That was my point in reading it and, since you've drawn my attention back to it, I'd just like to refer to one other thing in this letter and then I'll go on to a news release that is a summary of the letter, or perhaps the letter is an expansion of the news release, one or the other. "Even with an increase in last year's premium rates it would require an additional 25 to 28 cents per gallon to break even." Now no justification to that calculation. I don't know where they got that figure from, Mr. Speaker. Then they go on with some very interesting reductio ad absurdum, I think you people call it. This would cost most drivers more in the long run. Now they don't prove that. They simple say it would cost them more in the long run, simply because it is said in this letter that it'll cost more in the long run. The fact that no commissions are paid on that has no bearing on it — the fact that it's easier to collect, that the people who are paying for it will not be paying it all at one time. They'll be paying it as they use the service, and hence it will be cheaper to them. None of that is mentioned. They just make the statement in this letter that it will cost more in the long run without trying to prove it at all. But this is the interesting part that I found.

Records show that expensive cars such as Rolls Royces, Mercedes Benz, et cetera, are often driven less. They could have gone on to say that records show that Volkswagens are often driven less. I've no doubt that some Volkswagens are driven more than some Rolls Royces and some Rolls Royces are driven more than some Volkswagens. But what does it mean to say that? It clutters up the letter. It makes the letter longer. It covers up the paper, but it really doesn't mean anything, does it?

MR. KING: It's your philosophy.

MR. STUPICH: So much of the stuff in this letter doesn't really mean anything. They're not facts. They're words thrown together so that they can be signed and released.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Typical Social Credit philosophy has been said. I prefer to call it by the words they use in the news release about this same subject. "In fact, the costs were so much higher that, unwilling to tell the public the true facts...." Mr. Speaker, facts are facts. If they're facts you don't have to say that they're true because by virtue of the fact that they are a fact, they are a fact. (Laughter.) And when they use those two words together the only interpretation you can put on what they call "true facts" is that they must mean something else. I'm only trying to show you, Mr. Speaker, that when they use the words "true facts" what they really mean you to understand from those two words is Bennett-McGeer garbage. So we can talk about facts on the one hand or we can talk about Bennett-McGeer garbage and try to compare the two and see where we come out in reading some of the stuff in this press release, some of the stuff that is repeated in the letter; or, as I say, I'm not sure which came first.

"Our party campaigned in the last election to open the books of ICBC to the public." They were going to show that we had closed the books, Mr. Speaker. Well, what are the facts? It said right in the letter. They say we were unwilling to tell the public, to open the books. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the ICBC legislation called for an independent audit of ICBC accounts. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation called for this report to be tabled in the Legislature as soon as it was received. I'm sure that you will recall that the regular annual report for ICBC for the last fiscal year-end, dated February 28, 1975, was dated April 22, 1975. As soon as it was received it was forwarded to the Lieutenant-Governor and made available in this House. Now that's a fact, Mr. Speaker. The Social Credit garbage is that we refused to reveal true information about ICBC. The facts of the matter are that as soon as the report was ready it was tabled in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot lately about another independent firm of chartered accountants and what they had to say, and not much has been said on the other side of the House quoting from that report. They have talked about the report. They've misused information in it, but they haven't apparently read the report itself. But let's read the report from Deloitte, Haskins & Sells about the operation of ICBC and see what they say. "We have examined the balance sheet of ICBC as at February 28, 1975, and the statements of general insurance operations and changes in financial position for the year then ended. In our opinion...." I'm not reading the whole report, but I'll read this part.

[ Page 87 ]

"In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly the financial position of the corporation as at February 28, 1975, and the result of its operations and the changes in its financial position for the year then ended, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding period."

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is an auditor's report. It is an unequivocal report about the financial status of ICBC at that date, the last date for which such facts are available.

They talk about deficit, an ICBC deficit, in that period of $34 million — of $36 million. But what do the auditors say? What do the financial statements show — the financial statements that are commented upon by the auditors? They show a deficit at that date of $2.7 million. Let's look at some of the auditor's comments, the basis of reporting.

I want you to recall, Mr. Speaker, some discussion in this House about another auditor's report about another Crown corporation, reports that were tabled in this House by a previous administration, previous to our administration, and recall some of the comments on what happened to that particular auditor. Nothing like that has happened to this auditor.

"Basis of reporting: As prescribed by sec. 18(3) of the ICBC Act as amended June 20, 1975, the financial statements of the corporation are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. In this respect" — and this, Mr. Speaker, is important — "the reporting conforms to that suggested in a 1974 research study of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants."

By all standards, Mr. Speaker, there can be no questions asked of this report. These are facts. These are reported on by the auditors, and the auditors insist that everything is being done in the way that is most endorsed by the people who are — best qualified to rule on these things.

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. All this talk about losses, about going broke, about the need to borrow money: that is all what they call "true facts" but what I suggest should be called "Bennett-McGeer garbage".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. STUPICH: In the course of his speech, the hon. member responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) made several comments that I would like to refer to.

He said, in effect, that the corporation was in receivership. There was no cash for salaries of the personnel of the corporation, salaries could not be paid, no money for claims. As of November 30 of last year — that would be 1975, the last month the NDP was in office — the unpaid claims of ICBC were $169 million. Unpaid claims of $169 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. STUPICH: No money for claims, no money for salaries, people were not being paid their salaries; Mr. Speaker, more Bennett-McGeer garbage.

What are the facts? On the day the NDP went out of office ICBC still had some cash on hand. On that day ICBC still had $17 million in investments that could have been sold had they chosen to sell them at that time.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: They still had those long-term investments.

Interjections.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): What about the claims?

MR. STUPICH: They still had those investments. When they sought my advice at that time, as Minister of Finance, should they sell these investments, I said: "No, there is no need to sell them. You don't need the cash now. When the day comes that you need the cash you can get it either from the government...

MR. HEWITT: The government didn't have any money.

MR. STUPICH: ...or you have a line of credit of $100 million in the bank waiting to be used if you want. There is no need to sell those long-term investments." That was my advice.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: So what are the facts? Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if the facts were that people were waiting for their salaries, if the facts were that people were waiting to be paid their claims, then it was the responsibility of that new administration to make sure that those funds were made available to meet those salary cheques and to meet the claims.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We did.

MR. STUPICH: He says they did. Mr. Speaker, they did. Yes, they followed my advice. ICBC went to the bank and borrowed money. How much did they borrow to meet these $169 million in outstanding claims? How much did they borrow to meet the salaries that were not being paid? Well, the

[ Page 88 ]

Hon. Minister of Education was quoted recently as saying they borrowed, Mr. Speaker, not $169 million, not $200 million; they borrowed $30 million from the bank. That's all the money they needed to finance the operations of ICBC until premiums started coming in late in February, premiums that we had expected would have started coming in early in January.

MR. COCKE: Right on.

MR. STUPICH: So $30 million was all they needed, in spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they dilly-dallied for a couple of months trying to make up their minds how much they were going to hook the people in the province for ICBC premiums. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. All they had to borrow was $30 million. They would not have had to borrow that amount if they had moved quicker on determining what would be the rates.

The speaker said during the course of his remarks that all ICBC had was a few million dollars in assets of any kind of the corporation. Well, how many are "a few"? It's kind of hard to determine. It reminds me of a Liberal cabinet member one time who said: "What's another million?" His attitude seems to be much the same with respect to a "few" million dollars.

He does go on to say that in the way of fixed assets they had $39 million; in the way of investments we know they had $17 million, and we know they had some cash. So add that all up together and you're getting at least up around $60 million of assets. Now that's "a few"? From where I sit that's quite a few, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless we'll get that information because I'm sure the administration on the other side of the House, when the true facts in the way of another report from Deloitte, Haskins & Sells become available, I'm sure that government will table this kind of information in the House as well. In April, next month, we hope to have a report telling us just exactly what is the true situation at that time.

In the course of his remarks the Minister of Education said that this money — and he's talking about accumulated deficits, not debts, Mr. Speaker, but deficits — accumulated deficits must be paid out of current taxes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not what Clarkson, Gordon said. Clarkson, Gordon didn't say that any of this money had to be paid out of current taxes. What did Clarkson, Gordon say? For those of you on the other side of the House.... And I note in particular the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) didn't seem to be able to read the amendment that we're discussing, didn't know what we were talking about until you read it for him, and we appreciate that. We think he should be read to when he's not able to read himself. But for his edification, I'll repeat the words out of the Clarkson, Gordon report with respect to the grant of ICBC of $175 million: "We have been advised by the government that this money will be paid by March 31, 1976, and therefore we have included it in the expenditures for this fiscal period." Simply because the government had said they were going to pay it by that date, not because ICBC needs the money. Because right today, Mr. Speaker, ICBC must have somewhere between $300 million and $400 million sitting in the bank in the way of short-term deposits. We'll give that information too.

Don't shake your head so much, it might fall off. I don't think there's very much holding it there. (Laughter.)

It doesn't have to be paid out of current taxes, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier of the province is the one that I can quote as an authority. I'm not often going to quote him as an authority, but on this I will quote him, because he said, when he was talking about borrowing this money to give it to ICBC: "Not only do they not need the money, but they will be able to invest it and earn the interest that will be used at some future date to lower the premiums."

They don't need the money, Mr. Speaker; the Premier said that. He knows it, you know it, but the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) apparently doesn't know very much about the financial status of ICBC, and he still thinks they need money, they need cash. A corporation that has between $300 million and $400 million in the bank is going to be given another $181 million just so that you can go out and borrow it and then say that it was our fault. Great politics, Mr. Speaker, but very poor economics!

During the course of his remarks also, the hon. Minister of Agriculture — again somebody must have been reading to him, but they didn't read the whole thing — said that we were in favour of flat rates. No charges for driving records. Mr. Speaker, you know that's nonsense. I wouldn't expect him not to know. But you know that we were going after people because of their driving record. Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised from what I know of — his driving that he didn't have enough points so that he was surcharged himself. You know that people were being charged....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a personal attack.

MR. STUPICH: All right, I'll withdraw my personal attack, Mr. Speaker; I'll withdraw that. It's just that he encourages one to indulge in personal attacks because of his continuing interruptions. But that's okay; I don't mind that a bit. It's funny.

But you certainly know that we were trying to penalize drivers on the basis of their individual driving records. You know that from speeches in this House and by speeches from the directors of the corporation that we were moving further into that, that we felt

[ Page 89 ]

the point system itself was not adequate as a way of measuring people's driving records, and that we were going to see that the people responsible for causing accidents were the ones that were going to pay for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, we were not prepared to attack drivers unless they did show that they had personal responsibility for these accidents. For example, Mr. Speaker, we weren't prepared to take everybody under the age of 25 and say simply "because you weren't born before 1951, you're going to pay more for your insurance." What kind of discrimination! You talk about discrimination, the hon. Minister of Agriculture often used to talk about discrimination. Well, let's look at some of the discrimination. Let's look at some of the people that are paying for this money that ICBC is going to be investing.

A 40-year-old man convicted of drinking and driving pays $372 to insure a 1974 Plymouth Valiant. He's 40 years old, he's convicted of drinking and driving and he pays $372 for $200,000 liability, $ 100 deductible on collision and $50 deductible on comprehensive. Now for drinking and driving he should be paying more than the person who is not drinking and driving. Isn't that right?

But if that person had no conviction for drinking and driving, but happened to be guilty of being younger than 25 years, then he doesn't pay the $372 for that same coverage, He would pay $845. From $372 to $845 — yet one is guilty of drinking and driving, the other is guilty of being below the age of 25 with a completely clean record of driving.

