[ Page 115 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3) .

Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading — 115

Statement

Move of PWA head office to Alberta. Hon. Mr. Davis — 115

Mr. King — 116

Mr. Gibson — 116

Mr. Wallace — 116

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

MacInnes Place rental units. Mrs. Dailly — 117

Cutback at Granduc mines. Mr. Gibson — 117

Sale of B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission common stock. Mr. Wallace — 118

Proposed ICBC building in New Westminster. Mr. Cocke — 118

CTC jurisdiction over E & N Railway. Mr. Skelly — 119

Funding of transition houses. Ms. Brown — 119

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Hon. Mr. Mair — 120

Mr. Bawlf — 123

Mrs. Wallace — 127

Mr. Rogers — 130

Mr. Skelly — 131

Mr. Bawtree — 134

Mr. Calder — 136

Mr. Haddad — 140

Mr. Kahl — 141

Mr. Lloyd — 144

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome visitors and a delegation to the House in the person of Mr. Bill Broadley, president of B.C. Teachers Federation, and members of the B.C. Teachers Federation executive.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, at your kind invitation, sitting on the floor of the House behind our caucus is the NDP MP for the great and majestic riding of New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I would have the House join me in welcoming him to Victoria.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Professor Donald Belmer from the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. He brings a class of political science students regularly to sessions of the Legislature and shows a very keen and appreciative interest in our political system in British Columbia. I met with the group yesterday, and I think he's meeting with the other parties today. I think we should give him a warm welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce two guests in the gallery this afternoon, Mr. and Mrs. Lubick, who are constituents of mine. I'd ask the House to welcome them please.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, while in a partisan sense I may be alone on the floor of this House, I am happily not alone in the province, and I would ask the House to welcome in the gallery several members of the B.C. Liberal women's commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have the pleasure of the company of Mrs. Iva Mann and Mr. Bowie Keefer and the delegation of the Save the Endowment Lands of the University of British Columbia. I would ask this House to welcome them here today.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like us to welcome a delegation from the cities of Bellingham, Bellevue and Lacey. The delegation is comprised of elected representatives from these areas and they are here to receive our views on the delivery of social services to the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Dennis Braddock, president of the Bellingham city council, Dr. George Drake, Bellingham city council, Nancy Rising, city councilor, Mr. Dan D'Gulio, Western Washington State College, Charles Rangor, managing editor of the daily newspaper in Bellingham, and Mayor Karen Fraser, mayor of the City of Lacey, Washington. I'd like us to welcome them.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mi. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you Mr. Donald Barnes, who has been a very active member in my constituency, sitting up in the gallery, and also several other very good friends: Mr. Jack Biggs from Crescent Beach, Mr. John Edmundson from New Westminster, and Mr. Volmar Nordman from New Westminster. Would you welcome them, please?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome in the galleries today everybody else who's been missed. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT
REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

Hon. Mr., Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976.

Bill 3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia today requested the Canadian Transport Commission to restrain Pacific Western Airlines from moving any facilities or personnel to Alberta pending a decision on the takeover of the airline by the Government of Alberta.

British Columbia's application was included along with a letter which I, as provincial Minister of Transport and Communications, have sent to the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, the

[ Page 116 ]

Hon. E.J. Benson. In my covering letter, I said:

"Recently, there has been a judicial ruling to the effect that the Canadian Transport Commission may properly review the 1975 takeover of Pacific Western Airlines by Alberta. The Government of British Columbia urges that you undertake such a review at the earliest possible opportunity.

"Pending the completion of this review, and in the interests of all of western Canada, including Alberta, we request that you instruct Pacific Western Airlines to leave its head office in Vancouver and to continue to operate its principal maintenance base at the Vancouver International Airport.

"We stand unalterably opposed to any movement of operations out of British Columbia as long as this will result in an increase in overall operating costs to the airline and ultimately to its users.

"Our notice of application being filed with the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission today refers to the February 19, 1976, judgment of the federal court of appeal which found that Her Majesty in the Right of the Province of Alberta is 'a person subject to the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the air carrier regulations and the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission concerning the acquisition of the controlling interests in Pacific Western Airlines Ltd.'

"Our government is saying that 'British Columbia's interest, and its position as an intervener in the inquiry to be made by the Canadian Transport Commission will be seriously and permanently jeopardized if the publicly announced intentions of Pacific Western Airlines and Alberta to move or transfer facilities and personnel from British Columbia, are carried out.'

"We are also saying that the federal commission has the power to make such regulations or orders as may be necessary to preserve the status quo pending its ultimate determination on the question of whether or not the acquisition would unduly restrict competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the minister on the statement which he has just made. Members of the official opposition have called publicly for such an approach by the government, and it is gratifying that the government has taken this action to protect the interests of British Columbia insofar as the head-office facilities of Pacific Western Airlines are concerned, being retained in the city of Vancouver.

I would make the point that we are unaware as to what the precise thrust of the government's approach is, and the intervener’s status before the transport commission. Consequently, I'm not in a position to register our precise position on that score. But in terms of the application to retain the facilities in British Columbia, we are in full support.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the minister would consider providing to the opposition parties in the House the precise presentation which, presumably, the Attorney-General's department intends to make to the transport commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the minister for his courtesy in sending an advance copy of his statement to opposition members.

This representation I welcome very much; it is made in almost exactly the same terms as one that I made myself to the CTC some two weeks ago. It is essential now that this intervention be backed up with all of the necessary legal work that might be required. I would suggest to the minister that it will be timely as well to make direct representations to the Government of the Province of Alberta in order that they might be under no illusions as to the way in which the government and people of British Columbia would feel about any successful raid on this important head office in our province.

In particular, as the government has recognized by this intervention, it is essential that the move not be made in order to make an omelet which cannot be unscrambled in the event that the Canadian Transportation Commission eventually rules that the Government of Alberta is not the legal owner of that airline.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to compliment the minister on what I hope is a precedent for the whole cabinet, that we in the opposition receive at least a few hours' notice of pending statements. It enables us to perhaps make a more intelligent response, although I suppose that will always be questioned.

Though we support any efforts at keeping British Columbia businesses in British Columbia, particularly PWA, I think there's clear evidence that, despite economic circumstances which were adverse last year, it was the one large Canadian airline that made a profit, and that may well be due to the fact that most of its operations are under one roof.

We would support the effort also because of the jobs that will be lost. I believe once the maintenance facilities are moved to Edmonton it might be as many as 1,100 jobs that could be transferred to Alberta.

There is only one cautionary comment that one might make at this time, and that is that the minister

[ Page 117 ]

has made it very clear that the government intends to intervene in the inquiry regarding the takeover of PWA, and it might be wise to tread just a little warily since this is a very sensitive federal area of federal-provincial relationships. We might be in the process of setting precedents which might one day not be in the best interests of British Columbia when the shoe is on the other foot.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the headquarters and executive offices of Pacific Western Airlines are not located in Vancouver, but in fact in Richmond.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll take notice of what the member has offered.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister whether he'd be prepared for the Province of British Columbia to purchase that airline, if available.

MR. SPEAKER: We're not quite into the question period yet, Mr. Member.

Oral questions.

MACINNES PLACE RENTAL UNITS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Housing, in reply to my question re the availability of rental units at MacInnes Place, stated the reason no more were available was because of the quota system for low-rental income people. The information I have, Mr. Minister, is that hundreds of people have applied to the housing commission and have not even been asked what their income is.

Therefore, my question to the minister is: will you instruct the housing commission to receive these applicants so that many of the people that are really in need of housing, and do not necessarily qualify in the low-income bracket, will have an opportunity to be housed in the MacInnes project?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): To the hon. member: I'll take the question as notice inasmuch as today the Deputy Minister of Housing is meeting with Mayor Constable of Burnaby.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Has a strata plan been filed for MacInnes Place?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. NICOLSON: This is related to the same topic, Mr. Speaker. Has a strata plan been filed?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you frame it as a separate question, because the hon. minister has taken the first question as notice.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the procedure when I was on that side of the House. In fact, that member who's now making such a big noise there, that Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) he used to do that four or five times, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will you please frame the question as a separate question to the hon. minister?

MR. NICOLSON: All right then. As a separate question then — although I hate to deprive people of the normal order — with respect to MacInnes Place, has a strata plan been filed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CUTBACK AT GRANDUC MINES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines. I would ask the minister if he is aware of a 25 per cent cutback in staff and production announced at Granduc mine this morning, which will take something like $1 million out of the economy of Stewart annually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question from the hon. member for North Vancouver: yes, I am aware that Granduc Operating Co. will be cutting their production from 4,500 to approximately 3,400 tons a day, and this will, in fact, will mean a reduction in work force of about 80 people, and will result in the closing of the Tide Lake single-men's camp.

This mining company has been in operation for a number of years and has suffered extremely hard times over the last three years in particular. As a matter of fact, there was a cutback in the production from this mine about a year ago.

During the first six months of 1975, in spite of losing $410,000 at the operation, this company was still required to pay royalties in the amount of $451,000. So is it any wonder then that the mine must reduce its output and its work force?

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister, in view of this circumstance, could advise the House whether he will

[ Page 118 ]

not take an early opportunity this session to bring in remedies to be of assistance and maintain employment in these kinds of northern communities.

Interjection,

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It is suggested that this is an improper question, but, Mr. Speaker, legislation presented by this government will come down in orderly fashion,

MR. KING: On a supplementary to the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if he has contacted his colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to minimizing the impact on those workers laid off through manpower retraining and relocation considerations.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I believe that question is out of order as a supplemental question. The hon. member has asked you if you are giving advice or seeking advice from another member of cabinet.

MR. KING: No, not advice, Mr. Speaker, at all. I wonder if he has a concern for the miners who are losing their jobs — by his own statement — and if he is taking action through the resources of government to minimize the impact on those workers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In reply to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition: yes.

SALE OF B.C. TEL AND WESTCOAST
TRANSMISSION COMMON STOCK

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance: has he in his portfolio since taking office bought or sold any shares in common stock?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): In answer to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, I believe I should take that question as notice, just to make sure. I think the answer is no.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I address a supplementary question, then? In view of the Minister of Finance's statements regarding our deficit, and in view of the throne speech commitment to amend the Revenue Act and prevent the Minister of Finance from buying shares, could the minister tell the House, has a decision been made to sell the government-owned shares in B.C. Telephone and Westcoast Transmission?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, these matters are always under consideration and will be done in an orderly fashion as time proceeds.

MR. WALLACE: Just a final supplementary. Would it be possible for the Minister of Finance to tell the House what is the approximate value of the shares now held in B.C. Tel and Westcoast Transmission?

HON. MR. WOLFE: With respect, Mr. Member, I would have to take that question as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is the type of question that would be more properly placed on the order paper.

PROPOSED ICBC BUILDING
IN NEW WESTMINSTER

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education, president of ICBC: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not the rumours around New Westminster are true, that the ICBC head-office building may not be built in New Westminster. If so, does the minister envisage continuing to pay the very high rates of rent that they are now paying — over $9 a foot?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: That is the rent in the future if they continue to stay there. Mr. Speaker, will the minister answer that question?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, to the member for New Westminster: the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia is doing everything it can to cut the excessive costs of its operation, including the rent.

As far as the location of a head office is concerned, that decision is under review, but I expect it will be some months before a final decision will be made.

MR. COCKE: On a supplemental question. As the minister knows, the rents were projected rents. I would suggest that if the....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Enough suggestions! You should have done the work while you were....

MR. COCKE: I would ask the question, Mr. Speaker: are the plans that have all been made ready to go this spring, are they to be overlooked by this government because of their vindictive stand with respect to ICBC?

[ Page 119 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, with respect, there is nothing vindictive at all. Certainly the plans, all of them that were prepared by the former government, including budgets and so on, are being very thoroughly reviewed.

CTC JURISDICTION OVER E & N
RAILWAY

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. In view of the fact that the jurisdiction of the CTC over the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway has been questioned, and operation of the Vancouver Island Railway is one of the conditions under which this province entered Confederation, has the minister met with his federal counterpart, the Hon. Otto Lang, to protest any cessation of services on that railway which would amount to an abrogation, a unilateral abrogation, by Canada of the terms of union?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, this government did make a full representation to the CTC here on the island, and only after its findings are known would it be appropriate for me to speak to the minister in Ottawa.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Your representation at the CTC hearings did question the jurisdiction of the CTC over the Esquimalt to Nanaimo cessation of service. I'm wondering in that case, or for that reason: did the Minister of Transport approach his federal counterpart or does he plan to?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I differ with the hon. member Mr. Speaker. We appeared, as the Government of British Columbia, before that commission, and that act alone indicated that we believe the commission has some authority. As I said previously, we will approach the federal minister at the right time.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary: you should read the brief presented by your own delegation to that hearing, Mr. Member. Your delegation questioned the jurisdiction of the CTC at that hearing.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Did you ask leave to make a statement?

