[ Page 507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 507

Division on motion to proceed to orders of the day — 509

Legislative Indemnities and Expenses Tribunal Act (Bill 31) .

Second reading.

Mr. Skelly — 510

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 511

Motor-vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 32) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 512

Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 512

Change of Name Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 34) Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 512

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

Second reading.

Mr. Barnes — 513

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 515

Mr. Lauk — 518

Mr. Shelford — 523

Mr. Lloyd — 526

Mr. Skelly — 527

Mr. D'Arcy — 530

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, before you start I would point out that you have 20 minutes left in the allotted time limit in this debate.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that will be more than ample time.

This afternoon I made some comments about observing the rules and traditions of this House. Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in this House that when one is making his maiden speech the opposition would accord him certain respect. Now that tradition is just one of the traditions that seem to have been broken in this House today.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon you brought down a ruling on a certain point that had been raised, and after you had brought your findings here something occurred that I'm sure every member of the gallery and every member in this House is thoroughly ashamed of. Never, I am sure, has there been such a blatant display of complete disregard....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, Hon. Minister. It is not proper to reflect upon a vote or a proceeding that has taken place in the House prior to your speaking this evening.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to my speech in which I mentioned the necessity of the people in this House conducting themselves with some dignity. The things that happened here made me thoroughly ashamed of the ways in which some people in this House conduct themselves. I have young children, Mr. Speaker, who, when they don't get their own way, quite often jump up and down and scream and stamp their feet. This type of thing was demonstrated very clearly this afternoon by certain members of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the thing to do these days is to make readings from press clippings, and so on, so I would like to reflect on a certain article in a Vancouver newspaper which appeared this evening. It refers to the hon. Leader of the Opposition's awards, which he spoke about in the early parts of this session. This writer has suggestions as to additional awards that may be presented. I think it will be very interesting to read them, seeing as how it is quite in order, to read many, many clippings from the newspapers. There seem to be the key writers for certain members.

The award for the former Premier: one oscar for his role in the 1975 comedy-drama "The B.C. Election" in which he starred as Lil' 0l' Fat Dave — a superb performance, except perhaps his timing was slightly off — plus a hard-cover volume of elementary bookkeeping from Mr. Belcher.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, in The Vancouver Sun.

For the former Minister of Human Resources  (Mr. Levi): a detective kit, consisting of a magnifying glass and finger-printing set for tracking down missing millions. For the former Minister of Mines (Mr. Lauk), who likened Socred policies to attitudes of Nazi Germany: the iron cross. For a member who spoke this afternoon, the affluent Point Grey socialist (Ms. Brown): a book, sequel to the book I'm Okay, You're Okay, a new book entitled "I'm Okay, I'm Okay." For the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly): a copy of Robert Bentley's book My Ten Years In A Quandry and How They Grew. For the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall): a rubber chicken. For the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald): a left-handed tennis racquet for returning problem balls to other people's courts. To the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams): a stamp alburn, now that he can't collect companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know where that former member is; he doesn't seem to be here.

For the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King): a one-sided bargaining table, union made. For a former member who now resides in far-distant lands (Mr. Strachan): a gold-plated gun similar to the one held to his head during the ferry strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know where he is — I think he's in Great Britain now. For the former Finance Minister, the most recently former Finance Minister (Mr. Stupich): a week's paid leave-of-absence on loan to Mayor Jean Drapeau so that he can explain a similar situation at the summer Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the traditions of this House, in which a person's maiden speech should be free from heckling, there were certain remarks made when I was talking about mining — from the former Minister of Mines, as a matter of fact. He asked me if I believe, when I spoke about providing some reason for this industry to exist, in some incentive for them. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that, for I haven't spent my

[ Page 508 ]

entire career working in that industry — and I mean working in that industry, not observing it from afar.... And my father before me spent his entire lifetime, his working lifetime, mining in British Columbia.

Many, many of my friends, who in the last three years have been sitting waiting, without jobs to go to, have wondered what has happened to this industry that once was so prosperous and which was killed by the former government.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many, many proven ore bodies in this province. In 1972, and for the years prior to that, we had two or three mines coming along each year, Mr. Speaker, providing jobs and opportunities for British Columbians, and providing more revenue for this province and developing our resources.

Then we have the affluent member who spoke this afternoon so long about Texas, telling us about the working people of British Columbia. What does that member know about the working people of British Columbia? This member, Mr. Speaker, thinks that the working people of British Columbia want to stand around and wait for government handouts because there are no jobs at which they can work. The people of British Columbia are much prouder than that. They don't want handouts from government; they want a chance to contribute to this province with such bountiful resources. She thinks that profit is a dirty word and doesn't realize that profit is the wages of industry, just as wages are the wages of the working people.

Mr. Speaker, I made mention of the petroleum and natural gas industry and my feelings are that this industry must be encouraged because there is, indeed, a shortage of energy in this world. An industry which provides the future energy for our society must be encouraged to carry on with its work. But the former government felt that no, it's a rip-off. We have no need for exploration for energy. Any profits these people make they sock in a great big sack and carry it away to foreign lands. Mr. Speaker, most of the profit that is made by people in the petroleum and natural gas business is put right back into the search for resources and energy for future generations of British Columbians.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Then why do they do it? Did you ever figure that out?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The former Minister of Highways is again demonstrating his complete lack of respect for the traditions of this House.

Mr. Speaker, another industry for which I have certain responsibility is the forest industry in British Columbia. This industry has long been recognized as the cornerstone of our economy. This industry has the potential for dramatic expansion in the future. With a proper economic and political climate, it will continue to be a major contributor to our way of life. In the future we can look to major expansions and developments on the coast and the central interior, in the northern interior and in the Kootenays. These expansions can only take place if the proper economic and political climate exists and is allowed to continue to exist in British Columbia.

Industry must have a return for its investments so it will be encouraged to reinvest its profits in further expansion. Government, of course, must have a return for use of its resource. Government must be realistic about the operating guidelines and utilization standards. There must be fair and just enforcement of these regulations. Industry must have a reasonable security of raw material to justify the massive injections of capital required. Industry must continue to recognize its social and environmental responsibilities, but it must also have the ability to generate the funds to pay for the costs involved. This is a factor that the members opposite seem not to realize, Mr. Speaker.

On the other hand, government must assure that all sectors of the industry, from the small independent logging contractor to the major integrated companies, remain economically viable and continue to contribute to the overall economy of this province.

The diversity of the forest sector has traditionally been one of its greatest strengths, and this diversity must be assured by government. This government will do that. The little sawmill in the hinterland is just as important in the original economy as is the large pulp mill which processes the chips. With the proper economic and political climate British Columbia's forest industry will continue to provide jobs and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now have the honour, and indeed it is an honour, to represent the people of Yale-Lillooet constituency in this Legislature. These people have been represented since 1963 by the former member, Mr. Bill Hartley. Mr. Hartley was a hard-working MLA and he did serve his constituency well. I said this many, many times during the recent election campaign.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They didn't like him in the Stampede Cafe.

HON. MR, WATERLAND: I, too, will serve the people of Yale-Lillooet to the best of my ability. I will work hard on their behalf, as they have come to expect from their MLA.

Yale-Lillooet, as you know, covers the major part of the southern interior. There are five principal communities in this riding: Hope in the southwest; Princeton in the southeast; Merritt in the middle of the riding; Ashcroft on the doorstep of a highland

[ Page 509 ]

valley which has the potential to contribute so much wealth to this province, and the Village of Lillooet, Mile 0 of the Alaska Highway. In addition to these major communities there are large numbers of smaller communities in Yale-Lillooet.

This is a resource-based constituency. Forestry, ranching, mining and tourism all play important roles in the lives of the people of this part of British Columbia. It was not because of a lack of hard work and devotion on the part of the former member that I was elected in his place on December 11, 1975. It was because these people saw what the policies of the former government were doing to the resource base on which they depend for livelihood.

These people chose me over the former member because the party which I represented is committed to finding jobs and opportunities for them by encouraging expansion in the industries on which they depend. The people of this riding do not want government handouts. They don't want to simply plug into this system. They just want the opportunity to look after themselves and contribute to the economy of this great province.