MR. KING: Shame on you!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I ask you: is that being fair? Hon. Minister of Agriculture, did you know it was that far out of line? Did you know that people under the age of 25 were being discriminated against in that way?

What about the other backbenchers, the people that are there now — not the ones that are going to the backbench, but the people that are there already? Do they know that a person is being discriminated against to that extent, in spite of the fact that they had a completely clean record, just because they are below the age, whereas a person convicted of drinking and driving, in this case, is paying $500 less for the same insurance?

Do you think that they really know that back there? Would they sit silent, Mr. Speaker, if they knew that? I think some of them might. But I'm hoping that there are one or two of them back there. And I had hoped that even the Minister of Agriculture would listen to the pleas from these people who have good driving records, no records of conviction at all...and to say that they should be paying, in this case, two and a half times as much as a person older but who has been convicted of drinking and driving! I had hoped that they would listen to pleas from people such as that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess in all seriousness I didn't hope it. I didn't hope for that kind of constructive action from the people on that side of the House. But I think it's well to say that I hoped for it, because maybe someday some of them will listen and maybe someday some of them will speak.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Education, during the course of his remarks — and this is something I agree with, too — said "we had to do some very unpopular things." We had to do some very unpopular things ourselves at times. He went on to say it was an extraordinarily difficult period for himself, for his family and for the government. But that's the price of responsibility, if you are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Speaker, certainly people in government have to accept responsibility, have to pay that kind of a price at times. I think it's very commendable on the part of the hon. Minister of Education that when he was being asked to pay this price on one occasion, the TV cameras, I believe it was, took note of the fact that while he was in the house and they approached him to ask questions, it was not the hon. minister who came to the door, but his wife who came to the door. Now that's pretty good; he has only one wife to throw into the fray, but he offered unselfishly the one wife that he had to take on this responsibility for the attack against the ICBC premiums. And in another case his son. I don't know how many sons he has; maybe he has more than one so he can afford to be a bit more generous in the case of his sons. In another case when he was called upon to account for his plans with respect to ICBC, unselfishly again — and I say again; he has only one executive assistant — but unselfishly he threw that executive assistant into the fray,

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is really an example of accepting responsibility. Very commendable to have a minister who is prepared in that way to accept responsibility for the actions of himself and the government that he is advising. We would hope, perhaps on some occasion, that he will be available to throw himself into the fray. Perhaps that will happen when he has no one else to throw into the fray on his behalf.

Mr. Speaker, they have talked a lot about the subsidy that ICBC needs. I quoted earlier in my remarks the Premier himself saying that ICBC does not need cash right now. We never looked on the gasoline tax method of collecting premiums as a subsidy; it's a way of collecting premiums. It is not more expensive; it is more economical for the people paying the premium.

They quoted the remarks of Mr. Barrett in a speech as saying that there would be no subsidy, and

[ Page 90 ]

from the beginning we maintained that position. Gasoline tax is a method of collecting the premium.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a subsidy from general revenue.

MR. STUPICH: We never said that the tax would not be increased if we found it necessary to do this. You recall, Mr. Speaker, we did say that in next year's budget, at a time when we knew that the cash would be needed, not one penny....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That's right, Mr. Speaker, Not one penny of consolidated revenue has gone in. We did not anticipate that one day there'd be a change in administration — that people determined to wreck the system and hand it over to the private insurance companies to live up to their campaign promises would come into power, and that they would hand this business over to the private companies and that there would be subsidies to ICBC. We didn't anticipate that when we said there would be no subsidies. We said there would be no subsidies and we meant it as long as we were controlling it, but we didn't expect that you would be heading the government one day and that there would then be a subsidy of $181 million that the people of this province will be paying. Not the drivers; everybody in the province will be contributing to that subsidy that your government has paid to ICBC, and it just isn't necessary.

As you said yourself, the cash isn't needed now. You said that the premiums will be sufficient to cover the cost of claims and running ICBC this year. The cash is not needed. You are paying a subsidy that is not needed. You said that yourself about the gasoline-tax premium method. It is not a subsidy, Mr. Speaker. It's a way of collecting premiums.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a subsidy.

MR. STUPICH: Those of you who were referring to the then Premier's remarks at a meeting in Kelowna didn't read it all...

AN HON. MEMBER: Kamloops.

MR. STUPICH: ...because he did say in Kamloops that the legislation allows up to 10 cents per gallon on gasoline tax to be used for ICBC in addition to premium payments, although so far...

HON. MR. BENNETT: In addition to premiums. He didn't call it premiums; he called it in addition.

MR. STUPICH: ...the tax has been raised only 2 cents. We knew that if the tax was going to be used as a form of paying the premium, we knew there would be some adjustment in the gasoline tax rate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right, a transfer.

MR. STUPICH: That was a transfer tax. That's exactly it, a transfer of revenue — the 2 cents was. That's right. The 2-cent increase in gasoline tax was a transit tax revenue.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Will you leave that 2 cents for the moment and get on to the next phase of it?

We also knew that we would not be transferring. We also knew that ICBC would not need massive infusions of cash in the fiscal period 1975 to 1976. We talked about that when you were out. ICBC did not need massive infusions of cash in the period ending February 29, 1976.

We did say in our speech in December that it was proposed that in the next budget there would be an amount of $150 million provided from gasoline tax revenue provided for ICBC. But we never said, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no change in that gasoline tax in that period. We didn't say there would, and we didn't say there wouldn't.

We're not talking about the 2 cents; we are talking about the next budget year because we said very carefully that in the next budget year there would be a transfer to ICBC, but there was no transfer in the current year. As the Premier himself has said, it has not been necessary to make that transfer. It's not necessary. The money is being transferred to ICBC so that it may invest the money and use the interest some day to lower the premiums. Now those, Mr. Speaker, are the Premier's remarks as I saw them reported in the Victoria Times, dated January 27.

Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition has made a good case for supporting this amendment.

I don't expect from his reaction right now that the Premier has listened to all that case in the way that he should have, so I don't expect that he will be voting with us. But I do expect that we will get support from a substantial number of people in the House, and I think there are a lot of people in the community outside of this House who would support this amendment, people who are very concerned about the way in which the government has started to attack ICBC, the corporation that even they admit — it was reported quite widely — that if it were not for ICBC coming into the business, rates in B.C. today would have been much higher even than they are now with the vastly increased rates imposed by the present administration.

I believe it was the president of the Canadian Federation of Insurance Agents who said: "If private

[ Page 91 ]

insurance companies had continued in B.C. after 1972, B.C. motorists would be paying more for their car insurance in 1976 than they do now, despite the staggering increases imposed by the Social Credit government."

So even if they succeed in making ICBC very unpalatable during what I hope will be their short term in office, even if they do accomplish that, the B.C. motorists will have benefited from the establishment of ICBC.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Last week, the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and again today the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked to hear from the back bench of this party concerning the amendment to the motion presently before this House. I am therefore more than pleased to take this opportunity to speak against that motion.

In the entire financial history of this province, never has such a total disaster faced the people of British Columbia. From its outset ICBC was subjected to the most blatant political interference that any Crown undertaking has ever had the misfortune to suffer. Notwithstanding the initial pledge by the now official opposition — a position in which they now so deservedly find themselves — that total insurance costs would be paid totally out of revenues, what do we find? After the first year of operation, the corporation experienced a loss of some $ 34 million, a fact that was known by the directors of the corporation and the president of that corporation while denials to that effect were commonplace.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame! Shame!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shame!

MR. DAVIDSON: There can be no question, following the dramatic revelations made by the Education minister, the minister responsible for ICBC, on Friday, that the people of British Columbia were deliberately misled by those same individuals who now so self-righteously sit here in condemnation of a policy that this government has put forward in an attempt to rectify the serious imbalance in Autoplan payments.

MR. KING: Author! (Laughter.)

MR. DAVIDSON: If criticism is, in fact, deserved, Mr. Speaker, it belongs not to this government but to the former administration who attempted to use ICBC for its own political ends.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIDSON: No amount of phony criticism or rhetoric from the opposition can justify the deception or the scheming ineptitude of the directors of that corporation.

It has become commonplace among some shoddy salesmen trying to sell an inferior product to take their weak point and try and turn it around as a sales benefit.

MR. KING: A used car salesman? Don't attack used car salesmen.

MR. DAVIDSON: Nothing could be more similar than the situation the opposition has put forward on this amendment. They know they are wrong. They have been proved wrong. The people know they are wrong, and they are still trying to say they're right.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up!

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Hey Don, did you write that?

MR. DAVIDSON: With the facts alone, as outlined on Friday, the former minister responsible for ICBC, Mr. Strachan, should be immediately recalled to answer these grave and serious charges. Rather than the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) attacking this government, he as the former director of ICBC should be trying to offer some excuse for remaining as a member of this House.

MR. KING: Dan Campbell strikes again.

MR. DAVIDSON: That the former Premier of this province, now knowing that the facts of the deceit of his government are now known and part of the public record, should dare to parachute himself into another riding vacated for his convenience and inflict himself on the people of Vancouver East is simply beyond comprehension.

Mr. Speaker, while this government may not always take the most popular stand, it is always going to take a responsible stand. Government dollars are people's dollars and should be spent for the benefit of people, not for fenders and certainly not on grandiose political cover ups.

How could any government after experiencing a dramatic financial loss in its first year of operation even consider lowering premiums in its second year of operation, despite rising costs experienced in the auto repair industry and the rising costs of their own administration? The answer is simple: they told us it would be good, so no matter what it cost the taxpayer it was going to be good.

Mr. Speaker, ICBC was intended to be the jewel in the crown of the NDP; it has turned to be the thorn in their side. Neither scare tactics nor massive

[ Page 92 ]

programmed demonstrations will alter the fact that their administration bungled through political interference and misled through deliberate misstatements. The architect of the disaster was sent thousands of miles away to hide in London, and now we see why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIDSON: Again I say that rather than attacking this government for its responsible dealings in an attempt to remove itself politically within the next year from the corporation, members of the operation should hide their heads in shame on the entire ICBC issue.

Mr. Speaker, I do not stand before the members here stating that ICBC is presently without fault and that there's no room for improvement. Far from it. Certainly there's room for improvement; there will always be room for improvement, and this improvement is being worked on daily.

As a backbencher in this party I am proud of the stand that the Minister of Education and the minister responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has taken on this entire matter. The people of this province are proud of the stand he has taken on this matter. Major changes have been made in Autoplan, and thousands of motorists who received their premium notice were shocked to find that they were not looking at $ 1,000 or $1,500, as many had led them to believe; they were finding, in fact, that their rates were comparable with those of other non-subsidized private insurance programmes.

Several significant factors must be considered in the analysis of the present Autoplan programme. These include the fact that the government is going to pick up all the past debts of the corporation, which are in fact $181 million. Collision coverage is no longer compulsory. To obtain the necessary decal drivers are only required to purchase the public liability and property damage insurance. Insurance premiums are being set on a break-even basis for all types of insurance. Financing is available to all motorists. Special reductions have been introduced for senior citizens and handicapped people. And lastly, there's a 25 per cent rebate for those under 25 who are accident-free and free of up to five points, which is not out of ICBC but out of the government revenues.

The people of this province have every right to ask what happened to the money that was earmarked for ICBC. Where has it gone? Like everything else, it was spent. But as time progresses....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Flying helicopters.