FUNDING OF TRANSITION HOUSES

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. I'm a little bit alarmed that there are representatives from other countries here trying to look at the delivery of services in the field of Human Resources under the present minister. I'm kind of curious about what they are going to learn from him. Nonetheless....

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get to the question?

MS. BROWN: I'm trying to get to the question, but my alarm, Mr. Speaker, gets in the way.

It has to do with transition houses. It was brought to my attention that on the air today the minister said that the funding of transition houses would continue on a fee-for-service basis. I'm wondering whether he would clarify this for the House. Does it mean that the bruises which the women have are going to be assessed, and the kind of payment that the houses will get will depend on whether the woman has one black eye or two black eyes, or whether she has children with her or doesn't have children with her?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's not a speech, it's a very, very honest question. I want to know from the minister what he meant when he said that the police and his department would have to be referring agencies. Does it mean that the woman who has been beaten has to phone up his department and get a referral?

MR. SPEAKER: You've covered about three subject areas so far; would you confine yourself to a question to the minister?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am asking about the new policy on transition houses. When a woman is being beaten does she have to go through the police or through his department before she can go to a transition house, and will the transition house payment, on the fee for service, be based on the extent of her injuries? A very pertinent question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by the hon. member, I don't find it difficult at all to confer with people from other places as to what action and what programme we intent to initiate in British Columbia to better the system. My only moments of embarrassment are attempting to explain what happened before and why. Frankly, although I cannot speak for that delegation, I have had many delegations in my office, for the most part British Columbians, and they are very much in support of what is happening, and I'm sure they will be very pleased as they see things unfold.

With respect to the question, yes, we have never said that we wouldn't continue some sort of funding to these transition houses. We were dealing with

[ Page 120 ]

grants earlier on. We've now said that we'll deal with it by fee for service. This is a policy question and I'll be making further information known in the not too distant future.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the kind reception I have received in the House, particularly from the opposition benches. I am instructed by my colleagues that it is not likely to continue.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wouldn't say that.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Has the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) been at you already?

HON. MR. MAIR: I've had many of those, sir — some justified.

I have tried very hard during the last three or four days to observe the procedures in the House, and I have noticed that there is a very interesting procedure called the question period. I noted yesterday that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose and made a number of suggestions as to the conduct of two of my colleagues and myself on last December 22 when we flew back to Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: 23rd.

HON. MR. MAIR: It was the 22nd.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: That makes error number five, Mr. Member.

During the brief time I have been in the House, Mr. Speaker, I did not observe the hon. member question the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. E.M. Wolfe) nor the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. L.A. Williams) nor myself on the subject that he raised. The suggestion, as you recall, Mr. Speaker, was simply this: that the Province of British Columbia, through these three ministers, had made some sort of arrangement with the federal government with respect to putting the ICBC rates through the Anti-Inflation Board and, more importantly, that our deal with Ottawa concerning anti-inflation legislation was somehow contingent upon this.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the question was not asked of any of the three of us. On that trip, I was with the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Labour for every moment of that trip, except one and one-half hours during which we were given time to sleep.

I assume that the Hon. Mr. Macdonald did not disturb my colleagues' repose. He did not disturb my repose. The Mr. Macdonald I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Mr. Macdonald from Ottawa.

I assume that the hon. Federal Finance minister did not disturb my colleagues' repose, because he did not disturb mine.

MR. LAUK: Can we cross-examine?

HON. MR. MAIR: You're no good at it.

The fact of the matter is that the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East could only be categorized as mischievous, patently false and totally unfounded.

The hon. member has evidently taken the conjectures of a reporter — who is entitled to make conjectures, and who, in fact, has as his business the making of conjectures. The hon. member, however, has the opportunity to ask questions. The hon. member, I am sure and sorry, has the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to ask the questions in the House, an opportunity not granted to the reporter. I would suggest that under the circumstances his actions, to say the very least, were irresponsible.

Interjections.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Why don't you allow the Anti-Inflation Board to look into ICBC?

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Vancouver East....

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully...

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't ever have to say you're sorry.

HON. MR. MAIR:...to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I ask the Speaker to remind the hon. member that he has the opportunity of asking me questions once a day except Friday, I understand.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who, I am instructed, is an accountant. I must say that any success I owe in life is certainly due to better

[ Page 121 ]

accounting advice than we received in this House yesterday. I understand the thrust of his remarks to be simply that we had nothing to worry about on last December 22 because, after all, a whole bunch of money was going to come in when the premiums came in. Those moneys are no more or no less than trust moneys.

HON. MR. BENNETT (Premier): Right on!

HON. MR. MAIR:- Those moneys, by any reasonable insurance and accounting practices, ought to be set aside for the payment of claims and expenses and ought not to be used for the payment of previous debts and previous claims. In due course, Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member for Nanaimo's suggestions, you have to face the music. You can not go on and on and on paying last year's debts out of this year's revenues.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am indebted to my colleague. That is called "kiting" in some circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You'd be better off writing your own speeches.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, fortunately....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am grateful for the interruptions. I am told that there is some rule about interrupting a person in his maiden address, and I thank the opposition for not abiding by that rule. Let's have more of it because you'll be around for a while and I'll be around for longer.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the opposition yesterday talk — and I think it's safe to say for the first time publicly — about subsidies. Now it appears that automobile insurance ought to be subsidized. Notwithstanding the carefully laid remarks of the hon. minister in charge of ICBC, not withstanding the carefully documented remarks of other speakers, it now appears after the event that a subsidy was the idea after all. Notwithstanding all of the statements made in budget speeches — and yes, I have read Hansard — and notwithstanding all of the speeches made in this House by the Hon. Mr. Strachan when he was in the House, it now appears that as an afterthought it wasn't supposed to pay for itself after all. It was to be a subsidy. May I ask the hon. members on the other side of the floor when the decision was made that we were going to subsidize car insurance? When was it made and when were the people to know about it?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It was a bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: Apparently, if my friends on the opposite side of the House...if their remarks are to be taken seriously, Mr. Speaker, it was to be made clear to the people in the third year of operation, not the first or second year.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Very clear. Very clear.

HON. MR. MAIR: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the excuse now, the suggestion now, that ICBC was to be subsidized out of general revenues is a pathetic and convenient excuse, and an afterthought at the worst. I suggest that the opposition has not come up with one single answer to the allegations made by the government that the whole affair of ICBC has been a pathetic, contrived cover-up from beginning to end.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has asked members of the back bench to answer, and they have answered and they will answer again. But I'm a new boy, I am in the same position they are. I came into the government on December 22 last. Let me tell you what we found, Mr. Speaker. We found an immediate emergency that required courageous and quick action. We took that courageous action. We immediately appointed an actuary. We were under the gun. March 1 was the day the premiums had to be paid and we had to make our decision in the month of January. We made a decision and I am proud to have been part of that decision. In short, we were put in the position of having to act now or perpetuate an irresponsible catastrophe.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what were the results of the action which this government took? If you'll forgive the quotation marks, Mr. Speaker, "spontaneous demonstrations". Spontaneous demonstrations by concerned citizens.

Now in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, the orchestra leader of this demonstration was a man named Corley, who happens also to be the president of the NDP constituency organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MR. MAIR: Every single person, without exception, Mr. Speaker, involved in the organization of these demonstrations in my constituency was a member of the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, it's political.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 122 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: As a matter of fact, very few of them left after the last election seemed to be involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, what happened when these concerned citizens came to the steps of the Legislature?

AN HON. MEMBER: They sang "Solidarity Forever."

HON. MR. MAIR: "Solidarity Forever" is correct. Not only that, they were addressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) who very carefully and courageously told them: "Don't throw the rascals in the duck pond." The next moment they burst into the cabinet room. This is the responsible leadership that we have been shown by the opposition in answer to the catastrophe that they perpetrated upon this government.

We know who the orchestra leaders are, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. We know who they are, we know who orchestrated these demonstrations, and we know that they're sitting right across from us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the absurd situation where the man who ran up the bills is now blaming the bill collector. (Laughter.)

We have just gone through, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the most sordid, shameful chapter in British Columbia's governmental history, and the responsibility therefore lies across the chamber from me in the opposition ranks.

Mr. Speaker, they have not even had the courage to ask forgiveness. They have sought vengeance for their defeat instead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

HON. MR, MAIR: Oh, yes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: You ought to know, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: This amendment, Mr. Speaker, in closing, is not worthy of any respectable opposition, much less any consideration by this House.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes, I am indeed, and I hope the member's main thrust was more accurate than the remarks he attributed to me. They were patently untrue. I used no such remarks in addressing a group of demonstrators in front of this Legislature, unless the member had a crystal ball and perhaps read my mind. But there was no such comment made by me.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would take more than a crystal ball to read your mind.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I may, with respect, reply to the....

MR. SPEAKER: Only if you're on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The phrase "don't throw him in the duck pond" is a well-known phrase to those of us who have been involved in the law and to seeing how one incites people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. I did not attribute those words specifically to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there has now been a clarification by both sides of the House.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is apparently now doing more.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes. He's attributing to me the motive and the action of inciting, and I ask the member to withdraw that. It's patently untrue also.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has made his statement and so has the hon. member who has just taken his place after participating in this debate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I will not agree with being accused of inciting improper conduct or illegal conduct in this House. I ask the member to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the hon. member make that suggestion — of inciting?

[ Page 123 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I made no suggestion of inciting.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, hon. members, it is for me, as for other new members, a great privilege to speak in this House. The opportunity of representing the people of Victoria in this parliament is the highest honour which they could have bestowed upon me.

First, may I offer my felicitations to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your appointment. As well, to the Deputy Speaker and to all the hon. members who have come to this place to convene these proceedings may I extend a warm and hearty welcome and best wishes on behalf of all the people in this fair city.

I entered provincial politics out of a concern for the unchecked growth of government. I believe that competitive enterprise must be encouraged, not frustrated or replaced by state ownership and monopoly.

The ICBC mess is a classic example of the consequences of state take-over, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the opportunity to debate the opposition's motion.

When this government took office we were immediately faced with a disaster in ICBC — the largest single loss of any corporation, either public or private, in the history of British Columbia. The corporation has taken in only half the amount of premium income required to pay their claims, and total losses were $ 181 million.

The management of ICBC informed us that the corporation was broke, that they had no money to pay $160 million in outstanding claims, nor, indeed, even to pay the employees their wages. So we agonized, Mr. Speaker, over a solution to this sad legacy the NDP left this province. I say "we" because our entire caucus participated in the discussions that led to the present programme for ICBC.

Allow me to repeat the basis of that programme. We agreed to pick up the entire projected debt of ICBC to the end of the current fiscal year, with a $175 million subsidy out of general revenue. This is so ICBC can have a fresh start and pay its own way on a break-even basis without having to carry the load — from the administrative incompetence of the NDP government.

I emphasize "pay its own way", Mr. Speaker, because that is a solemn promise made to the people of British Columbia by the previous government, and this government is prepared to live up to that promise even if they aren't.

We reduced the degree of compulsion associated with automobile insurance to personal liability and property damage, and allowed people a flexibility which will permit them to tailor their premiums somewhat to their ability to pay. We provided for ICBC to finance premiums over a six-month period in order that those with a little amount of immediate cash could buy their insurance and continue to drive their cars. We granted a 25 per cent discount for senior citizens and the handicapped, and we asked ICBC to begin establishing a premium system based on the individual accident record. Until now, those individual drivers claims records have not been kept by the ICBC, and if they had, this phase would begin immediately. Instead, ICBC must build those records, and at the end of this year there will be rebates to those under 25 who qualify with good records.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this may be somewhat repetitive, but I think it has to be repeated. Obviously it's not getting through to the opposition members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They're pretty dense.

MR. BAWLF: There we have, Mr. Speaker, a sound, logical and honest set of policies for a serious problem which was not of our making. But wait, here comes the opposition charging to the rescue. Never mind that they should have rescued ICBC themselves in government about two years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't know it was in trouble. They had no idea.

MR. BAWLF: A remarkable transformation has taken place, Mr. Speaker. Suddenly the members of the former government have become financial and administrative wizards. Funny we didn't see any hint of this before. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: They have all the answers now, though.

MR. BAWLF: Now they have a better way to handle lCBC — in fact, several better ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now they say the rents are too high.

MR. BAWLF: In fact, they have almost as many better ways as they have hon. members, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: No pun intended.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I've never heard such a ragtag bobtail bunch of hair-brained ideas in all my life. I'm really beginning to see how this province could be in such a mess after just three years.

First we have the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) who, by his own admission, is poor enough at simple arithmetic that his wife won't let him handle the domestic accounts. But he's got

[ Page 124 ]

together with the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) and they think they've got it right this time, Mr. Speaker. They're ready to have a second try.

It goes like this: ignore the deficit; gerrymander the premiums a little bit; borrow a little; invest all of it to earn lots of interest, and just juggle the situation as long as possible, and presto! — what have you got? The same mess as last year: $160 million in the hole and $3 million earned in interest. That's not a new approach, fellows; that's your old one, remember?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Popcorn politics: full of hot air.

