[ Page 441 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Second reading.

Mr. Nicolson — 441

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 442

Mr. Wallace — 449

Mr. Lea — 453

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 461

Mrs. Wallace — 462

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Nelson-Creston adjourned the debate. Hon. member, before you start, I would draw your attention to the fact that you have seven minutes left in the second reading of this bill.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, you are not going to afford me the same latitude as was given to one of my colleagues earlier, I take it.

We are here debating Bill 3, the unnecessary bill of this Legislature, the bill which is purely political, purely a commitment of the government to itself, purely an attempt — a very weak attempt — to try to vindicate itself.

This attempt and the neglect of the government, and the predetermination of this present Social Credit government, is to try to create the political myth of a financial mess in the province which they preached before, during, and have continued to preach since the election, since which time they should know better, Mr. Speaker, because they have had time to examine the books. What a surprise they got! They had to delay the Clarkson, Gordon report, and the Clarkson, Gordon report didn't give them the answers that they wanted.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Clarkson, Gordon said: "Yes, if you want to play games, Mr. Minister of Finance, you can do that." That's what it said. It said: "If you want to spend something today — today, March 31 — you can make the previous government look bad. But if you spend it tomorrow, April 1, you make yourselves look bad, so do it right away."

Not only has the government sought to do things about which they might have some direction; they have been so clumsy, but so determined, that they issued a cheque to ICBC of $181,510,000, and that cheque was issued yesterday with no authority vested in the cabinet or the executive council.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Finance): The order-in-council was passed.

MR. NICOLSON: It was passed today, my friend, by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, it was passed by the executive council on March 30, but it is not law and not ordered until it's signed by the Lieutenant-Governor on March 31. You broke the law and you've goofed again. You are a bungling minister. You have been bungling ICBC, you've been bungling your Education portfolio, you're bungling the post-secondary, the secondary, the elementary

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll get to you, Mr. Minister, in the short time I have. You know, there's the sanctimonious, silver-toned voice of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and today in The Vancouver Sun he stands exposed.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. NICOLSON:

"Municipal Affairs minister Hugh Curtis is to be commended for his announcement that he will amend the Transit Services Act to limit his discretionary powers..."

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm trying to read all of it. I'm going to read the good as well as the bad, hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster):

"...but did he have to spoil it with that display of overacting about the cost and state of the transit service bequeathed to him by the NDP? Mr. Curtis got himself worked up into a lather of superlatives — 'incredible mess,' 'galaxy of errors,' and 'absolute turmoil' were some of them."

Odd that the people of B.C. Hydro weren't similarly upset, isn't it? But they weren't.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): But they were.

[ Page 442 ]

MR. NICOLSON:

"On the same day that Mr. Curtis was acting out his melodrama they were reporting that a new era of bus awareness had dawned as a result of the expanded transit services induced by the NDP, and that they were being flooded with requests for information about express bus service."

Mr. Speaker, these people are so preoccupied with this myth about mess, it has so clouded their minds that they have bungled even in passing a simple order-in-council. They didn't do it quick enough. They didn't bring this bill into the House early enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow proper debate. They've put themselves into a situation where the Province of British Columbia is going to be NSF.

MR. SPEAKER: You have just two minutes, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unnecessary to be in this position. It was unnecessary to pass that order-in-council when they knew they had already botched it up. You might have an obligation to yourselves to try to patch up the lousy work. But you don't have to support them, Mr. Member; you are in the back bench.

They're the members of the executive council. They're the ones who are responsible for this mess. Of course, we're going to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker. We oppose it. The people who are already phoning in response to this government's bungling of this entire fiasco, the people will support us in calling this government accountable to the people of British Columbia.

It's time that they grew up. It's time they forgot that an election has been won by them and it's time they got on with trying to govern this province.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): You know, Mr. Speaker, I am saddened as I have to stand here this evening and discuss the bill which is going to put...

MR. NICOLSON: Just stop payment on that cheque.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...for the first time in over 20 years...

MR. NICOLSON: Stop payment! You'll be okay.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the Province of British Columbia in debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop payment on that cheque.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I recall very vividly some three and a half years ago when the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) stood in the Legislature and with some little bit of frivolity said that "the gates have opened and the hordes are rushing in."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened to that talk by the now Attorney-General and I chuckled a little bit and I never realized that less than four years later I would be standing in this chamber which has seen many debates, realizing in my heart the full impact of what had happened in that election of 1972.

During the past three and a half years we have seen card-table bookkeeping and kitchen-table accounting. And as that little group opposite fears so much about telling the truth to the people of British Columbia...

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you heard that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I want to tell you that not once in all the debates...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...have you told the truth. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...not once in all of the debates that have taken place on the throne speech or the budget speech or on Bill 10 has that group denied the truth that they ran the province of British Columbia into the ground. Not once.

AN HON. MEMBER: No — a hundred times we said it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, I was listening with a great deal of intent this afternoon to one of the directors of the insurance corporation as he talked about ICBC — the man who is now so knowledgeable, who on December 11,1975, became an instant expert in finances.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that man used to work for an insurance corp. He was not selling automobile insurance but selling life insurance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you know, Mr. Speaker, what he used to advise his clients? He used to go round after he had sold them a big policy and say to them: "You know, you really have to die to collect on this. That's the only way to beat the system." (Laughter.) And you know, Mr. Speaker, he used that same intellect...

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking life insurance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...for the automobile

[ Page 443 ]

insurance corporation of British Columbia. He told the people of British Columbia: "You've got to have an accident to beat the system." And you know, Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to me...

AN HON. MEMBER: He's down here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that after December 11,1975...

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): He's down here, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the cost of an arson in Vancouver, the cost of an arson in Vancouver — you know, where if your automatic transmission went out or your motor went out — $50 and you were paid off immediately because your car happened to burn up some night when some friend stole it.

The cost of arson in Vancouver went up 400 per cent on December 11, Mr. Speaker. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me that this little group over here are now getting their directions in absenteeism. You know, Mr. Speaker...

MR. LEA: Hurray for Joe Clark.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the phone is ringing from Vancouver East.

Their little defeated leader is in a hotel room over there, knocking on doom, telling them how to run the Legislature. He hasn't the guts to sit up in the gallery. No, no, he hasn't the intestinal fortitude, Mr. Speaker, to sit up in the gallery and give the direction — he's hidden in a little hotel room in Vancouver East.

But, you know, he's not really the man who's giving the direction. No, it's the same man who always gave directions to that group when they were in government, and that's the real member for Vancouver East, that minister who used to be the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) . He's the man who really gave the directions.

But, you know, he's still calling the shots. Absolutely. He's still calling the shots. He is the real architect of the socialist party in British Columbia. The man who was feared — the man who was feared throughout the north, and the south, and the east and the west of the province of British Columbia. The man who struck fear into everything that moved in British Columbia.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder: is he the real man who's calling the shots? Because I've noticed the former Speaker (Mr. Dowding) is back; I've noticed his presence. I've noticed his presence — a couple of days in the restaurant. Then as he appeared on the scene I noticed a little bit — just a little bit — of fiber in that little, leaderless group sitting opposite.

I wondered who was the real architect of all these motions, all of these innuendoes and these points of order. Then I realized that it was the ex-Speaker making his appearance known. You know, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't done any better job now in the backwoods than he did when he was in the Speaker's chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Could we get back to Bill 3 now?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because all through the debate of Bill 3....

AN HON. MEMBER: This isn't the Land Act we are talking about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, absolutely not.

All through the debate of Bill 3 we've been accused of being political.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: Say it isn't true, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, I've watched that group opposite, that leaderless group, and I've had just a little twang of sorrow for them because all they can talk about is the fact that we're being political.

I listened this afternoon to the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich). Poor little fellow. After the court jester made a complete mess of the finances of this province, he passed it on a broken platter to the member for Nanaimo, and said: "Here, you've got a C.A., you should have been the Minister of Finance in the first place. You straighten out the mess."

I've watched the grey hairs increase on that member's head, because he was handed a mess that nobody could put together. It's like Humpty-Dumpy; nobody can put it back together.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker: have faith because you now have a government who will put it all back together. We'll put it back together, and we'll put it back together because we will use good business sense, something that is completely unknown and foreign to that leaderless rump group opposite.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if we put all of the knowledge and all of the financial brains together over there, they still would not realize that a company with money in the bank can go broke. They wouldn't realize that a company.... And they call us the "bottom-line politicians" — but a company....

Interjection.

[ Page 444 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, I feel sorry for you. Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for you.

You called us the bottom-line government, but there isn't a man over there with enough business sense to realize that when that bottom line shows a profit, a company or a government can still be going broke.

They don't understand cash flow. They don't understand the differences between assets and cash in the bank. They think because you've got a little cash in the bank that you're rich — the policy of so many business people in British Columbia today. Because that financial statement says we're making a profit, they think we're rich.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that was the downfall of that government, because they came into government and the bank account was bulging.

I remember when they were in opposition, Mr. Speaker, they used to talk about phony bookkeeping — cooked books. They denied that the surpluses were there. They denied that the cash was in the bank. I hate to recall this to that broken, humble group over there who are paying for their sins of Saturday-night rich and Sunday-morning poor. They're paying for it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're preaching like a Presbyterian.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, when they got into the books of this province, after they became government, and they checked the accounts, checked the bank accounts, not once did they ever dispute the books of the government that was in power in this province before 1972. Not once!

MR. NICOLSON: What about B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll tell you about B.C. Rail. Oh. Mr. ex-Minister of Housing who did nothing while you were there except create chaos, I'll tell you about B.C. Rail, and, given time, I'll tell you about the other Crown corporations.

You know, it was so interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Finance, who had been Minister of Finance for such a short time (Mr. Stupich) go on TV and say: "Oh, we could have done the same thing. We could have created the deficit," and they started talking about the Columbia River Treaty.

I'm not going to speak about it because the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) did a very good job the other day in explaining this. They try to thrash this horse of the Columbia River, but not once has anybody on that side ever said that the power from the Columbia River will be the cheapest power in all of North America. Not once!

Not once has any member on that side ever denied the truth, that had it not been for the vision and the courage of that previous administration...

MR, NICOLSON: What about Bonnington?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...British Columbia would have had brown-outs today. Now I didn't intend to talk about the Columbia River Treaty, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: What about Bridge River?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ex — and I say "ex" because he didn't last very long and he didn't do a very good job when he was in there — ex-Minister of Finance.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): The farmers are looking for you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm going to talk about the farmers in just a moment. I'm glad you brought that up, because while you were Minister of Agriculture, you gave and you gave and you gave. But you were afraid to face the real problems that face the farmers in British Columbia today.

I want to tell you that while I'm minister, I'll not back away from those problems, and I'll help the farmers of British Columbia. I'll stand up and I'll fight for the farmers of British Columbia, and I won't do it by trying to give away the international bank or Fort Worth. I'll help the farmers to help themselves, and I won't do it by giving and giving and giving. I'll keep the agricultural industry of British Columbia from....