MR. DAVIDSON: But as time progresses the people of British Columbia...

HON. MR. BENNETT: Building roads.

MR. DAVIDSON: ...will find that responsible government has once again returned to British Columbia and, further, that backbenchers of this party are never hard-pressed to defend the policies of this government; we're proud of the opportunity.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the hon. member for Delta being so proud of his ministers; the one who's just leaving the house there, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), was severely criticized by the member for Delta for not meeting those vegetable growers. He wasn't so proud the other day, Mr. Speaker.

I'm kind of confused by these figures. You know, I listened to the speech of the Hon. Minister of Education, and I thought that the Premier would be backing up that hon. minister and agreeing with him. But somebody gives me a letter here — it's kind of a form letter; it's probably gone to all kinds of people — and this is what the Premier says publicly about the Minister of Education.

Yes, one of your letters under your signature. He says:

"It has been little more than a month since the election. During that time we have been extremely busy forming a cabinet and coming to grips with the problems of government and the Crown corporations. The problems are greater than anticipated" — and listen to this, and he is telling the public this in a letter — "and we have created a few of our own since taking office, e.g. Dr. McGeer's unfortunate ICBC statement...." (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Is there tribal warfare going on in the Social Credit cabinet? Do you really believe, Mr. Premier, the kind of figures and facts and statements that the hon. minister tried to give us the other day? You have got a funny way of backing him up. Are you afraid that he is going to put a knife in your back, or are you putting one in his first? (Laughter.)

You know, it is one thing for a Minister to make an unfortunate statement, but to have the Premier of the province going around in letters to the public calling attention to that — " e. g. that unfortunate...." Oh, yes, you've been a good propagandist because I don't think you really agree, and I find it very hard to find his story about ICBC hanging together myself.

You know I'm not all that good at finances, and I

[ Page 93 ]

must admit, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes I get confused. You know, you all know my wife won't let me have anything to do with the household finances. Although, you know, when it comes to the really big questions like ordering a couple of hundred million from the Arabs, then she lets me make that kind of a decision. (Laughter.) But I can't understand, Mr. Premier, I can't understand. I listened to the speech, and it was a darned good speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: And he quoted you as saying that you were going to lend to ICBC...

AN HON. MEMBER: To give.

MR. MACDONALD: ...to give $175 million which ICBC doesn't need. Now that is confusing. You know, if we listen to sad stories of financial woe, which have been retailed to us in this Legislature, then you would think that the last thing that anybody would want to do that was in dire financial circumstances would be to go to a finance company and borrow money they don't need. (Laughter.) And you are the one that said that.

MR. LEA: The only way to fly!

MR. MACDONALD: You're the one that said that. Premier Bennett says: "But that money will not be needed right away, and ICBC can invest it and earn millions of dollars."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Making the people pay!

MR. MACDONALD: But you look at the other side of the question, Mr. Premier, and you have to wonder what kind of a game is being played here. How much interest are you going to pay on that money? You are going out on the money markets of the world and you are going to borrow $175 million to give to ICBC so that they can lend it out, and they can be a money-lender, eh? — not an insurance company but a money-lender. But you have to pay interest on that sum, eh? The people of the Province of British Columbia have to pay interest on that $175 million.

I hope that you are going to answer some of these questions. How much interest are you going to pay? What is going to be the effect on the general credit rating of the province of going out to the money markets and borrowing money that we don't need?

Because, you know, the school boards are out and they are looking to borrow money, the municipalities and B.C. Hydro — and these are needed moneys. They need it for schools, they need it for the municipalities, they need it for Hydro, and yet you — why are you doing this Mr. Premier? I mean, why are you borrowing money that you don't need?

Did you suggest this...when you told Clarkson, Gordon.... I don't think you should have done this to them. (Laughter.) Did you suggest the other day in the House, Mr. Premier, that this was on the advice of the comptroller-general that you told Clarkson, Gordon that they would have to get $175 million from the government — $181 million I think was in the report — by March 31? Was that on your advice, Mr. Premier, or the comptroller-general's?

Because you suggested it the other day, and I would hate to think that you were hiding behind the comptroller-general on a subject of that kind. Because what you are doing, Mr. Premier, is taking a date, March 31, when ICBC doesn't need the money, and making a loan at the expense of the credit rating of the Province of British Columbia to the whole world, driving up the costs of the other borrowings that this province will have to make, and you are doing it for political reasons. Why else? Why is it March 31?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: It's to try to blame the NDP. It's a political decision. That's right! You don't need to borrow the money, but you want to try and show how bad the NDP was, and so for the first time in the history of this province, you are bringing politics into the operation of the Department of Finance. There is no other explanation.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: And, Mr. Premier, you have been going around making speeches, telling everybody who wants to listen...

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: ...including the financial money markets, British Columbia is in bad financial shape.

MR. LAUK: Old jet-lag is moving over.

MR. MACDONALD: Thereby you're injuring the credit of the province in the money markets of the world. Now why don't you forget? You're playing politics, aren't you? You're playing politics with this $175 million. My did you choose the date March 31 to borrow $175 million that we don't need?

MR. KING: Can't even run a hardware store.

[ Page 94 ]

MR. MACDONALD: This is a political game, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you sell haywire in that hardware store?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, do you want me to answer that? There's no cover-up.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: You wanted me to answer the question. I answered it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not prepared to defend it.

MR. MACDONALD: I answered the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a audit. Do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have a Social Credit review.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What we're seeing for the first time in the Province of British Columbia.... (Laughter.) Oh, let me get off that, because I'm getting so much help I can't use it all.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I think, Mr. Premier, this is a political game plan.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Why wouldn't you let the Anti-Inflation Board look at these huge ICBC rate increases?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll tell you what happened. The first thing you did...and you said that when you came into government you found out the thing was broke. Before you had a chance to do anything, you sent three of your ministers down to Ottawa, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), and the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair).

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Services.

MR. MACDONALD: Consumer Services. I used to be a minister. I should get it right.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: What did they do down there in Ottawa, Mr. Premier?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: They went and met Hon. Macdonald, Hon. Ouellet.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and the Hon.... Yes, Ouellet was there. Wasn't he there?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Macdonald was there, eh?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Macdonald was there and Labour Minister John Munro.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't help him. Don't help him.

MR. MACDONALD: And you met in the glass bell in Ottawa.

HON. MR. MAIR: Wrong again.

MR. MACDONALD: The building, the bell building. You sent those ministers down there to tell the federal government in no uncertain terms that you would not participate in the federal anti-inflation guidelines unless ICBC was taken out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and that's why Jean-Luc Pepin and Beryl Plumtree have been out here threatening that if they had a look at the exorbitant ICBC rates they would roll them back as unjustified.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I quote from the Vancouver Sun and you'll have an opportunity to tell us exactly what happened.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you ever around?

[ Page 95 ]

MR. MACDONALD: You'll have an opportunity to tell us exactly what happened and not chatter quite so much in your place in the House. You'll be able to get up on your feet and tell us exactly what happened in Ottawa.

MR. LEA: He wouldn't do that.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, Pepin came out here and he made it pretty clear that the Anti-Inflation Board would be prepared to take a sharp pencil and look at those ICBC increases and roll them back because they're totally unjustified. He can't do it because of the action of this government. You put it up to Ottawa saying that there would be no cooperation unless ICBC was exempt.

HON. MR. MAIR: Pepin was in Mexico.

MR.MACDONALD:

"With both Wolfe and Macdonald worried, the two ministers quickly came to an understanding. If B.C. joined the programme, the federal government would not allow the anti-inflation programme to interfere with the increases in ICBC rates."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Were you quoting Hans Christian Anderson?

MR. MACDONALD: "This was not an implicit understanding," It's an article by John Sawatsky in the Vancouver Sun of March 1, and he's a very capable reporter. Let me finish this.

"This was not an implicit understanding or a vague promise by Macdonald to do everything he could. It was a carte blanche undertaking from the federal Minister of Finance to exempt ICBC from the anti-inflation guidelines. This verbal pact has been checked and confirmed through both parties."

MR. LAUK: Under-the-table dealings.

MR. MACDONALD: And, Mr. Speaker, that has been in fact what has happened. Because while everybody who works for a living is controlled by the anti-inflation guidelines, there has been one conspicuous exception of exorbitant charges in a period of inflation, and that has been ICBC in the Province of British Columbia. This government has refused to sign an agreement with Ottawa as to the public sector solely because you know those ICBC rates would be rolled back as exorbitant in a period of inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful conspiracy!

MR. MACDONALD: And when you look at the whole picture you see that it all falls together, don't you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier through you. Right from the time of December 23, when you were sworn into office, the game plan was on: to hike up the ICBC rates to a level where your friends the private insurance companies would feel comfortable.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, before you even looked at the books, that was the decision — to run down to Ottawa and get exemption from anti-inflation guidelines and try and blame it all on the NDP. What you were plainly doing was paying off an election debt to those private insurance companies, even though not one of them — Allstate, you name it; Farmers' Union, the whole works — none of them would increase their insurance rates, even if they did have financial difficulties, by 200 or 300 per cent in one jump. It's never been done anywhere in the insurance world. But in B.C. you had an obligation to those private companies. They had financed you and supported you in the election and you paid it off on December 23 with an agreement from Ottawa that Ottawa had to keep hands off. You've been adding to the fires of inflation, and you've been playing a political game in the Department of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up.

MR. MACDONALD: Certainly, for the first time in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's no cover-up.

MR. MACDONALD: What have you been doing with Clarkson, Gordon when you give them that kind of instruction? A respected auditing firm throughout Canada, supposed to be making an independent review of the situation, and what do you do? You say: "Don't upset our political game plan, We want you to show a debt. We want to make sure of that before March 31, because that's the vital date to blame it on the NDP."

Are you going to make that deadline, Mr. Premier? Do you think you'll be able to get that political money to ICBC in the next few days? Because, you know, that's your political commitment, isn't it? Yes, make the debt look big. Never mind if it hurts the province. Never mind that you've interfered and intermeddled politically with a respected auditing firm and....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right, giving them instructions — telling them to make an independent

[ Page 96 ]

review and then giving them political instructions. I don't think you should do that to a respected auditing firm. I think they should have quit and packed up the job and not taken that kind of instruction from a political Premier.

What kind of an independent review is it where the politicians tells them how to insert the figures?

MR. HEWITT: Are you questioning the integrity of Clarkson, Gordon?

MR. MACDONALD: What kind of review is that?

Mr. Premier, I bet you're in a race now with your political game plan to try to paint the picture of the state of this province's finances as black as possible by March 31. Do you think you'll be able to rush that money to them in time?

But I'll tell you this, Mr. Premier: when you do this for the first time you're beginning to use that Department of Finance for political purposes.

MR. LAUK: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: That's right — for the first time. You said the other day it was the comptroller who advised you to do this. Nothing of the kind. That's not true at all. You did it yourself.

I say that the finances of this province should be put on.... Let the Department of Finance govern according to real needs and borrow according to real needs and not according to the political game plan of the Social Credit Party, because what you're doing is running down the province. Once you start down that slippery path of playing politics with the finances of the province, there's no turning back. That's something we never did. That's what you're doing — playing politics with the finances of this province, and it's time you put the province first.

Interjections.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I must take exception to some remarks that were made last Friday by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). He took exception to the quality of the back bench of this party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm here to say that we won't stand for that type of thing, Mr. King. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on!

MR. LEA: He's going to get you, Bill.