MR. BAWLF: Anyway, after seeing their first try, the people of this province aren't going to give the members of the opposition a second try for a long long time.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are the members opposite who would like to see the premiums set on individual driver demerit records. But, by their own admission, the correlation between these and claims is shaky. Compounding that, we have a half-million errors in the system that we inherited from the NDP in retrieving the correlation.

Then, a moment later, Mr. Speaker, some of the members opposite are talking about picking up the required increase in premium income over last year by assigning the gasoline tax out of general revenue as a subsidy.

Now if the correlation between demerit points and claims is shaky, the correlation between miles driven and claims is worse. The minister responsible for ICBC has already reported that nearly half of all the claims come from the under-25 drivers. This age group represents, in fact, a disproportionate share of the risks on the road. Yet most of them do not necessarily drive more miles or consume more gas, if you like, than any other age group.

Should an average driver from another age group, which are safer drivers, pay the same for their insurance just because they have driven similar mileage or are driving similar mileage?

Obviously the gasoline tax approach, which is proposed by one group of members opposite, contradicts directly the individual merit approach put forward by others. In any case the province doesn't collect enough gasoline tax to make up the difference. Remember that last year the excess of claims over premium income was $160 million. This is equal to at least 20 cents of the gasoline tax per gallon.

Then there is the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the smaller one, who believes that a wave of the resource-tax wand can do away with the need for this year's ICBC rate increases. Thank goodness he's no longer Minister of Industry. In an economic situation....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, in an economic situation such as the province faces now, with friends like the hon. minister from Vancouver Centre the province doesn't need any of the enemies referred to by the mover of the throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Former minister.

MR. BAWLF: The former minister. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we've heard all that stuff before from the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) about how he was generating...

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. BAWLF: Yes, where is he? That's a good question.

... generating expanded revenues on which to base new spending out of resource taxation. The facts differ, Mr. Speaker. During the NDP term the proportion of provincial revenue raised by direct taxes went up, not down, and it's higher than ever.

Now we've heard about the half-million dollar man in the north. Well, we can move him over for the $ 100 million man who Victoria has been reluctantly harbouring these past three years. The $100 million man, you recall.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was the most expensive of the whole bunch.

MR. BAWLF: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, in seconding the motion before us, Mr. Speaker, challenged me to comment on the plight of the senior citizens in my constituency. Of the 65,000 people in my constituency, over 30 per cent of the eligible voters are old-age pensioners; almost all are on fixed incomes and, as such, are most vulnerable to inflation — inflation which, Mr. Speaker, is caused more than anything else in this country by uncontrolled, profligate spending by governments which are spending a combined total of well over one-third of our national productivity, of our Gross National Product annually.

This spending, as one hon. member has said, is like a blood transfusion from one arm to the other, spilling half of it on the way, and with shocking waste and extravagance — alarming trends which must be checked if we are to lick inflation, and with that secure the future of our citizens, especially those on fixed incomes.

The federal government has set a terrible example, doubling its spending programme since 1972. But

[ Page 125 ]

there is a worse example, the worst in Canada to my knowledge: the Province of British Columbia under the NDP government, which nearly tripled its spending in just three years, leaving us with a deficit position in excess of half a billion dollars.

For these people, Mr. Speaker, to suddenly discover inflation at the eleventh hour, as a pre-election gimmick, is the height of hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BAWLF: The people of this province didn't buy it, and we're not going to put up with it here on the ICBC question. The burden of inflation upon the senior citizens and upon all the people of this province concerns me deeply and it concerns this government deeply.

In seconding the motion before us concerning ICBC, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard went on to one length about Mincome. Mr. Speaker, in reply I would simply ask: is the former minister's concern about inflation reflected in the fact that Mincome was not adjusted to reflect the rising cost of living during their last 18 months in office? The cost of living rose about 1 per cent per month during that period — 17 to 18 per cent. His government increased their spending of the taxpayers' money by about $1 billion. Why didn't the minister do something for our senior citizens then?

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to use the money to subsidize ICBC.

MR. BAWLF: Now, Mr. Speaker, the opposition would have us take $160 million out of general revenues for additional subsidies to ICBC, at the least, on top of the $175 million which is already committed from that source to clean up the staggering deficit they left behind. A total of' $335 million taken away from the other services of government in this province. What programmes, Mr. Speaker, would they have us take this huge sum away from? To what programmes would they have it take precedence? Should further subsidies for ICBC take precedence over our plan to extend Mincome benefits?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR, BAWLF: Of course not. Should it take precedence over the removal of property taxes from the homes of our senior citizens?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BAWLF: Certainly not. Perhaps the hon. minister for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. minister for Revelstoke-Slocan could get....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ex-minister, ex-minister, double-ex.

MR. BAWLF: Member, I'm sorry.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. Perhaps the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan can get together and decide whether most of our senior citizens are hurting in these inflationary times, or whether they're all millionaires.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): They never did get together before. Don't expect them to now.

MR. BAWLF: I'm sure they'll be glad to learn the verdict with regard to property taxes. Should further subsidies take precedence over our housing programmes?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BAWLF: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. acting Leader of the Opposition say that this government is insensitive to the problems of British Columbians buying land, an incredibly ironic statement, Mr. Speaker, "incredible" as in lacking credibility totally. Never has it been costlier or more difficult for a citizen of this province to buy land for a home than in the past three years.

The former government, Mr. Speaker, brought in measures which restricted lands available for new housing to an unprecedented degree and no measures were taken by that government adequate to compensate for the serious housing shortages which resulted.

I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the allocation of funds. Where is the priority? As a result, the cost....

MR. SPEAKER: I don't wish to interrupt you, Mr. Member, but you must relate your remarks to the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. After watching the members opposite at some length, I've been given to understand that ramblings away from the topic were the practice in this House.

MR. LAUK: And you're very good at it.

MR. BAWLF: Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am following the precedent of the member for

[ Page 126 ]

Vancouver-Burrard who went on about Mincome at great length.

As a result, the cost of home ownership has been pushed beyond the means of a whole generation of British Columbians. This is the tragic legacy of the NDP government, Mr. Speaker.

Should further subsidization of ICBC take precedence over solving these problems, Mr. Speaker? Thousands of young families with children are stuck in inadequate rental accommodation, unable to afford a decent home, with serious social consequences — in some cases, extending to family dissolution and alienation and delinquency among our youth.

Shall ICBC subsidies take precedence over improved opportunities for people to own their own homes? Of course not. Please note, Mr. Speaker, my emphasis is on the word ownership. Ownership, not serfdom. That's the difference between this government and the former socialist government, Mr. Speaker. This government, is committed to restoring the opportunity for home ownership after the disaster of the last three and a half years, and to the extent that this effort requires government financial assistance, Mr. Speaker, it deserves far higher priority than further subsidies to ICBC.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech pledges that local governments will become partners with the provincial government, sharing in its growth and the growth of its revenues. This is to remedy the shocking neglect of our municipalities by the NDP government, which brought many of those municipalities to the brink of bankruptcy. Should more subsidies for ICBC take precedence over cleaning up this mess, Mr. Speaker?

In the time that the former government almost tripled its spending, the municipalities received only token increases in financial aid. In fact, those increases failed to keep pace with inflation. Then, of course, there's the famous NDP joke on the beleaguered taxpayer, school tax removal. Mr. Speaker, I'm in no mood for more subsidies to ICBC as long as these burdens on my constituents remain.

Then there is the question of health care. On Friday we heard the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggest that we take a look at the hospital services in Victoria, and he warned: "I hope you don't get sick in Victoria." Amen.

We also heard a complaint during this debate from a member opposite about misleading advertising. Consider this item for a moment: NDP literature claiming that in their term of government they produced more than 600 new hospital beds in the Victoria area. In fact, the number of new hospital beds produced in Victoria was scarcely altered because the former government embarked on a programme of acquiring beds that already existed and renaming them. As a consequence of that meagre programme there is today in the Victoria area a shortage of some 500 intermediate- and extended-care beds. Our two acute-care hospitals have each had to give up over 80 beds for intermediate care. There is simply nowhere else to send patients who have progressed that far. This amounts to over 50,000 bed-days a year which are taken away from their intended acute-care use.

People requiring surgery are having to wait months for admission. Operating hours have had to be cut back and a first-class open-heart surgery team has had to slow its activities because there are insufficient beds for their patients.

If the former Minister of Health had been less concerned with plans to build monolithic monuments to the medical millennium, such as the B.C. Medical Centre, and lowered himself to a few modest human-scale improvements, such as less-costly extended- and intermediate-care facilities, he wouldn't have had to warn us about the hazards of getting sick around here. As it is, he has made a lot of people sick of socialist planning.

The NDP government emptied the province's medical plan fund — some $50 million. Should NDP demands for further subsidies for ICBC now take precedence over our health care facilities? Of course not. The throne speech outlines this government's concern and priority for the people of this province and for a balanced approach to serving their needs. Our programme for cleaning up the NDP's ICBC mess must be seen in that context.

The NDP members, Mr. Speaker, have failed to consider the implications of siphoning more money away from Mincome, housing, hospitals and other fundamental needs because they are obsessed, as they have been all along, with hiding the true gravity of their ICBC mess from the people of British Columbia at any cost.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cover-up.

MR. BAWLF: And for that reason this motion is wholly irresponsible. Furthermore, the conduct of the members of the executive council of the former government responsible for ICBC, as related by the hon. Minister of Education...their conduct in deliberately hiding the true facts of ICBC and deliberately hiding the rates, the true cost in the rates, is entirely....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. member has said that members of the previous executive council deliberately hid something.

[ Page 127 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: True, true!

MR. MACDONALD: That would be deception, and he should withdraw. He's been out of order almost all of his speech, but on this point he should withdraw. Is he charging deliberate deception or not?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of your interpretation, Mr. Member, according to what you seem to think you heard. I didn't hear this statement. Was there any assertion there that was a reflection on the former administration in any derogatory manner?

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I will clarify my comments to make reference to the former government, and I will say that the activities of the members of that government are reprehensible. I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that we should be having more than one by-election right now. We should be having a by-election in New Westminster.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe the House is entitled to a ruling by the Speaker on whether or not it is acceptable in this House to refer to and accuse the government or members of this House of deliberate deception. I believe that was the assertion, and I believe we are entitled to a ruling on that point,

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I heard no such statement. I asked the hon. member who was on his feet, after the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) rose on a point of order, to clarify this statement, which he has done publicly in front of the whole House. I think that is as far as the matter needs to go.

But while we're on this matter, I would like to draw to the attention of all members a practice which I don't think is in the best traditions of parliament, and that is for members to rise on a point of order, which in effect and in fact is not a point of order, after they have been recognized by the Chair. So until I can listen to the point of order I can't rule on it.

The other thing is that when a member is on his feet speaking, if another hon. member takes exception to something that is said, the tradition is for them to wait until the member who is on his feet finishes his speech, and then gets up and asks for a retraction or a withdrawal or a correction, if that's in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I take issue with that. I agree with that interpretation in terms of any disagreement with a point of fact. But if it's a point of order, I think a member is entitled, under the rules of this House, to rise on that occasion and draw the Speaker's attention to the breech of the House rules.

1 would point out further, Mr. Speaker, that we have a Hansard in this assembly now, and as earlier when I objected on a point of order to a statement made by the hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), I submit again that Hansard will definitely show, as it will in the case of the member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), that improper allegations were made in violation of the rules of this House.

I wonder if at that point, if our position is substantiated by the records in Hansard, if the Speaker will request and demand a retraction from those members.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who rose in the House on a point of order, there is no objection to any hon. member rising on a point of order in the House, but there is a distinction and a difference between rising on a point of order and rising after a person has delivered his speech to ask them to correct a statement.

The point seems to be with respect to a statement that was made by the previous speaker. I didn't completely hear the statement. If there is a statement that the hon. Leader of the Opposition can quote to me, that you feel is out of order.... What was that statement?

MR. MACDONALD: That former ministers had deliberately misled this House, and he should have withdrawn it!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's true!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is a suggestion that you made a statement that former members of the government deliberately misled this House. Did you make such a statement? If so, will you withdraw it?

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making that statement. If the facts bear out the opposition's view, then I will withdraw any statement that imputes improper motive to individual members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to deal with one of the less offensive remarks the last speaker made. In his opening remarks he indicated that there had been a

[ Page 128 ]

caucus meeting, that all members of the government benches had had an opportunity to participate in the decisions regarding ICBC.

That is a rather strange statement in view of the fact that it has been established very firmly in press reports that the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said that she knew nothing about it, that the first she heard of it was in the press.

Now I have not heard her deny this statement, and I'm wondering if perhaps she was not included in that first caucus meeting when they talked about ICBC. I had rather expected to see the member for North Okanagan in the cabinet. I have a great deal of interest in agriculture and I have followed her activities as critic of Agriculture at great length. I think she did an admirable job. Yes, she did, and I'm rather surprised to find that she's not in the cabinet.