Each of the communities of this constituency has problems which I must help solve. Hope, Princeton, Merritt, Ashcroft, Laidlaw, Silver Creek, Yale, Spuzzum, Popkum, Boston Bar, North Bend, Kanaka Bar, Lytton, Gold Bridge, Bralorne, Gun Lake, Upper Hat Creek, Bridal Falls, Spences Bridge, Lower Nicola, Nicola, Mamit Lake, Coldwater, Quilchena, Douglas Lake, Coalmont, Tulameen, Aspen Grove, Shaw Spring, Seton Point, South Shalath...and I am sure there are others I have missed.

MR. CHABOT: How about Brookmere?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Brookmere. There are many I have missed. The people of these communities have problems.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Each of these communities in my constituency has problems, but these people are willing to work and help solve their own problems.

Perhaps the area which needs help more than any other is the Bridge River-Lillooet area. The economic base of Lillooet is very small indeed. This government must and will provide the proper environment in Lillooet to encourage the establishment of industry there. Improvement is sorely needed in the road-access to Lillooet. The taxation base of this community is very small indeed, and the village cannot afford the recreational and social amenities taken for granted by so many other villages, towns and cities in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember Hat Creek.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Hat Creek is there, too, Mr. Member.

The people of Lillooet, in particular, and the entire constituency of Yale-Lillooet, as indeed all of British Columbia, do not want to plug into the system. All we want is the opportunity to look after ourselves, and the ability to help look after those who, through no fault of their own, cannot look after themselves. It is to this end that I, as the member for Yale-Lillooet, and this Government of British Columbia would evoke our efforts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we proceed to orders of the day.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, is it not customary to recognize the opposition after a government member has spoken?

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, are you recognizing me? I move we proceed to orders of the day.

MR. KING: It is customary to recognize the Leader of the Opposition....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: No, Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I did not recognize you; I recognized the hon. Provincial Secretary and I'm sorry....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I recognized the hon. Provincial Secretary who was on her feet. The mike on this desk apparently is not working at the moment, but that does not mean that I did not recognize the hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have made the motion, Mr. Speaker, that we move to proceed to orders of the day.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

[ Page 510 ]

NAYS — 17

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to our rules there is a suggestion under rule 27 that the items standing on the order paper shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned on the order paper, especially on Wednesday and Thursday, The government has the power to vary the order on other days. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if you examine the order paper for today, that standing first on orders of the day is the Committee of Supply, which debate has just been adjourned. Standing next on orders of the day is presenting petitions — presumably none here — reading and receiving petitions, presenting reports by standing and special committees and then, next, motions and adjourned debates on motions.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there is some question as to whether or not motions and adjourned debate on motions constitute a part of the routine business of the House and therefore, conceivably, are not a part of orders of the day. But I would represent to Your Honour that inasmuch as they stand beneath orders of the day and in the regular sequence on our order paper, which must be the guide of this House, and inasmuch as motions and adjourned debates on motions represent substantive matters of the same category of business as public bills in the hands of private members to which it is represented, we should proceed at this time that motions and adjourned debates on motions should take priority.

Therefore the proper order of business at this time, under the provisions of standing order 27, would be Motion 1 standing in the name of the hon. Premier.

MR. LEA: All you have to do is learn the index and you're a lawyer. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in speaking to the point of order which has just been raised, I think if you refer to our standing orders you will find that introduction of bills followed by orders of the day is one section of our business. Beyond that point, if a motion is moved and carried to proceed to orders of the day, then it means that the orders of the day will be whatever motions or bills are included in public bills in the hands of private members, which we have already dealt with this afternoon: public bills and orders, committee and adjourned debates on second reading.

It may be argued that we should take bills in committee before we take bills on second reading.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, certainly.

MR. SPEAKER: That might be a valid argument. However, as you realize, without the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) being here it is quite possible that that bill would be immediately adjourned until the next sitting of the House. So I submit that second reading on the bill that has been called would be in order at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I need a clarification of your ruling. I had called for public bills in the hands of private members, and I was giving the opportunity to the member opposite to debate Bill 31 because he was not in the House this afternoon when the private members' bills were called.

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. Public bills in the hands of private members. Bill 31. The hon. member for Alberni.

LEGISLATIVE INDEMNITIES
AND EXPENSES TRIBUNAL ACT

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the government side for giving me adequate time to prepare my presentation on this bill. I understand it was called this afternoon when I wasn't in the House, and that gave me a little time to put a few things together that were necessary to present the bill to the members in the House.

The bill is fairly specific, fairly straightforward, Mr. Speaker. It is modelled after several other Acts that are now in effect in other Commonwealth states that were unfortunately insulted in the budget speech. But these states had Acts very similar to this

[ Page 511 ]

one, as far back as 1962 in Tasmania, 1965 in South Australia, and 1967 in West Australia.

In 1971, Mr. Speaker, the government of Australia, then a Liberal Country Party government, felt that the salaries and indemnities of members of the Commonwealth of Australia should not be set exclusively...or it should not be the exclusive right of the members of parliament to set those salaries and indemnities. So they set up a royal commission under Chief Justice Kerr of the High Court of Australia. Chief Justice Kerr's conclusions in his royal commission report — and I'm quoting from page 16 of that report:

"My view is that the appropriate course of action would be the appointment of a salaries tribunal for the national parliament which should be authorized by legislation to review salaries and report to the parliament at regular stated intervals. This report should cover such matters as the remuneration of members, pensions and facilities for members, and should include recommendations for action."

Now, Mr. Speaker, my bill takes some of Chief Justice Kerr's conclusions, but rather than recommending action to the parliament and thereby permitting members to continue to debate their own salaries and remuneration, it binds the Crown to accept a determination of that salary tribunal. This is a far more fair means of determining members' salaries, indemnities and benefits than the one we have at present in Canada and the one that was recommended by Chief Justice Kerr of the High Court of Australia.

The preamble to my bill, Mr. Speaker, pretty well establishes the point of the bill, and I'd like to read that preamble, if I may:

"Whereas the present method of establishing the indemnities, expenses and benefits of members and officers of the Legislative Assembly is unsatisfactory in that it is subject to the whim of government;

"And whereas members of the Legislative Assembly should not have the exclusive right to determine their own indemnities and benefits while those of other groups in society are subject to regulation by the collective bargaining process, by legislation or by the marketplace;

"And whereas it is desirable that salaries, benefits and expenses allowed members of the Legislative Assembly should be adequate to permit all persons in society regardless of socio-economic standing, to seek office:"

Thereby the preamble is followed by the bill.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, in this day and age, when income groups in society are being regulated and controlled by such devices as the federal Anti-Inflation Board — and I understand that the present provincial government will be entering into an agreement with the federal government to control salaries and indemnities of public bodies in this province — that we should have a tribunal which establishes salaries and indemnities for members of the Legislative Assembly and for officers of the assembly in this province.

For that reason the bill binds the Crown, that when this tribunal comes down with a determination, Mr. Speaker, then that determination of that tribunal is binding upon the Crown, and members and officers of the assembly are entitled to the salaries, the indemnities, the benefits and expenses determined by that tribunal.

I think this is a far more reasoned approach than the one that has been followed in the past. In the past, the salaries of members of this assembly have been determined either by secret agreements among the parties in the assembly, which resulted in changes to sections of the Constitution Act, or by the simple whim of government in establishing members' salaries by a unilateral bill which changed sections of the Constitution Act and provided for salaries and benefits.

It has been further brought to the attention of this House during the past three or four months, Mr. Speaker, in discussions between the opposition parties and the government over such things as secretarial assistance, office space, telephones, postal and telegraph privileges — this type of thing — that it is very dangerous to allow the government, by its own whim, to establish the benefits of Members of the Legislative Assembly, because there's a real threat that the ability of back-bench members, both government and opposition, can be threatened and the ability to represent their constituents and the ability to challenge the government's authority can be severely restricted if the government is solely responsible and has the exclusive right to determine the salaries, benefits and privileges that members of this body enjoy.

So I think it's a very important bill, Mr. Speaker, and a very reasoned approach to the setting of members' salaries and benefits. We can all recall the federal debacle when federal members of the parliament of this country attempted to set their salaries, and the debate that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I think I've allowed you to speak to the bill for enough time to establish the fact that it is out of order under standing order 66 of our standing orders of the House in that it anticipates and provides for an expenditure of public funds and imposes an obligation on the Crown. Standing order 66 reads:

"This House will not receive any resolutions stating an express or abstract opinion of the
House on recommending the expenditure of

[ Page 512 ]

public money unless recommended by the Crown."