MR. STRONGMAN: We know what the quality was in the last back bench, and it was devastating to this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Hide his curlers. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: We want Agnes.

MR. STRONGMAN: Last Friday Mr. King said, and he quoted me, or a quotation was alleged to me in the....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could I just interrupt you for one moment? You don't refer to another member in the House by name. You refer to him by riding, please.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm sorry. I don't have all the ridings straight, but I'll try and do that. Please correct me again if I make the mistake.

MR. LAUK: Particularly Vancouver South.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for...

MR. KING: Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR, STRONGMAN: ...Revelstoke-Slocan accused me and said that I had said in the Vancouver Province that the debt should be paid through gasoline taxes and general revenue. I admit that I made that statement. I meant it, and I think I should thank you for bringing it out because it indicates that the back bench of this party are listening too. We are now paying for the $180 million out of general revenue.

The back bench of this parliament, of this government, unlike the back bench of the last government, has great ability and strength of purpose. Our Premier has great reserves to draw from where he decides to do it.

MR. KING: I can see that.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is very unlike the situation that occurred in the last government.

It seems to me, although I was not in the House, that it took your party three years to find a Finance minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Three years to bring in....

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: And I can only deduce there wasn't anyone strong enough...

MR. LEA: You'll have three years too.

[ Page 97 ]

MR. STRONGMAN: ...in the former cabinet or in the back bench so he selected the best he had — the best he had, the very best.

If the performance of the former Finance minister is the standard of the ability and competence of the former back bench, then, Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude the cabinet and back bench had to be less than competent.

It was brought out again; it was embellished today by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) who said that they didn't understand the financial statements of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. And then on top of that, the hon. member for Vancouver East admitted that lie couldn't add.

Thank goodness the electorate recognize their lack of expertise and drummed the Finance minister and a good number of his associates out of office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. STRONGMAN: The hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) made a remark Thursday or Friday in the House. He indicated that one of the members on the opposition side of the floor couldn't run a peanut stand. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say to you that I don't think any of them collectively could run a peanut stand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not even with a subsidy!

Interjections.

MR. LEA: That was Capozzi's line.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'd like to take this opportunity to warn the opposition that the back bench of this government has a strength of purpose which was not be found in the last government of this province. The back bench of this government will be heard and will fight, and I've just indicated thanks to the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) — how we are heard because he's pointed it out very nicely for me.

MR. LAUK: Where is Agnes? Where is Agnes?

MR. STRONGMAN: I believe she's in Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: Fortunately, in our party — to answer the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — fortunately our party has a grass-roots organization that allows anyone to stand for nomination. I happened to be fortunate enough to win our nomination with Mr. Rogers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Steam-roller!

MR, STRONGMAN: One of the points that has been brought out repeatedly by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is an accusation that we're going to be drummed out of the cabinet or we're not going to get a cabinet post. All of a sudden I wonder: what is so important about a cabinet post to the members from the NDP?

I didn't personally....

MR. LEA: Once more with a little feeling, fellows! (Laughter.)

MR. STRONGMAN: What is so important to the opposition party about cabinet post appointments? "The party of the people," they call themselves. What is so important? It's a hard job. I didn't run to get into the cabinet. I ran to represent a constituency.

MR. COCKE: All the millionaires in B.C.

MR. STRONGMAN: I would like to go on now to the amendment itself. I have to find it here.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is his first speech, maiden speech. Where are your manners?

MR. STRONGMAN: The amendment says: "This House regrets that the speech fails to relieve the motoring public from oppressive auto rates, fails to offer fair treatment for northern interior drivers and fails to end discrimination for drivers under 25." I would like to speak to the first point.

It is my contention that insurance rates in this province are very similar to all regions in Canada, with the exception of Quebec because they are higher than we are. I have lived in eastern Canada. I know what insurance rates are there and we have a reasonable deal in this province.

One of the points is that we have been unfair to people in the northern areas and the interior — and I'd like you to compare some notes that I have made with regard to rates in those areas: $ 113 in the north Island; $114 in northern B.C.; $104 in the southern interior; $137 in the lower mainland.

I don't know, it seems that the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) is unable to add as well as the rest of your party. I can't see how you can compare and say to us that our rates are higher in the northern and interior areas when it's pointed out that they're not in almost every category that exists.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Facts never bothered them before.

[ Page 98 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't interrupt. Don't interrupt again.

MR. STRONGMAN: In the amendment you say that we have oppressive auto rates and that we aren't thinking about the people. We've arranged for a 25 per cent down payment on our rate this year which was not expected, but we were able to do it. You can pay for your rates over six months at 13 per cent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was never done before.

MR. STRONGMAN: Thirteen per cent bank interest. All it's costing someone to carry a $200 debt for six months is something under $10. I think if the back bench or if the opposition parties could get together, they might check my arithmetic and collectively they might be able to come up with a similar answer.

Two categories of needy people have been subsidized by our government. Senior citizens and handicapped people have been given a 25 per cent discount. We've also made it possible for under-25 drivers to have a 25 per cent rebate if and when they are able to drive one year without more than five points, or without an accident.

Gentlemen, I think that we are presenting a very fair package in ICBC. I think you people have attacked our back bench in such a way that we are going to fight back. I don't think that we are ever going to stand for the innuendo that was passed in the House last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, in summation, the government of this province has walked into a colossal mess. The previous government has misled the people and misrepresented the facts. If they had been directors of a public company, they would be subject to criminal action. The directors of ICBC were misrepresenting a financial statement to the stockholders of the company, which is the province in this case, which is every citizen that lives here. They would be subject to criminal action. I ask the former president of ICBC and all of the directors that are in this House or in government posts elsewhere to resign promptly. Thank you.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I too have received literally hundreds of letters and petitions, as have most other members of this House, protesting the exorbitant rate increases in ICBC, but I thought I would....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): All from Girl Guides?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He looks like one, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I thought I would spend a few moments discussing a particular aspect of the exorbitant rate increase in ICBC, and that is the cost to the working people and the poor people of this province.

In a riding like mine, which has very limited or no public transit, everyone depends on a vehicle to get to work, or to go shopping, or to drive their children to the school bus stop, in some cases five or six miles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or a boat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, you won't build roads. We have to use boats. But for example, it's 24 miles from Sechelt to the mill at Port Mellon, 15 to 17 miles from Lund or Stillwater to the mill at Powell River. In the Bella Coola valley, some people must drive up to 30 miles to get to their jobs. People need their vehicles. We have no choice. We have to pay those brutal rates. Vicious is right. In some instances in my riding, Mr. Speaker, even in cases of health and emergency, people must use their vehicles because they live a long distance from the ambulance service or from transit of any kind. So you see the effect that these brutal rates are having on people in ridings like mine and other rural areas of the province. This government has discriminated against young people in a cruel and heartless way. I assure you, Mr. Minister, that these young people will not forget. The minister expresses concern about how many dollars the corporation is not receiving because people cannot afford to insure their second vehicle. I know many, many people, Mr. Speaker, who under ordinary circumstances would insure their second vehicle and are not doing so this year. So that in effect means a loss of revenue to the corporation. Or they're buying only the basic coverage, and this, by the way, I think, will result in damaged and unsafe vehicles on our highways and roads because people simply will not spend their own funds for the needed repairs.

Well, what should be done? Well, I suggest a specified portion of the total premium should be collected at the gas pumps and remitted to ICBC and licence and insurance rates kept low. Secondly, drivers should not be discriminated against on the basis of age, sex or territorial location, but should be surcharged as warranted by their individual driving records, Mr. Speaker.

Just very quickly before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, and just to answer the second member for Vancouver-South (Mr. Strongman), who said nothing that was insulting, I was pleased to hear that he at least endorses our concept of ICBC. I want to see some of those backbenchers over there get up and defend and represent their constituents. Don't sit there like lumps; now get up!

[ Page 99 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's the first time we've heard from you in three and a half years.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, here's one of the backbenchers who would like to say a few words. We've got to deal with this amendment today and it appears to me that we are speaking in the past. I think it's a case of cause and effect that this government is faced with the problem that they are today — a $175 million loss. This government inherited the mess from the previous administration. The people of this province inherited the mess from the previous administration. Even the amendment is in error.

You state that it offered unfair treatment to the northern and interior drivers. I am an interior driver, and from the brochure that I've read, my rates, whether they be for pleasure, driving to work, business or age 25 and under, are less than what they are on the lower mainland. Now I don't know whether your amendment is wrong or whether you are confused with the figures we are quoting.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who is responsible for ICBC. The facts and figures that he gave on Friday, I think, outline the situation very clearly. The article in the Vancouver Sun, dated August 30, 1974, is fairly clear. Plan Z, I understand.... One member in this House said that they looked at other plans, or why Plan Z? I have an understanding, or I would feel, that possibly you started at Z instead of starting at A. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: They went backwards.

MR. HEWITT: In other words, you work backwards. Thank you very much.

The report in June said that the 1974-75 rates were not high enough and a loss would be produced. Plan Z he was looking at, gas taxes and licences...to raise $110 million. The president of ICBC was not concerned about the seriousness of the matter, yet the quote from plan Z says:

"There are increased costs which must be met and will offset the additional revenues. Claims Costs are rising on an average rate of 12 per cent. Operating expenses, mainly wages, are rising. The 1974-75 rates are not high enough and will produce an estimated $35 million deficit."

Yet he wasn't aware of the problem.

The Autoplan, the directors and, I would suggest, the government of the day knew that the premiums were too low, and yet a flat rate would be introduced in 1975. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) makes the comment that the gas tax collection is a collection of premiums and not a subsidy. I would suggest to him to consider for a minute what a gas tax does to the consumers of this province when you try and buy groceries, materials, et cetera, that are delivered by transport truck in this province. I think that is a subsidy, and it affects the non-drivers as well as the drivers.

I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), as a director of the corporation, why he didn't speak up when this plan was introduced. The Minister of Finance or the Premier, whichever, he shirked his responsibility. Why didn't he speak up and say that the rates were too low? At the end of 1975 the people of this province, all people, inherited the ICBC mess, a $175 million loss.

Expanding of social services — I think it's an injustice that that was allowed to carry on. I would suggest that the way you were going it would have been 10 times worse if you had been left in this office. It's the truth.

Mr. Speaker, it is proof to me that politics and business do not mix, and that the politicians should leave the business alone.

MR. LAUK: That's what we think, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you? (Laughter.)

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the hon. members can take their stand concerning this loss. The cost-out to driving an automobile...there is a cost, there is a cost to driving an automobile, and one of those costs is insurance premiums. The NDP policy, as I understand it, is "all people shall pay". Yet in a release that I have in front of me it was stated: "It's up to you to keep them down." And it's talking about premiums. Insurance premiums are based on accident-claim costs. When these go up, insurance rates must follow, and that's a statement out of the brochure of the NDP.

The Premier and Minister of Finance in the 1975-76 budget did not make any note of the requirement of the $110 million that was needed. These members are the members of the opposition who questioned the Clarkson, Gordon report, but they failed to question the Minister of Finance, they failed to question the directors of ICBC on the oversight of not including in the budget the loss of $ 110 million.

The members of the NDP who are aware of this should keep very quiet, very quiet indeed. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), I think, sort of put his foot in his ear when he said let them look at their wallets; let the people look at their wallets today because of the rates. I would suggest that with the $175 million loss, all people of this province — the pensioners, the working class, the young people, the families — have to make up that loss over previous years. I don't think that's fair and just, and I think members involved should be very

[ Page 100 ]

quiet.