I had expected to have a representative of one of the very few women in the cabinet. We don't have that many women in this House. This is a problem that bothers some of us women. We're more than 50 per cent of the population, and yet we sit here with some six members in the House, and it's rather unfortunate that the member for North Okanagan is not in the cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the proceedings of this House, not only on behalf of the constituents of Cowichan-Malahat but on behalf of a constituency that has a long, proud history of returning to this House a member of the democratic socialist party. The traditions of Cowichan-Malahat go back to James Hawthornthwaite and Parker Williams, to Sam Guthrie and more recently, Mr. Speaker, Bob Strachan.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I dislike interrupting you, particularly when you are making your first speech on the floor of the House.

Could I suggest to you that your remarks must be in some manner related to the amendment that's before you?

MRS. WALLACE: They are, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will be presenting the main motion at some other time.

MRS. WALLACE: They are to do with that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: As long as you relate them to....

MRS. WALLACE: They are related.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you tell me... ?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm coming to that part; I'm coming to that part.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. Sam Guthrie and Bob Strachan, the former member for Cowichan-Malahat.... .

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: ...now the Agent-General in London...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE:...and the former Minister of Transport who was charged with the establishment of ICBC — the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

I'm coming to the point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. WALLACE: I cannot think of an adjective vehement enough to express my shock and my horror as I sat in this House during the past few days and heard members of the cabinet and members of the back bench get up and impugn the integrity and the honesty of a man who has given 22 years of service to this province — as an MLA, Mr. Speaker, as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and as a member of the executive council of the government of this province. A man who is not here to speak out in his own defence...

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you speaking?

MRS. WALLACE: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of political gimmickry being evidenced by members of the House is nothing short of disgraceful.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Much of the social legislation that is written into the statutes of British Columbia is there because of the vision, the persuasiveness and the persistence of pioneers of the New Democratic Party, including Robert Strachan, and I am proud to stand as his successor.

I'm proud to speak out as he and others have done on the side of social justice. Robert Strachan accomplished an almost impossible task in setting up the largest insurance corporation in Canada. He set it up in face of every possible kind of non-cooperation from the private insurance companies — setting it up in the face of every kind of negative criticism in the press.

We read stories of the gigantic line-ups that were going to be created, about people who would not be

[ Page 129 ]

able to buy insurance. But, Mr. Speaker, when the cards were down, the transition into public insurance moved ahead without incident and the citizens of this province were able to buy car insurance at a cost they could afford. I say that the establishment of a government insurance plan in a few short months stands as a monument to Bob Strachan's ability, his determination and his drive.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the remarks that have been made in this House are an insult to parliamentary democracy. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no private insurance company could set up a brand new corporation the size of ICBC and expect it to make money in its first or in its second year of operation — not only to make money, Mr. Speaker, but pay off all the deficits from its current operation.

This is a ridiculous assumption, Mr. Speaker. I suggest you can prove anything with figures, and this government is trying to juggle ICBC accounts to discredit the former government and the former Minister of Transport.

Mr. Speaker, when a government says that automobile insurance is compulsory — and that's what the former Social Credit government said, and I agree with that — it should be compulsory.... But when a government says to its drivers in this province, "Thou shalt have insurance", then, Mr. Speaker, it's morally incumbent upon that government to provide that insurance at a price those drivers can afford to pay.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the action of this government increasing the rates twofold and threefold is an immoral act. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government has forced many decent law-abiding citizens to break the law, to break it because they cannot afford to drive. Their very livelihood depends on driving to their place of work; and I suggest there are many drivers out there driving without insurance. If that is not so, Mr. Speaker, why is the insurance company placing quarter-page ads in the press advising drivers that it is against the law to drive without insurance?

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it's immoral of this government to put honest, hard-working citizens in this province in that position.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's all right, friends, I tangled with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr., Phillips) before. You know, he was parachuted into my riding during the election.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I drove up.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't really know why the member who was running against me was afraid to meet at an all-candidates meeting, but I first met the Minister there. Do you know, the minister had the courtesy there to tell me that he thought I would make a very good representative in this House. Then he added a very interesting thing. He said whether or not I got elected. So, I'm a little bit used to tangling with the Minister of Agriculture. I expect that we will tangle a bit more before this House is over.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, to get on with the theme, so I won't be called to order again, I'm shocked that this government in these inflationary times would reduce the amount of compulsory public liability insurance — reduce it to $50,000, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that in the case of a major accident involving two or three cars, injury or death, $50,000 is but a drop in the bucket towards covering the cost of such an accident. And I suggest further, Sir, that it is the people least able to pay who have been forced into buying this minimal insurance coverage. Those are the people, if they are responsible for an accident, whom the injured party will have to sue in order to get satisfaction. Those are the people who are being forced into the position, if they cause an accident, of facing garnishee of their wages for the rest of their working life, and I suggest, Sir, that it's immoral for a government to put people in that position.

Collision insurance is no longer compulsory, Mr. Speaker, and again I suggest that there are many British Columbia drivers who know they should have collision insurance who are driving without it because they can't afford it — people who use their cars to go to and from their places of work, Mr. Speaker, shift workers often, driving early in the morning or during the night, times when the vagaries of weather can cause conditions of extreme hazard, black ice for example. Those drivers have to use their cars, because where I live, and I believe where many of the other members of this House live, there are no buses, no public transit to the mill and the other places of work, no buses at any time and especially during the early hours of the morning, or for workers coming off graveyard shift.

An accident can happen in a split second — no warning. You can find your car wrapped around a power pole or jammed against a bridge abutment, or, worst of all, slammed into another car. That's collision, Mr. Speaker, and without collision insurance the repair or the replacement of that vehicle is the sole responsibility of that driver, a vehicle, Mr. Speaker, that is often his only means for him to get to and from his place of work, a vehicle that is essential for him to earn his livelihood. It's not a vehicle for pleasure driving, Mr. Speaker, but one of the expensive kind, a work vehicle, and I suggest, Mr.

[ Page 130 ]

Speaker, that a government that allows economic pressure — or more, a government that instigates that kind of economic pressure that forces a person to drive without collision insurance — I submit that government is an immoral government.

"Thanks for the memories." So sang the ads during the last stages of the election campaign. Many others have some memories of pre-ICBC days, days when private companies ignored the facts and tried to argue both parties involved in an accident to accept 50 per cent of the responsibility. That way, Mr. Speaker, both claims were considered collision and both parties were obligated to pay the deductible portion back in the days when, in order to get satisfaction, it was necessary for injured parties to take their claims before the courts of this province to obtain a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the callous approach this government has taken to ICBC. They talk about freedom. What kind of freedom, I ask. Freedom to sell their cars, freedom to walk to work, freedom to be unemployed because we have no means to get to and from our job sites, freedom to make ourselves vulnerable because we can't afford to purchase adequate insurance. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that economic freedom is a very real freedom, a universal freedom that countries throughout the world are striving towards. And I submit further that in a province with the resources we have in British Columbia, the direction this government is taking — and ICBC is but one of many things, Mr. Speaker — towards destroying economic freedom in this province is, in fact, nothing short of disgraceful. Thank you.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would start my remarks with a quotation from the Financial Post of 1973. The speaker is Dave Barrett, the former Premier of this province, and he says as follows: "As socialists we will be hard-nosed capitalists in business ventures."

It seems to me that that statement is very much the question today. Much has been said in this House about the profits or losses, the deficits or debits of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, and much of it is semantics. Much of it is subject to interpretation of the facts. The points are quite simple and the points are these.

In the year of 1975 the income of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was approximately $161 million and the projected losses were $325 million, leaving for the year 1975 a total deficit of $164 million. You may call this a deficit, you may call it a loss, you may call it a debit — whatever. It's money the insurance company did not take in and is therefore not able to pay out. Oh, indeed, we have a $100 million line of credit at the bank; I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, we've got a $1 billion line of credit at the bank. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia is backed up by the resources of this province, and I should hope this province has a larger line of credit than merely $100 million. It doesn't mean we should go to the bank to pay for groceries.

During the last week I was visited by a delegation from the British Columbia Federation of Labour, and they said to me: "You have to maintain the 1975 rates for Autoplan. You can do it merely by putting on an additional gas tax." I suggested to them, because the existing gasoline tax is used to maintain highways and hospitals and schools, that if ICBC were to be subsidized it must be by an additional gasoline tax. They agreed.

Mr. Len Guy, a true heavyweight in the British Columbia Federation of Labour, agrees with me. The insurance corporation rates were too low, but he felt, and his delegation felt, that the losses of the insurance corporation should be made up by an additional gasoline tax. The difference between last year's rates and this year's rates should not be made up by premium increases. Well, Mr. Speaker, it took very little research to come up with some interesting numbers.

Last year, in the province of British Columbia, there were 770 million gallons of gas consumed. If we allow for 70 million gallons of gas to be consumed in farm tractors and boats and other vessels that use non-tax-paying gas, we come up with 700 million gallons of gasoline. Divide that by the number of millions of dollars that ICBC has a shortfall and we find out that we have to pay an additional 22 cents per gallon of gasoline just to cover the losses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this House about the unfair treatment of the northern ridings, and my constituents would be the first to agree that 22 cents on a gallon of gasoline is unfair taxation to those people who live in rural ridings or who must commute great distances to work. In fact, contrary to the opinion that many members of this House have, we agree that, actuarially, accidents are caused by the young people, specifically the young male between 16 and 25, and we feel that they should pay the lion's share of the cost.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): There's no applause for that.

MR. ROGERS: I didn't ask for any. Now much has been said about the fact that the young men are being charged these exorbitant rates based on statistical analysis rather than the true facts. But we know that it was on the instructions of the previous administration that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia failed to keep records on those drivers who had accidents. It was purely a political move to insure the fact that very proper assessments of the rates would not come about.

[ Page 131 ]

Much has already been said about the disparities and irregularities of the rates. The drivers on the lower mainland who, like it or not, have more accidents than those people who live in Victoria, do in fact pay higher rates. Strange, indeed, how we have to pay our own way. How very realistic. You have no idea of the numbers of my constituents who phone me and say: "I can't understand why the automobile needs a subsidy."

One of the reasons we are debating this subject today is because the previous administration felt that the insurance industry was in fact a rip-off. That brings me to a famous quote from a famous quotation. It's from Tommy Douglas, so some of you in the NDP might like to listen to this: "Canadians do not want to escape from the tyranny of big business only to fall into the clutches of big government." It's too bad you in the NDP didn't listen to your own man's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, there have been calls for Mr. Strachan to return to this House. He is currently residing at 10 Waterloo Place in the City of Westminster in London, England, and he can be here in 8 1/2 hours. I happen to know, having made the journey several times. If it is the wish of this House, I suggest we phone him — he's in the book,

In deference to the hon. minister from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I would point out that Mr. Jimmy Carter, who is seeking the presidential nomination in the United States, is in the peanut business, so I suggest we now change it to a popcorn stand.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would leave you with a thought from a famous quote, and that's from Sir John A. Macdonald. This applies to the previous government: "Given a government with a big surplus and a big majority, a weak opposition, you could debauch a committee of archangels." Well, Mr. Speaker, they failed with the archangels, but they debauched the economy and the people of the province of this country.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, there are just a few points I would like to make in support of this amendment relating to the exorbitant, unnecessary and discriminatory increases in ICBC Autoplan premium rates. The first one, as many of our members have pointed out, is that the magnitude of the rate increase set by the Social Credit cabinet, that is politically set...are far too high. That's a point that many of our members have already made, but it is a point that the Socreds themselves have admitted.

The Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), while professing to be shocked at almost everything that took place during his few weeks in office, admitted to the Victoria Times on January 27, 1976, that the rates were far too high and that a transfer of funds from the consolidated revenue fund to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was unnecessary. I'd like to quote the Premier's remarks as they were cited in that Victoria Times newspaper article. The Premier said: "The government decided to pay off the $181 million deficit left by ICBC's first two years of operation, but that money will not be needed right away and ICBC can invest it and make millions."

What the Premier is really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that his government is depriving citizens of this province of needed revenues to provide services and is saddling drivers with unnecessary premium increases in order to make him look like a financial wizard just like his daddy.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) stated that the new rates were actuarially set, and that was absolute misinformation. Byron Straight, the actuary who was appointed by the Socreds to the ICBC board of directors, was forced to issue a disclaimer to the press to save his reputation. In fact, he voted against the premium increases because they were unnecessarily high and based on the most pessimistic possible outlook for the corporation's performance.

If the rates weren't actuarially set, then we can only conclude they were politically established and that it was the Social Credit cabinet which interfered in the setting of the rates.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Who set the rates before?