The bill is clearly out of order under standing order 66, particularly in sections (2) and (3) which contemplate the expenditure of funds, and I respectfully must rule it out of order.

MR. SKELLY: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, sections (2) and (3) do not provide for the expenditure of funds by the Crown. I believe it says Her Majesty may pay the salaries of these officers, but there is no provision absolute for the Crown to pay these officers or people hired by the commission. There are many people who would volunteer, Mr. Speaker, to set the salaries and indemnities of Members of the Legislative Assembly, so I don't think that that necessarily....

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Order! He doesn't believe it himself. (Laughter.)

MR. SKELLY: I thought it was a very good bill, and the government should consider adopting it itself.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest you make that point to the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon, Mr. Wolfe) and the members of government, but I must say to you this: the bill is clearly out of order under the rules of our House. It is a bill that is similar in nature to many other bills which have been ruled out of order on the same basis by many other parliaments in British Columbia, and therefore I must rule that the bill is out of order.

MR. SKELLY: Well, just....

MR. SPEAKER: It's out of order, Mr. Member.

MR. SKELLY: Just further on that point of....

MR. SPEAKER: No. That concludes the debate.

MR. SKELLY: Could you even provide me with an example of one of these other bills that has been ruled out on the same basis?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I'm sure that if you wish to check the Journals of our House, hon. member, in past years you'll find many examples of similar bills which have been ruled out of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would continue to proceed then on public bills in the hands of private members to Bill 32.

MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): There were points raised this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in the introduction of this bill and, in response, as indicated to the House, the matter is under consideration. I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom adjourns the debate.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), whose name this bill stands in, is available tonight.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, whether the member is available or not, hon. member, he's not in his place at the present time.

MR. KING: You're just bulling it through and he's not even here.

MR. SPEAKER: No. There's a motion to adjourn the debate, as I understand it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker,

CHANGE OF NAME ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

Mr. Gibson adjourns the debate.

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

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate Your Honour having mentioned this conceivable point of order earlier on this evening, and that is the fact that it's important that we should follow the order of the day as printed here. The committee stage on Bill 10, it would seem to me, should come before adjourned debate on second reading.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey doesn't know his rules, because it's Thursday, which is private member's day, and government business doesn't have precedence.

Interjections.

[ Page 513 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to proceed to second reading of Bill 3.

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 10.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's he?

 MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to adjourn, then — in the absence of the acting minister, to adjourn the committee of supply.

MR. GIBSON: No, no. Leave hasn't been granted. You're not in committee yet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, Order! Hon. Members, the Clerks informed me — the sound system seems to be very unreliable this evening — that the opposition has withdrawn their refusal to deny leave to move to Bill 3. Is that correct?

AN  HON. MEMBER: Yes, it's been agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members.

MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 3.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT
REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

(continued)

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): That's more than sufficient time because I feel the points that have been made already have been thoroughly canvassed, but I want to relate Bill 3 to the state of affairs that I was concerned about this afternoon, and further to indicate that as a Legislature, the attitudes that seem to be developing and showing lately...it would appear to me as if we are deteriorating very rapidly.

I'm just wondering, as an ex-Whip — I sat with government for a number of years, and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you were at one time a Whip yourself — I think perhaps if the new members who are demanding order would stop and consider the urgency of the matter which I am discussing, they would not be so anxious to impose closure. I am sure this is the trend we are heading for, because at this moment there is no system in this Legislature to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. As much as it grieves me to do so, I must suggest to you that you return to the principle of Bill 3, which has nothing to do with the Whip system in the House.

MR. BARNES: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate you for bringing it to my attention. But you realize the difficulty that all of us, as members of the Legislature, have when we have no idea of what the order of business is going to be. I think those people who are visiting this evening would agree that we didn't know what was going on in the House, and it's actually out of control.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't want....

MR. SPEAKER: Please return to the principle of Bill 3.

MR. BARNES: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I'll do that forthwith. But I'm a bit worried about the future of the Legislature and the state of affairs, unless we get some means of communicating.

What's the point in me standing here, Mr. Speaker, and trying to show the faults of the government asking for money they don't need, trying to put forth, in good faith, my views about why the financial state of the government was not in disrepair as is being espoused by the government, when there is no indication that the remarks I am making will be received in good faith and given the kind of consideration they deserve? In fact, there is every reason to feel that we are going to be steamrollered before this session is over.

We are faced right now with a situation where our members have no way of preparing themselves because they don't know what the Provincial Secretary will do next. I think that the Premier, who was so willing to accept the last-ditch attempt on the part of the opposition leader, to say: "Well, we won't participate in the Whip system unless you are going to give us some cooperation," I find that...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: ...deplorable, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 514 ]

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. Hon. Member, please take your seat.

We are debating the principle of Bill 3, which is intituled the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976. Would you please return to the principle of that bill? I am sure that you will have ample opportunity during the course of the session to debate many other issues, but at this time we are on Bill 3.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if we had more people with your grace and courtesy I am sure we would have no problem with any of the members sticking to the principle of any bill. But you stand alone, unfortunately, and as far as I have been able to observe, and I am a little bit disturbed. Though I will tell you that there's no way that this side of the House is going to be steamrollered by that side of the House through conniving, perpetrating kinds of...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: ...organized programmes that are nothing more than political....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would you please return to the principle of Bill 3 which is under debate at the present time? Or I'll have to ask you to take your seat.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have no power to resist the final order from the Chair, because we are fighting now to try and get some opportunity to express our views and our concerns. I am afraid that that day is coming to a fast end. Sure, I want to talk about the bill. But they want us to lie down over here. They want us, Mr. Speaker, to lie down and die. They don't want us to participate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARNES: We don't even know what bill they are going to be talking on for half of the time; we don't know what's going on any more.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You don't know what's going on yourself.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, would you call order?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. On Bill 3, Hon. Member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, they know full well why I am upset and they are deliberately trying to confuse the opposition. Every time you stand up and try to make a point, you try to suggest to them the inequities of their thinking, they disregard you; you can't get any attention on that side of the House.

I suggest to them there was no need for the $400 million deficit loan that they claim they are going to have. They don't need that money; they know they don't need it. They started out six months ago to get ready for a campaign to try and discredit the socialist government. They made a point that they'd never, never, never see them again. They are going to do everything they can to wipe us out — no matter how.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've already done it.

MR. BARNES: I'll tell you something; you may think you are doing it. You have the power here because you have all those numbers over there. But out there the people who you have forced to operate under the limits of an anti-inflation programme with the raising of their taxes, their personal taxes, and the sales taxes, the rises you have created with ICBC, the ferries, what you are doing with the ambulances, what you are doing with the hospitals, medical services — do you mean to tell me that you think those people are going to forget it? No way!

Just keep it up. You can have your fun in here. You can wipe democracy out in here, but those people will have their day. That's why it is so difficult, Mr. Speaker, for me to try and point out what really should be happening in the way of programmes. Sure — do you want to get $400 million? Fine. I'll support it. Let's bring back the community resources boards that were attempting to do a service on a local level. Let's bring back the Vancouver opportunities programme where people were involved. You laid off hundreds of people who were working; you wiped them out. There are all kinds of other programmes that you have wiped out, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Bring back the ambulances.

[ Page 515 ]

MR. BARNES: There was no credit given to this government for half a dozen new programmes that we brought in, when they talked about the deficit. There was a series of programmes that has $154 million in it. They were all new by this government. Special funds: many of the perpetual funds are higher than they were before. Special funds are higher than they were before. The money is still there, those programmes are still functioning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. BARNES: We should be asking you.

The minute the Premier said, "Don't worry, we won't make any statements until we get the facts," at the same time, he knew exactly full well what he was going to do, because if you study the headlines in the press during the campaign, all you were talking about was that the government was overdrawn.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: And the minister of educational impairment, sitting over there, the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), educational impairment and public transit, I think it is.... He hasn't recovered public transit, but that's what the automobile is, Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Do you want to subsidize the automobile?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Minister, if you don't realize it, automobile drivers have been subsidizing public transit ever since it was invented, and they have been made to believe that they were getting a special privilege for driving the automobile. And you're still carrying that mess on. It's nothing but a mess. If those people were to give up their cars, you'd sure have some fun. You told them to give them up, but you thought they wouldn't go for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are on your last two minutes.