I think it has been a tragedy how the people of this province have been misled. I think the press would do well to research the facts that the Minister of Education presented to this assembly on Friday. Plan Z, I think, was something that people were aware of in the government of the day and yet, for political purposes, didn't take any action on it.

The government was faced with a financial disaster on December 12. The Clarkson, Gordon report pointed this out. The report that the Minister of Education gave supported those figures, and historical documents he presented. The NDP members should be very quiet indeed.

With the amendment we're dealing with, with the information at hand, what has been presented by the Minister of Education, I am amazed that the members involved — I think it's the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) who moved the amendment.... I think that amendment, Mr. Speaker, should be withdrawn, and I think it should be withdrawn by those two individuals.

This government is being fair in dealing with motorists. I would quote to you again another brochure that was put out on February 26, 1974, by the president of ICBC:

"It is important to remember that Autoplan is a motorists' fund. This means that premiums are set without profit in mind. All revenues to the funds are used to satisfy claims, to meet administrative costs of the plan and to establish financial reserves consistent with good management." I would suggest to you that good management was not dealt with in ICBC or in the government of the day, and we are paying for that mess today.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to quote part of the Minister of Education's statements, I believe on Friday: "Safe driving is the only real way of keeping costs down and reducing the human tragedy that accompanies death and injury on the highways."

The hon. members should be made aware of the facts of ICBC, and the fact that the people of this province have been misled by the previous government as to the financial well-being of ICBC, that the people of this province have to pay for the past administration and the poor management of this Crown corporation. I would again suggest that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for New Westminster withdraw the amendment and let us get on with doing the job of government.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. I feel I would be very remiss if I did not take my place in this debate, particularly as I have so many members and constituents in my own riding who ever since these rates, these unfair rates, were imposed on the citizens of British Columbia have come to my office, have written to me, as I know they have done to all members whether on the government side or in the opposition.

I was very, very interested in hearing from other backbenchers — it's very nice to see some of them getting up. They are attempting to defend their government's position. Shall we give them credit for at least making the attempt? I'm still waiting to hear from my fellow Burnaby colleagues whom I'm sure have also received many complaints from the residents of Burnaby.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

It was interesting to hear the last speaker who said that the press would do their research and then, of course, it would be made quite clear how desperate the situation was.

The press has already done a considerable amount of research, and some very esteemed reporters have done their own research on the moves taken by the government on ICBC rates. They have already been quoted by other members who spoke in this debate.

Jes Odam did an excellent article, as did many other reporters, who pointed out that this is a completely unnecessary rate increase, completely political. I find that most interesting because the Hon. Minister of Education has reiterated over and over again that his government does not intend to make this a political matter. However, the decisions on which the rates were made is straight politics, and I consider them very low politics because it is a complete manipulation of the public.

It's the manipulation of the public first of all to make them confused on the difference between debt and deficit. Secondly, it's a manipulation with figures. We have already had the former Minister of Finance make what I consider an excellent speech today, and those figures have not been repudiated by the members of the government side. The press, I know, will have those figures, and finally the public will be the judge.

The public has not yet had their opportunity except through protest and demonstrations which are coming through loud and clear to judge this government, but they will in due time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They lied about it. They lied about it during....

MRS. DAILLY: These rates which were imposed were not based on actuarial rates. It's obvious that the Premier of the province decided to make a straight political decision. The decision was based entirely on two things: to discredit the former administration and to also discredit the whole

[ Page 101 ]

concept of government auto insurance — two basic reasons for these rates.

But the tragedy of it is that the driving public have become the victims of this political decision of this government. This political decision does not only affect the drivers. What concerns me is there are so many other citizens who are affected by this, yet we have this government elected who said that they were going to restore the economy, help businesses in this province. One of their first steps has been to depress the economic situation in British Columbia.

The matter of increased insurance rates is taking money out of circulation. It has caused hardships not only to the drivers — but let me give you some examples. Areas like Simon Fraser where the students are no longer able.... If they have been able to buy their insurance they can't buy lunches now. Therefore some of the staff have had to be laid off in the cafeteria.

I'm just pointing out the repercussions of a move taken by this government not only affecting the drivers. It affects the small businessman. I've had men come in to see me who have small trucking firms, men who run things such as carnivals. They said: "We'll have to move out of B.C." Yet this was the government that was going to so-called "bring business back to B.C."

The general effect of this has been bad for the economy of British Columbia. It has not been a primer of the economy, which, by the way, the policy of the NDP administration was — a primer of the economy. That money was not wasted. That money primed the economy; it gave more purchasing power in the hands of the citizens of British Columbia, which this government has taken away from them.

You know, I find it very interesting that a government that is supposed to be here because they know how to handle the economy have taken measures which have seriously caused damage, and unless they change these rates the repercussions are going to become greater day by day.

I find it very interesting. There is a member in this House — I know you all haven't had a chance to speak — but it is the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) who currently did an interview with the Salmon Arm Observer, and he was interviewed on his opinions on this increased rate which his government has brought in. Some of his observations are most interesting, and I would like to know if the Premier of the province endorses the remarks made by this member for Shuswap.

The member for Shuswap, of course, talks about subsidies, and he doesn't believe in them, et cetera, et cetera. Now we can get into the debate on what is a subsidy and what isn't, but I don't think this side and that side will ever agree on that.

But there is an interesting point which he makes. He was asked — and I'm only referring to this particular member because I wonder if the Premier of this province endorses this — what he thought about using the gas tax premiums. And this was the answer from the member for Shuswap, and I'd like to read it to you carefully. This is what he says. He said he did not think it would be fair to use the gas tax to assist in the alleviation of rates, and here is his answer, his reasons: "Because it would be unfair to the private insurance companies of this province because they would have no way of sharing in this revenue and therefore would be at a disadvantage."

I wonder if the member for Shuswap has checked with the Premier. Obviously, if we don't hear from him, we will assume that the Premier of this province does not believe in the gas tax because it would not assist the private insurance companies.

I thought it was interesting that the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) in the final part...where the interviewer said:

"Well, I will think carefully about his words. But I don't know" — to his readers, quoting from the interviewer — "but when I read examples of what's happened in insurance rates in this province — for example, the owner of a 1974 Galaxy will pay $426 this year, compared to $189 last year, and an under-25 driver of the same car will pay $1,100 compared to $315 last year — I am sure relieved that my representative for Shuswap in Victoria is so concerned about the welfare of the private insurance companies of this province."

MR. KING: Who's sorry now?

MRS. DAILLY: So I do think that we should have a statement from the Premier on whether and why. Is this the reason that he is not using the gas tax, so he can protect the private insurance companies because they would be at a disadvantage?

Mr. Speaker, I realize that many things have been said in this debate, so I don't wish to repeat them in detail. I just want to reiterate again that this has been an unfair, straight political move by this government, and the victims are the people of this province.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'd like to congratulate you, too, hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) on your new position as Deputy Speaker, and to the former Whip, back-bench Whip, to the previous opposition; he and I had quite a bit of fun in the old days. I'm sure that he will appreciate the ways by which one can be promoted and demoted, et cetera. (Laughter.) I'm sure that as time goes on he will be able to count on us, as the opposition, to cooperate in a manner similar to that in which his honourable group cooperated.

Mr. Speaker, I've got thousands of notes here on a subject that has been touched upon so many different

[ Page 102 ]

ways. I know there is going to be a lot of duplication and recapitulation and so forth, redundancy on some of the points that are being made. However, I think we're at the crossroads in this province, dealing with what values have been successful to the governments in the past, and those which governments are going to have to seriously reconsider as having relevance in the way they did in the past. I've listened to everyone speak and argue about the question of the new rates that have been imposed upon us by the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia....

AN HON. MEMBER: The heavy hand of government.

MR. BARNES: Yes, that's a very interesting point. The ICBC is supposed to be independent now, I understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who set the rates over there?

MR. BARNES: As an independent corporation, I suppose we shouldn't be expecting these politicians to have anything to say about it, because they gave it a clean bill of health, so they say, and everything that happens in the future with ICBC will have nothing to do with the government — that it is free and clear. So the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), I guess.... He really should be calling himself the Minister of public transportation. I don't think he realizes that, but that really is what this is all about, public transportation.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, I guess it is private transportation, depending on your philosophy.

But we've had members stand up before us and talk about deception and so forth from the previous government. In fact, if I can, I recall the quote that was made by a candidate — the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) may recall who it was — a fellow by the name of Alex Segal who accused ICBC of misleading the public, and stating that they would have rates far lower than they would actually be, something like that. He said that they were about 40 per cent less than what he said they would be, and he accused ICBC, at that time, of ripping off the public.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, the problem of this whole debate up to now has been that everyone has gone along with the fraud that is being perpetrated by the government.

Now you accuse us of fraud some of the members have. Specifically I think it was the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers). I believe both of them did. If we check the transcripts of Hansard I think we'll find that they have accused us this afternoon of having been deceptive under ICBC. I am going to suggest right now that the biggest fraud is the one that is being perpetrated by ICBC by trying to convince the public that they are being given the privilege — and that is one of the industry's long-standing gimmicks — that they have a privilege when they can drive on public highways and on public roads.

Now just think about that for a minute. Just how much of a privilege is it really to own an automobile? How much of a privilege? There's another quote that I recall in the press when it was suggested that people who drive cars can sell their cars if they don't feel they can afford to pay the premium. Now isn't that a joke? What would happen if we all sold our cars, Mr. Premier?

MS. BROWN: Half of them over there....

MR. BARNES: What would happen? What would happen if we all said: "Fine, we'll take you up on your suggestion. We're going to sell our cars"?

MS. BROWN: They'd be all on welfare.

MR. BARNES: Let's not get into the ancillary effects. Let's not even consider what would happen to many of your colleagues who have lived quite well out of the various related industries to the automobile, not to mention your friends down south who are manufacturing them with certain organizations which they call General Motors of Canada or something "of Canada". You know, we've got to accept that. There's nothing happening in Canada but there's a lot that's "of Canada". So, okay, you've got all these people....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Greenpeace?

MR. BARNES: You've got all those people who are connected. You've got all of the parts departments that are monopolies and control the price on these things. You've all of your new and used car industries going; you've got the highways department itself, and all the engineers are affected — the people who have to build roads for a reason.

If everybody sold their cars I don't think we would have very much of an economy. Now I think you would have a responsibility to say: "Well, that's fine, we don't need them anyway. Cars are strictly for pleasure." In fact, the rates reflect this — that for pleasure it is cheaper to drive your car than it is if you are driving it to work. You have a witch hunt on right now to try and catch those people who are using their cars for work when they should be using them,

[ Page 103 ]

you claim, for pleasure. They are paying pleasure rates. You are saying they should not be driving their car to work if they are driving it for pleasure because pleasure is for fun and work doesn't matter. "We charge you for going to work. You can't drive your car to work without paying for it" — that's what you are telling people. I think it's a crime and it's a fraud because what those people out there should realize...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: ...is that they are being used. As a matter of fact, you've done such a good job on it they actually feel they do have to have their cars. I'll tell you, they have a right to say: "Fine, we won't drive our car, but you come up with the means by which we get to work." Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), it is your duty to provide transportation for the people. But we are not providing it and you would have to provide it immediately because we would have a crisis if the people stopped driving. We would have a crisis. There'd be no economy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's another mess.