MR. SKELLY: Now there's been some confusion.... You'll have an opportunity to speak on this amendment, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR, SKELLY: There's some confusion that the Social Credit cabinet interfered with the setting of the rates. We've had some differing information from members of your own caucus, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. SKELLY:...that caucus was consulted in the establishing of the ICBC rates. The member for Victoria who just spoke (Mr. Bawlf) said that caucus "agonized" over the establishment of these rates — if we were to believe the Member for Victoria. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), in an article in the Prince George Citizen said that all of the caucus wasn't consulted, and that they should hold off any decision on the premiums until caucus was consulted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did they tell you about

[ Page 132 ]

plan Z?

MR. SKELLY: If you can believe the member for Omineca.... We'll get to plan Z in a minute. Yes, it was brought before the public accounts committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, it was?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, will you call your Premier to order, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: Order! Control yourself, Billy.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Uncontrollable Premier; he can dish it out but he can't take it. A wild man!

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Again, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) in the Terrace Herald complained about the establishment of ICBC premium rates, and he wanted to hold off the establishment and the finalization of those rates until caucus as a whole was consulted. So we have three different statements from three different members of caucus as to whether caucus was consulted or wasn't consulted, Mr. Speaker, if you can believe any of the members of that caucus over there.

MR. LEA: Is there an "in" caucus' and an "out" caucus?

MR. SKELLY: How many caucuses do they have?

At any rate, the Social Credit cabinet did interfere with the establishment of those rates, and any statement by that group that the rates were actuarially established is a complete and utter falsehood.

The only reason for increasing the Autoplan rates, and for changing the rate structure, is to lay track for the return of foreign insurance companies to British Columbia. It's a straight political payoff to the donors of Social Credit campaign funds, a straight political payoff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that, the former member for Coquitlam?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Member, I don't have Dan Campbell write my speeches; I write my own.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: The only reason for transferring $175 million from consolidated revenues, dollars required for needed services in this province, is to give the Socreds an excuse for cutting services to people, to blame those cuts on the former government and to create an inflated so-called deficit in the 1975-76 financial statement.

The Socreds have already stated that they will have to borrow up to $400 million. This is twice the amount they require, Mr. Speaker — because of the decision they made, a Social Credit decision to transfer moneys from the consolidated revenues fund to Crown corporations.

As a result of decisions made by that government, decisions that were not necessary to make, the citizens of this province, Mr. Speaker, are going to be forced to pay double the amount of debt service charges that they should be required to pay over the next many years.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Again, again.... Mr. Speaker, will you please call the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I remind you...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I remind hon. members that the Chair cannot afford luxuries to any one individual that that individual would not wish to extend to other members of the House? So I would remind all members present to allow the member to continue with his speech. Thank you very much.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As a result, the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia will be forced to bear debt service charges twice as high as necessary, and again the people of British Columbia are being punished by this negative, cynical government for their temerity in throwing the present Premier's daddy out of office back in 1972.

But, Mr. Speaker, this type of action is characteristic of the Campbell-Bennett government. One of the Socreds who spoke yesterday, known more for his volume than the reliability of his information, said that this was a negative opposition, negative because it was attempting to prevent the

[ Page 133 ]

government from discriminating against people in the setting of insurance premium rates.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they may talk about a negative opposition, but there isn't a single positive thing this government has done since it was first elected to office on December 11, 1975. They've chopped Mincome, Mr. Speaker. They've eliminated community resource boards elected by the people. They've eliminated government services to women. They've damaged the tourist trade by cutting back on the Marguerite service. They've eliminated the commission discussing Indian cut-off lands and instead they've attempted to piece off Indian groups by negotiating one single land claim in order to pay off a political debt. A totally negative, cynical, vindictive government, Mr. Speaker, and nowhere is the Socred characteristic more evident than in its approach to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

From the very inception of this corporation, that group, allied with "the insurance companies doing business in British Columbia" — not owned in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, not controlled in British Columbia, but simply doing business here — systematically set out to destroy the insurance corporation and to demoralize the people around the concept of public insurance. Again, during the last election, they launched an attack to discredit ICBC, and again they were financed by the "insurance companies doing business in British Columbia" and again, not owned in British Columbia and not controlled in British Columbia, because there was only one insurance company owned and controlled in this province. There was only one insurance company set up with the capital and the labour and the initiative of the people here in British Columbia, and that was the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

The Socreds, Mr. Speaker, with the help of the foreign insurance companies, have systematically set out to destroy the company that our citizens built and that our citizens own and control. That, Mr. Speaker, is the betrayal of the work and the investment of our own citizens in favour of outside companies. It's a traitorous attack on the citizens of this province, and you should hang your heads in shame.

Mr. Speaker, it was suggested by the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that the directors of the Insurance Corp. of B.C. who were members of this House during the 30th Legislature attempted to cover up the losses of ICBC. That's another fabrication. There is more information available on the performance of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, financially and otherwise, than there is on any other insurance company doing business in this province. All members received the annual reports of the corporation and they were tabled in the House, and the hon. Minister of Education had an opportunity to question the directors of the Crown corporation when they appeared before the public accounts committee, a practice that wasn't always followed by the government of the party of which he is now a member.

In fact, when the ICBC directors appeared before the public accounts committee, which was chaired by the present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and he was a very good chairman — the present Minister of Education didn't choose to show up. He wasn't there to question the directors of the public insurance corporation in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was he?

MR. SKELLY: He was a truant. And that's his only qualification to be Minister of Education; he was a truant from that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Premier had a document that he submitted to that public accounts committee — I don't know if it was Plan A, B, C or X, Y or Z — but he had a document that was an internal document of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. I don't know how he obtained it, possibly a briefcase lying around in some civil servant's car. I don't know where he got that document, Mr. Speaker, but I think this party on this side of the House would be perfectly willing to submit documents such as that or to have documents on the day-to-day operation of Crown corporations submitted for the perusal of the public accounts committee if the present Premier would be willing to change the terms of reference of that committee so we can scrutinize the internal documents of Crown corporations. Perhaps he is going to make that suggestion during this session.

In any case, at that public accounts committee meeting it was announced by Mr. Norman Bortnick, the general manager of the Insurance Corp. of B.C., and it was announced for all the public to see, that during the start-up phase of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, losses could be expected for a period of six years. That's not uncommon, Mr. Speaker, during the start-up phase, for a corporation to lose money.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Certainly ICBC lost money over its first two years of operation, and as Norman Bortnick indicated, losses could be expected over the next four years. But compare the experience of that corporation and the losses of that corporation to other industries, Mr. Speaker, in these troubled economic times. There's the pulp mill that was built in my riding at Gold River by the Tahsis Company. It was built in 1966 at a cost of $50 million. That mill didn't turn a nickel of profit until 1972. Yet nobody suggested that it be subsidized out of consolidated

[ Page 134 ]

revenue. Nobody suggested that it be put into receivership.

It was considered a risk to be taken by that company during the start-up phase of the pulp mill, and it was a legitimate expectation that losses would be suffered by that mill.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): But not by the taxpayers, sonny. Not by the taxpayers.

MR, SKELLY: Let's look at the private insurance companies doing business in North America in these troubled times, Mr. Speaker. Compare the performance of other insurance companies in North America. In the first nine months of 1975, and this is from Time magazine of January 5, 1976, State Farm Mutual lost over $100 million in nine months. Allstate Insurance Corp. during the same period of time lost $215 million in the first nine months of 1975. That's almost as much as the premiums written by the Insurance Corp. of B.C.

In the total losses in the public liability and property loss sector in the United States in the whole year of 1975, the underwriting losses were $4,000 million, Mr. Speaker, and those insurance companies dipped into their reserves to the tune of $3,000 million for total losses of $7 billion in insurance in the United States. Look at the experience in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rip-off.

MR. SKELLY: Money that they got from drivers in the United States...and don't you think those insurance companies are cross-subsidized, Mr. Speaker? Don't you think that IT&T, Rayonier, cross-subsidizes the Hartford Insurance Corp.? Don't you think money taken from stumpage and revenues from the Rayonier Corp. in this province goes to subsidize the losses of the Hartford Insurance Corp.? Don't be silly. Of course they do. Those companies have to cross-subsidize each other to minimize their losses in subsidiary businesses.

Look at the experience of the insurance industry in Canada, according to the Canadian Underwriters' magazine of April, 1975 — the statistical information contained in that issue. In 1973 public liability and property insurance lost $133 million across Canada. In 1974, the same year that ICBC lost $34 million, the private insurance corporations across Canada lost $330 million. We do 10 per cent of the insurance business in that area in Canada, so that loss is not bad in comparison with what the private insurers suffered.

In fact, compared to these losses in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, ICBC looks pretty good in spite of the fact that the Socreds have attempted to confuse the issue around rates and deficits.

In summing up, I would like to say that the Socreds have interfered politically with the rate structure of this corporation, and they said they wouldn't. They overruled the recommendations of their own actuary who voted against the rate increases because he felt they were unnecessarily high and unnecessarily punitive. They lied in saying the rates were actuarily based, and the real intent in proposing exorbitant and discriminating rates is to destroy the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and lay the tracks for the return of private insurance companies to British Columbia.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do believe the hon. member referred to members of this government as lying, and I request him to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member referred to any individual in this House as lying, would you please withdraw that remark?

MR. SKELLY: I'll withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker, if it referred to members of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the amendment presented by the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) and the Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

The motion is against the oppressive auto insurance rates, not against the oppressive insurance costs, which this government and the hon. minister in charge of ICBC are trying to correct. I predict that the cost of car insurance, under the new policy, will go down. I predict that the added benefits will be far lower cost for the accident-free drivers, and as the penalties rise for bad drivers there will be an eventual saving in life, misery and property losses.

We are on the way to lowering the costs, saving the lives and property, yet the opposition are unhappy. Their policy brought about high costs, an ever-escalating accident rate and no penalties for the ones who caused the accidents. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment is completely unnecessary, a smokescreen designed to hide the true facts and where the true responsibility lies.

We will be lowering the cost of auto insurance, Mr. Speaker, and it is less than honest for those members over there to infer that the premiums paid to ICBC were the same as the costs. Yet the resolution says: "We regret that the speech fails to relieve the motoring public from oppressive auto insurance rates."

They go on to discuss the rates in the north and the interior as if they were the highest in the province, but we know this is not true, as this has been stated many times, and I know that the

[ Page 135 ]

opposition knows it is not true.

I would like to quote from the previous president of ICBC: "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."

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that some people have difficulty recognizing a debt when they see one, but how in the world can the financial mess of ICBC be said to be establishing financial reserves consistent with good management? A peanut stand would be too complex an operation — too complicated, I believe.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when we get emotionally involved in a subject it pays to sit back and consider what we set out to accomplish. In insurance we set out to spread a common risk over a group of people who all contribute to a common pot.

Insurance is not, in my view, a system which asks people who have no risk — because they don't own a car — to pay into the pot to subsidize the ones who require the insurance. That is what happens when money from general revenue is used: the ones who have no risk pay part of the costs. Insurance is not asking some people who have a common risk to pay a great deal more than their neighbour. If we pay for the costs of insurance by way of a fuel tax, then some people with a common risk pay much more than others.

The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) referred to some statements of mine. I want to thank her for it, as I had forgotten about that discussion. I want to set the record straight about that discussion. I want to set the record straight as to what I actually said. I said that I thought the gas tax route for financing car insurance was unwise for several reasons.

All of the increases in gas taxes incurred by those people moving goods and services around this province would be passed on to the consumers, many of whom do not own a vehicle and certainly do not need higher costs for food, clothing or heating fuels. This method would have caused unnecessary hardship for our senior citizens and those with large families. The costs are borne by the amount of fuel you use and not according to the risks and there would be no penalties for bad drivers.

One of the greatest problems facing this province is to overcome the lack of confidence we have experienced over the last three years due to the NDP mismanagement of our affairs. We must get our economy rolling again, and our truckers in the forest industry, our farmers and our miners do not need an additional tax burden. A 20 cents a gallon tax for our logging trucks would increase the operating cost for fuel alone as much as $4,800.

I also said in that interview, Mr. Speaker, that the government interference and government subsidies do not allow other insurance companies to enter the insurance field, and thus they prevent the people of this province from having an alternative. I will always try to make sure that the people of my riding do have a choice — whether it is a pound of beef, a loaf of bread, or automobile insurance.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I tried to find out, Mr. Speaker, where ICBC went wrong. We all know that the rates were not set in a realistic or responsible manner, but I was interested also in some of the land purchases that were made. I found some very peculiar things happening in this department. A parcel of land in Vernon containing two acres, more or less, was purchased and registered on February 19, 1973, for $68,000. Just seven or eight months later in October of that same year that same parcel of land was sold to ICBC for $140,000, or over 100 percent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): By a rip-off Socred!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You'd better be careful, because there were some NDP-ers in there.