MR. NICOLSON: You're a chicken; you're afraid you're going to get caught....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you I'm not afraid of the chickens. As I stand and breathe in this Legislature, my friend...as I stand and breathe, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature, I'll tell you that I'll not back away from the chicken-and-egg war, or any other problem that comes to my desk while I'm Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to be carried away, but all those chickens over there, they remind me that when I was a kid I used to visit a farmyard. I used to come around when it was time to feed the chickens. The farmer used to say: "Don, why don't you go out and feed the chickens?" Then he'd give me some grain, and I'd throw the grain out — and this was before the days of these chicken farms where the chickens sit in there and they're all in like an assembly-line laying the eggs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Factories.

[ Page 445 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Factories. We used to throw out the feed. You know, Mr. Speaker, those chickens reminded me of the NDP because they came in and they gobbled up all the feed within 15 minutes and then they spent the rest of the day scratching around looking for something that wasn't there. (Laughter.) Scratching around for something that wasn't there — Saturday-night rich and Sunday-morning poor.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Social Credit lays the egg.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened, really, with sadness in my heart...

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What heart?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...as I listened to the ex-Minister of Finance when he was talking about ICBC. On the television programme he said: "You know, ICBC's in good financial shape." He said: "They'll have $175 million in the bank on April."

MR. STUPICH: $350 million.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, you said $175; I listened very intently. But what did he say? He said: "You know, they're in good shape; it only costs $40 million a month to run it. They're good for at least three months."

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the thing that really amazes me about the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, that wonderful gang over there, you know........ I remember standing in this Legislature...how they were going to invest those millions and millions and millions that come in, in premiums. You know what they did? They invested the losses in British Columbia and tried to call it profit. I want to tell you that I have no desire to strike out this evening, because my heart is full of good will, and my heart is also full of sadness. I have no desire to strike out at that leaderless band over there, wandering around over their own destruction.

MR. LAUK: Who wrote this, Arthur Weeks?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, little member from Vancouver Centre, I'm not a lawyer....

MR. LAUK: I'm bigger than you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not a lawyer...

MR. LAUK: Well, you're wearing a vest.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I don't need any ghost writers to write my speeches. I don't need any judges to give me my decisions, because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am responsible to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The sad part about it is that their true leader, the true architect of socialism in British Columbia, that fellow we used to call the Hon. Robert Williams, is still pulling the strings over there. Why did he resign? That was a man who was the architect. I remember so well, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, how he used to have you on a little string like a puppet. And every time he pulled that little string, you just said: "How high, Mr. Williams, how high?"

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to speak about the member for Vancouver-Capilano. But I was very interested in some of his remarks.

MR. LAUK: He's not here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He talked about the deficit, and you know what he said? I listened with a great deal of interest to what he said. You know: "We don't really need the bill" and "the money really isn't gone. "

But what did he say on March 15? He said: "The deficit isn't $400 million. The Social Credit are being conservative." Pardon the pun. "It is more like $851 million." And you heard him last night. Obstructionist. Far be it from me to strike out at that leaderless group, because he's not leaderless. No, no, he's his own leader. It has been very interesting, Mr. Speaker; it has been very interesting to me. As a matter of fact, it's been an education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Night of the car dealers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would love to talk to the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). But I'll save it for a later date because I know he's going to attack me and I know he is going to thrust swords into me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you to some of the remarks by the short-time, short-lived Minister of Finance. He said: "No way there's a deficit." He said that government could pull in millions and millions and millions of dollars. And I'd like to refer to an article out of the Colonist where he says the B.C. Harbours Board owes British Columbia about $24 million and B.C. Rail owes the government $35 million, which Stupich says could have been paid back.

[ Page 446 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: With what?

MR. STUPICH: There's a bill on the order paper on that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there's a bill on the order paper. Although I just want, for the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, to refer you to The British Columbia Financial and Economic Review. And I'll have to forgive the short-term, short-lived Minister of Finance because he didn't sign this. The ex-Premier, the court jester, signed this. The man who is really the architect of the defeat of the financial situation of British Columbia signed it. And it was late coming out, late, as usual, dated September 5,1975.

They talk about deceit and they try to talk about facts. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker... Oh, I'll tell you, Mr. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I want you to pay attention to this because you...yes, I'm talking about Bill 3 and I'm talking about the sad state of affairs in British Columbia, that after 20 years we finally have to borrow money.

Now you just listen to me and you might possibly, although I doubt it....

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You might possibly get one little inkling of financial acumen.

MR. STUPICH: Not from you. I doubt it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the mastermind of them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to quote from page 14 of this financial review.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever hear of the Peter principle?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is a completely misleading document tabled by the previous Premier of this province, who served as Finance minister for a number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was too long.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And I want to talk to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I want to remind you that in this complete financial review it talks about assets and liabilities.

MR. LAUK: Are you the designated speaker?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You should be the designated scapegoat over there, because you're going to be before the session's over.

I'd like to talk to you, Mr. Speaker, about what it says about repayable assets.

"Repayable advances to provincial Crown corporations at March 31,1975, totalled $43,710,000, and were as follows: British Columbia Cellulose, $14 million; British Columbia Harbours Board, $23 million; Ocean Falls, $4 million; Panco Poultry" — Pinko-Panco Poultry — "$1.5 million."

The man who says we should recover money from the BCR...which, mind you, when it was loaned they didn't know whether it was a loan or a grant, so we called it a "groan." The man who says you can recover that, why didn't he tell the people of British Columbia, in the financial review of September, 1975, that it was recoverable?

Far be it from me to say that they were covering up and misleading the people of this province. Far be it from me to say that the ex-Minister of Finance on television was trying to mislead the people of the province, but it just so happens that they were so incompetent that when they made this groan — grant, loan, whatever you want to call it — to the British Columbia Railway, they didn't even know that the railway shouldn't repay it, and it wasn't until they hired a lawyer...the railway hired a lawyer and I have before me what the lawyer said, and I believe the lawyer because it's a legal opinion. He had to advise the railway that they couldn't repay that groan.

MR. LAUK: Don't be so silly.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) ...

MR. LAUK: What's a lawyer got to do with it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...who served as the Minister of Finance for this province went on television and told the people of this province...

MR. LAUK: Idiot!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that we could recover that $35 million from the British Columbia Railway. Mr. Speaker, the reason I point this out — and I do it with sadness in my heart — is because that is the type of leadership that this province has had for the last three and a half years. It's a sad and sorry day when we have to come to grips with the fact that those people over there can stand up in front of the people of British Columbia and shout and bellow and hold up the business of the Province of British Columbia after that type of leadership. It's no wonder that there is sadness in my heart tonight.

Interjections.

[ Page 447 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the book that was published and sent to all the nations of the world, sent to all the financial institutions in North America, outlining for those people the financial situation of the Province of British Columbia, and I refer you to page 23, where it talks about federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read page 23 of the Clarkson, Gordon report.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you can be trivial all you want to, because when you were in government all you thought about was a power base so that you could control the people. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are here to serve the people, not to rule over them.

Interjection?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that when we issue a financial summary of the state of finances in this province, it will be a truthful document. Here is a second instance, Mr. Speaker, where we talk about federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.

It talks about how much money we owe the federal government, and how much they owe us. Mr. Speaker, it saddens my heart again to say this. I don't want to accuse anybody of misleading the people of British Columbia nor, indeed, do I want to speak of anybody misleading the financial institutions of the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are having heart-strain tonight.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But here we have a supposedly complete summary — not one word about the money that British Columbia owes the federal government ...

MR. LAUK: It's in Hansard.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...on behalf of the Petroleum Corp. of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: It's in Hansard.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not one word. Do you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia...

MR. LAUK: It's in the newspapers and in Hansard.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...lost faith.... Oh, yappy one over there — you became so smart on December 11. It's too bad that the great little member for Vancouver Centre had not used some of that tact — some of that fast-gotten financial ability. It's too bad that you hadn't used some of that ability, Mr. Member, in the last three and a half years.

MR. LAUK: On September 1,1972, you did not even want to serve the people of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll always serve the people of this province. I want to tell you something else, Mr. Speaker: when I serve them and when I work for them, I'll tell them the truth always. Tell them the truth!

AN HON. MEMBER: The old car dealer.

EON. MR. PHILLIPS: They have great fun talking about the car dealers. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that of all the car dealers who ran in this province — and they are supposed to be referred to as used-car dealers and so forth — 100 per cent of them are elected. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I defy any one of those socialists....

MR. WALLACE: Wrong again. What about Oak Bay?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I defy any one of those socialists to go into any constituency in this province where there was a car dealer running....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about Oak Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Scott the giant-killer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm allowed one little mistake — just one little mistake. You allow a poor little car dealer his one little mistake. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I defy any of them to go into any constituency, because car dealers have a little sign up: "Satisfaction or money refunded."

I want to tell you something else, Mr. Speaker: car dealers have to make their money because of their reputation, because there is always another one around the corner — not like socialist politicians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to this economic review, and I didn't intend to be long, but I do have to tell the people of this province....

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just longing to hear that report.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On pages 40 and 41 it talks about the Insurance Corp of British Columbia, that great corporation that invested the profits in British Columbia for the benefit of the people of British

[ Page 448 ]

Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: We're off the amendment to the throne speech, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about borrowing money. For you, my little friend, after the way you rambled on this afternoon, stood up and said nothing, at least I am laying some facts before the people of. British Columbia. About all you did this afternoon was shout. You can stand up there and try to emulate your previous court jester, the leader who is down in Vancouver Centre. Now I've watched you. You thought you were the leader....

MR. NICOLSON: Did you recognize it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you thought you were the leader; you tried to develop a leader posture. But I want to tell you: don't follow that guy because he's on the way out!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on page 43.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that one of the reasons the government is standing up and facing the problems of British Columbia is because we have to tell the truth. One of the positive things this government is going to do is stand up and support the agricultural industry in this province.

MS. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): When?

MR. LAUK: You won't even talk to them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: After three and a half years.... I'm not going to condemn the previous Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) because he gave and he gave and he gave.

MR. LAUK: Are you too much of a snob to talk to farmers?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll meet the farmers, and I'll tell you, when I do meet them and when I talk to them I'll tell them something.

MS. BROWN: When are you going to meet them?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But we have a situation in British Columbia today, and one of the reasons it bothers me that we have to go into debt is because we should be using that money that we have to borrow, and using the interest on that money that we have to borrow...

AN HON. MEMBER: Then don't borrow.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: to help the agricultural industry of British Columbia. I want to tell you that that government made a decision, and they brought in Bill 42. They said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I spoke against it — that's why you changed it. Then you could talk about me, you know. But I made you change it. We made you change it; the farmers made you change it; the voters of British Columbia made you change it. But you said at the time: "We bring in Bill 42 and we are going to preserve farmland."

Yes, I'm talking about Bill 3, because this is all tied in to the whole situation — you've got to borrow money and you've got to spend interest.

MR. LAUK: He says: "This is the budget — ain't she a honey? Only got 25 miles on her."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they brought in Bill 42 and they said: "We will preserve farmland, and at the same time we will make the agricultural industry in British Columbia viable." But what did they do?