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

These members sitting over there, many of the new ones, have no idea what is going on. I believe they are very sincere but you can see that they are very amazed by the kinds of goings on that are taking place. Many of them over there don't understand, but they don't know the people they've got from the Liberals and other parties.

That gang over there has just begun, but they are going to find out one thing: you may close the door on us as far as your power and numbers are concerned, but we are still representing those people out there, and they want to know what you are doing with their dollars.

We say to you that you don't need $200 million. And in closing, I will make a prediction, Mr. Speaker: ICBC will show a profit and a surplus, and the reason for it is because the only thing that you are making compulsory is the public liability and property damage. You have no compulsory on collision or anything else, and that's where you make your money. How many people do you think are driving today without coverage, Mr. Minister?

If they are not driving with coverage, then you are making the cream, because there are not that many people having lawsuits for $1 million against them for some property damage. We will see what happens.

Furthermore, I think what you've done is very clever: you set the rates up so high that your friends can come in underneath, undercut ICBC and destroy it.

Why is it that the Mineral Royalties Act...? Mr. Minister, why don't you just go back...? Through you, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) go back and eliminate that 40 per cent increase in the sales tax and make it up through the mineral royalties resources that we have out? Why don't you do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mineral royalties!

MR. BARNES: Why don't you go out and carry out what the NDP was doing? That's why you've been quiet down there, because you know what we were trying to do is what you're going to have to do ultimately. You are going to have to do the same thing to raise revenue: you can't get everything off the people's backs. You analyse the budget, and most of the funds that you are getting are from the people themselves. You have taken it all out of the people, Mr. Speaker. Every dime. Practically every dime is coming from the backs of people. You show no imagination for stimulating industry. You are not coming out with any programmes that...

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, your time is up.

MR. BARNES: ...make any substantial difference. So as far as we are concerned, until you start to do things like that, the only way you are going to get support from this side of the House on that $400 million loan you would like would be through programmes for people. Not programmes for your political ends, because that's what you are trying to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, we have listened for two or three days to this filibuster on Bill 3 and it's time some falsehoods were lashed to the mast. That's what we're here to do

[ Page 516 ]

tonight, because the filibuster is one more attempt by the NDP to pass off on someone else the blame for the economic disaster they brought to this province.

Why is there a need for this borrowing bill, Mr. Speaker. There is a need for it because in two years under their direction the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia has lost $181 million. In one year, last year, the B.C. Ferries lost $50 million; the B.C. Railway lost $47 million; the B.C. Hydro lost $34 million; Medicare lost $76 million. The income from taxation coming to the province, as a result of the NDP policies, resulted in a drop of $340 million And, Mr. Speaker, I didn't even mention the $100 million clerical errors. That's why we have to borrow.

It may be that the opposition thinks that by filibustering this bill, this borrowing authority, past the end of the year that somehow these bills will be charged to the new government. Well, Mr. Speaker, once more they're wrong.

This government is going to move to rescue these Crown corporations one by one. When they're on their feet it will no longer be necessary to take the people's taxes away from Human Resources, away from Education and away from hospitals to put it to the money-losing business operations of the NDP.

The sickest of all these corporations was ICBC. I'm happy to report that after only three months that corporation is rescued financially, and in six months you are going to have it as the most proud corporation in the government.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government did write a cheque of $181 million to ICBC. But we are not going to cash that cheque until after this bill passes. All that's happening, as a result of the hold-up of this bill is that there's less of that investment income, which the NDP talked about so much when they were in office, for the insurance corporation, but which was never there, and which will only add to the insurance premiums in British Columbia. By filibustering this bill, as the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) did, it's only adding to the cost of automobile insurance that this party over there, the opposition, was pleading so hard to see reduced. That's the end result of your filibuster.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: What is the position of ICBC today? I'm not going to detail once more the reasons why this corporation got into the desperate financial state that it did. But I can talk a little bit, Mr. Speaker, about the present financial situation and what the hopes are for the future.

As of yesterday, the cash position of the corporation was $1 million overdrawn. There was $151 million invested in short-term securities, and $18 million in long-term securities, for a total position of, roughly $169 million. Now against that investment position, Mr. Speaker, are these liabilities....

AN HON. MEMBER: Forget those.

HON. MR. McGEER: Liabilities. Listen, Mr. Member....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): He didn't learn anything in three and a half years; don't expect him to learn anything tonight.

HON. MR. McGEER: Against that, approximately $170 million in unpaid claims.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Going back how far? How far does it go back?

HON. MR. McGEER: Going back to the inception of the corporation. Against the cash position, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll come to that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Operating expenses of about $27 million a month or $1.3 million a working day for 11 more months. ICBC will have used up all its cash and short-term investments sometime after the end of October this year. At that time it will begin to require some of the cash transferred by the government to look after these $169 million in unpaid claims.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment or two about the investments of ICBC last year, because when the NDP so proudly removed the private insurers from the province of British Columbia they boasted that they would save the people of this province millions and millions of dollars in investment income. They told us how they were going to invest in British Columbia — keep all that money at home. Well, Mr. Speaker, instead of the millions and millions of investment income they said would be made from ICBC and how much it would be kept at home, instead of the $9 million in investment income that was budgeted, there was only $3 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MCGEER: And, Mr. Speaker...

[ Page 517 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...I might add that loss of $6 million in projected investment income was one of the reasons why the losses of this corporation were so high.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP should realize that you cannot make an investment on money that you owe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Did they invest the money in B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: Where did they invest the money? Where did they invest the money?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: No. Do you know where $60 million of the $99 million that they invested went?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. McGEER: It went to those usurious....

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The eastern banks. That's where it went, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, national banks — those usurious banks the former Leader of the Opposition, then Premier, used to talk about. Those usurious banks — that's where the money went.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's where you put the money — into those usurious banks that you complained about. While you were in here talking in the House about millions and millions of dollars for British Columbia, those millions and millions of dollars weren't here at all. What you did invest, you invested in the banks that at the same moment you were condemning for their usurious practices.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Bank of Nova Scotia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They thought what you put in the bank was like a piggy bank. It stayed there.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we've heard the former Minister of Finance and other members of the opposition including former directors of ICBC saying that there was no problem with that corporation. It wasn't out of cash, so what was the worry? You would think, Mr. Speaker, after the experience of the former Minister of Finance as a chartered accountant and the former Minister of Health, who was a director of ICBC, that some of the financial principles that underlie insurance companies or any other kind of company that pays a claim would have got through to them.

The unearned premiums, Mr. Speaker, are set in reserve against the claims that are incurred. Isn't that a principle of insurance, Mr. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)?

Interjection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: What they were doing, Mr. Speaker — what they were doing — was attempting to sell new insurance premiums as fast as they could to cover the debts of the old ones. That's known as kiting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Shame, shame!

HON. MR. McGEER: A shameful practice.

I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, that the socialists weren't in power when the teachers' pension fund was set up — $317 million had been set aside for the teachers of this province, and when they made a contribution to that teachers' fund, Madam Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), a reserve was set aside. It's theirs, held in trust. But if we had followed the advice of the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich) or the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) or the former Premier (Mr. Barrett), there wouldn't have been any teachers' pension fund.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They don't believe in reserves.

HON. MR. McGEER: They would have spent it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right!

HON. MR. McGEER: They would have spent it, and when the teachers came to get their money it wouldn't have been there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It would be all gone!

[ Page 518 ]

MR. LEA: What did you say in your book about that?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the workmen's compensation fund which has been created by the workers of this province — the B.C. Federation of Labour should take note of this — has set aside $276 million. Every time a workman is injured, Mr. Speaker, a fund is set aside for him. It's his. But under the policies of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) or the former Minister of Health, that money would have been spent too, and they'd have come to tell us in the Legislature that you didn't need to have a workmen's compensation fund because the cash requirements for the injured workers weren't being called on that very day. Irresponsible! You'd have spent the workmen's compensation fund.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on!

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: And, Mr. Speaker, we have a municipal civil servants' superannuation fund of $327 million. Would you have set that fund up against claims for the future, or would you have spent all of that too?

Mr. Speaker, last but not least, the MLAs superannuation fund.

MR. LEA: You were against that in your book.

HON. MR. McGEER: There's $1.399 million set aside there for you MLAs when your retirement comes and, fortunately for you, that fund has been established. But if it had been up to you to establish it, you'd have spent all of that too.

MR. LAUK: Red herrings.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the funds that have been transferred from the government, the people of this province who have claims against ICBC...