MR. BAWTREE: In Spallumcheen just a few miles from Armstrong another piece of property — 17.75 acres to be exact. No highway frontage, no particular assets, just a piece of rather poor farmland, rather gravelly — and what should this land be worth, Mr. Speaker? Adjoining land that was sold about the same time, there are several examples: 66.9 acres for $160,000, or approximately $2,400 an acre; 10 acres for $15,000, or $1,500 an acre; another property — the Department of Highways bought this one; it had frontage on it — seven acres for $15,000, or $2,143 an acre.

From these examples it would seem to be pretty well established that the price should somewhere be around $2,100 to $2,200 an acre. What did ICBC pay? They paid $180,000 for 17.75 acres, or approximately $ 10,000 an acre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What kind of dealings are those?

MR. BAWTREE: It is doubtful that even with the inflated prices of today we could realize more than half the price that ICBC paid at that time.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that a person can go broke even selling peanuts if you pay too much for the land

[ Page 136 ]

you set your stand up on. When we see the irresponsible spending of the people's money for land, when we see the first two years' losses of $181 million, when we see that even after experiencing these losses the government of the day, and more particularly the Premier and the corporation directors of the day, took no steps to correct the situation, but in fact tried to mislead the public into thinking that all was well when in fact they were actually budgeting for a further $159 million loss....

Mr. Speaker, there is a chap going around door to door in the wilds of Vancouver East right now, hoping to get his old job back, when he and all those responsible for misleading the people of this province should not only hide their heads in shame, but should no longer represent the people they so cruelly misled.

I regret that this amendment has been brought in because, in my opinion, the majority of the province, the majority of the people of this province, have accepted the new rates, and rather than discuss something that the people of this province decided on December 11 last, we should be getting on with running the province. We should be implementing good legislation which will get this province moving again and creating jobs. We should get this province moving again so that we can have money for hospitals and schools and roads. I support the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when he says that these things are more important than fixing bashed fenders.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that one of my main reasons for taking on the responsibility of representing the constituency of Shuswap was to do my utmost to ensure that my children and grandchildren were not saddled with any more of our day-to-day operating costs for running this province. This has been the case under the gross mismanagement by those people over there as exemplified by ICBC.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the hon. member who just took his seat to withdraw the assertion he made a number of times that the opposition in this House was less than honest.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Far worse than that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has brought to the attention of the House an assertion that the members of the opposition were less than honest. If such an assertion was made, would the hon. member please withdraw that statement?

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to indicate that the members over there intentionally misled the House, but if they didn't then they obviously didn't know what was going on with ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the suggestion has been made that a statement was made by yourself on the floor of the House. As an hon. member, please withdraw it if you made such a statement.

MR. BAWTREE: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, in beginning my second maiden speech (laughter) in this Legislature and speaking to the motion, I wish first of all to congratulate you in your elevation to the responsible position of Speaker of this Legislative Assembly. I am addressing my sixth Speaker of the House, and I am happy to say that the previous five Speakers were indeed dedicated, devoted, unbiased Speakers of the House. At this moment, speaking for the majority of the members of the Legislature, I know that you will perform your duties just as justly as your predecessors.

Mr. Speaker, you happen to be the first real northerner elevated to this position. Just for your information, by many phone calls people have asked me: "Did Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition oppose a northern member?" I said: "Yes, they fumbled again." Yes, they did. (Laughter.) There's a heck of a lot of good northerners, partner. No thanks to those guys over there.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): One or two southerners, too.

MR. CALDER: I also extend my congratulations to the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) for his appointment to the Deputy Speaker of the House. I feel greatly for my friend because for 13 years I spent most of my life trying my best to educate myself in that particular area. I feel quite highly for his appointment.

I also congratulate the new members of the House, and I think I am one member who can truthfully say that sincerely. I know that they will find their participation and contribution to the House most challenging and I know that they will feel greatly in this respect in the years they will serve in this House.

On the motion, Mr. Speaker, I feel quite depressed to participate in it because it appears to me that the opposition in its presentation of this motion is just making an excuse for what has happened and what they have created during their term in office of three years in this province. I really don't feel quite hepped up to participating in it, but at the same time I feel that I must participate to bring up a few points in it.

First of all, I must thank the opposition for this motion, and I'm going to thank the opposition in advance for many motions that they are going to

[ Page 137 ]

present on the floor of this House. It has been promptly printed by The Vancouver Sun that this is going to be a session of a deficit. As far as I'm concerned, this is going to be a session of opposition excuses.

MR. GIBSON: I thought you voted for ICBC.

MR. CALDER: Not only that, it's going to be a session of many things. We've already heard from some of the members coming forth with their 12-year-old remarks — not parliamentary. We're going to hear a whole lot of it. I can hear it from the front benches all the time. I have been here for many years and I hear this crap all the time. This is what we're going to be getting. After what they've done...without my knowledge and without the knowledge of the back bench in that party when I was a party to it.

MR. GIBSON: The same thing is going to happen to you too, fellows. So don't applaud too loud.

MR. CALDER: Get off it!

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that these things we're hearing now, particularly from the front bench, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the whole works of them, particularly this chap here, Vancouver Centre.... He was used particularly as a front for the cabinet last year to fly over the province and make statements: "We're going to do things. We're going to do this. We're going to do that." You know. I wish my colleagues here would listen to the way he is going to present his little case.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Smokescreen.

MR. CALDER: And it is a little case, little remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little chirper.

MR. CALDER: Well, I'm going to sit here and I'm going to listen to all this. For a change in all my years in this House I'm not going to sit back there and listen to it. You're going to hear my voice. Big mouth excuse — that's what they're going to give. And I've got a bigger voice than they have. You'd better believe it. This excuse they're going to relate to ICBC and everything else is a big mouth.

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

MR. CALDER: I'm going to. I'm just getting into it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate the fact that this is his maiden speech in the House; that's why I'm being so lenient.

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, when I turned the page, again referring to ICBC.... You know, Mr., Speaker, on the question of ICBC, perhaps one of the first frauds presented by the opposition, when they were in power, was when it presented to the people that the premiums of ICBC were going to be $25.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CALDER: Somewhere along the line the civil service was paying that. Then my good friend, who was sitting in your seat, Mr. Minister, Bill Hartley, had issued to the public that it was going to be $25. The party of the opposition picked it up and it went along with the fact that it was going to be low all the way through. The fact that they were going to preach this to the public was where they made the mistake, and they sold that to the public in 1972. Damn it! The public bought it!

I must say that we got elected on that ICBC criterion that this was going to be the price. And I was a member of that party then.

I am going to say this emphatically, Mr. Speaker: it was on that particular point that the party got elected. There was no other. You can name any social one, two, three, if you wish, but that automobile insurance, practically the only one left in the party programme, they had to programme as its No. 1 priority.

I, as the member for Atlin, went throughout my own constituency and I programmed that as my priority, and I won that election on that particular point. We have many points in that isolated constituency, but that happened to be the No. 1. Believe me, it was No. 1 in many, if not all, of the constituencies in the province.

Well, today we look at this mess that we are now in. I can't understand how we got into this; I really don't. I do not wish to....

Interjection.

MR. CALDER: Well, for all I care they can interject because, after all, I've been over 20 years with the party, and I can't understand how this mess got into a mess. I couldn't understand it.

I now conclude, and it might be in the eighth chapter of my book, that one of the reasons why I couldn't understand it was because the cabinet didn't communicate with the back bench. I don't give a hoot what those people say. There was no communication between the cabinet and the back bench. They couldn't trust or have faith in the 18 members of which I was a part.

[ Page 138 ]

Why was it that they didn't communicate? It's very simple — they had no faith in us. Leaks? Oh, yes, they feared there might be leaks.

Interjection.

MR. CALDER: Oh, yes. The tentative leader can smile and laugh. As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, you are a good friend of mine and I don't know what chance you have, but please don't laugh. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT: A part-time leader.

MR. CALDER: I really don't know. All I know is your present carpetbagger. He's brought back for only three reasons — the fact that they blame Bob Williams for the election and they've brought him back for the word "stop Rosemary Brown." That's why he's coming back; that's why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest you get back to ICBC now.

MR. CALDER: Hon. members, to go back to ICBC: it's a mess in ICBC and I relate the mess to the leadership convention. The wife of the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), she's not happy. Nor is the member for Vancouver — is it Centre?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the leader of the NDP?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rosemary!

MR. CALDER: In any event, Mr. Speaker, that's the way it is. Hiding, just the way they're hiding the fact that there's a mess in the party and the mess that's going to be had in the leadership convention is just as much, if not more, a mess as what they did with so many Crown corporations and in the whole status of finance in this province.

There was an instance in which my present leader demanded an inquiry in the finances of this province, which foremost had to deal with what the heck was happening with ICBC. I'm going to say this: it was absolutely beautiful last fall when Trudeau, the Prime Minister of our Parliament, indicated that there was going to be an anti-inflation programme. It played right into the hands of the Premier of this province because before that, he already knew that we were in a mess. This was a gift to him, only he didn't know how to play politics in it.

He said that on October 24, 1975, just last fall. Then earlier this year, measures were taken to slow public expenditures with a view to reducing inflationary pressures. Subsequently, to preserve essential services to the public and maintain the forward thrust of the economy, Bill 146, the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, was passed. The leadership we demonstrated by this action brought an end to work stoppage 1n certain key industries for a 90-day period, to allow for negotiations settlement in these disputes.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read you my campaign talk on December 8, 1975, which I issued to a little town in my constituency called Canyon City. I said:

"Frank Calder, Social Credit candidate in Atlin said in a meeting held in Canyon City Monday night that the reason why Premier Dave Barrett called a winter provincial election is because the government is broke."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR.CALDER:

"Mr. Calder suggested that during the early fall the Premier's financial advisers had indicated to him that the finances of the provincial government were reaching a state of embarrassment — for one thing, due to labour tie-ups in the forest industry, and because very little revenue had been realized from the mining industry. The Atlin candidate said that it was because of this unfavourable financial situation that the Premier of the province was forced to call a brief fall session and order the workers back to work. Labour was used as a pawn."

Now I'm going to say this, Mr. Speaker. It was just about that time, trying my best to be a little good observer, that I smelled something was wrong. Here I'm just a member of the back bench; I'm trying to figure things out. I hear about ICBC. I talk with Strachan to find out what was going on. There was nothing presented to me or anybody else. If it was presented to any of the back bench there, I have no knowledge of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cover up! Cover up!

MR.CALDER:

" 'It was pertinent to this, ' " Mr. Calder added, "that he charged the Premier with being anti-labour.' "

That's why I said it; I was truthful. I tried my best to be.

"The Indian candidate for this riding said that several departments of government required an immediate investigation for mismanagement of funds. He named the departments of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; Human Resources; ICBC; Public Works; Municipal Affairs; Mining and all the Crown agencies.

[ Page 139 ]

"Mr. Calder stated that if Social Credit became government on December 11, the new government will certainly take several years to correct the mismanagement created by the NDP government.

"Mr. Calder said that the current promises made by the NDP to the electorate are nothing but desperation promises, because there's no sound financial backing to guarantee these promises. He posed a query: where is the money coming from? For instance, what would create housewives' pensions? And where is the guarantee for all this northern development... "

And this northern development certainly is relevant to this ICBC.

"...where there was no money available?

"He said that all these were repeats from Barrett's speeches of 1972."

1 travelled with him and I heard those speeches. He repeated that the reason why the election was called was because the Barrett government was broke. He said that if everything was rosy, the election would not have been called at 50 below zero.

"Mr. Calder indicated that Premier Dave Barrett had not said very much about the inflationary programme nor about the guidelines that may solve the inflation. But rather he has said everything else to cloak his empty budget."

And that was my statement.

I faced that throughout the country, especially in terms of ICBC. And when the terms were set...and this would interest me. You know, they'd all get up and say: "Hey, get up and say something, you guys from the north." You're damned right! I said a hell of a lot of things over the telephone, boys!

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that the phrases you just used are quite unparliamentary. Will you withdraw them?

AN HON. MEMBER: I withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CALDER: Then these phone calls came in, and I made these phone calls: what about this subsidy, this territorial subsidy and discounts? This is what they were bringing up yesterday. I've got some pretty bright people who own cars in that riding up north. They said to me: "My gosh, we know that somebody has to pay for this bloody mess." Oh, excuse me — the bloody mess.

Your riding, Mr. Member, your riding, Mr. Speaker — Omineca, Skeena and mine.... Oh, come on now, I've been dedicated to that phone call. For heaven's sake, give me your criticisms. I've had some bad replies, but I can truthfully say, and I've been truthful in this House.... I would say that a good majority have said: "My God, we know that we have to pay somehow. We know what happened. We know what happened." If they killed industry — next like forestry and mining — no doubt they'll kill that too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CALDER: The very same people were the ones who assisted me. I didn't do anything on my own to be on this side of the House; I was greatly assisted by the people who said: "Frank, you move!" And I moved.

On this motion, Mr. Speaker, maybe first of all I have to thank my former colleagues. But, for heaven's sake, I hope they don't introduce another motion like that one. It's devastating. They have lost ground on this motion. Every time they introduce a motion relating to finance, every time they open their mouths, we are going to throw something in it.