They brought in some programmes, but they didn't stand up against Ottawa and fight for the farmers of this province. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker: so goes agriculture, so goes the economy. They didn't stand up to Ottawa; they didn't say that the people of British Columbia are prepared to dig into their pockets and support the farmers of British Columbia. — why doesn't Ottawa? They didn't tell their story. They didn't fight for tariff changes. No, but they made a big thing about supporting agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, when that government came into power the coffers were full. There was money in the bank. And one of the reasons that we're faced with this bill tonight is because they had the best years that British Columbia has ever seen. I remember it well — '73, early '74.

MR. SPEAKER: You have two minutes, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: While the mining industry.... Oh, yes, I know you're glad to see the end of me, but I'm not going to go away. I'm not like your Premier; I'm not going to go away. I'm going to stay and I'm going to fight.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll try and sum it up, during the best years that this province has ever known, the money was pouring in; they could hardly get the doors of the safe open wide enough to let it come in.

[ Page 449 ]

MR. LAUK: Don....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Lumber prices were never better; the markets were never better; the mineral industry was never better. And what did they do?

MR. LAUK: Don....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They thought it was so good they killed it; they took that bonanza, and they spent it. What did they say? They said: "Yes, yes, yes," and they thought they were doing the people of British Columbia a favour...

MR. LAUK; Don, you're in the government now; you're not in opposition. You're a Crown minister now.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...because they thought the people of British Columbia were stupid enough to think that there was going to be a free ride. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia have intelligence, and they were not to be fooled by those socialists.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't be fooled.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The thing that really grips them in the heart is the fact that we have to stand here with all sadness and tell the people the true facts. They haven't denied the true facts about the financial situation of British Columbia. Because we are telling the people of this province the true facts, they say we're being political. And still with sadness in my heart I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, with sadness in my heart I will have to vote for this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I think that after-dinner speech is very interesting and very entertaining.

MR. LAUK: It's not worth $29,000, and that's not much.

MR. WALLACE: I think, as some of the interjections suggested, it did sound as though the hon. minister has forgotten that he is in the government, and that the Social Credit Party won the election.

Bill 3: I'll try to stick to the principle of Bill 3, but if I stray, Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be afforded the same latitude that was extended to the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there has been a certain amount of latitude extended to a number of members in this debate, and I will extend to you the same courtesy.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because today has been, for me personally, a day of good news and bad news.

I had to be out of town earlier in the day. I had enquired earlier on this week about when the MLAs were getting paid. When I got back into town this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was really very heartened because my secretary told me that my salary cheque was on my desk. That was the good news.

Then I came into this chamber and discovered the bad news — that the cheque's no good. (Laughter.) Not only is the government reducing my income by 10 per cent, but they're issuing dud cheques.

I really feel that if we're going to debate the principle of Bill 3 in any kind of intelligent way we should certainly have some special motion tonight, or some emergency procedure, to ensure that when I go to the bank tomorrow with my long-awaited cheque...or, worse still, if I write out a cheque to my wife for her housekeeping and she goes to the bank the following day and can't cash it, then, indeed, the five Wallace children are in real trouble.

MR. LAUK: Old rubber-cheque Bill.

MR. WALLACE: I have the cheque here. If anybody from the government side wants to validate it in some way I'll be very grateful.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're supporting the bill, are you?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, we're supporting the bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you've given me a great deal of latitude and I am very appreciative. The principle of Bill 3 is the borrowing of up to $400 million by the government in relation to a deficit which now exists. The exact amount of the deficit has been debated in this House and in public. I am sure that it is indeed somewhat confusing to the public and to the taxpayer to hear all the conflicting points of view that have been expressed since the House went into session.

I think that at least this House should pay some tribute to the authors of the Clarkson, Gordon report who, right at the very beginning, realized that ordinary persons would be reading the report, persons who are not familiar with the jargon of the accountants' world. It's interesting that in the report, right on the first page, the authors state: "We will attempt, therefore, to use non-technical language and avoid complex explanations where possible, although we appreciate that there are always hazards in oversimplification."

I think that is a very realistic approach to the kind of report that is being used and discussed at great length by the people of British Columbia. I think it's also relevant in this debate to mention that at the

[ Page 450 ]

bottom of page 6 they also say: "There is, however, a need to re-examine many of the accounting and reporting practices of government with a view to providing clearer, more logical and more useful information to those who have an interest in the public accounts." I think that is also something which I hope the government will take into consideration.

We have certain members of the government who were formerly on this side of the House, and one of them is giving his jaws a great deal of activity right now. He is apparently not listening to the debate, but I am sure he is. I am referring to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who, when he was on this side of the House, was always pleading for the widest, most open, most easily understood accounting of government finances. So when I read the Clarkson, Gordon report at the bottom of page 6, I think it epitomizes the kind of strong opinion that the now Attorney-General expressed from this side of the House.

I hope that we can count on the Attorney-General's support in putting the financial information about government not in some highly complicated annual report that only 0.1 per cent of the people can understand, but in the everyday language that is used in the Clarkson, Gordon report. I think in putting the Clarkson, Gordon report at its very simplest, the authors were saying you can do various things with figures.

This general statement really, I think, Mr. Speaker, was borne out by the Minister of Finance himself earlier on this year when one of the members of his department, rightly or wrongly, took a public position in disclosing in his view the extent of the deficit of the province. I don't want to get into that as an issue in itself. The point I want to make is that the Minister of Finance, in a subsequent statement to the media, mentioned that the public service employees provide the figures from the ledger but it is the job of the politicians to interpret the figures. I think this is what the debate is all about. I think the experts in the accounting world have said that you can interpret figures in various ways.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

The report also clearly explains, Mr. Speaker that a deficit or a surplus, as far as government are concerned, relates simply and purely to timing of payments and that the time at which governments choose to make payments is purely arbitrary.

If we acknowledge the arbitrary nature of government decisions, as to when to pay which bills, this debate should clearly recognize that the Clarkson, Gordon accountants were instructed regarding which debts were to be included in the 1975-76 fiscal year, and on that basis — the basis of instruction, not the basis of auditing as they might see fit — the Clarkson, Gordon accountants established that the expenditures for 1975-76 exceeded estimates by over $100 million, and the revenues fell short of estimates by over $300 million, giving us a total deficit of somewhere over $500 million.

But there are certain elements, Mr. Speaker, in arriving at that decision which I think this debate should clearly recognize. One of them is the question of taking money from our annual revenues and using these moneys as capital expenditures in such areas as ferries, buses and other equipment of various kinds which will be used for years to come and which, in most jurisdictions, certainly are not financed by a lump sum of money taken from the operating revenue of the province in one year. The payments, Mr. Speaker, are clearly recorded as being $26 million to transit, $32.6 million to B.C. Hydro, and, of course, the major item of all, $175 million to ICBC — although we have learned today that the actual sum for which the cheque for ICBC has been written is $181 million.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this conscious decision to take operating revenue in large sums for capital expenditures is one of the very important points that the Clarkson, Gordon report makes.

First of all, if a government chooses to do this, it affects either the deficit or surplus position, and the timing of this decision also most clearly influences the surplus or deficit position as of March 31,1976. It is quite clear that the government has made the arbitrary decision in the instructions that it gave to the Clarkson, Gordon accountants.

Far be it for me to defend the financial bungling that was perpetuated in ICBC, but one of the things that I think we should do from this side of the House, or from both sides of the House, is to try to be fair. It is on record that many automobile insurance companies in North America have lost their shirts in the last year, and so while that does not in any way justify some of the mistakes made by the former government, it is just too simple a criticism and verdict to blame all of the financial problems of British Columbia on the former government.

On the revenue side, Mr. Speaker, the lumber revenue, our main export from this province, is down by $100 million. I do believe, and I think it is a fair statement, that had the present government been in power last year, their revenue from lumber would also have been down $ 100 million. There are external forces which govern the financial status of the province regardless of the government in power.

There is another element in the figures we are discussing where I have asked questions already and I haven't had an answer, but maybe the government will answer this time. The payments — which were anticipated from the federal government on hospital cost-sharing programmes is reported to be down by

[ Page 451 ]

$55 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've followed the present debate in the House of Commons on Medicare very carefully, and it's my understanding that the proposed ceiling on increased costs will only relate to the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. To my knowledge the federal government has not yet changed the ground rules in regard to cost-sharing with the provinces on hospital costs, Yet in the Clarkson, Gordon report they quite clearly demonstrate in arriving at the drop in anticipated revenues by showing the actual revenue as $55 million less than was anticipated.

The other element in the same general area relates to the Canada Assistance Plan where payments are down by $27 million. If we're to debate Bill 3 intelligently and if we are to try and determine what amount might need to be borrowed, I think some of the sums of money which have brought about the deficit require a little more explaining than we've had up until this point.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a deficit. While there is some debate as to the exact amount of the deficit, or how it has been arrived at, there seems little doubt that the province, as of midnight tonight, has to try and correct a very serious situation.

I would like also to say that the debate on Bill 3 rather reflects in my mind some of the fundamental shortcomings of this Legislature, or the shortcomings of how this Legislature functions, because this debate has been acrimonious and, in the course of the last day or two, the actions of the opposition parties have finally dragged out of the government some basic information, information which really is basic to this debate.

What I'm really trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that if the government felt that there was urgency in having this borrowing power passed by the House by a certain deadline, does it not seem sensible that the government should provide full information as to its motives, its reasons for asking for the bill, and, above all, the reasons for asking that it be passed by a certain hour? But, oh, no, we have this childish, ridiculous system in this House whereby ahead of debate the government tries to reveal as little as possible and the opposition parties in response equally play games.

I would submit that if the government at a much earlier date than yesterday had revealed in a logical and objective way the cash position of the Province of British Columbia right now, we not only would have avoided creating a lot of hostility which we saw in this House last night, but we probably would have had a more intelligent debate.

Certainly, much of the bitter invective which has been thrown around from both sides of the House, which is entirely negative and unproductive.... Let's face it, human nature being what it is, human beings are never more cooperative with each other if they start out by insulting each other. That doesn't matter whether we're politicians or doctors or car dealers or whatever.

I think the kind of hassle that we've had on Bill 3 and on interim supply is a symptom of what is wrong with the way in which this House functions. There seems to be an old-fashioned, blind, unintelligent attitude — and it applies to both sides of the House — that neither of us should know what the other intends to do until we got into this House, and then it's the one who can react the fastest who might win the fight.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): It's all changed now.

MR. WALLACE: The Whip on my left hand here tells me it's all changed. Well, George, you're a very dear friend of mine, but I'll believe it when I see it.

But I do think that a lot of the problems we've run into on this particular issue.... In some ways I think it is fortunate maybe that it's come early in the session, because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it benefits none of us, and it certainly does not benefit the taxpayer or the province if we are going to continue to debate important issues — and few issues are more important than trying to finance the affairs of the Province — in this kind of manner, where information is not made readily available in order to conduct an intelligent debate, where both sides of the House have not had the opportunity to prepare for the debate.