MR. LAUK: Blue herrings.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Small things amuse small minds.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...will now have a fund set up for them which is a sound insurance principle practised by every insurance company in the world, save one — ICBC until April I of this year.

No, Mr. Speaker, the NDP as usual have been financial fools. You sounded like it when you were in opposition; you proved it when you were in government; you're continuing on now demonstrating it in this debate. The people of British Columbia are not going to be fooled by this filibuster.

MR. COCKE: Filibuster!

HON. MR. McGEER: They know the damage that was inflicted by the financial foolishness of the former government and, Mr. Speaker, I agree with those words in the budget. Never again should the people of this province vote that party back into power.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Education describes the debate that has gone on on Bill 3, with particular reference to the opposition, as a filibuster.

AN HON. MEMBER: True.

MR. LAUK: He's now sitting on the left of a man who stood in this House and spoke continuously for 14 hours or more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-four.

MR. LAUK: Was it 34? Thirty-four hours.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I used to sit in the public galleries when I was a young teenager coming over here with high schools, and I watched Premier W.A.C. Bennett, and I watched Premier Barrett, and I have heard from other people about the conduct of the first minister of this House. I've never seen a first member occupy himself so readily and so eagerly, in cross comment, as this minister.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I can take it, Madam Member, but I'm a little embarrassed for that high office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't worry about it.

MR. LAUK: I think that people who occupy that kind of office should have a little bit more cool and show some leadership and direction for his cabinet ministers and for his back bench, and particularly for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who may not learn anything, but at least, by your example, he may keep quiet once in a while, and not prove....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could you get

[ Page 519 ]

back now to the principle of the bill?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about 10?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) described the debate as a filibuster. He is sitting beside the man who spoke for 14 hours or more straight, and with some adjournments, 34 hours on one subject. That same minister who describes this as a filibuster voted against the rule changes to limit the time of debate that we are now operating under. We do not consider those limitations of debate as chains. We consider them as necessary for the orderly conduct of business in the House.

Mr. Speaker, even with a 40-minute time limit for each speaker on bills, even with the 40-minute time limit on debate on the budget speech and on the throne speech, that minister has the unmitigated gall to stand in this House and call what we are doing, which is our democratic right, a filibuster. He should be ashamed of himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: Shame! Shame!

MR. LAUK: Petulance, that's what it is, Mr. Speaker. They can't put their little bill through so they're crying all over the ball park, and they're saying to you: "Oh, Mr. Speaker, it's a filibuster." You can't fool the public; you're trying to steamroller the opposition, and we're not going to let you push us around.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, Hon. Member, could we get down to the principle of Bill 3?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did Williams resign? Tell us the truth.

MR. LOEWEN: Your ears are red.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education entered into a debate on ICBC tonight dragging his blue herrings across the floor of this House, talking about how they needed $181 million, and that's why they wrote the rubber cheque. Well, he admitted here tonight that with the short-term and long-term investments of the insurance corporation extra moneys may not be required until October of 1976, and yet we're told about the tremendous urgency of this bill.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): It was your loss.

MR. LAUK: I accept the word of the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure I can convince my colleagues that we will reconsider this bill in October of 1976. Why don't you withdraw the bill now and introduce it when you need it? Why do you bring it now? Why do you need it now?

HON. MR. MAIR: We fulfilled that one!

MR. LAUK: I'll answer that question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He needs it now because he has to fulfil the prophecy he made in the election campaign, and no other reason. We heard about how wonderful the American automobile insurance companies are and how they take care of their special funds for the insured and how bad the social democrats have been with ICBC.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Social who?

MR. LAUK: Well, where was he when the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was talking? Where was he when the hon. member for Alberni said: "Compare the performance of other insurance companies in North America in the first nine months of 1975" — and this is from Time magazine, January 5, 1976:

"State Farm Mutual lost over $100 million in nine months. Allstate Insurance Corp., during the same period of time, lost $215 million in the first nine months of 1975. In the total losses in the public liability and property loss sector in the United States, in the whole year of 1975, the underwriting losses were $4,000 million."

Those insurance companies dipped into their reserves to the tune of $3,000 million for total losses of $7 billion in insurance in the United States.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: And the bad little socialists...is there something wrong with trying to bring reasonable insurance rates for ordinary people in this province? Is there something wrong with attacking that monopolistic multi-national insurance network that has destroyed the pocketbooks of ordinary British Columbians? Is there something wrong with shifting the gasoline tax to assist ordinary people? Not people who drive Cadillacs, ordinary people — or Mercedes Benz.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 3, let me suggest to you this. The economy is depressed. What do governments do during a depressed economy?

[ Page 520 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: They call an election.

MR. LAUK: There are several things that can be done. The fiscal powers of the provincial government are there. There are many, many people in this province and across this country who supported that Premier during the campaign when he said (Lengthen the rope.): "I promise you" and he said it with that sincere face. He said: "I promise you that I am going to stop this irresponsible spending. I am going to stop it. (Another foot of rope.) And I am going to freeze government taxes."

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's about all you can say, Mr. Member. What a betrayal of the public of British Columbia. When any government during a depressed economy should be reducing taxes, you're raising them. You've got to encourage economic activity in British Columbia. People need jobs. Since the Social Credit government has been in power since December 22, 1975, the jobless rate has risen above the national average. It's been shocking.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The coalition promised to freeze taxes, Mr. Speaker, and by the fact of their increasing taxes in the budget, they may deliver a death blow....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Must you make a perfect fool of yourself every night? Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. Nobody is perfect.

It may deliver a death blow. This increase in taxes may deliver a death blow to the economy of British Columbia. I'll tell you why.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Hindsight!

MR. LAUK: What we need in this economy of British Columbia is consumerism, sensible consumerism, but consumerism nonetheless. We need more money in the hands of the individual family. And what have they done? They've increased insurance rates, they've increased personal taxes, medicare payments. The Minister of welfare, of Human Resources (Mr. Vander Zalm) has cut back on his assistance to day-care centres and, by doing so, he's taking single parents out of the work place, out of the economy, and by so doing, these people....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: And by so doing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, may I have order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that if tulip bulbs are ingested they may have, from time to time, some psychedelic effect.

The hon. minister would have to have them because he believes that by what he is doing he is helping the economy. What he's doing is exceeding the money he should be paying out in welfare costs by putting people, single mothers, back on welfare.

MS. BROWN: Shame!

MR. LAUK: Now Bill 3 is a crass political Act — there's no question about it — a self-fulfilled prophecy of the Premier, a prophecy made by him during the election campaign. You recall that, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure, there in Chilliwack. In Chilliwack some of the finest chicken-growers in the world reside. Fine men and women, good and true.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He's trying to tell us he knows where Chilliwack is.

MR. LAUK: But during the campaign, a chicken of a different description was on the warpath.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko Panco Poultry.

MR. LAUK: No, it wasn't.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I interrupt the member just long enough to ask — I've just arrived at the chair: we are on Bill 3, are we not?

MR. LAUK: That is correct. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, you're very quick to recognize how I am relating the matter to Bill 3 (Laughter.)

There was a chicken of a different description in Chilliwack and in the province in those days. It was a Chicken Little, because Chicken Little was a little chicken who was asleep beside a barn, and a pebble blown by the wind fell off the barn roof and hit him on the head. He looked up, he didn't see anything but the sky, and he assumed that the sky was falling.

He rushed around the province and he met Don, the Empty Vessel. He said: "Don, the Empty Vessel,

[ Page 521 ]

the sky is falling, the sky is falling, " and told him the story. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, during the campaign went across this province and said: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Then after December 22, he said: "if the sky isn't falling, by golly, I'm going to make it fall."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who are they going to elect to get you some more comic books?

MR. LAUK: What were the choices of the coalition government when they consulted, not with outside accountants — that was an afterthought — but with the civil servants of the Department of Finance?

(1) Hold taxes down, particularly those affecting individuals. Recognize that payments made to Crown corporations and Crown agencies should, wherever possible, be the last priority. These Crown corporations and Crown agencies would therefore finance their operations through borrowing, which is their historical practice. This would of necessity, Mr. Speaker, permit these corporations and agencies to service their own debts out of the revenues of those corporate bodies, and this would clearly continue encouraging economic activity in British Columbia by keeping taxes at their pre-March 26 level.