I have the greatest respect for the party. My gosh, they gave me my opportunity to be in this House, and I'll never forget it. Some of the greatest politicians that have come on the floor of this House — the Winches and I'll say the McDowells, good men. The Bergers...but after the Bergers they discredited the party. Some of the people who have built this party can turn in their graves for the misrepresentation of the party that has represented us. Like our member who heads CBC has truthfully said, this was a misrepresentation of facts.

My gosh, as a matter of fact I have been sitting here so many days and ever since I resigned from the party, not because of my friends there but because of a carpetbagger.... I've got no fight with these boys there. No way. But somebody else waved their little finger in my face, and the Little Chief is not going to back down. I'll fight.

So I'm back in the House — a great thank you to the people of the north and believe me I did a lot of investigation on ICBC, and, my friends, I know you have. All those members of the north are in agreement about this because somebody had to pay for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. CALDER: Really, sometime I'm going to tell you how Leo Nimsick, my little buddy, got knocked out. It was all the time on this question of ICBC when a guy came into my office and said to me: "I'm going to get rid of Leo and I'm going to get rid of Strachan and I'll give you a job in Japan." You come to me one day and I'll tell you what happened. He wanted to put me in.... But I said: "Buddy, I'm

[ Page 140 ]

going to fight you." My friends here don't know about that. If I ever write a book I'll make Judy La Marsh's book look like a peanut.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say this....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the big seller?

MR. CALDER: I have said something about that north. They demanded it but there isn't anybody on that side of the House that's going to tell me to get up. I am a member of the Atlin constituency. Some screwball said to me one day: "I have no confidence in you." But on December 11 somebody said to me — a great many of them — "we are returning you with a vote of confidence."

I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker. I'm here on a new ball game and you bring up the subject. You name the subject. Right now it's ICBC, and I'm going to tell you that ICBC is supported by the northern people; make no mistake about that. They know that somebody has to pay and I'm here standing on their behalf to say that that is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, this is all I'm going to say. I'm going to close my remarks while I'm standing on my feet, just for one minute. I've never yet had a hello from anybody on that side. When somebody said, "I got no use for you," ever since then none of those people have ever said hello to me in the corridor.

Please say hello to me because I'll say hello to you, I'm going to say: "Peace, comrades, peace."

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect to make my maiden speech with ICBC. I have a maiden speech written out that I will use later on, I hope. However, I'm going to add a little more to ICBC and to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member from Vancouver Centre kept remarking about the automobile dealers. I would like to remind him that if it wasn't for the automobile dealers there would be no discussion or argument about auto insurance.

MR. LAUK: There'd be no Haddads either.

MR. HADDAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. first member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for his excellent report on ICBC. After listening to his report, I felt the hon. members on the other side of the house would be delighted to have finally found out what ICBC was all about and what a mess Mr. Strachan had created.

Mr. Speaker, in my personal opinion ICBC should never have been started, as no government business venture can succeed when it is pushed for a fast start-up date, and particularly when you claim you are going to supply insurance at a lesser rate than the private insurer. As I see it, the NDP government started off with too low a rate and were afraid to raise it each year to keep up with increased costs.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from The Vancouver Sun:

"Barrett was answering questions in the Legislature on the announcement he made Friday in Kamloops that effective March 1, 1975, auto insurance rates will be cut to compensate B.C. drivers for the recent increase in the price of gasoline. Barrett explained the decision not to reduce gasoline taxes but to reduce insurance rates by saying that non-residents will pay their fair share by having to pay the higher gasoline prices. By reducing the insurance premiums instead, Barrett said, tourists and other visitors will pay their fair share for use of B.C. roads through the gas tax. 'The gas taxes they pay will help pay for the lower insurance rates,' he said."

Friday, June 14, 1974, "10 cent Gas Subsidy Set, " as stated by The Vancouver Sun:

" 'Legislation was introduced today enabling the government to use up to 10 cents of the 15 cent per gallon provincial gasoline tax to subsidize auto insurance rates,' Transport and Communications minister, Bob Strachan, said today. 'It is not yet known how much the tax money will be used to subsidize Autoplan, and it will take months before this is decided.' Strachan said he does not know how much the government can anticipate collecting from the gasoline tax and licence fees."

June 21, 1974, Vancouver Sun, Strachan was accused of reneging on ICBC vows.

Mr. Speaker, for the past two years that ICBC was paying for repair damages to autos and trucks, the cost of these repairs, both body and mechanical, had risen by about 35 per cent, also not forgetting the ICBC strike of several months' duration that increased the costs of operation. Yet with all these increases, the leader of the government and Finance minister reduced the price of automobile insurance.

Mr. Speaker, there's no way that car owners should be subsidized by public funds. I don't believe the automobile and truck owners want to be subsidized. What they want is the waste taken out of ICBC and this then will give the best possible rates.

Much has been said about the increases, and I had petitions with thousands of names presented to me. But most of these people were informed by the news media that increases would be 200 to 300 per cent on their insurance costs. However, Mr. Speaker, when the new rates did come out the people were very pleased and most of them were satisfied that the increases were fair and warranted.

We are about 100 miles from the Alberta border. Several of our citizens who travel to and fro checked insurance rates to compare Alberta's with their own

[ Page 141 ]

B.C. rates. There was little or no difference. The Autoplan agents in my area have informed me that they had very few complaints from people buying their new plates and insurance. Mr. Speaker, on February 29, 1976, premiums collected for the current insurance year, February, 1975, to February, 1976, totalled $161 million, while expenditures were about $325 million. Any other business would be in receivership. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the members of the opposition that they withdraw their amendment and let the House get on with business of the people.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am indeed honoured and privileged to be in the House representing the people of the Esquimalt riding. I would like to congratulate you on your new office, Mr. Speaker. I know, Mr. Speaker, you will be more non-partisan than the previous Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: I say that because of a note I found in my desk, left by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and I will read it to this House some day. It's Speaker's note number 61 if you would like to refer back to the notes you have. Someday I'll read it.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: On Friday, March 19, we heard the present minister in charge of ICBC state in this House that on December 22, 1975, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia was, in effect, in receivership. It had no cash to pay the salaries of corporation personnel. It had no money for claims.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, when any document is referred to in a member's speech in this House, he should either read it or table it in this House. Otherwise it is not proper to refer to it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Nonsense. You tried hard.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no rule that says that they either have to read it or table it, Mr. Member, as you know. Proceed.

MR. KAHL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They had unpaid claims of $169 million, plus a loss of $34.179 million for 1974, and an estimated loss for 1976 of $171.569 million. We were also told that on June 11, 1974, rates were not high enough, and will produce an estimated $35 million deficit. That was outlined to the directors by ICBC. On August 30, 1974, the record shows the president of ICBC, Mr. Strachan, said: "We had not seen any estimates which would indicate that things would not go right for Autoplan."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: As a new member in the House, I really don't know what to call it, because there have been so many challenges from the other side on what we say. I'll have to learn what the terminology is of the House.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Let me reiterate, Mr. Speaker. The member who said that was the member who represented the former government at that ICBC meeting. Well, Mr. Speaker, $35 million might not be much for the Cadillac socialists, but it is a lot to the people of this province. Instead, Mr. Speaker, we saw in The Vancouver Sun on September 6, 1974, the printing of a public information brochure which was intended to sell the public on the advantages of government automobile insurance, because the rates were so low. Worse, Mr. Speaker, the 1975 budget speech of the then Premier Barrett made no provision for that $35 million loss. Shameful!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: A cover-up.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): And Dowding.

MR. KAHL: A cover-up to be sure. Mr. Speaker, that's why that member is not with us today, and that's why that member will not be with us tomorrow. We heard on December 11 what the people of this province thought about the mess ICBC was in.

Let me give you an example of how and why the province had such a terrible mess. Several weeks ago I was on an open line programme in Nanaimo. A caller said that he was an accountant and that he had been talking to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) ...

MR. LAUK: You never give up, do you?

MR. KAHL: ...who had, he explained, told him that the 1976 premiums of ICBC should be used to pay the ICBC deficit.

AN HON MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. KAHL: Last year's bills. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, an accountant telling someone to use the finances needed for the coming year to pay for last year's bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

[ Page 142 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Wouldn't want him for my accountant.

MR. KAHL: I want to talk now about ICBC rates under the NDP. I have some information with me today, some information from the New Deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: Some of you might recognize this. That's a magazine published by the NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame! The old gang.

MR. KAHL: It says on page one, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: "We have the lowest car insurance rates in the country."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And the biggest losses.

MR. KAHL: That's what it says.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was true.

MR. KAHL: Let me show you another statement from another NDP magazine.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: "Three years of the B.C. NDP government, " it says — "Twenty-five highlights".

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there that many?

MR. KAHL: You'll never know.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: It says, Mr. Speaker: "ICBC, a Crown corporation, provides the low-cost auto insurance to all B.C. motorists. The rates, with the exception of Saskatchewan, are the lowest in Canada." Here's one piece of garbage saying they're the lowest in the country, and the next one says they're the lowest except for Saskatchewan. Not even the NDP knew what the rates were.

Let me tell you about my Autoplan rates. My premium for 1975-76 was approximately $160. I paid that on February 28, 1975. In 1976, I paid from general revenue an additional $540 for my premium. That's right, Mr. Speaker. I paid $540, and so did all the non-drivers in this province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Right on! People who don't drive.

MR. KAHL: ICBC had to borrow $181 million to pay our bills; roughly $181 million divided by approximately two million citizens in this province is $90 for every man, woman and child in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McGEER: Put that in your gas tank.

MR. KAHL: With six people in my family, that's $540, and when I add that to the $160 I paid, I get $700. That's what my premium was last year — $700.

Now with all due respect to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) the minister in charge of ICBC...

AN HON. MEMBER: It should have come out of public revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't have it. They spent it all.

MR. KAHL: ...I must say he didn't introduce anything new when he gave the people of this province an opportunity to pay on the instalment plan. I had it last year. I paid on the 28th $140, and this year I had to pay another $560.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on the topic of rates, and the opposition wants facts, let's look at some.

On November 25, 1975, the Crown corporation, ICBC, some of whose directors were NDP MLAs and whose president was an NDP MLA, had a series of seminars for the province's insurance agents. Now, Mr. Speaker, those members on the opposite side of the House who were directors of ICBC know what I'm going to say about the rates, if they can remember that far back. They know that the seminar was presented with samples to work from.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They've got partial amnesia.

MR. KAHL: The corporation said: "The reason we are using only a few samples and not the rate book is because the printer was out of paper." The fact is, and you know it, that as a past director of ICBC you were ashamed to publish that rate book before the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: Let me show you some of those rates from the booklet that was given to the agents in the province.

MR. LAUK: Hold it a little higher.

MR. KAHL: A little higher?

[ Page 143 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's fine, thank you.

MR. KAHL: You're welcome.

A 1972 Ford, the first example, pleasure to work, two-door hardtop: 1975 premium, $162; 1976 premium, $240 — an increase of 48 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful! Shameful!

MR. KAHL: A 1973 Datsun two-door sedan, pleasure to work, $141 to $188 — an increase of 34 per cent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Were they misleading the people?

MR. KAHL: What was this 19 per cent garbage that we heard during the election campaign? Misleading, disgraceful!

A 1973 Honda motorcycle; increase, $24, from $58 to $72 — increase, 24 per cent.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you fellows improved on that...

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: .. .200 per cent,300 per cent. Sock it to them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but we didn't charge the non-driver like you did.

MR. KAHL: Might I remind the member, Mr. Speaker, that had you left some money in the public treasury, that wouldn't have had to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: We're so broke we're borrowing money we don't need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: While we're talking in the 100 percentages, a 1975 Fruehauf low-bed: 1975, $181; 1976, $360.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That was your rates.

MR. KAHL: Your rates — 105 per cent.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shameful!

MR. KAHL: Your party had the audacity to advertise during the election a 19 per cent increase.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Plus cover-up charge.

MR, LAUK: Nurse! (Laughter.)

MR, KAHL: Mr. Speaker, if you average those increases, you get 45 per cent. I suggest again that during the campaign that party deliberately tried to cover up the true facts of the rate increase that they had published in this brochure.

MR. LAUK: Bring the Premier a syringe!

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, in ending my remarks about ICBC, I only want to state....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He really shook you, didn't he?

MR. KAHL: The truth hurts, doesn't it? The truth hurts. It should. I only want to state that in Hansard it is recorded: "ICBC premiums are kept in B.C., not sent to London, Toronto or New York." Now the speaker should have added that the premiums are kept in B.C. so they can be placed in general revenue to pay interest on a loan to the Arabs. That's what he should have added.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the interest?

MR, KAHL: Mr. Speaker, now I want to take a moment and tell where and how the $81 million should have been spent, had it been collected. The former administration had three years to do something about health care in the greater Victoria area — three years. An acute-care hospital is urgently needed. They couldn't even find a site to build it on in three years. Moreover, they didn't have the money to buy it had they found it.