You cannot prepare intelligently if you do not have the basic information. I know how often in this House members refer to the fact that there are lots of lawyers in politics. I'd just like to quickly make the analogy that I'm sure all the lawyers in this House would have great difficulty in the legitimate practice of their profession if they did not, either as defenders or prosecutors, have pretty reasonable access to all the available information affecting the trial. While I wouldn't want to suggest that debates in this House are some form of trial — although I find them pretty trying at times — I would suggest that the same kind of intelligent approach whereby the government reveals more information on the issue, and the opposition parties respond in a cooperative way by letting the government know how long they anticipate the debate will take, or how many speakers, and how long each speaker will speak.... This kind of basic, constructive approach to debate I think would not only perhaps give each of us a greater expectation of life, but I think would result quite likely in a more productive parliament.

To return to Bill 3, as I stated earlier, I was unable to be here this afternoon in the early stages when the

[ Page 452 ]

questioning revealed the true cash position of the province but, as I understand it, we have $25.4 million in cash and we have cheques outstanding to the value of $245.8 million which, combined with payroll cheques of which my cheque is one, another $14 million, which leads to a deficit of $234 million, including a cheque to ICBC in the value of $181 million, which I understand was written and dated today for the purpose I mentioned earlier in my remarks — that that item of expenditure, in the view of the government, clearly had to be included within the fiscal year 1975-76.

I'm sure all of us in this House realize that the likelihood of the directors of ICBC ever going to the bank with that cheque for $181 million before the passing of Bill 3 is highly unlikely. At least I hope it's unlikely. We needn't publicize far and wide the dire straits we are in financially.

One interesting little bit of arithmetic, Mr. Speaker, which I think might justify our position regarding capital payments to Crown corporations is that the two payments to transit and to B.C. Hydro add up to almost — within a million or two — the same amount of money as the deficit which exists if the ICBC cheque is not cashed. If the cheque for ICBC is not cashed — $181 million — there is an approximate deficit of $53 million. Yet just a week or two ago we paid capital amounts to transit and B.C. Hydro for $48 million combined, so actually we could still be if we set aside the ICBC cheque for the moment pretty close to a break-even position had the government not decided on the policy of continuing to make capital payments to Crown corporations out of operating revenue.

I've already said, Mr. Speaker, that I feel our first job on this side of the House is to be responsible and, regardless of how the deficit has been arrived at or to what degree we consider it to, be exact or accurate, the province obviously needs the capacity to borrow money. That, in my view, decides why I should support this bill.

But I think there are two questions we are entitled to ask. The first one is very simply this: did the financial situation need to be corrected in one single move by, placing all debts, including the capital payments I have mentioned, on the books prior to March 31,1976? The second question, about which I ask your tolerance since I've already asked it more than once is: must the budget for 1976-77 be balanced at all costs?

It's obvious the government answer to these two questions is a clear "yes" and while we agree that it's obviously much cheaper in the short run to pay as you go rather than borrow, I do feel that we mustn't lose sight of the fact that the government — any government, any modern government — has responsibilities far and beyond simply balancing the books. I was really perturbed, but not entirely surprised, when the Premier interjected into our debate the other day that the budget was simply the annual report to the shareholders. I felt that that revealed the Premier's concept of what government is all about, that the voter in the province is just compared to a shareholder in a MacMillan Bloedel, or B.C. Tel, or whatever, and that the supreme overriding, and perhaps only goal — or the most important goal — of government is above all to show financial responsibility and balance the books, regardless of how the money is raised to do that or what group in society might be penalized in the process.

I just feel that modern governments have responsibilities far in excess of simply balancing the books. They have a duty far beyond the reasonable pleasures of the Minister of Finance would have in being able to say that there is no deficit.

But governments have human and social considerations towards various groups in the society which they govern. These responsibilities render governments quite different, in my view, from boards of directors which operate corporations solely for the purpose of making a financial profit. This, in my view, was the image created by the former Social Credit government.

The Attorney-General needn't groan, because I've heard him make endless numbers of speeches on the very same theme from this side of the House. So don't sit over there and groan as though this is something you never thought of yourself. The fact is that the former Social Credit government, in large measure, was defeated because it created enemies, rightly or wrongly. The Attorney-General may feel that it had a higher sense of social responsibility than it demonstrated, But the fact was that that was the image it created.

While there is, thank goodness, a great deal of evidence in this budget to suggest that the current Social Credit government is not the same as the old one — and I say thank goodness for that — nevertheless, the kind of comments, interjected by the Premier into debate, that as Minister of Finance or as Premier, this government is just submitting the report to shareholders, I think, rather neutralizes some of the positive influences which appear to be in the budget. By "positive influences" I'm talking about housing initiatives; I'm talking about the safe-driver incentive plan; I'm talking about the GAIN plan for those in need between 55 and 59 years. of age — single-parent families and so on.

When I feel some sense of optimism that things are going to be different from the last Social Credit government, then I find myself having second thoughts when I hear the Premier saying that, in financial terms, that's what the budget's all about — a report to the shareholders of British Columbia.

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the disclosure by the

[ Page 453 ]

government that our financial position is difficult and that, in fact I'm sure through no choice of the government they have issued cheques which, in effect, cannot be backed up by money in the bank, is indeed a sorry plight for British Columbia. If we on this side of the House really believe in the meaning of the words "responsible opposition", I think we have no choice whatever but to expedite the necessary legislation to enable this government to pay its bills.

At the same time I think it is also responsible of this House to offer suggestions as to at least how the procedural mess need not be repeated in the future. If this bill had been introduced a little earlier, and if the government, as I said a moment ago, had given the opposition more clear-cut, factual evidence as to what the financial facts really were, I for one perhaps would not have, talked as long as I'm talking — and I'm almost finished — but would, in fact, have felt that there was a more cooperative House with a more positive and reasonable approach to a problem which, regardless of its origin, had to be solved and had to be solved by a certain hour. But instead of that, we have gone this whole ridiculous roundabout of government maintaining secrecy to a degree which I feel has not only prolonged the debate but created a fair amount of acrimony.

Now there are just two last points I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker. The bill says that the borrowing will not be deemed to be part of the public debt of the province. I have to say that that is just almost insulting to the intelligence of anybody who reads that bill.

On the one hand, we have the government complaining about the provincial deficit which urgently requires to be wiped out by borrowing. But then the bill to do that makes the claim that the borrowed sum does not represent debt. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is stretching credulity a little bit. I think that if we have to borrow $400 million, that is debt.

All I know is that when I borrow X-thousands of dollars to buy a car, which I'm not planning to do — no, I've got 10 per cent less than I used to have — I'm in debt.

I don't want to make a big issue of it, but I think the bill is wrong to suggest that on one hand the province has to borrow this kind of money, but that borrowing should not be regarded as debt. I just wish I could handle my private finances that way.

The last point is that I do hope the bill will be followed very clearly in the way it is written, inasmuch that amounts will be borrowed as and when required, and not to any other degree.

The advice I have received from economists and financial people is that with any luck at all a pickup of the economy will bring in revenue in excess of the projected figures in the budget. This being the case, I would hope that increased revenue will be used to pay some of our outstanding bills so that, in fact, the amount borrowed will be kept to a minimum. Thank you.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, this is really the first time that I have entered into debate; I spoke on an amendment earlier, but this is the first debate. I didn't speak on the throne debate....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): We won't heckle.

MR. LEA: Thank you. So let me offer my congratulations to Mr. Speaker for the post that he has been elected to within this Legislature, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your elevation to that post.

My congratulations to all new members voted in in the 1975 election, and to all of those who came back, because, indeed it is the greatest of honours to be in this House, no matter which party you represent, to represent the people of British Columbia. It is the greatest honour.

The last speaker, of course, wasn't quite as long as the one before, I don't believe — or at least it didn't seem as long, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) gave us quite a lesson, when speaking to Bill 3, on how he and his colleagues handled fiscal management. There is one point I would like to bring to the House's attention before we do get to the nitty-gritty of Bill 3. Shortly after the new government took office I recall that a Mr. Arthur Weeks was appointed to the Minister of Economic Development's portfolio as a consultant, I believe, at $29,000 a year.

At that time the minister was questioned by the media as to why Mr. Weeks, and what qualifications does he have. At that point the minister said: "What qualifications does anybody have?" At that time he also said that the reason he was paying $29,000 — we're talking about money in this bill; we need to borrow money, if it's there — he said: "Well, I'm saving money really, because I could have hired a deputy minister which would have cost more money."

Well, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Weeks is still there at $29,000 or thereabouts — he may have had his pay dropped a little bit, along with the rest of us. But I notice an order-in-council approving the established position of an assistant deputy minister for the Department of Economic Development. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would assume that this is another position in that department, and it seems rather strange to me that we have those two conflicting remarks from that minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will relate this to the principle of the bill?

[ Page 454 ]

MR. LEA: Of course; it's about money. I'll keep as close to the bill, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. minister when he was speaking, or maybe a little closer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the reason that we have this Bill 3 in front of us — a bill asking to borrow $400 million to pay off what the government says is a deficit created by the former administration? If we look at the history, we have to go back to the campaign itself to find the history of this bill. We find a political party, the Social Credit Party, going throughout the province saying: "This province is in a financial mess, and when we get in things are going to be better."

Well, lo and behold, they won the election. They came in; obviously they found that things were not in a mess, but because of economic conditions that prevailed throughout the western world, found that it isn't that easy to govern and supply all of the necessary services that government has to supply to people in a recessionary period.

Now they can't have it both ways. They brought in Bill 3 and they said: "We're going to take care, with this bill, of all those debts that the NDP ran up while they were in office." Isn't that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: Yes. Then they bring in the budget and say: "The reason the budget is a little hard on little people is because we have to pay off the debts out of this next coming year." But you've already done that, you say, with Bill 3. You see, you can't have it both ways.

So really what you're doing is facing the kind of budget that any other government would have had to face — whether it was us in power, you in power; it doesn't matter. But what you did was bring in a budget taken out on the little people. And you are using Bill 3 as an excuse to do that.

Now there is one aspect of Bill 3 that bothers me, but before getting to that I would like to point out what has happened today in terms of the NSF cheque that has been issued by the government because they say this bill has not been approved in this House — an NSF cheque, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the government can do what the people cannot do; they are above the law. They are above the law.

The last time I remember hearing those remarks were newspaper reports quoting the tapes of Richard Nixon when he said: "Yes, I broke the law, but I felt it was for the good of the country." That's what we have heard in this House today: "Yes, we have broken the law, but we feel it's for the good of the province." That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, by any government. Don't let them fool you, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what they are doing — breaking the law. If a person working in a pulp mill or in a garage, a small businessman, a doctor, a lawyer — if anyone did that and it was brought to the Attorney-General's department, charges would be laid. But not against his colleagues or the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, surely you are not insinuating that any member of this government is breaking the law, and if you do....

MR. LEA: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that if, in fact, a cheque was issued when they knowingly knew that there were no funds in the bank, they are breaking the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is aware that, if you are impugning any member, then I must ask you to withdraw.

MR. LEA: I am not doing that, Mr. Speaker. I am just stating what the government has said today.

One of the parts of Bill 3 that bothers me is where this money is going if the bill passes. It will pass, because there are some 30-odd members on that side of the House and 19 on this side of the House. So it's going to pass. Where is the money going? Well, we take a look at the $175 million that they said was going to ICBC, which is now $181 million and change, $26 million to the transit bureau, $32.6 million grant to B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that there isn't one member of this assembly, whether it is a government backbencher, a member of the opposition or a government member, who would not say that if this money is going to a corporation, be it Crown or any other kind of corporation that is not run by a person who is beyond reproach, a person who has integrity and has been proved over the years.... We wouldn't want to see that money go to a corporation where the person who runs that corporation has not handled the affairs of that office with dignity or properly, or any office that he has held before.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You're not leading up to Bob Williams?