(2) Necessary expansion of services could continue by modestly increasing the economic rent charged for our natural resources, such as coal and natural gas, particularly when we can clearly see a marked improvement in the demand for these resources on the world market throughout 1976 and 1977. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the report produced by the Department of Economic Development clearly setting out, by a group of British Columbia. economists and experts, not only that 1975 held up well but that 1976 and 1977 will be good.

You know, we attempted to stimulate the economy, and I think it should be pointed out.

You know, the new Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Waterland)...it's very amusing. He considers himself an expert because he was a grade 8 inspector or something — I don't know what his position was. But I've never heard such a woolly-headed, fuzzy economic theory in all my life than that which he expounded. The hon. minister had the gall to stand in this House this afternoon and say that the mining industry stopped because of taxation policies of this government, when in fact there is no question about certain facts: more mineral mines opened in the two years between 1972 and 1975 than in the period of 1969 to 1972. Did you know that? You look that up.

Let me also say something else to you, Mr. Minister. When I was Minister of Mines, I recognized the danger of having federal encroachment of taxation in the provinces. We, as the government of the day, were attempting to find....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no you didn't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LOEWEN: How many mines closed down?

MR. LAUK: Thank you, hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds. As far as mines closing down in the period prior to 1972, more mines closed than closed in the period 1972 to 1975. Those are the facts.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: How many opened?

MR. LAUK: Well, if you don't know, what have you been doing for three and a half months? Ask your deputy minister.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, members. The House is unusually rowdy this evening. I think we should give more attention to the member who has the floor, and I would encourage the member to address the Chair.

MR. LAUK; Mr. Speaker, we need every effort to stimulate the economy. I'll tell you one thing: if it wasn't for the tremendous transportation and shipping losses at MacMillan Bloedel, they would have made a profit through our actions and through those of the former Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams), the man who has been very much maligned in this House, Mr. Speaker — with the embarrassed silence of this side of the group, embarrassed not for us or for him but for that side of the House.

That former minister reduced the stumpage and royalty rates to forest companies in this province, permitting them to have as much profit during a down period as they could ever have.

One example is the British Columbia Forest Products Ltd. The net sales of 1975 over 1974 were decreased by 2 per cent; the stumpage and royalty was reduced in 1975 by 65.1 per cent — 65.1 per cent; it's right here. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It was because in a downturn of the market our government reacted, because we governed for all of the people of British Columbia.

What is the reward that corporate structure of British Columbia have for voting in that right-wing coalition? An increase in the corporate tax — as if that's going to encourage economic activity in the

[ Page 522 ]

province. What nonsense! You made everybody mad at you, and that shows you how foolish your government is.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Now the suggestion that I have made....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry — I don't speak that member's language, I'm afraid.

I made a suggestion that we increase the resource-base tax in natural gas and in coal; do not transfer payments to Crown agencies and corporations because you don't need to; and keep taxes down! Let the little person have a break. That was choice 1; that was the choice our government probably would have taken.

Choice 2: Let's talk about rubber-cheque Bill and Evan the paperhanger. Rubber-cheque Bill had to fulfil his prophecy at any cost. He got his bagman accountant to prepare not an audit but a review, based on a preconceived presumption that there would be a debt. He told them: "I don't care how you do it, but present a report that will give us the maximum deficit possible, because, by golly, I promised the people of B.C. that would happen." And they set to work. But having done so, he placed our entire credibility as a province in doubt throughout the world. A large trumped-up deficit and then increase taxes for the following year. He's endangering our domestic market by fiscal madness.

The brilliant answer that the new Premier and his government have given the province of British Columbia is: let's raise taxes. That's all. That's the wizardry that we were all waiting for, that we were promised on December 11 — the financial genius. My goodness, how come we never thought of that, colleagues? Raise taxes — brilliant! He didn't reduce spending because he knew that after they got to office they couldn't.

His answer was brutal for the sake of being brutal, Mr. Speaker, not because he had to be brutal. What do you call that? I call it petty tyranny of the worst order, Brilliant! — raise taxes. Some economic genius!

You know, the other day I was reading an editorial in the Victoria Times, March 31. It said:

"The government insists that the bill (Bill 3) must be rushed through the Legislature before midnight today, when the 1975-76 fiscal year comes to a close. The deficits were run up in that year, and so must be paid off in that year, goes the reasoning from the treasury benches. But who needs the money in such a hurry? Nearly half of the borrowing the bill authorizes will be used to wipe out ICBC's accumulated deficit.

"Does the Crown corporation need the cash at midnight, else it is seized by the Sheriff and his bailiffs, and padlocked? — policy writers and adjusters evicted into the night? Of course not. The deficit must be paid off, but at the moment the corporation is flush with money, a couple of hundred million dollars at least, from all the premiums drivers had to pay by February 29.

"It is absurd to suggest the bill must pass by midnight to provide a transfusion of funds to keep the deficit-ridden Crown corporations from shutting down. There is no cash flow problem with the government or any of its agencies, but it insists on acting as if loathsome disease threatened unless"...Evan the paperhanger..."is allowed by the nasty NDP to mush to the rescue with a special dog-team sled loaded with life-giving serum."

The Premier knew, and this is the economic genius that we are dealing with today — the charade of the last few days with this cheque back and forth from ICBC — the Premier knew that his shell game would be exposed if he couldn't ram this bill through before the end of the fiscal year. His shell game, Mr. Speaker, has been exposed. He couldn't push this little opposition around, so what did he do? He broke the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: What law?

MR. LAUK: He got Evan the paperhanger to issue an NSF cheque to the ICBC. The Premier knows the ICBC doesn't need the money. Otherwise, why would he send them an NSF cheque?

MR. LEA: That they wouldn't cash.

MR. LAUK: Because of this, the government is in breach of the Revenue Act and the Constitution Act. If they were an individual citizen, they could be charged under the Criminal Code. If he can't do it legally, Mr. Speaker, he'll get what he wants illegally. He has always got what he wanted, that man, from peanut butter sandwiches to trumped-up deficits. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, never worked a day in his life at hard labour, and he comes in here and he socks it to the little people of the province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the remarks that he has just made about an hon. member and the Premier of our province. They are derogatory remarks, they

[ Page 523 ]

are untrue, and I would ask him to withdraw them without qualification.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There were remarks made which the hon. Provincial Secretary finds offensive. Would the hon. member now standing on his feet withdraw those remarks in the spirit of good will?

MR. LAUK: I certainly would, Mr. Speaker, if I could, but I can't because I don't know what remarks she is referring to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. Provincial Secretary remind the Chair?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear by the rules of our House and by the long-standing history of this House that there is no need to force one member of the House to repeat derogatory remarks to which I have just drawn the attention of the House. I ask the member, who full well knows the remarks that he has made and the phrases he has attributed to the Premier of this province, to withdraw those remarks. I will not be a party to repeating them.

MR. LAUK: Well, I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I honestly say that I don't know what she is referring to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, whether or not the words which you used can clearly be defined as unparliamentary, they have been offensive to the hon. Provincial Secretary. I am just asking you — I am not ordering you — kindly to withdraw those remarks.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. I would like to say that it is delightful, indeed, after what I have heard of the Provincial Secretary, that she would be offended by those remarks. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER' The Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member is casting aspersions upon my character, I will ask him to immediately withdraw that last remark.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't casting any aspersions on your character, Madam Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: What was the meaning of your remark then, Mr. Member? (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have no time to answer any further questions. I have to get on with my debate. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're using up your 40 minutes, Gary.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that we can only have one member on his feet at a time. We are having difficulty with the microphones and therefore when the hon. Provincial Secretary's microphone is on, mine must of necessity be off. Therefore, we need a little time in which....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and the time is running. Therefore, we need a little bit of time in order to get the point of order across. Thank you for your assistance. Now the hon. first Member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that. The Premier, as I say, what he couldn't do legally he did illegally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: He wrote the bum cheque to ICBC.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who was a party to the order-in-council that authorized the $181 million, was upset because he knew there wasn't any money in the bank. He immediately ran to Vancouver and spoke to the president of the ICBC, who is the same man. They argued for an hour. (Laughter.) The president of ICBC agreed with the Minister of Education that he wouldn't cash the cheque.

I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that we have the chief executive officers of Crown corporations at arm's length from the cabinet. It makes for good government, wouldn't you say? What a charade! What a shell game! What a hoax!