MR. BARNES: What about the money that ICBC is bringing in right now from premiums? You say: "Oh, we are losing money." I'll tell you, we are losing no money like we would do if that dried up altogether and people said: "Fine, we don't need our cars. We agree with you. Times are tough. We are going to save all this premium money. We're not going to spend it any more."

Now you've been telling everybody that the rates are reasonable, that ICBC should be supporting itself. Come on! Supporting itself? Should MSA support itself? Hospital insurance? Automobiles are just as essential to this economy as any of those other things that we have been supporting. And now you are talking about raising the rates on the B.C. Ferries. When is it going to stop? Where is your responsibility?

MS. BROWN: And the bus service.

MR. BARNES: You haven't even begun to cut things back yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro!

MR. BARNES: You want to cut everything off and tell the people they are lucky to be here, that this government is here only to collect money, that it has no duty to provide essential services. Nothing is essential under the free enterprise system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: You make them feel good....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you please remember to address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for that. But, you know, this is a very disturbing situation and one that's quite, critical. They make a guy who's under 25 years old feel good, you know. "Listen, you behave yourself. Don't get into any trouble and although ICBC has no responsibility to give you a rebate of 25 per cent, we will take it out of general revenue and provide it for you, because we want you to know that we're with you." While all the time they're putting a shaft in you. He's shafting you. He shouldn't have to be worried about any handouts from you. You should be paying him to drive. What do you think is going to happen if that guy at 25 years of age gets hip, like some of the young people are finally beginning to do? My friend, I can tell you, you have lots of enemies out there. Don't kid yourself. There are lots of them out there. People who drive their automobiles are going to stop and say: "Wait, you know, this is really quite a deal."

The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) just came in. Minister of Transportation — public transportation. that's what it is. Well, Mr. Minister, let me tell you, it's early in the game. But before it's over I think you're going to be awakened. You may come across the floor. You know you got one more time to go. You can come across one more time. No, no, I think you're in. You're at the crossroads. You're learning. I think before this deal is over, before the people out there finish, you're going to say: "You know, we had never thought about that. We'd better be careful about making all these demands on the motorists because they might get hot." They might say: "Wait a minute. Enough is enough. You want us to stop driving? Get rid of our cars? We'll do it! We'll do it! We're not going to go to work, but you'd better have some transportation tomorrow morning when it comes time for us. to go to work. You better have some means for us to get to work."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, can I interrupt you just long enough to remind you...?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, please, I keep forgetting. It's that you haven't got into the debate yet that much and I forget that you are there. But f mean no offence. No, I don't intend to speak very much longer. I just wanted to make a point that we've talked about the wrong thing. Everybody is talking about the actuarial factors and the cost of this

[ Page 104 ]

and the cost of that. The point is what would it cost if we didn't have the automobiles? Don't you think those people deserve some credit who are carrying the burden of transportation in this province, Mr. Speaker? Don't you think so? Hey, I think you do.

And so, in fact, they have been subsidizing public transportation ever since the automobile was invented because they were made to feel it was a pleasure, it was a privilege, to drive the car. And that day has long since been gone, Mr. Speaker, and you know that. There's no pleasure to drive those things. It's necessary to drive it. It's essential. We'd be in trouble without it.

Now why do we have to carry on this game of fraud, Mr. Minister of public transportation? Why don't you recognize what the former, government was doing, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, have them recognize what the former government was attempting to do. We were attempting to recognize a good deal that the public had and not put extra burden on them.

MR. HEWITT: Who was going to pay for it?

MR. BARNES: Who was going to pay for it? It's your duty to pay for it. It's the whole idea of accepting the automobile. Come on, let's face it! Don't kid yourself. What do you guys do who sell those cars? In order to get the chump in a car, you get a pretty girl with a pretty leg and sit her up there and try to exploit her sex and also exploit her mind and get everybody up and tell them: "Get that car; it's a good deal!" You'd do anything you can to sell a car. And then you turn around and tell the people they've got to have it to keep the economy going so they can make more money. You know, come on! Now look, the game is over. We know what you're doing.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk all we want to. We can have all the fun we want to, I'll tell you.

It's the same thing, Mr. Minister, in hospitals. People come first. Don't talk about economies in every field. When it comes to people things, it's economy. When it comes to getting something for investment, for the government, for something else, that's fine, you know, but it's all your friends.

I'm not even going to get into the business of private auto insurance. I'm not even going to get into that. But I think the point is well taken, Mr. Speaker, that what we've been talking about this evening and those speeches before has been a beautifully contrived trap to get people so involved in discussing the cost of automobile insurance that they don't want to stop and think: "Well, hey, maybe we just forget about the cars altogether, like the minister of public transportation suggested." I personally don't want to see them become irresponsible and get rid of their cars, because even if the government doesn't recognize their duty to drive their cars so that the economy continues, Mr. Speaker, the people have to recognize it.

That's the only reason I don't suggest that we strike, like certain people did a little while ago. I think there were a few that recognized it and said: No, don't strike. Don't stay off from work. That's irresponsible. You go to work despite this government.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: Go to work despite them and do your job. Pay the premium because if you don't it's totally irresponsible.

And they're telling you that it's a pleasure. That this is something you do for fun, driving a car. It has nothing to do, nothing to do whatsoever, with the economy. They are ripping you off. It is a fraud. It's the worst kind of fraud.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Now we'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, but I don't want you to forget. Every time you go out and tell those people that you're giving them a good deal and you're going to give them 25 per cent back — those under 25 — if they behave themselves. That's a small consolation!

And some of the other criminal, cruel things you're doing to people. You're actually going out and telling those guys under 25 that they're inferior, that they don't deserve justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARNES: All right, there are guys out there who have never had a wreck. Even if you could only find one! What about that one? Do you have an appeal for him? Is there an appeal for somebody under 25 who has never had a wreck? Oh, you say: "For convenience we've got to put all of you over there. Those of you who don't make it, that's just too bad." Well, that's no damned democracy. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that. We should never swear in the House.

But that's a long way from democracy. It's a long way from justice. It reflects your attitude about the people. If you had any concern for the people out there you wouldn't be telling those women that because they're women they're better, safer than men even if the facts do support it. The point is that we're talking about equality.

Interjection.

[ Page 105 ]

MR. BARNES: Because you deal with facts that also eliminate individuality, Mr. Premier. It takes away the individuality. That's what I don't like about statistics, because when you go too far with your statistics you forget about the people. That's what the problem is. You go too far. So you keep on laughing because I bet you that statistic that doesn't get consideration out of your thinking ain't laughing — and there are many of them. (Laughter.)

Now you want me to keep on going?

Mr. Speaker, you can go right down and you can say the same thing about the unmarried and the married.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You should have been in opposition a long time ago.

MR. BARNES: You've got the unmarried and the married. You guys are breaking up the province. You're trying to conquer by dividing. You put this group against that group, this region against that region, this one against that, all the way down the line. "We have no special deals for you depending on where you are, but if you're an individual don't come to us. Only come to us in groups. We'll look in the book and see what category you fit under." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: All right. Now you've said that you've got an independent corporation going, that you're not going to interfere, and yet you have a campaign going on. It's not fair really to those people who are working for ICBC to have them issuing all these press releases about how hard you're working to try and get justice.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, that's all right. That's okay, Mr. Speaker. You're going to have to go a long way before you get those voters back. (Laughter.) You can believe that. I'll tell you, it's going to stay with you until the next election, if I never repeat this again (laughter), because those people will remember it, not me. I'm just telling you what's going on. If you can't see it, you'd better smarten these ministers up. They're going to cause you a lot of trouble. I believe you're an honest man and a well-intentioned man, but you can't keep your eye on all these guys. (Laughter.)

Now with that I'm voting to quit, Mr. Speaker, but this is all on the amendment and I'll be back for the main motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we recognize the member for Coquitlam may I remind the members of the House that it is much easier to maintain order in the House if the speakers address the Chair and avoid direct confrontations across the floor.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I'd like to remind everyone that I'm rising to speak on this amendment, and this is not my maiden voyage. You can sink me on that one later if you will.

MS. BROWN: We will! (Laughter.)

MR. KERSTER: No, you won't.

I'm rising right now because we were challenged as backbenchers. I first wanted to compliment several speakers who have spoken before me, compliment the former hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) on his hindsight — 20-20 — and the instruction in his new rendition of the new math which we had instruction in from the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly). I'd also like to comment on some remarks that she made as regards our approach to business and industry and commerce in this province.

I'd like to remind her that it was her government that brought industry to its knees, made irresponsible labour settlements far and beyond what the AIB is talking about now, which not only helped to create unemployment but contributed very heavily to inflation. I'd remind her of the plan Z report again, but that's been brought up so many times this afternoon I'll let that lie.

I would, however, Mr. Speaker, like to direct my remarks to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . Did I pronounce that correctly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. KERSTER: Thank you. His seconding of the motion for the amendment to the Speech from the Throne is somewhat perplexing.

It seems to me that as a former director of ICBC, his attack on this government's remedial action as concerns the corporation is completely ludicrous since it was his government and its irresponsible actions that created the problem in the first place.

I think, Mr. Speaker, without going into any great detail, this was well pointed out by the hon. Minister of Education and minister in charge of ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) during last Friday's debate. If the former government members had spoken out at the appropriate time, while they were formulating the policies which were propelling ICBC down the path to corporate suicide, and had offered as much criticism at that time as they are now, this whole issue wouldn't be an issue at all today.

Now it's because of that irresponsibility and the fact that they knew ICBC was going down the drain and withheld that information both from this

[ Page 106 ]

assembly and from the people of British Columbia willingly, that I feel they'll have this on their consciences for a long time — if they have any conscience. It's a simple matter of party first, province second, and that's totally irresponsible. Let that be brought to the attention of the public.

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: Now I believe the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has just performed an anatomical miracle: he's learned to listen with his mouth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You should have seen him before.

MR. KERSTER: I believe that an explanation, anyhow, is warranted, at least, at the very least, from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . I would strongly suggest, in good conscience — and this is going to grab you — that he consider resigning from this House. Thank you.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate...indeed, some of the back-bench MLAs have risen. Maybe we're going to get to some of those back-bench MLAs that I'd like to see rise in this House. I notice the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) was getting to his feet; I hope he'll be heard, and maybe after we get up to Kamloops we might hear from some of those northern MLAs who seem to be rather silent.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. I

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want to hear about those potholes that Lea left?

MR. LEA: I didn't steal them.

MR. NICOLSON: You know, it's rather interesting that some of those MLAs had something to say when the rate increases were first introduced, and yet they seem to be most silent. We heard, sure, from some of the lower mainland representatives and some of the people from the suburbs, but part of this amendment deals with the unfair treatment of northern drivers. I think it's incumbent upon those northern MLAs to speak up.

You know, when we were government some of our backbenchers disagreed with us once in a while; and they'd get up and vote against the government. They weren't afraid to be standing, and I know that you'll.... They weren't afraid to stand up, be counted, and I'm sure that in fine parliamentary tradition you people will be your own persons, and you'll get up and you'll be counted when the ayes are counted on this amendment.

You know, I was asked to appear up in Prince George.

MR. CHABOT: Where is Nunny-nuns now?

MR. NICOLSON: There was a rally up there.... He's alive and well up in Prince George. I went down the street with him the other day and people came up and said: "Alf, we sure wish you were down there. We'll know better next time."

MR. PHILLIPS: You mean they don't want him in Prince George?

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, they want to see their member represent their riding.