MR. LEA: Now, Mr. Speaker, $32.6 million is going to B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is now being run for the present government by Robert Bonner. Robert Bonner was a former Attorney-General within the former Social Credit government. To prove, or to put before the members of this House that are new members and to people in British Columbia whom I am sure don't know the story....

There is a book that was written a few years ago by a person called Paddy Sherman. The book is called Bennett. I would like to use an excerpt from this book beginning on page 162, chapter 7, called: "Jail

[ Page 455 ]

for a Minister." Now if this bill goes through this House, money is going to go to a Crown corporation run by Robert Bonner. I would like to read into the House an excerpt from this book beginning near the bottom of the page. It relates to Bill 3. If Bill 3 passes this House money will be going to B.C. Hydro which is run by Robert Bonner for the government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the House and British Columbia know exactly what happened a few years ago so that the members of this House will be able to determine whether they want money to go to that Crown corporation.

Reading from the page:

"At 8 a.m. on November 21, the RCMP pounced simultaneously on Sommers, Gray and Charles D. Schultz a Vancouver consulting forester. Sommers was flown in a police aircraft to Vancouver and charged there."

Let me explain that Robert Sommers had been a former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

"Four men and four forest companies were accused of being involved in a conspiracy to bribe Sommers to give favourable consideration to the companies in the transaction of government business."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. LEA: "The business involved was alleged to be the issuing of a forest management licence on Vancouver Island...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. You're going to have to show how this relates to the principle of Bill 3, because debate other than that is out of order, as the member well knows.

MR. LEA: I realize that. I thought I had established that, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that moneys from this bill are going to be going to a Crown corporation which is administered Mr. Robert Sommers, and I question, Mr. Speaker...Mr. Robert Bonner.

I question whether this House would want money from this Department of Finance to go to that corporation, to be used by that corporation that is being run by Robert Bonner, and I think the explanation will become clear if Mr. Speaker will only let me continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, may I remind you that you are going to have to show close relationship between your remarks and the principle of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips)?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To fail to do so is to be out of order, and, Mr. Member, may I further remind you that if you wish to continue in a debate which is out of order then you, yourself, must allow that same latitude to other members of the House, which I am sure you would object to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You gave it to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Therefore I am sure that before this debate goes too far you are going to show close relationship between your remarks and the principle of this bill.

MR. LEA: With all due respect to your position, I think that possibly you should let me get into the text of this so that you can rule. You haven't heard hardly a thing yet.

Before I get back, just in case some members of the House aren't aware, during the time of this Robert Bonner was the Attorney-General of this province.

Beginning again:

"The business involved was alleged to be the issuing of a forest management licence on Vancouver Island to British Columbia Forest Products Ltd., one of a string of companies run by Toronto millionaire E.P. Taylor, and his right-hand man, M. Wallace McCutcheon. The prosecutor was to allege that B.C. Forest Products put up $30,000 to finance the conspiracy. Sommers, Schultz and Gray were charged with conspiracy. So was Gray's brother John.

"The indictment also named Hector Munro, the former president of B.C. Forest Products, but he had died of a heart attack before the charges were laid and after a visit from the police. The companies' names were B.C. Forest Products, C.D. Schultz and Co., Pacific Coast Services, and Evergreen Lumber Sales.

"In addition to the conspiracy count, there were eventually 50 charges of giving bribes, and seven against Sommers of receiving them. Sommers was accused of receiving $8,907. The others were accused of giving him $16,406. Along the way several other charges against Sommers were dismissed when the judge ruled there was no proof that was technically admissible in court."

HON. MR. MAIR: You get that low, do you?

[ Page 456 ]

MR. LEA:

"The preliminary hearing in lower court was underway when the 1958 session of the Legislature opened. Sommers asked Bennett, (refining to the former Premier Bennett) whether he wanted him to be in the court or in the House. The Premier told him to be in the House, but the next morning at 10 a.m., Sommers was telephoned by his counsel. The Crown prosecutor was objecting to his absence and wanted him in court at once, "

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. I've been following your remarks very closely, and I'm going to have to ask that you relate your remarks more closely to the principle of the bill or else I'm going to have to ask you to move to another subject.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think it will become clear when we get to the part here, which I'm trying to bring to the House's attention, the role that the former Attorney-General, Robert Bonner, played in this, and now is going to receive money through Bill 3 to administer B.C. Hydro.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. With all respect, I see only the most distant relationship of your remarks so far.

MR. LEA: I beg your pardon?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see only the most distant relationship of your remarks so far.

MR. LEA: But you do see a relationship?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm trying to find a thread. I'm trying to be as gracious to the hon. member as I possibly can.

MR. LEA: I thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

"Sommers stormed into Bennett's office, and there was an angry interchange, despite the presence of Solon Low, national leader of their party. The Premier telephoned Bonner, who said he knew nothing about the court move, and nothing could be done. However Sommers appealed and stayed in the Legislature. He was ordered to be committed for trial and allowed free on bail. Sommers and his government had some tough and turbulent times that session...."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go back to the First World War?

MR. LEA:

"Gregory complimented Sommers on feeling better. He apparently was too ill in October to see his doctor. Sommers told him he was yellow and had no guts. Strachan denounced Bonner as a man who was putting his political duty before his public duty."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a ruling from you on the validity of this kind of attack on a person who served this House as Attorney-General and who is a highly respected citizen of British Columbia.

The member is quoting a court case, and I would suggest to you that if this line of reasoning is to continue this House will be bringing up the court cases of MLAs that have sat in this House in previous times, and in the Dominion House as well. The member knows full well what member I allude to when I say this.

MR. LEA: No, I don't.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would think that if that line of reasoning is to continue it would bring to a low level the debate in this House, the very lowest that we could possibly have.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this member should apologize to the member that he has maligned, a member that has served this House well, an outstanding British Columbian.

His reference to money being given to B.C. Hydro is one thing; to write out a cheque to a personality he is mentioning is completely out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He might turn off his brain. It would only take a small....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! In response to the point of order brought up by the hon. Provincial Secretary, I think that in all respect to the procedure that has been going on in the House this evening the remarks have been wide-ranging — at the best they could be termed wide-ranging as regards the debate on Bill 3 — and I have sought since coming to the chamber to try to get the debate more closely related to the principle of the bill. I have given the hon. member as much latitude as I possibly can muster and have asked him on three different occasions to be sure that he does relate his remarks to the bill. I have given him this much time to prove that he can relate his remarks to the bill and so far I have been

[ Page 457 ]

unsatisfied, so I am going to have to ask the member to change to another subject.

MR, LEA: Mr. Speaker, because as a member I believe I should follow the rulings of the Chair, I will follow your ruling...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR, LEA: ...but it does distress me somewhat after having seen the latitude given to members on the other side of the House — but not by you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Like his budget attack on the former Premier.

MR. LEA: It seems that there are only certain times that latitude is allowed, but I will follow your ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: Could I have the government set of rules, Mr. Speaker? I have this red book here.

HON. MR. MAIR: A despicable, cowardly attack!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that member to withdraw that.

MR. LAUK: Withdraw that remark!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You get in your own seat! You should know the rules of this House.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member wish to withdraw the remark? I do not see that the remark that he made was unparliamentary. However, if he wishes to withdraw the remark....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. MAIR: I will withdraw the remark only upon the order of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. In the spirit of good will which now is abiding in this House I appreciate that very much. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: I said "only." Mr. Speaker, let me make myself clear: only upon your order will I withdraw the statement,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, would you please order him to do that, then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, he has not yet apologized and I ask you to order him, as he demands that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I understand that according to my request he has withdrawn and I think that is all that is requested. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Without qualification, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on the point of order, I am afraid that you have misunderstood me. I do not withdraw the remark. I will do so if I am ordered to, but I do not withdraw it voluntarily.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, perhaps Mr. Speaker did not hear the words of the hon. minister. He said "despicable" and "cowardly" in describing the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: "Attack."

MR. LAUK: The words were....

Interjections,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who's the leader over there?

HON. W.R. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): They're all trying.

MR. KING: Where's your leader?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the words clearly heard by me....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: You're going to lose that finger.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have a little order in the House? Proceed, please.

[ Page 458 ]

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. the words that were used that I could hear quite clearly were "despicable" and "cowardly" in relation to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . Those words are clearly unparliamentary, I submit, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the hon. minister withdraw those words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Hansard will reveal the exact wording used but if there is doubt as to the usage of the words I would ask the hon. minister, in the spirit of good will, to withdraw those words.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I may clarify, I characterized the statements made by the former speaker as a "despicable, cowardly attack." If Mr. Speaker orders me to withdraw those words, I will. I regret that I cannot withdraw them under any other circumstances.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, in the spirit of good will, will you please withdraw those words?

HON. MR. MAIR: In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will accede to your request.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you very much.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we have sat here on this side of the House and listened to charge after charge after charge against the opposition for the time we were in government with no facts to back it up — none whatsoever. That is why they are saying they are bringing in Bill 3. They have no facts to back it up. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the facts bear out something different altogether. I only raise what I raise to prove in this House once and for all that you cannot stand and use the sanctity of this House to make charges that you can't back up. They've been doing it over and over and over again as government — over again. But when the shoe is on the other foot, Mr. Speaker, you see them stand in their place and whine about the rules of the House, and whine about everything else. They should stand on their own two feet and say what they're for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. LEA: The facts of the matter are that they went out into this province and said that they would need this bill before they even took a look at the books. That's what they said, and when they got into this office they said: "Yes, lo and behold, we need it because we're going to change everything. We're going to...."

Before, you know, Mr. Speaker, when money was borrowed for B.C. Hydro it didn't become a direct debt to the province, but now it's going to because the rules have changed and we see an NSF cheque issued on behalf of the government. How can any court ever again convict anybody for passing any kind of cheque in this province if it's done incorrectly? What's good enough for the government should be good enough for the people.

The saddest part of Bill 3, and the comments made around Bill 3 by the government members, is that they are trying to tell financial institutions, other governments all over this world, that British Columbia is broke. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) when speaking said that the province is bankrupt.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) speculated about the standard fiscal authorities, and what they might say in next year's editions. You will also recall that the hon. member pointed out that this year's editions, prepared as late as last fall, had complimentary things to say about British Columbia and about the government of the day when we were in government.

HON MR. PHILLIPS: Describing true socialism.

MR. LEA: That is what makes the speculation so interesting, Mr. Speaker. So I think that Moody's, Whitaker's and Statesman's year book will probably read something like this when it comes out next year — I hope not, but it probably will: "All fiscal data indicated British Columbia solvent and worthy of the double-A bond rating, as was assigned in 1972,1973,1974 and 1975. However, disturbing information has reached us. A minister of the Crown in that province has said that that province is on the edge of bankruptcy."

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. LEA: At 6 p.m., March 29,1976, the Premier of that province said: "We've got to have $400 million by 12 midnight March 31,1976, just two days from now."