Let me talk about health care in my own constituency. There are 50,000 people approximately, and not one acute-care hospital bed. Not one.

MR. LEA: In 23 years.

MR. KAHL: Not one built by....

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten years.

MR. KAHL: Not one built by the former administration in three years or even a piece of ground found to build one on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: Quiet. Don't be so noisy.

MR. KAHL: Do you know what we got in the

[ Page 144 ]

Esquimalt constituency instead of a hospital, with the money that should have been collected? Do you know what we got? We got a $425,000 warehouse that sat empty for months. Months! That's how the money was spent. Disgraceful!

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, there was no money to spend on new health-care facilities in the Esquimalt constituency or any other constituency in this province.

MR. LAUK: We're all suffering from boredom.

MR. KAHL: Can you believe it, from a so-called government that cared about the people? And those people have the intestinal fortitude to move an amendment and ask us to discuss ICBC. They should hang their heads in shame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: Disgusting, distasteful, and unjustified. You broke the people of this province and you know it. You broke the people of this province by mismanagement and financial bungling and by buying $3 million worth of land in New Westminster in order to build a monument to yourselves while you ignored the real needs of the people of this province. You ignored the children and the needs of this province and built the Taj Mahal next door with its $2,500 rugs on the floor. You ignored the needs of the people by buying dilapidated burnt-out ships, and you ignored the needs of the people of this province by gambling the people's money on the stock market.

Throughout my campaign I constantly heard a slogan. In 1972 we heard...

MS. BROWN: "Thanks for the memories."

MR. KAHL: ..."Enough is enough." In 1975 I constantly heard: "Too much is too much." But one slogan I did hear that I'll agree with is: "B.C. has strong leadership. Let's keep it that way."

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize another member, could I just offer a comment to the hon. member for Esquimalt? In your opening remarks, hon. member, you referred to a previous Speaker of this House. I would like, if you would, to withdraw any remarks that reflected unjustly on a former Speaker of this House, because not to do so is a reflection not on the Speaker himself but on the House itself. So would you please withdraw those remarks?

MR. KAHL: I withdraw and apologize. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: One further point, hon. members. Before I recognize another speaker, I would refer you to the standing orders of this House, page 15, rule 45A(2), which says that on the fourth day of the debate which we are presently on, if an amendment or a subamendment be under consideration at 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment or subamendment then before the House. As I read that rule, at exactly 5:30 p.m. I will interrupt the speaker who is on his feet and put the amendment.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Legislature, as a new member of this assembly I am somewhat disappointed that my first participation in his honourable House should be to debate an amendment as negative as that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has brought before this Legislature. I have no qualms in speaking against this time-wasting amendment. I can speak with clear conscience on behalf of my constituency and the other citizens of our fair province. This amendment, like the alleged objections to the election of the Speaker during the opening ceremony, is merely a political ploy to attempt to confuse the public and distract their attention from the financial mess left after three years of NDP mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment states that the throne speech fails to relieve the motoring public from oppressive auto insurance rates. I find that part hard to rationalize. How can the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan expect this throne speech to completely rectify the higher auto insurance rates directly resulting from his own party's mismanagement of the operation of ICBC?

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the financial reports that have been cited over and over again in this House, the former Premier, Dave Barrett, and his cabinet ministers responsible for ICBC did not reveal the true financial conditions to the Legislative Assembly or to the public of our province.

Mr. Speaker, I find it surprising after the voters of this province illustrated so clearly on December 11, 1975, that they were fed up with the failure of the NDP government to disclose the true financial condition of ICBC and other Crown corporations, I find it surprising that an amendment suggests that higher ICBC auto insurance premiums could be the fault of this new government.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second part of the amendment regarding the removal of territorial discounts from ICBC premiums, several hon.

[ Page 145 ]

members of the opposition have made mention of an article quoted in the Prince George Citizen. They did not relate all the statements in that Citizen article. I also stated I was going to Victoria to attend a caucus meeting where I would endeavor to have the ICBC payment schedules modified and suggest alternate proposals for phasing-in of the required increases.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition members also overlooked the subsequent articles in the Prince George Citizen where I reported to the constituency of my riding on the results of our caucus meeting at a meeting with the Hon. Pat McGeer, where I learned the true financial mess ICBC was in.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to resume your seat as I now will put the question on the amendment.

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

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, as I read the rule 4SA(2), it states: "On the fourth of the said days, if an amendment or a subamendment be under consideration at 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings....

Mr. Speaker, we submit to you that the ordinary time of daily adjournment, that section clearly referring to a day and not a sitting, should be at 11 o'clock tonight.

I would submit that if the House intended when it passed this standing order that it be anything other, it would have referred to a sitting and not a day.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, to the same point of order, I would draw your Honour's attention to the Votes and Proceedings of March 17 at which it's noted at page 10:

"By leave of the House, on a motion of the Hon. W.R. Bennett it was ordered that each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this session there shall be two distinct sittings on each day, one from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and one from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. and on each Friday there will be one sitting from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. unless otherwise ordered."

Certainly I have no particular wish to prolong the debate on this amendment, but to aid in the interpretation of the rule I would suggest, your Honour, that the ordinary time of adjournment on Tuesday would seem to be from this sessional order to be 11 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I appreciate the points of order that you have raised, and really it depends on what we consider to be 30 minutes before the ordinary time of daily adjournment. None of us have any knowledge as to whether we will be sitting again this evening or not because it is "unless otherwise ordered, " so that to make a presumption either way is one thing that I'm not in a position to contemplate at the moment.

I would declare a short recess of five minutes to consult with the Clerks on this particular point, so would you please return to the chamber at that time?

MR. LAUK: Before you recess, I would just advise, Mr. Speaker, of our point of view in this matter while you are considering or deliberating the point. When the government does introduce a motion, such as was read by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), the ordinary time for adjournment must be 11 o'clock tonight, unless otherwise ordered.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take that point into consideration, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) may consider if it's going to be a problem and take time from this House speaking later in the debate. Perhaps we can resolve this with the Clerks at some time when it isn't taking time from the House. Perhaps we can dispense with the motion and get on with the main debate. Ask the member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, hon. Premier, either the further debate on the amendment is in order or it is not in order. What I would propose to do at the moment is take a five-minute recess to determine the matter to the extent that we either put the question or we defer it until some other time.

The House took recess at 5: 35 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:41 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order to assist me in resolving this problem I would ask the House Leader to indicate, if she can, if there will be a sitting of this House this evening.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, yes, there will be a sitting this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, hon. members, I'll defer putting the amendment until 10: 30, unless it is disposed of at a time earlier than that particular time.

I would add, hon. members, that the difficulty the Chair has in determining a problem such as this is that without some direction from the House Leader I have no way of resolving or knowing whether we will be

[ Page 146 ]

returning for an evening sitting of the House or not. Since that has been indicated to me, I'll defer the question until 10:30, unless it is sooner disposed of.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it is customary, and I do so gladly on behalf of the House, thank you for deliberating on this point.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, it's a rather trying afternoon trying to follow the performance of the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) plus this other difficulty. However, I am only too pleased to continue.

As I was saying; when he found out the general economic conditions of the entire province, and particularly with regard to ICBC, it wasn't too hard to see why the new increase was necessary.

Yes, when we were made aware of how serious the financial plight of our province was expected to be, I realized it would be impossible to divert any gasoline tax revenue, or licence and permit revenue, from the general revenue to subsidize car owners in our province. And, as the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) stated so capably in moving the throne speech, the motorists in the north already pay up to 20 cents more per gallon than in the southern areas of our province, so an additional levy of gasoline tax would only create further hardship on our constituents who travel so extensively to work, shopping and recreational activities.

Also, since our Premier, the hon. member for South Okanagan, had stated the province would give ICBC a fresh start by paying off the past deficit of $171 million, I hardly felt it reasonable to expect the taxpayers of our province, particularly the non-motoring public, the children, the aged and the others who do not operate cars, to expect the general public to support any further subsidies to car owners.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition members seem to have trouble relating statistics to costs, not only to costs in term of financial losses but also costs in terms of tragedy and human suffering to families in our province.

The hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) expressed indignation that I could not rearrange my schedule to attend a B.C. Federation of Labour-sponsored ICBC rally in Prince George. I believe he accused me of taking part in the winter mardi gras snow-golf carnival. Well, other than flubbing a drive off the tee to assist in the opening of the snow-golf, I had very little other time that particular weekend.

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason I had very little free time was because of the constituency workload which was bequeathed to me by the former minister-without, the legendary $500,000 man. I have not been able to locate any substantial files from my predecessor for Fort George, in spite of the alleged importance of the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for northern affairs.

Mr., Speaker, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston states that some derogatory remarks were made about me at the ICBC rally. He fails to mention any significant resolutions resulting from that rally. The hon. member also fails to mention that the Prince George ICBC rally organizer, Mr. Don Muirhead, the local IWA president, is also vice-president of the Fort George NDP association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is high time Mr. Muirhead, Jack Munroe and the others decided which hat they are wearing, and do not assume blandly that they speak for 100 per cent of the union members. Or is there no democracy or freedom of choice left in their unions?

MR. LAUK: Attacking the labour movement!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Protecting it!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, since I was unable to attend the Prince George rally I asked by letter if the rally organizers would forward any meaningful resolutions to me so I could present them to the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) for his perusal. Mr. Speaker, other than the standard resolution to roll back premiums to a 20 per cent increase over last year, no meaningful resolutions were forthcoming.

I believe this clearly indicates the political motives behind these rallies. I believe it also clearly indicates the unwillingness, or the lack of concern to face reality by neglecting to suggest any concerted effort for safety driving programmes, such as the very worthy efforts being put forward by Prince George's "Take the car out of carnage" programme.

The only way premiums will drop is to lower the accident claim frequency. As I stated in an article in the Prince George Citizen, which they seemed to miss, we must change the drivers' demolition-day derby attitude and restore responsibility and concern among the driving population.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that all the hon. members of this House will endorse and support the meaningful safety programmes and the recommendations of the "Take the car out of carnage" committee. These recommendations include compulsory seat-belt legislation, stiffer penalties on impaired drivers, stricter enforcement for speed and traffic regulations, and safe-driving training programmes throughout all age groups.

I would hope to see legislation prepared and adopted as soon as possible on these recommendations. If an hon. member has not

[ Page 147 ]

received this brief from the "Take the car out of carnage" committee, I would be pleased to secure copies for them, or if there is further information required to start this programme in other areas, the Prince George "Take the car out of carnage" committee would be most willing to assist.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the last portion of the amendment regarding discrimination against the young driver under 25, I believe the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is again being unrealistic or naive to assume the general public, or even those under 25, will be confused or taken in.

ICBC accident claims records clearly indicate that the hon. Minister of Education stated in this House on March 19, 1976, that the under-25 drivers, 103,000 of them in B.C. accounted for 50 per cent of the ICBC losses, and, furthermore, their average claim loss per vehicle amounted to over three times that of pleasure vehicles.

The Motor Vehicle Branch records show that there were 9,935 suspensions in B.C. In 1975. Of these 4,115, or over 50 per cent, were between the ages of 16 to 24. The "Take the car out of carnage" committee brief states that from January 1, 1975, to July 18, 1975, 27 people were killed on the Prince George and district roads; 22 of these were under the age of 30, and 86 per cent of these involved alcohol or drugs. So I think it is about time we did something about this.

Rather than consider the under-25s discriminated against, as the amendment suggests — when clearly all the facts illustrate they are actually subsidized by other drivers — rather than considering this amendment, the hon. members should be considering legislation to reduce or eliminate this carnage and waste of young lives.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to add my congratulations to the hon. Minister of Education for the dedication and the effort put forth by the executive and staff of ICBC...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: ...in revising and scheduling the ICBC auto insurance rate schedules to reflect optional coverage on collision, establishing the installment plan to ease the financial burden on motorists, allowing 25 per cent reduction to handicapped or pleasure drivers over age 65, in establishing the safe driving dividend programme to allow a 25 per cent rebate to accident-free male drivers under 25 years of age. I would like to see this programme remodeled along the lines of the Province of Alberta, where the incentive continues to build up for accident-free records.

Mr. Speaker, I would also issue a challenge — that our constituents in the north will realize a more substantial accident claims reduction than the other high-risk areas of the province. I am pleased our northern rates were not equalized with Vancouver and the lower mainland. who are now the highest in the province.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the subsidies on the other Crown corporations, I will serve notice that northern members will be observing the B.C. Hydro transit subsidies and B.C. Ferries to ensure our constituents receive equal assistance from the general revenues of this province. I think you would have to concur, on behalf of your own riding, that our constituents don't really need incentives to live in a most challenging and exciting area of our beautiful province. The northern people only request a fair shake and an opportunity to produce, earn their living and contribute to the overall well-being of our great nation, Canada.

Mr. Loewen moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.