Right at the height of the big winter festival in Prince George, where they have the races, curling and various activities....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Golf, yes, Mr. Member. There, 350 persons took the time out of their day — and that's as reported by the paper; I actually thought it was more — took the time out of that very festive day, and even people, that were involved, some of the merrymakers, came in and also expressed their disapproval of the inordinate ICBC rate increases.

I'd like to read a little excerpt from the Prince George Citizen: "The Social Credit Party didn't send a representative to the rally, and came under heavy fire to do so." But there's still time to make amends. The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) could get up and make amends by being counted on this amendment.

When rally chairman Don Muirhead announced that Fort George Socred MLA Howard Lloyd had told him he couldn't attend because of other commitments, there were loud boos and cries. I won't say what they cried; it's unparliamentary. I won't even quote it. I won't play with the rules of this House, as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) does, Mr. Speaker. I'll censor those remarks, if I'm not accused of trying to censor the press by so doing. I'm at the direction of the House on it. The more parliamentary ones said that he should resign, and they ask: where's the better man now?

I couldn't see any excuse for not being present when so many members of that constituency were there assembled and wanted to hear what their member had to say about that, Somebody said that he must be too busy advising some of his constituents on the selection of clubs for snow-golf. Now I find that hard to believe. I am sure that member is going to get up in this House before this amendment comes to a vote; he's going to explain his actions and tell us,

[ Page 107 ]

certainly, that he was engaged in something much more important and pressing than snow-golf when 350 of his constituents were there at that meeting.

This amendment is really necessary, because it does work a hardship. While maybe the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is perfectly satisfied with the increase in public transportation, and members for Vancouver think that people can always ride buses, that isn't the way it is in the interior. You know, in Nelson we are fortunate enough.... The City of Nelson had the foresight years and years back to have public transit, and they have maintained public transit. In fact, they had the first electric streetcar, I believe, west of Chicago.

They have had an electric light plant; that government, back in 1969, tried to take it away, but they solved that problem. But they don't have public transit, so the inordinate ICBC increases work a fantastic hardship on people, on students who go back and forth to community college and on students who have to commute to Notre Dame University — as long as there is a Notre Dame University. I think that part of that minister's solution in ICBC is to remove the problem for students who have to commute by removing the university. Today we heard some very disturbing news about that university, and the students are wondering if that is part of the formula on ICBC.

Transit, then, in rural areas is very important. It is important in an area like Nelson where at least we have a city bus, but it is still important for the people who live beyond the bounds of Nelson. But imagine what it must be like in communities where not even the local city has a public transit.

I think it is incumbent upon those members to get up and be counted. What is the nub of the matter? I am glad that one member of the cabinet benches did get up and honestly explain the reason why the government refuses to use gasoline transfer payments. I'm talking about the minister, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis). He said it — and he said it openly and honestly — that it would preclude the re-entry of the private insurance companies to the Province of British Columbia. It would preclude their re-entry into this province and into the business of British Columbia.

It was a commitment, and part of that party's policy to bring back private insurance, to bring back Allstate, to bring back the unsatisfied judgment fund, and to bring back all of those travesties which even Mr. Hamilton, the head of the Insurance Agents of British Columbia, says that no insurance agent in British Columbia would want to bring back.

You know, they do have commitments, Mr. Speaker. Do you know that the Social Credit Party, when the election was announced, went out and booked ads? They booked ads with local radio stations — a little 30-minute spot here, a 30-second spot there.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, with them, Mr. Speaker, money is no object. They had lots of support — in fact they had so much support they found it possible, about two weeks before the election, that they could even withdraw their advertising. They sent out a notice to the radio stations that they would cancel their ads. Mysteriously, and somehow unconnected, another advertiser took over those very same spots and requested those very same spots that had been made available. Well, who were they placed by? They were placed by an advertising firm called Vickers & Benson on behalf of the private insurance companies operating in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well! I'd like to hear more about that.

MR. NICOLSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know, but it would seem to me that that might even offend the Elections Act. It could be. Were those expenditures recorded in the official election expenses of the Social Credit Party?

I know one thing: I know that it is being paid. It is being paid by this high-handed minister. It is being paid off at least by paving the way for the re-entry of the private insurance industry into British Columbia. I say....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you have contempt, I suppose, Mr. Minister, for the manner in which the business of British Columbia has been conducted for years and years. I say that election expenses should be up front. If those were donations to the Social Credit Party, they should be taken in as donations to the Social Credit Party. Those advertisements should be made by the Social Credit Party. Don't tell me that there isn't a connection. Don't tell me that there is no connection when suddenly advertising is cancelled and the next day those very same spots were taken up by a private, so-called outside....

AN HON. MEMBER: Suspicious.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, it's very suspicious; it should be.

So this is the reason that we see discrimination. This is the reason that young people with a good driving record have to pay almost two and a half times as much as an adult who has been convicted of impaired driving. This is the reason that we are seeing the return to the rotten type of insurance system and a method of setting insurance rates that was prevalent

[ Page 108 ]

under the old insurance companies, and will be prevalent once again once this government has done its groundwork for the return. If that's not true, then, Mr. Minister, get up and tell us or let one of your backbenchers get up and reassure us that private insurance companies are not going to return to British Columbia, that you won't let it happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G.V. LAUK, (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I am always delighted to be greeted in this House, particularly at the beginning of a new session, by the hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He's only a country boy trying to do his best in this House. A little bit of humanity he has, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I like the executive council. I wonder why he was excluded from the executive council. I don't wish to speculate on that, but it seems to me that a man with a working-class background might have fit in a little bit better among the academic elitists from brain research, the car dealers the millionaires and the bulb planters. You know, what we need....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I read the other day, Mr. Speaker, that the bulb-eaters....

But perhaps a little bit of the milk of human kindness could have avoided some of the more disastrous decisions, like ICBC rates — I know, Mr. Speaker, you were about to remind me — that have been made since this administration.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right, Mr. Member. Now we can get on with the matter that's before us, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to. We're all concentrating on that.

I wish to thank first of all, Mr. Speaker, if I can have your indulgence, the people who are most responsible for my presence here today. I wish the House to thank Mr. Herb Capozzi and Alan Lau. (Laughter.)

You know, Mr., Speaker, about the ICBC rates....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Somebody just handed me a clipping that is of critical importance. I think I should send it to one of the ministers over there. Is there a Page available? This is a clipping that says: "We now know why there are so many of these individuals in the cabinet: because they need the extra job." It says: "527 car dealers bite the dust in United States recession." Would you hand that over there to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips)? He might be interested in that. Well, I wish you better luck, all of those who are moonlighting, because you're going to need it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ever see a lawyer go broke? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: I know of a few that should. (Laughter.)

When we looked at the ICBC rates, I was looking carefully for some policy from the new cabinet with respect to not only ICBC rates but the general direction of the new government. I looked carefully at the newspapers for statements of policy and philosophy from these new personalities, because from that we can sort of boil down into one phrase the kind of thing that the new government represents I looked at the Ministers of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Mair), and I think we've got a capsule comment that really sums up the new direction of the new government: let them sell their cars, give them a shovel and then kick them in the rear end. I think that sort of capsulates the attitude that has taken place since December 22 It is an attitude in corporations, at the bottom line, that their sort of pre-Cambrian attitude towards economics is more important and more sacred than the community, the family unit, or that people matter less. So the new policy committee, then, is the Ministers of Education, Human Resources and Consumer Services.

I would think that in dealing with ICBC finances, they have been covered very adequately by the hon. members for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). It's difficult sorting out the figures in so much of the smoke and all of the confusion that's been raised by conflicting statements from the front benches. How do we sort out these figures? Where did the $181 million come from?

We've had excellent reviews of where they have arrived at their figures, but it doesn't wash. We now know that the corporation doesn't need the money We know that prior to February 29 — a leap-year, and it's probably why these kookie figures are coming out of the front benches.... On February 29 we now know that less than $40 million was required, even at that date, for the corporation. Now we know that the premium inflow will not necessitate any borrowing on the part of the Insurance Corp. of British

[ Page 109 ]

Columbia. That's without increases in rates. That's what the report is from ICBC: less than $40 million. You better check with them. It's not my department, it's yours.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. How much over 40?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Yes, just over 40.

With a modest 20 per cent increase in rates for 1976-77. I would suggest to you that the deficit could be met without even borrowing; the deficit could be met without raising rates, and these people are perpetrating what is really a hoax on the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you're a criminal lawyer and not a business lawyer. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: A modest increase in rates, a transfer of revenue for gasoline tax, without detriment to other government programmes, and who do you think you're kidding, I say, over there? What do you mean taking away from other government programmes? What a bunch of utter nonsense!

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially for them to say it.

MR. LAUK: You know, it is utter nonsense with increases in ICBC. With the transfer of the money that the Premier is talking about, you're going to have up to and over $200 million in current surpluses in ICBC — surpluses — current surpluses that could be invested in the short-term money market. That's what the Premier said. I believe him. You talk to Byron Straight — that's what he says too. Two hundred million dollars that you can invest in short-term money markets. But not even that is going to be invested in short-term money markets. They're going to buy Hydro bonds with it, because we saw that process under the old days. Remember that? You know, juice up the old Crown corporation and have them buy Hydro bonds at a lower per cent. That will detract from the investment ability of the insurance corporation that we never tampered with. We let it go it's own hook; let them invest in short-term money.

But then you ask the question: why is this surplus there? Weren't we told that we have to borrow on the marketplace, through the government, to provide this money to ICBC? Then the shell game works another circle and we're all the more confused.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've always been confused.

MR, LAUK: The people aren't confused about one thing, Mr. Speaker: they're not confused about paying 100, 200 and 300 per cent more for their insurance rates. You can play the flim-flam game all you want about all of these little financial finaglings and jiggery-pokery that you're going through, but they know the bottom line too, Mr. Speaker, and that's 400 per cent more for their insurance rates. They're not going to forget.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, 400 per cent. Oh, we listened carefully to the good doctor from Point Grey, Mr. Speaker. We listened very carefully to him. He gave us the old one — pleasure driving for probably the lowest area in the province — and he thought that was cute, giving us the Alice in Wonderland figures that nobody could really fit into. But, you know, the figures are not like that. You had figures put in the Vancouver Sun, page 11, on January 24. These aren't disputed. The figures are somewhat different from those mentioned by the hon. minister.

The coverage for young people under 25, basic coverage for a 1976 Plymouth Fury, was $411; extending liability to $200,000 is a further $24; $100-deductible collision and $50-deductible comprehensive will raise the total to $667. The equivalent 1975 coverage would have been $315. The 1976 total would be $1,100. That's been pointed out to you before. Now why didn't the minister mention that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's shy.

MR. LAUK: He's a little shy. He's just using those figures that support his argument that, well, it's not half bad. But it is bad, and I'll tell you who it affects. These rate increases of such magnitude are much too harsh. They're much too harsh...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: ...and they're totally unnecessary except for purely political reasons. I think that is what the issue is here today. We're not really discussing the jiggery-pokery of your figures over there. We're discussing the real bottom line to people. That's what we're discussing, and they know that they're being spanked for putting us into government in 1972, that this new Premier is going to take them out behind the woodshed and make sure they never make that mistake again. Now isn't that nice! What kind of arrogance and what kind of unfeeling, harsh and cruel policies those are. What kind of an attitude is that? They talk about finances, Mr. Speaker, and I know you're listening intently to me.