The Minister of Finance on or about 9 p.m., March 29,1976, says: "We don't really need it by then."

Since then the Premier has said: "Yes, we do; no, we don't; yes, we do; no, we don't." The Minister of Finance said: "Yes, we do; no, we don't; yes, we do; no, we don't."

What are those financial institutions, those other countries, those other lending institutions, going to put down when it comes to talking about British Columbia next year? What an irresponsible thing for any government to do, to go out into this world and say that this province is bankrupt, it's broke; the future is bleak, when everyone knows that that is not true.

[ Page 459 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: We've got a good government now.

MR. LEA: We've got a good government now — the government that went out and said: "Put us in; things will be all right." Then they came in and they put taxes onto people which they said they wouldn't put on.

How can we believe them on Bill 3? How can we believe a government where two ministers, the Premier and the Minister of Finance, make conflicting statements, both within this House and outside the House? How can we believe them? Are they asking us to vote for Bill 3 on faith, and faith alone — faith that they are good guys? The answer, Mr. Speaker, has to be no.

What happens in the hallway when the Minister of Finance is being interviewed by the media? You know, it's all right to have a pliant Finance minister, if you're the Premier, but at least he should be able to be left alone for just a little while to speak to the media about his own portfolio and the bills that he's bringing through this House. When the Minister of Finance was talking to the press, the Premier grabbed the Minister of Finance by the arm and dragged him down the hallway saying: "Peace and love."

There on the evening of March 30,1976, the Premier once again agrees that the $400 million isn't necessary by March 31,1976.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to make a prophecy: I believe that government is going to invoke closure on this House this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't dare.

MR. LEA: I believe they are, Mr. Speaker. That is what I think they're going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's never been done.

MR. LEA: I wonder, do they really have the guts to do that to prove a political point? Not a fiscal point, a political point. They really believe, Mr. Speaker, that they can go around talking about Bill 3, saying that there's a need to borrow money because the province was left in fiscal ruin, and get away with it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are two parts about politics which the politicians very seldom talk about: No government is ever voted in; governments are voted out.

In 1972 the Social Credit government was thrown out of office by the voters, and in 1975 the NDP was thrown out of government by the voters.

But somehow or other, Mr. Speaker, this group across the floor seems to feel that they were voted in, instead of getting in the same way we did in 1972 and the same way that the Social Credit got in in 1952, and any other government.

Now I ask you to think about that. Will people swallow this? The answer is no. If you agree with me, then for God's sake withdraw the bill. Come clean with the people of this province.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Why were you thrown out?

MR. LEA: Now these events that I've described about the Minister of Finance being pulled away down the hall...these events took place. Now these are the kinds of things that are going to be said.

I pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the kinds of actions, the kinds of things that this government is saying is a dangerous, dangerous way to go for that government, because if they are doing it, as I suspect, for political gain then they're selling this province short. They're selling it short. I am not the only one in this province or in this House who believes that to be the case. You can read column after column in newspaper after newspaper to find that many people in the media feel that to be the case.

I should also point out, before going on to this newspaper article that I'd like to quote from, that the book that I was quoting from earlier, the book called Bennett, I believe, is probably a fairly accurate account because there were no suits for libel from anyone over that book. I thought I should make that point before going on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And it was written by one of your great political friends, Paddy Sherman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, from today's Vancouver Sun a column by Christopher Dafoe, dateline Victoria. I will read it all because other members of this side of the House have been accused by members from that side of the House of only reading parts of a column:

"It is, of course, early days for the current legislative session, but already certain trends are becoming visible as the various members and parties settle in for the long haul towards that House being prorogued. The Social Credit party enjoys a comfortable majority government. The party in power, in fact, appears at times to be involved in a process that might be called government by public relations, the major theme being the horrible mess left behind in the corridors of power by the former NDP administration. In this regard shock tactics have played important roles, especially by Finance Minister Evan Wolfe’s recent diatribe-cum-budget address.

[ Page 460 ]

"This reckless desire to dance a fandango on the earthly remains of the former government could easily backfire, of course, as potential investors recoil in fear and loathing from the prospect of risking capital in what must now appear to be a vast and windswept wasteland, ruined and barren after a term of socialist rape and ravishment. The government has been so insistent on this point, and the horror stories have obtained such wide currency, that British Columbia must by now appear on many financial maps as sort of a terra incognito, possibly inhabited by tribes of what could be called wild men.

"Whatever the final result of this strident doom-saying may be, there clearly appears to be a master plan of sorts, and the floor of the Legislature has become an important war zone in the great propaganda offensive.

"Observers in the public galleries have noted the Premier's penchant for remaining in his seat for hours on end, like a general leading his troops into battle. As a rule, first ministers drop into the Legislative chamber for question time and for important debate, ostensibly spending the rest of their time on vital work behind the scenes. Premier Bill Bennett, on the other hand, is a regular attendee in the House, leading the desk-thumping from the government side and heckling opposition speakers with all the vigour of an under-employed backbencher.

"Several theories have been put forward regarding the Premier's desire to stick close to his seat in the chamber of horrors. Some suggest that he has something less than full confidence in the members of his cabinet, and prefers to keep a weather eye on their activities in the House. It has been hinted, for example, that the thought of Bill Vander Zalm being left to his own devices keeps the Premier awake at nights, and well it might.

"Others have suggested that Bennett is painfully aware of his own relative inexperience in legislative debate. He himself has alluded to his less-than-impressive performance as the Leader of the Opposition, and it may well be that he feels in order to control the House one must sit in it for rather a long time soaking up atmosphere. A third theory contends that all the vigorous desk-thumping indulged in by the Premier — his desk top may not survive the session intact — involves a perhaps unconscious attempt to revive what might be described as a traditionally supernatural tendency of the Social Credit movement, as exemplified in the past by such luminaries as Phil Gaglardi and Waldo Skillings. Table-rapping, after all, has been known to produce sensational effects, and some observers predict that the Premier's dedicated efforts in this regard could easily summon up the shades of the late William Aberhart and the A plus B theorem.

"After all, the Premier must often feel as he looks around him that he needs all the help he can get. The session, of course, is still in its infancy, in more ways than one, and the velvet glove may yet replace the ham fist as a symbol of Social Credit deportment in the House. The Premier may learn to lash the tiller, and members of the Social Credit caucus may yet realize that, yes, they won the election with room to spare. The mood of hysteria that seems to engulf the government at present may be a temporary aberration. Time alone will tell."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, could we now get back to the bill?

MR. LEA: God willing. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you will see a light go on, a green light, the same time I will, and that will indicate you have two minutes left.

MR. LEA: Fine, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's a shame that some people gave up colorful careers for political expediency.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You never gave up anything. It's pretty hard to fall off the floor. (Laughter.)

MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session tonight, we heard a tough up-country unit with the speedometer rolled back to zero. (Laughter.) That's all we heard. For 40 minutes that minister stood in his place and didn't once get to Bill 3, but it is apparent that when a member on this side of the House strays one fraction of an inch away from Bill 3, he is brought right back to order — not by you, Mr. Speaker. You're fair, Mr. Speaker — but the members of government and the backbenchers of government...insist, insist.

Where were they when the Minister of Economic Development was speaking? Oh, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right here!

[ Page 461 ]

MR. LEA: The member over there says "Right here." This is the first time I've seen those two people so close together, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Phillips) and the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). The last time I saw them was on a television screen where the member for Delta said: "Even I phoned the Minister of Agriculture to try to get help for his farmers but he wouldn't even answer my phone calls." That's what kind of minister he is, the man who is going to work for the people in this province, the man who says: "I always speak the truth. I always work for the people in this province." And I stand in my place, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make a speech about tardiness, or I want to talk about everything, Mr. Speaker, and my own bill, please, Mr. Speaker, because I'm talking about the same thing, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Economic Development talked about earlier. Isn't that right? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEA: But now what we're really talking about is whether or not there is a need for the money being asked for in Bill 3. That's really what we're talking about, on the principle of this bill.

I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that the government has not proved that money is needed. Only in the last few hours $181 million has been transferred, by cheque, from consolidated revenue to the corporation ICBC, when it's quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the money is not needed by that corporation.

Now earlier, people referred to the Clarkson, Gordon report when speaking, and when they referred to this report, hon. members from across the floor.... They said that there isn't anything in that report to suggest what a deficit or a surplus is. But the Clarkson, Gordon report, on page 21 explains exactly what a surplus and a deficit is.

Now it says that there are three important things to bear in mind. First, used in this sense, surplus or deficit is an annual concept; cash reserves available at the beginning of the year, resulting from surpluses less deficits of all previous years, do not enter into the calculations.

Secondly, surplus or deficit is measured substantially on a cash basis. Revenues include all the cash received during the year, and expenditures, the cash paid out. If a building is purchased during the year, or a highway is built, the entire cost, if paid in cash, will be included as an expenditure in the year, even though the asset may last and serve the citizens for many years to come.

Similarly, if an expenditure is made on March 31, the fiscal year-end, it will enter into the calculation of the surplus or deficit. If it is made a day later, it will not. Therefore, the timing of the expenditures or revenues can have a significant effect on the final result.

Finally, it is important to note that the revenues and expenditures entering into the calculation of the annual surplus or deficit relate only to the general accounts of the province, and do not fully consolidate any special-purpose funds or other government-controlled operations such as agencies and Crown corporations. This may come as a surprise to many members of the general public who may assume, incorrectly, that the operating results of all government-controlled operations are included in the annual surplus or deficit which is discussed in the Legislature and in the news media.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that's where we come to a real problem, because the people out there, or a great many of them, are confused. For years while the previous Social Credit government was in power, the former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, went around this province saying that the province was debt-free, and people believed him because that former Premier failed to tell them that there were Crown corporations that owed a great deal of money, and justly so, for which the province would have to pay. They backed up the loan — like when you go to the bank — they were a co-signer.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you have under two minutes left.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what this new government is trying to do is return to the old way. For the first time, while the NDP were in government, we told the truth; we told those people exactly where this province stood, and some people were shocked. People in my own riding in Prince Rupert said: "Why, I can't understand that. I always thought that we didn't owe any money, only contingent liabilities." They didn't understand when the former Social Credit government said that, that it, indeed, was a debt.

Now this new government is trying to take us, in yet another way, back into the dark ages — another way they are trying to find to go backwards and forwards. Telling the financial institutions of this country and other countries, telling other countries that this province is bankrupt, is broke, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is a cardinal sin against this province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if it's not out of order, I'd like to address my remarks to Bill 3. Some of the members tonight have skirted around the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate that. I appreciate the latitude you've offered some of the

[ Page 462 ]

members, although they have attempted to introduce many subjects well beyond the scope of Bill 3.

MR. LEA: Not Don and I. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to rise in support of Bill 3, and I think it should be emphasized that the bill is known as the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976, which is an excellent title for that bill.

The bill is most obvious in its language that the government finds it necessary to authorize the Finance Minister of the province to borrow up to $400 million to permit responsible conclusions to occur within the fiscal year which is now ending.