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a few words for the north country, seeing as my friend from Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) let us down so badly during his term of office.

The opposition during this debate, Mr. Speaker — talk about a steamroller in this House. I would like to tell them very clearly that there is a difference between a majority government and a minority — a bitter minority. The government is elected to govern and show leadership. They can't do it with an obstructionist opposition.

[ Page 524 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking to, them or us?

MR. SHELFORD: I was talking to you, my friend. You have had an awful lot to say in this debate. You've got a very frank mind and you certainly waste it.

MR. LAUK: You're the only one in this House who is allowed to lecture me. (Laughter.)

MR. SHELFORD: The opposition says: why do we have to pass Bill 3? I'll tell you simply why we have to pass Bill 3. In 1952 we had a surplus in cash of $550 million in the banks. By 1975 we had a deficit of over $541 million, which means, of course, they bungled $1 billion down the drain.

We have heard a lot of nonsense from my friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), talking about the mining industry about which he knows just about as little as his predecessor. The mining industry in this province....

MR. GIBSON: That's a very serious charge.

MR. SHELFORD: You're darned right! That's right; that is serious. Do you want me to withdraw it? You destroyed the mining industry in this province and you know it. You talk about the mines that opened up under your government. You don't even know what it's all about. The mines that were opened up at the end of 1972 and 1973 were in the process of development 10 years before that and you know it. It takes 10 years to develop a mine from the time it's staked till the time it goes into production.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: That's why you lose money, my friend, because you don't know anything about the business of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: Let's take a look at what happened to mining development. I'll admit that mines that were operating did make more money because so many opened up at the end of 1972 and 1973. But what happened in the exploration, development and staking? In 1972 there were 53,309 mines staked. In 1974 it was down to 10,643. What happened in the Yukon?

MR. LEA: Is this Bill 3?

MR. SHELFORD: That's why we have to have Bill 3, my friend, and you don't understand it. In the Yukon.... This is the difference. We wouldn't have to have Bill 3 if this had happened in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell them about the Yukon, Cyril.

MR. SHELFORD: In the Yukon in 1972, 4,800 claims staked. All of our people moved to the Yukon. They moved to the Yukon. In 1974 there were over 12,400 claims staked, which is the first time in history that the Yukon has come ahead of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: Worse than that, Mr. Member, Mr. Speaker, worse than that. One of the most serious losses is the technical and professional prospecting experts who were forced to move to other parts of the world. They're only just starting to come back now. I would point out that through the bungling of the New Democratic Party we will harm our social and educational programmes as far away as 1985. Because by the time the miners come back into British Columbia and start staking claims it will be 1985 before these mines open up.

Another thing that damaged the economy of the province was the costly regulations brought in in the forest industry, which brought it nearly to a standstill. You certainly ruined the economy of the area which I represent.

I'll say one thing, my friend. What you say about your liking little people is 100 per cent true, because you made lots of them. You made lots of them. More people went bankrupt in that riding in the northwest than have ever been bankrupt in the history of British Columbia.

Why do we have to have Bill 3? Look at the ICBC loss, the ferry loss, B.C. Rail, Panco Poultry, Swan Valley. Can-Cel would have been a loss if it hadn't rode on the backs of about four different groups — one, the contractors. Can-Cel rode on the back of the contractors all these years, paying $21 a cunit for pulpwood that cost $34 to produce.

The supply companies, $20 million worth of idle equipment in that area alone. The towns....

MR. LAUK: Are you making this up as you go along?

MR. SHELFORD: I'm not. I can show it right to you in Can-Cel's own annual report.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: They also rode on the backs of the people, and listen to this. Rim Forest Products.

[ Page 525 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They were Hazelton.

MR. SHELFORD: A little independent, struggling for survival and in receivership too, I might say.

Rim Forest Products — you wouldn't even come up there or answer our letters. You couldn't even answer a letter, and you know it. I asked you to come up and solve some of our problems and you wouldn't answer. You wouldn't even answer the letters.

MR. LAUK: You wanted to nationalize the oil.

MR. SHELFORD: I didn't see you doing too much, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, would you please address the Chair?

MR. SHELFORD: Rim Forest Products in one year, 1973, paid $985,000 in stumpage on $3.2 million in sales which comes to 30 per cent of what they made.

Can-Cel paid, according to their annual report, $8,421,000 on a total sales of $133,801,000, or only 7 per cent of their sales compared to 30 per cent of the independent's costs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELFORD: If Can-Cel had paid the same stumpage rates as Rim, the people of this province would have $33 million in their pockets and there wouldn't have to be bills like we're passing today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SHELFORD: I would say, Mr. Speaker, it's a shame that B.C. had to go from one of the most prosperous provinces in this nation to a have-not province. That's exactly what it's done in three years' time.

We hear a lot about the bad days of the former Social Credit government. I would say to you that those were the best days that this province has ever seen and will see for quite some time. There are thousands of people across this province that just wish we could return to those days of prosperity across this country.

I was amazed at what was said by the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi), when he left England to get away from the lousy socialists.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: But I must say after leaving it, he certainly made great strides in three years to take us down the path of destruction, to follow the system which he left. No wonder he lost $100 million by a clerical mistake. Maybe it was lost in his desk.

HON. MR. MAIR: He thought they were shillings.

MR. SHELFORD: I was surprised to hear the arguments of the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), a former teacher, in which he used logic which I felt was very interesting. He said it wasn't a debt at all. It was only a deficit. He sounded just like the friendly finance company on the radio every morning when they say: "Borrow yourself out of debt and everything will be okay."

We hear a great deal in this discussion on Bill 3 about this government having hands in the pockets of the people. I would say the former government not only took their pants but their pockets with it, and that's why we have to have this bill.

I was also quite surprised with the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich), the member for Nanaimo, where he even took credit for the increased birthrate during the NDP government. I say after what the NDP did to British Columbia, it's no wonder.

I think it is a crime that we have to be the makers of Bill 3, after the sound financial state of this province between 1952 and 1972. We built roads right across this province — the pavement ended at Lake La Hache...and right through from Prince Rupert to the Peace River and through to McBride.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I sat in my place expecting the Speaker to draw to the attention of the member that calling people "lousy socialists" is hardly parliamentary language. I had hoped that the Speaker would find that kind of language equally objectionable when it's used by government members as the Chair is prepared to rule on such matters when the opposition is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank you for drawing my attention to it. Hon. member for Skeena, would you withdraw the remark "lousy"?

MR. SHELFORD: I was referring to their system, Mr. Speaker, but I'll withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: I want to point out that during this period of time every person that wanted to work could work throughout this whole northwest area, plus there were the highest benefits to our senior citizens.

[ Page 526 ]

Now on top of this and out of surplus we set up the First Citizens' Fund for our native people of $25 million; the Amateur Sports Fund for young athletes, $25 million; the Green Belt Protection Fund, where we could buy out green areas around cities, a further $25 million; the disaster fund — I must say we underestimated this one because we didn't know the socialists were coming in — a further $25 million; the cultural fund, $10 million; power lines beautification, $10 million; and agricultural aid and world disaster, $5 million — for a total of over $125 million, plus $27 million set aside for a third crossing.

Now I would say this is a sound type of financing and something I hope we can return back to after we've paid back the $400 million that we have to borrow. It certainly does disturb me, Mr. Speaker, to have to pay $40 million interest to the loan sharks that the opposition referred to when it should be going to programmes for people.

Mr. Speaker, let's face the facts of life and get down to paying the bills that we have to pay because, after all, we were on a spending drunk for three years and it's time we got back to proper financing in this province.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd like to add another voice from the north, and I'll be very brief. I think we've wasted enough wind and enough time since this House has come in session on different things. I think the facts have been laid out very clearly a number of times, but I guess we'll have to repeat some of them. It seems that we have a little problem getting them through.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of Bill 3, the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, that will allow this province to borrow up to $400 million. I think the name is very fitting. That's exactly the position the province is in, and I don't think anyone really questions that, not even on the other side of the House.

I speak in support of this bill because I think it's up to us to restore proper financial balance to our province's affairs. I think we should restore faith in the financial markets once again, and in our citizens who have been badly shaken by the Clarkson, Gordon report which clearly reveals a deficit of some $541 million.