The government revenues that they're worried

[ Page 110 ]

about: it actually decreases government revenue, it decreases sales taxes, retail sales, it is decreasing income taxes, it is causing a pulling-in for people. They don't want to buy during this period where they have to pay all these increases. So I think that we can accept the proposition that these increases are one of the factors that are decreasing trade, domestic trade, within this province.

What's the effect on inflation? Such increases in rates, together with ferry rates and transit rates and other rates that seem to be going up, are creating great inflationary pressures in our economy. When you raise the rates of insurance, you increase the demand for greater wage increases. I think it was the IWA that pointed out that all of the increase they fought for over the last two years is totally taken up, and more, by these increases in insurance rates. What do you think their attitude is going to be when they sit down to the bargaining table? I don't know where the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is, but his work is certainly going to be cut out for him.

If he thinks he's got troubles now, what's going to happen when these people who are being controlled by the inflationary board are asked to maintain that control when their very livelihood may or may not depend on their insurance rates, driving their automobile? What are you going to say to them then? So then the increase in rates, Mr. Speaker, causes a decrease in domestic trade, and therefore government revenue, and an increase in inflationary pressure, the worst of both worlds. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government, rather than the facade of being inflation fighters, are doing their very best to make British Columbia the worst inflationary area in Canada, through insurance rates, ferry rates, transit rates, and all kinds of other rates that they're going to get to pretty soon. This province will have the highest prices anywhere in Canada.

They lifted our food price freeze. Oh, they kept it on a couple of weeks to make it look good. They had to give in to the corporate structure that controls the food industry. We know that. So the prices in this province are going to skyrocket. The pressure for settlements in the future is increased. Who suffers under these rates and inflation? Young people under 25 certainly, we've seen that. But the old people, they suffer both ways. They're being forced out of their automobiles because you know that Mincome is too low to help them to pay for these insurance rates, and without their automobiles they must depend on public transit, and the new minister in charge of public transit seems to be pulling back, threatens increases in fares. These people will become shut-ins, not because of physical health but because of the political lesson that's being taught all of them by this very arrogant government.

Commercial drivers, people who depend on driving for employment and can tribute to the economy, to income taxes and so on, are being forced out of the marketplace, not to mention tow-truck drivers. Do you think that that's saving something for ICBC? What it's doing is cutting back on an input into the economy.

The northern and interior drivers: I was very impressed with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) who told me that the people at Omineca were very pleased with the rates, but he gave a very compelling argument with respect to the costs of living in the north. I don't think he mentioned the efforts that were being made by this government to equalize those costs. One of them was the equalization of insurance rates. I think that we had to go to extraordinary measures to encourage people to live in northern communities and develop them economically. I'm sure the new Minister of Economic Development will be most interested in bringing forward new programmes of that kind. Maybe the Minister of Finance with tax incentives of other kinds, incentives nevertheless — and perhaps we can look for once at insurance rates as an incentive to the individual. We talk so much about incentives to corporations, about giving away tax resources.

The new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is now leaving, but I know that he said before a mining association that he's going to do away with resource taxation in the mining field. You say that if we didn't raise insurance rates we'd have to take a subsidy out of the money we'd spend on hospitals, schools, but without a brief pause you allow your Minister of Mines to say no more resource taxation on mines.

Oh, yes, okay, I understand. Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Education. I understand what he means. That's why they're over there and we're over here. Okay, there is a difference between you and us. We believe...that's right, it's almost a primer in political education. I'm glad you accept that. We believe that corporations in private industry must pay their fair share of taxation in this province. We always will believe that. You don't. You want to eliminate resource taxation, put burdens on people who drive cars. You're going to raise taxes on individuals, but, boy, were you going to give those corporations a break! The people matter more, Mr. Speaker, and all that flim-flam doesn't change a word of it. People matter more. We taxed private corporations that were taking our resources out of the province. Now we have the new Minister of Mines saying: "Forget it. It's all right, boys." He got a standing ovation.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The natural gas revenue, Mr. Speaker, well, that's a real joke with this government. They're posturing and doing a little burnble bee dance, but it

[ Page 111 ]

seems to me that the costs of natural gas are still relatively cheap....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, member, would you please relate your remarks to the amendment that is before the House?

MR. LAUK: You see, without this natural gas revenue that is so needed, Mr. Speaker, they have to raise insurance rates on cars, and that's my point.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to remind you....you remembered.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. Without resource taxation they have to put the burden on their own people. They are most interested in giving the big American users of our natural gas a break than they are the individual people who live in British Columbia, pay taxes in British Columbia and work in British Columbia...

AN HON. MEMBER: And drive cars.

MR. LAUK: ...and they have to pay these exorbitant insurance rates.

If we had an increase in cost for natural gas to American users, if we kept a resource taxation based on some reasonable formula, we wouldn't have to raise insurance rates at all, let alone by the 20 per cent that we recommended.

So I think that's what the issue is: the philosophical difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. We believe that we will not raise individual rates on insurance; we will defray the costs through a gasoline tax, and we will help shore up the consolidated revenue in this province by resource taxation. That's always been the issue, and that's what we did. That's always been the issue.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You were supported by the private companies and the multinational companies from the United States through campaign funds. They supported you because you are a corporate party; corporate values mean more to you than people values.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: So that's the difference, and that's why, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Rossland-Trail.

HON, MR. PHILLIPS: Where did he come from?

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Before I start I would like to add my congratulations to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and also to the new members in the House and the new members of the executive council, and to welcome back the 30-odd members from the last House, the 30th Legislature.

Since I think I'm quite possibly the last speaker on this motion on the opposition side, I would like to say right now that I don't intend to get involved in the charges and counter-charges that have been going across the floor regarding the figures that have been involved. But I do want to make the point, as the representative of an interior riding, that due to the rate increases in ICBC in the month of February of this year, there was — and I don't have an accurate figure because one is not available — approximately $200 million less in retail spending in this province in that month than there otherwise might have been, and there was $200 million less because there were increases in insurance premiums that totalled roughly $200 million.

Now this hurt sales in my riding. It hurt every merchant in my riding, and, perhaps most importantly, the cost to common carriers put up the prices of all retail goods sold in my constituency and, I believe, in every other constituency in the province.

It is interesting to note that according to federal and provincial statistics retail sales in this province are roughly, at this point, around $500 million a month. That's what they are right now. In the month of February, roughly $200 million of that had to go into ICBC. That's a staggering figure.

I would like to point out to those members who concentrated very eloquently on how tough it was for people who had to drive cars...the suggestion was that they were the only ones affected by this. I would suggest to this House that every individual and every good in this province moves on the highways; it moves on rubber, It doesn't really matter whether you own a car or not; you have to pay for the new ICBC rates. If you ride in a transit bus, those new ICBC rates will show up in either the transit deficit or the operating costs of that bus. If you ride in some kind of car pool or cooperative thing to work or to get to and from your business, you will pay those rates. If you travel by bus or by car on our highways, for pleasure or for business, you will pay those rates. If you are a merchant and you have to buy goods to put on the shelves of your store, you will pay those rates, because the common carriers have had to put up their rates because there is no free lunch and there is no free bus ride.

So, Mr. Speaker, not only are there considerably fewer retail dollars to go around in British Columbia but, at the same time, they don't stretch nearly as far as they used to. We're being told by the government,

[ Page 112 ]

indeed by politicians of all political stripes, that we must show restraint, we must exercise economies, we must lead rather than follow, and yet here we see a great chunk taken out of the economy of British Columbia at a time when we are told that the economy needs to be restored. Although I am going to deal with that later in the throne debate, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a considerable lack of evidence that there's anything that needs to be restored at all. The evidence is, on the contrary, the other way around — that we have a very healthy economy in B.C. and we all hope it will get better.

The Premier claps. But, as one local politician in Victoria said — a local mayor, and I have no idea what his political colours are, if indeed he has any — he said, maybe the economy will recover if the government doesn't scare everyone away by their groom. That's what he said. Anyway, before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I have a fairly simplistic view of this, as I said earlier. The fact, regardless of the arguments that have gone across the floor, is that $200 million has been extracted from the taxpayers of this province to go into ICBC. I would suggest that it was a compulsory payment. We can call it corporate rates if we want. The fact is, though, that it was compulsory, because it is compulsory for all of us to move on the highways, and compulsory for all of us to buy goods that were moved or, the highways.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who brought in compulsory insurance?

MR. DARCY: Compulsory insurance was brought in by the former Social Credit government and it was a good law — 1969, I believe the year was. Now $200 million more. Now what does that mean in effect? We have been told...and I'm not going to argue the point now, although my colleague in front of me now, the former Finance minister, has suggested it is not true. But we have heard the government say on many occasions that ICBC must have a subsidy in the neighbourhood of $180 million to $200 million in 1976. That is what the government has said. You said you must take it. You know the taxpayer doesn't care whether you get it out of '75 or '76. He knows darn well he has got to pay it.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Okay. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the taxpayer has paid. He has paid through the nose. And one thing this government believes — whether they are right or wrong, I am not going to argue this point — is that they were going to have to send $200 million into ICBC. Now they don't have to do that any more. They don't have to do it, because they have extracted $200 million out of ICBC rates, out of the general public. That means, Mr. Speaker, that they have $200 million more flexibility in 1976, when they drew the budget which they are going to be bringing down this Friday. It means that there is $200 million more available in general revenue to do with whatever the Treasury Board feels is appropriate in 1976, fiscal 1976-77. That is the point that I and my constituents are most concerned about.

You know, I am quite sure that every government when it comes in has a right to review things. They have a right to look at things, review policies and finances. I think it's true. They really did not know how much money was going to be available to them under existing tax rates in 1976, and they really did not know how much money they did want to spend, and that's fair enough. But one thing for sure: before the Premier went off to take a holiday in California, he wanted to know that when he came back there was $200 million more than there otherwise would have been if the rates in ICBC had not been raised to the extent that they were. I believe that hidden behind all the rhetoric and all the charges and all the counter-charges was a desire of the government to raise taxes while hiding behind a smokescreen of an ICBC deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D'ARCY: That's what I believe. I would like to hear some of you people on the treasury benches talk about that, because you don't like raising taxes. You were a party that said: "Oh, we will never raise taxes. We might even cut them." You were a party that said: "We are going to have a freeze on government spending." You were a party that preached restraint all along, and so you did not want to be seen raising taxes. So: "We won't raise taxes over here. We'll raise compulsory rates over here, and then we won't have to take this tax money and transfer it." That's what you thought. Very, very clever. I commend you for it. Very clever, but it has not helped the economy.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: You know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I was very glad to hear you speak this afternoon. I really was, I enjoy your speeches. One of the things I was happy to see was the visibility of some of the new-found government backbenchers. I was very glad to see that. I would hope that perhaps some of their ghost writers will be so visible too, in future. But one thing I know for sure, Mr. Minister, that when you deliver a speech, it's your own speech, because no other human being would ever write any speeches like you do. They are your own. You are a rugged individualist and you show it in the House and I commend you for that.

[ Page 113 ]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down now. I'm going to close this because I feel that the points have been made. I feel they have been made over and over again. I believe there is business to conduct in this province, and I believe there are other things which we can deal with now. The deed of ICBC, the insurance rates, has been done. We know what effects they have had on small businesses in this province, on the trucking business, on retail sales, and on the consumers, by a party which said they are going to help the little people and they are going to protect the small businesses. That is over and done with. I hope it never happens again. I hope we never in this province see this kind of instant extraction of moneys, to the hundreds of millions of dollars, out of the pockets of consumers and retailers and citizens and taxpayers of the province, of what is, in effect, a tax increase.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.