There is no mystery surrounding the necessity for such action. A recent report, which has been alluded to by various members of the House, and prepared for the Department of Finance of the province of B.C., states most emphatically the position this government has found the finances of this province to be in.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who created this situation?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Your friends and mine, Don.

Mr. Speaker, the report told us that the revenue expected for the fiscal year 1975-76 would fall short by approximately $300 million, while expenditures would be over-extended by approximately $200 million. Surplus, as of the first of this year, was approximately $140 million, leaving an overall deficit of about $397 million; very simple addition. It certainly is not with great pride that the Government of British Columbia finds itself in the position of borrowing money for current expenses, for the first time since February of 1952.

The philosophy of this government is most basic to sound management of the economy: the recognition, and the simple recognition, that you must pay for that which you receive.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 may appear to be a blinding flash of light to many persons who have been groping through the dark tunnel of financial games for too long. Perhaps it comes as a shock to some who will not see, but it is my belief that any government has an absolute obligation to its people to prevent erosion of the economy by taking necessary measures immediately.

If we were to step back a few years in time, financially, we would find that on September 12,1972, the economy of the province of British Columbia appeared to be quite sound. The old government of that day had left behind a legacy of some proportions, financially: a perpetual capital fund of $85 million; special capital funds of $126 million; cash or term deposits in the bank of $200 million; B.C. Hydro with $97 million in temporary deposits; B.C. Rail with $66 million in temporary deposits — a total liquid position exceeding $474 million. Mr. Speaker, compare this figure to the massive deficit as outlined to this government by the Clarkson, Gordon report.

Suggestions that deficit financing is the answer, as has been proposed by certain members of this House, leaves much to be desired. The concept that we can put off until tomorrow that which is required to be accounted for today is misleading and dangerous. The idea that others are doing it, therefore we should do it, or therefore it's all right for us to do it, is folly. This very fantasy has contributed greatly to the decline in our standards of living and habits right across this country. The follow-the-leader concept of the lemmings is well established. Let us be at least one voice that says: "Enough is enough. Let's get on with the job that must be done."

Mr. Speaker, we are bound, as government, by our commitment to the people of British Columbia to provide responsible fiscal management of the people's money. Bill 3 indicates very clearly that this shall be done.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, because it doesn't take much to speak on a bill which has fewer words than most of my remarks, much of the discussion to date in these chambers, involving the economy of this province, could be resolved very simply if representatives of the former administration would simply admit they blew it when they had the chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to extend to you my congratulations. I was remiss in that the first time I rose to speak. I am very impressed with the decisions you have been making, with the great degree of integrity I know you are exercising in making these decisions. I would also like to extend to the Deputy Speaker my congratulations.

Last night when I spoke, Mr. Speaker — I think it was last night; it seems a long time ago — I indicated my concern in wanting to abide by the rules of this House. I indicated that I have a very great degree of respect for the rules of proceedings, and I certainly wish to abide by those rules. In fact, it was quite a traumatic experience the first time I rose to make my maiden speech in this House to find myself, after my first three sentences, being called to order by you. Now I am not denying your right to do this and perhaps I was out of order, but it was a traumatic experience. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to be very sure that I am in order tonight.

You know, it's difficult to tell when a person is in order and when a person is not in order. I could stand up here and I could talk about the farmers of this

[ Page 463 ]

province — that seems to be in order for Bill 3 tonight. I could talk about the farmers of this province; I could talk about the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) attitude to the farmers, a minister who wants to deny to the farmers of this province the right to base their payments on income assurance on the cost of production in B.C., a man who wants to deny the farmers that right. Is that in order for Bill 3, Mr. Speaker?

I understand that we're to talk about the principle of the bill in the second reading — is that correct? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have with me here Webster's dictionary — "principle" — p-r-i-n-c-i-p-l-e, right? Principle. Yes, now what does it say?

"Principle: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine or assumption; a rule or code of conduct; habitual devotion to right principles; the laws of facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device; the primary source; an underlying faculty or endowment, distinguishing ingredient that exhibits or imparts the characteristic quality...."

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the principle.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: So, Mr. Speaker, the definition: a general or fundamental law; a doctrine or a rule; a code of conduct; devotion to such a code; the laws of facts; of nature underlying the workings of an artificial device; the distinguishable ingredient that exhibits or imparts the characteristic quality.

So what is the principle of Bill 3? Well, first, Mr. Speaker, it assumes a deficit of $400 million and then, from what has gone on in this House last night and today, I understand it is assumed that there is a great deal of urgency for this $400 million.

The last time I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the confusion I felt as a new member and I asked for some guidance from the members of the government, some guidance from the Treasury Board regarding financial bills. But, Mr. Speaker, the concern that I felt at that point, I must confess, has now been magnified a thousand fold. Here I am, Mr. Speaker, a new member being asked to make a decision about a bill in the amount of $400 million. I am being asked to make that decision and to make a decision as to whether or not there is a degree of urgency. I look for members of the treasury bench and I am not getting any guidance from them, Mr. Speaker, because what do I see? Well, for one thing, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) keeps changing his mind.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, a quote from the Victoria Times March 30,1976 — now that was yesterday — and it is talking about the finance minister. It says, quoting the Finance minister:

"He explained that the money was not needed immediately but would be required soon because the government has no borrowing power." His statements were in conflict with Premier Bennett who said outside the Legislature that the authority to borrow was essential before midnight Wednesday (March 31) when the current fiscal year ends and it would have to be covered.

In the hallways outside the Legislature, Wolfe was explaining to the press that it was not essential the bill be passed by Wednesday midnight when Bennett strode over and pulled him away by the arm. Bennett walked down the hallway and said to the press, gently, "peace and love".

Well, Mr. Speaker, that makes me ever more confused when the two....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with peace?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, peace and love are fine but when the Minister of Finance and the Premier are at cross-purposes, how do you expect I feel if they don't know which way they're going?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. WALLACE: Now, Mr. Speaker, that was March 30, yesterday. Now today the Minister of Finance got up and he tells us that he has written cheques for approximately $245 million. But he only has $25 million in the bank.

MS. BROWN: Irresponsible.

MRS. WALLACE: And he says now that it's urgent. Well, if it's urgent now, why didn't he know yesterday that it was urgent? I just don't understand, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Poor housekeeping.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's right. If I looked after my housekeeping accounts that way and there was some remark about kitchen-table accounting from across the way...well, I am sure there's a lot of accounting done on kitchen tables a lot better than this kind of accounting. If I handled my chequing account, my household account, in that manner, Mr. Speaker, I know where I would be. I would be right up before the court.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would have been traded in.

[ Page 464 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Not only am I confused, Mr. Speaker, I am completely amazed that the Premier who is the head of this government — the head of this province — today stood in his place shouting across the floor at the opposition, completely unheard amid the din that was being created by the ministers and the backbenchers and all that going on while at the same time the Minister of Finance was trying to read a statement, which may or may not have been in order. We'll never know because no one heard it.

MR. LOEWEN: You didn't want to hear it.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the kind of exhibition that makes it extremely difficult for a new member to function in this House. Now I may be a new member, Mr. Speaker, but that does not necessarily mean that I am naive.

From the information I have been able to glean from the reams of documents floating around this House and around this province, my conclusion is that the only real need — the only real urgency — is one that has been deliberately created by this government for political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Clarkson, Gordon report. This is a much-quoted report, I know, but there are still some things that haven't been said out of this Clarkson, Gordon report. Let's look at page 2, Mr. Speaker. If I repeat some of what has already been quoted, I am sorry, but I think these are mostly different quotes. It says:

"This information is meaningful only if the reader understands the way British Columbia accounts for its revenues and expenditure. So before commenting on the results we would like to discuss the broad terms of what a surplus or a deficit is and what it is not. Such an understanding is essential if the readers are to be able to place in context the matters discussed later in this report."

It goes on and it talks about surplus and deficit and the concepts, and it says:

"Surpluses or deficits are measured substantially on a cash basis. Revenues include all the cash received during the year, and expenditures are the cash paid out. If a building is purchased during the year or a highway is built, the entire cost, if paid in cash, will be included as an expenditure in that year even though the asset may last and serve the citizens for many years to come."

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the report goes on:

"If an expenditure is made on March 31, the fiscal year end, it will enter into the calculation of the surplus or deficit. If it is made a day later, it will not. Therefore the timing of expenditures or revenue can have a significant effect on the final result."

Then it says:

"Finally, it is important to note that the revenues and expenditures entering into the calculation of the annual surplus or deficit relate only to the general accounts of the province and do not fully consolidate any special purpose
funds or other government-controlled operations such as agencies and Crown corporations.

" 'This may come as a surprise to many members of the general public,' say Clarkson, Gordon, 'who may assume incorrectly that the operating results of all government-controlled operations are included in the annual surplus or deficit which is discussed in the Legislature and in the news media.'"

I have here another document, Mr. Speaker. I think this document will probably be very well accepted by the people across the way. It's a report from the Employers' Council of British Columbia and it arrived on my desk March 30 — yesterday. On page 2 there's a paragraph I would like to read you. This paper, incidentally, is discussing the budget. It says: "Statement by Employers' Council on the Provincial Budget." The paragraph I wish to read, and I quote from the Employers' Council of British Columbia:

"However, we have serious reservations about the government's policy of funding all its own capital expenditures from current revenue. We believe there is a place for borrowed money to pay for major capital expenditures which spread their cost over the period that people benefit from instead of loading them onto the taxpayers in one year."

MR. LOEWEN: Read the rest of it.

MS. BROWN: Those are your friends.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the part about the budget — the capital budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a real good statement.

MR. LAUK: Then you're not supporting the budget.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the part that relates to the borrowing.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I have another quote from Clarkson, Gordon that I wish to read, and it talks about their involvement in the preparation of this report. This, of course, has been quoted so many

[ Page 465 ]

times but it just doesn't seem to sink in, and I'm going to quote it once more. It says:

"We were not requested to perform an audit of the financial information and we did not do so. This is not an assignment which leads to sweeping recommendations for change or to critical comments on the financial policies or performance of the present or the former government. We were asked to co-ordinate the production of certain current, unaudited financial information and prepare a summary report thereon. This we have done, and the results are contained in the preceding pages and in the appendices which follow."

As if that weren't enough explanation, in Appendix I where they quote the figures — the original budget and the current forecast showing the $541 million deficit — on page 15, after having said those other things but as a note underneath this, they say:

"The information in Appendix I has been prepared using information from the budget review compiled by the finance and economic research department of Finance as of January 30,1976."

They're making it very clear that they simply took the figures that were handed them by this government and re-arranged them and added them up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MRS. WALLACE: So, Mr. Speaker, there the figures are unaudited, supplied by the government. Let's have a look at those figures. First they talk about the revenue.

"The revenue forecast by this government is $80 million short of the revenue forecast by the former government when it left office in December."

I repeat: $80 million. I wonder who was the closest to being right, Mr. Speaker?

What has happened to the economy of British Columbia in the last three months? Has it continued on a downward trend or has it improved? This is a summary produced by the Minister of Economic Development, a summary of economic activity in British Columbia in 1975, and it reads in part:

"The British Columbia economy has withstood the shocks of world recession and major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well. Personal income growth, estimated at 16 per cent, was the major factor contributing to an anticipated 10 per cent nominal growth in the gross provincial product.

"In constant dollar terms British Columbia's gross provincial product is expected to be up fractionally in contrast to a slight drop for the nation as a whole."

So the trend was there. We were not slipping back as the government has said. And it goes on to say that the outlook for 1976 is generally favourable for most sectors of the provincial economy.

I have another quote, Mr. Speaker, dated January 12,1976, from Canada manpower economic survey as reported in the Victoria Times. What does it say about retail sales? "In December they ranged from good to excellent."

And the forest industry, a quote from Bob Rogers, president of Crown Zellerbach Canada as reported in The Vancouver Sun, February 21,1976: "Industry is on a very strong upsurge right now." Date, February 21,1976.

Another quote, Mr. Speaker: "Retail sales in British Columbia amounted to $2,400 per capita in 1975, 13 per cent above the national average." This is a quote from The Province, March 18,1976. "Personal disposable income per capita was 7 per cent above the Canadian average, and the province's population is currently growing at a rate of 34 per cent every 10 years, the fastest of any region in Canada." Does that sound like a depressed economy, Mr. Speaker?

I keep coming back to this report of the Minister of Economic Development. I think it's interesting inasmuch as it has come out of a government department. He talks about markets for the mineral industry, and he says: "Markets for several British Columbian minerals such as copper and molybdenum were depressed during 1975, reflecting the influence of the continuing world recession. However, other minerals, notably coal and zinc, showed considerable increases over 1974. The total effect of these diverse trends indicated that a new record mineral production for the province may be reached with an estimated value of $1.223 million, an increase over 1974."

So, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that even in the field of minerals things were looking good.

Agriculture: performance in agriculture was next. "Total farm cash receipts rose up 2 per cent from the previous year. "

Travel industry: "During 1975 the number of visits to British Columbia by Americans and out of province Canadians declined slightly, though totals from overseas continued to rise." The travel industry in British Columbia, Mr.Speaker, has suffered less in the current recession than in most other regions in Canada, according to the economic review.

In 1975 the value of British Columbia factory shipments is estimated at 7.133 million, fractionally higher than in 1974. Capital investment is up 9 percent over 1974. Investment spending by governments in institutions in British Columbia increased by approximately 21 per cent.

[ Page 466 ]

Does that sound like a depressed economy, Mr. Speaker? Foreign trade is up, a mild upturn in trade in 1976 is expected.

I say those are signs, Mr. Speaker, that point to a gross underestimation on the part of this government in the revenues that will be coming into this province through the past three months. It's a deliberate attempt to show the lowest possible revenue, the greatest possible deficit. It's political gimmickry again. They are still fighting elections over there, venting their spleen.

It seems the son is dedicated to avenging what he sees as a sin committed by the electorate of this province when they defeated the father.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: "The Economy Looking Up." The quote is in The Province, March 31. That's today, 1976.

" In the last week several sets of figures from Statistics Canada have underlined the stronger turnaround which occurred in the November-to-February period. Industrial production is finally on the move. After reaching its low point in October, output has been climbing for three out of the last four months.

"Output is increasing because of the rise in manufacturing; retails which were expected to slump in January, in fact, have declined only slightly." The economy is not declining.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the estimated $400 million is wrong; the anticipated deficit is wrong. It is nowhere near $400 million; it should be nowhere near $400 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much should it be?

MRS. WALLACE: Okay, how much? That's a fair question. That's a very fair question. Okay, we'll check — kitchen table economics,

The Minister of Finance told us this afternoon that he had in the bank $25 million in cash. He has written $245 million in outstanding cheques — and that includes ICBC, Mr. Minister — which I certainly don't agree was necessary.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why not?

MRS. WALLACE: They've got lots of money; they've got in excess of $2 million. But let me get back to my kitchen-table finance. That leaves a shortfall of a total of $220 million; if you subtract ICBC from that, you have a balance of $40 million. That figure is very familiar to me, Mr. Minister — $40 million.

If you recall, when the former government estimated — and it was a very conservative estimate — they estimated that as a result of the major shutdowns in the forest industry this past year, as a result of the declining international economy, this province might be faced with a maximum of $40 million. That was the estimate made by the member for Nanaimo, a former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich), and that looks to me like he was right on, Mr. Speaker, right on — $40 million.

MS. BROWN: Good accounting.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it has been discussed at some length....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us that again — tell us how you arrived at that figure.

AN HON. MEMBER: She dropped a zero.

MRS. WALLACE: $40 million — no, no, I haven't lost a zero. You've tried, Mr. Minister, you've all tried to get that deficit up just as high as you possibly could.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Somewhere here I have a quotation that one of the papers reported very recently that it was very obvious that the.... Here it is right here — the Montreal Gazette.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Montreal Gazette — oh!

MS. BROWN: A good socialist paper.

MRS. WALLACE: This is an article by Nick Hill:

"As in all things political, the truth is not exactly as it seems. The figures used in the Clarkson, Gordon report were supplied by Socred ministers and officials, obviously, and were aimed at producing the worst possible financial picture."

Now listen to this:

"And more than half of the total deficit envisaged by the firm of chartered accountants comes from financial decisions made by the Social Credit government."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did that come from?

MRS. WALLACE: Right out of the Montreal Gazette.

MS. BROWN: Good socialist paper.

MRS. WALLACE: So, Mr. Speaker, that was one

[ Page 467 ]

of the things that increased the budget. The ICBC — $181 million. But what were some of the other things that were done?

Loans and advances — and this has been discussed before — made to Crown corporation: the BCR $35 million; the B.C. Harbour Board $25 million. There was a political decision that those loans would be repaid, that they would be included in the deficit of this province — $60 million, not totals, Mr. Speaker. Repayments from B.C. Cellulose, from Ocean Falls, from Panco Poultry — I'm repeating all these things — $21.5 million.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I've been to Ocean Falls — that's beside the point.

No, there are a lot of people who are very glad Ocean Falls is still there, people who have jobs there, and I think there is probably a member in this House who is very glad that Ocean Falls is still there.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: What are some of the others then? Let's look at this. Here's the rail agreement, the B.C. Rail, $30 million. That was supposed to be a bad agreement, that transit agreement, rejected by the government: that was a political decision. All these things are being blamed on the former administration, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm getting close to the end of my notes. I've just got a couple more things I want to cover.

I want to talk a little bit more about ICBC.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): I thought you'd had enough of ICBC.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's what's given this province its deficit and that's what we are suggesting is not a proper reason for having to ask for a loan of $400 million, for having to ask for this bill to be put through this House. On January 12, and I'm going to quote you Jes Odam, The Vancouver Sun correspondent who I think is a recognized authority on automobile insurance. What does he say?

"Any competent businessman can tell you there is difference between a deficit, a book-balancing term used by accountants, and a debt, which is something owed to another. Bennett and Wolfe, as successful businessmen rather than politicians, could tell you that ICBC does not have a debt of $181 million. There is a prediction by February 29 its books will show a deficit of this amount. That does not mean that on that date it will have bills of $181 million and no money to meet them."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: "That does not mean that on that date it will have bills of $181 million and no money to meet them." But that's what this government would have us believe, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, that's not true.

MRS. WALLACE: Then why are we writing them a cheque, Mr. Member? And how much money have they got in the bank over there? Why the urgency to send them a cheque for S181 million? How much money have they got in the bank over there?

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: You've had your chance to answer that question. We tried to get an answer in question period, Mr. Minister, and there was no answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: You'll have your chance to answer the question. I'll be sure to ask that in question period, I'm not going to yield the floor to you, Mr. Minister.

So much for Jes Odam. Let's talk about Brian Straight, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MAIR: Byron, not Brian.

MRS. WALLACE: Byron Straight. That name may ring some bell, Byron Straight.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: What did Byron Straight say? He testified ICBC is a lot cheaper than private insurance for four basic reasons, and he spelled them out. He said there would be less money paid out for services of agents, less expense in handling claims, less expense in the variation in premium rates, lower insurance costs. This was Byron Straight, Mr. Speaker. An employee hired by ICBC as a vice-president of that company, I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, please. I'd like to question something for my own edification and the edification of the other new members of the House. Is it within the decorum of the House to name members by their name when addressing remarks in the House?

[ Page 468 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It's not considered proper parliamentary procedure to address members by their names, but quite often people will quote from articles which contain the names of members who sit in this House. It's not improper to quote from an article the name of some person who is mentioned in that article.

MR. KERSTER: Thank you very much.

MRS. WALLACE: I have not offended the rules, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not aware of it if you have.

MRS. WALLACE: I was just about to answer a question posed by the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I think he will recall very clearly that Byron Straight indicated on more than one occasion that the rates that were being charged for ICBC this year were much higher than were required to meet the costs.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: On which plan — A, B, or C, Mr. Speaker?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this bill is purely a political principle. The principle is purely political. It's all part of that great Social Credit plan to discredit the former government. It's part of the plan to punish the people of this province for having dared to vote for the former government.

This bill itself is nothing more than scare tactics — fear, Mr. Speaker. I have just one more quote I want to read. I see the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in his place, and the quote that I'm going to read now is from the Victoria Times, February 18,1971.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Your past is coming back to haunt you.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: And I'm quoting, Mr. Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . It's from the Times, February 18,1971: "Gardom charged that all this Social Credit gibble about no debt is 'guff, guff, guff.'"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: How the times change! He goes on:

"He produced figures showing that B.C.'s $2.43 billion in direct debt to Crown corporations and government agencies is a 900 per cent increase from 1972 when Social Credit took office."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I quote further, Mr. Speaker: .

"In four years, this guaranteed debt is up about $500 million. We now owe $2.481 million. Of that, $1.930 million is Hydro and Pacific Great Eastern."

That's now the BCR, of course.

"Gardom said that Premier Bennett's financial maze should be investigated by a committee of tax experts and accountants."

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MRS. WALLACE: This is 1971, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Do you stand by that, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many quotes and examples that show the financial problems and the alleged debt we supposedly face today are inherited not from the former government, but from the Social Credit government who demonstrated gross financial and fiscal irresponsibility for some 20 years.

MS. BROWN: Got to switch again, Garde.

MRS. WALLACE: What are some of these other examples? B.C. Rail — a hidden deficit, B.C. Rail; that wasn't 1971, oh, no.

This is 1974:

"The comptroller-general in a report filed in the Legislature indicated he was not happy with the B.C. Railway accounting procedures and that he had information to the effect that under the former Social Credit government the B.C. Rail auditor had been restricted in his auditing."

Here we are, the comptroller-general's own words:

"According to the B.C. Rail comptroller, E.M. Gunderson" — it seems to me that's a familiar name, E.M. Gunderson — "he restricted the extent to which the external auditors could go into their auditing."

Yes, we all know Mr. Gunderson, another Social

[ Page 469 ]

Credit money man. He is alleged to have been restricting the audits of B.C. Rail, The B.C. Rail auditor, Mr. Douglas Walker, resigned and was suspended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants because of his work relating to the B.C. Rail account.

The certified auditor's report showed that under the previous Social Credit government a deficit of no less than $52.7 million on the B.C. Rail had been hidden between 1957 and 1972.

Mrs. Wallace moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.