Another thing Bill 3 would allow this government to do — which hasn't been a current practice, I might add — is that it would allow the government to pay its operating accounts on a current basis. Over the last year many suppliers and many contractors waited months on end to receive payments for work that had been done. I know of this personally because I know of many contractors from the Prince George area who could not receive payments. We were told by the then-Provincial Secretary, Ernie Hall, that a mail strike was on. They couldn't mail the payments to us.

So we offered to have our representatives pick up the cheques from the treasury bank. But, no, that wasn't possible either.

Mr. Speaker, why wasn't this possible? Why couldn't they pick up the cheques? I think it's pretty obvious why they couldn't pick up the cheques. They couldn't pick up the cheques because of the NDP financial bungling that had broke the treasury. They couldn't pay their current accounts.

Mr. Speaker, over the last three years of labour strife in the Crown corporations.... The extreme wage settlements they've granted, the ridiculous fringe benefits that have been given out, the portal-to-portal working day — a lot of loggers would like to have a portal-to-portal working day and be home in the hands of mother by quarter after five — the 35-hour week: all of this has resulted in the huge deficits that have been piled up in our Crown corporations.

But even worse than that is the drastic drop in the productivity that destroys any possibility of a viable operation in that Crown corporation.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) laid out very clearly the deficits in each of our Crown corporations, the net deficits of the people's tax dollars. He mentioned ICBC, $181 million; the transit authority, $26 million; the B.C. Hydro deficit of $34 million; and the B.C. Railway deficit of some $47 million, for a total of $288 million of taxpayers' dollars. This doesn't include, of course, the other items he mentioned — just the small items — the $76 million loss in Medicare; the $50 million loss in the B.C. Ferries deficit.

Mr. Speaker, this is why that financial whiz, the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett) had to call the election on December 11, 1975. The NDP didn't dare tell the public the financial mess they'd led our province into. This is why this present government has introduced Bill 3, the B.C. Deficit Repayment Act, to pay up the bills and balance our province's economy.

If the hon. members in the opposition really wished to serve the people of B.C., I am sure they would speed this bill through the House and restore our province's good name. It is obvious the opposition has no intention of cooperating in the people's interest. That is why they've been returned to the opposition, because they were never capable to govern this province.

All the opposition has done, Mr. Speaker, since this 31st legislative sitting has been called, from the opening day spectacle that they caused, has been to stall, stall, stall, down to today. The people's business has no priority with them, The opposition embarks on the big ego trips, constantly repeating each other's remarks, trying to outdo each other's wild statements.

I've heard that the opposition members are quite

[ Page 527 ]

indignant about the proposed salary cuts in their stipends. If my constituents, or their own constituents, could observe the time they've wasted in this House, caused by their stall tactics, I'm quite sure the taxpayers would recommend a far more substantial cut in the salaries of this opposition members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt you just long enough to remind you to return soon to the principle of Bill 3?

MR. LLOYD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I said, I'm not going to be repetitious; I'm not going to stand up for 40 minutes and talk about the same items over and over and over again. But I would like to ask the opposition members to reappraise their deplorable performance and join with the government members, restore the good name of this province by supporting Bill 3, the British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, before I begin I'd like to take this opportunity, if it's not too much of a digression rom Bill 3, to congratulate you. I didn't take that opportunity before and I apologize for that. I do congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker of this House, and I admire your respect for the rules and the way you handle yourself in the chair. I think you do an excellent job.

I have no wish to prolong this debate or take my full 40 minutes which all members in this House are allotted. But I would like to have the opportunity to present a few of my thoughts on the principle of this bill, a bill which we should all take seriously in this House because it gives the government, by cabinet decree, the authority to borrow up to $400 million, ostensibly to make good an anticipated deficit for the fiscal year 1975-1976 — an anticipated deficit, Mr. Speaker, for a year that's already over,

Now I'm not sure how it's possible to anticipate a deficit for a year that's now past. I suppose that's part of the principle of the bill, and I'm prepared to discuss it as long as the bill is on the floor.

In the minister's rather facetious introduction, his remarks on the introduction of this bill, he thought it would be fair to classify Bill 3 as a non-controversial bill, which he predicted would receive unanimous approval in this House. Mr. Speaker, if it received unanimous approval even from the government backbenchers, it would show that those members in the government back bench are totally incapable of distinguishing financial fact from the fiscal freak show that we've been presented with in this House over the last week,

In another part of his opening debate on the bill, the minister implied that the Clarkson, Gordon report indicated that there was a fiscal shortfall for 1975-76 of about $541 million, Mr. Speaker, and he implied that this bill was based on the findings of the Clarkson, Gordon report, a report by an independent firm of accountants, and his quote was this, Mr. Speaker, if I may cite the Blues:

"Considerable publicity has been given to the findings of the Clarkson, Gordon report, a report by an independent firm of chartered accountants. The item which concerns us in this bill — that is Bill 3 — is the projected deficit of the province of $541 million for the fiscal year now drawing to a close, but at that point then drawing to a close. With cash reserves at April 1, 1975 of $143.7 million, the cash shortfall for the province for the current year is estimated to be about S400 million."

That was the quote from the Minister of Finance when he introduced the bill.

The implications in the minister's speech, Mr. Speaker, are that the Clarkson, Gordon report was an independent audit. I'm saying the implication in the minister's speech was not true. It was not an independent audit, and the Clarkson, Gordon report spells out that in its first page in the form of a disclaimer almost, or an apology, when they say they were requested to "co-ordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information" — not all the information, Mr. Speaker, but certain information. So it wasn't a true audit, only a compilation of certain figures which the Socreds allowed the civil servants of this province to provide. The second implication in the minister's speech was that the deficit arrived at by the Clarkson, Gordon report was $541 million less the surplus funds. Again that implication — and I'm saying an implication, Mr. Speaker — was absolutely untrue. Clarkson, Gordon state on page 9 that in calculating the deficit they were under instructions from the government to include ICBC's deficit in general accounts. To quote the Clarkson, Gordon report: "We have been advised that this grant will be made prior to March 31, 1976, and it is included therefore in the current year's expenditure."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SKELLY: In light of the minister responsible's comments that they're not even going to cash the cheque that was issued prior to March 31, 1976, we don't really know what Clarkson, Gordon means by a grant. Is a grant a cheque that you have no intention of cashing? The minister said that the grant wouldn't be necessary till next October. Are we taking money out of the general account from 1975-1976 to pay for needs of the ICBC, needs that won't be established until the following October? That's fiscal irresponsibility, Mr. Speaker, fiscal irresponsibility by the people on that side of the House.

[ Page 528 ]

Again on page 9 of the Clarkson, Gordon report Clarkson, Gordon says $32.6 million will be granted to B.C. Hydro and "We have been advised that these amounts will be paid prior to March 31, 1976, and they are therefore included in current expenditures." It's not necessary to include them in current expenditures, Mr. Speaker, but they were instructed by the government to pay that amount to B.C. Hydro prior to March 31, 1976, so that they could be included in current expenditures.

So it was a conscious decision, a political decision, on the part of the Social Credit government to transfer funds to ICBC, funds that the minister admits were unnecessary to transfer until next October, and he admits that he is not even going to cash the cheque because it's not necessary right now. In fact, it's never been the case that the government, whether NDP or Social Credit under the previous regime, transferred money from general account to make up the deficits of Crown corporations, never in the history of B.C. Hydro as far as I know.

The same is true of ICBC Autoplan deficits. There was no need to transfer funds from general account to ICBC because as next year's premiums came in, and as cash flows were generated from those premiums, claims could be covered. All insurance companies do that, Mr. Speaker, even ICBC general insurance under Social Credit, all insurance companies. To quote Clarkson, Gordon again: "The accumulated loss of ICBC general insurance is financed by premiums received in advance."

Mr. Speaker, those people on the other side of the House feign outrage when we say that the claims of ICBC could be financed out of next year's premiums. Yet the Clarkson, Gordon report, which they instructed Clarkson, Gordon to make up, suggests that ICBC general insurance claims will be financed out of next year's revenues. They want it both ways. They don't want it for Autoplan because it's important for them to inflate the deficit of this province by transferring $181 million to Autoplan; yet it's okay to do it under general insurance because there's not really enough of the loss under general insurance to make the deficit look that bad for the NDP. They want it both ways.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's a simple case of political vendetta. This government is continuing to attempt to fight the last election — to fight the last election by creating an inflated deficit which we are supposed to approve by passage of this bill. The Clarkson, Gordon report did not arrive at a deficit figure without instructions, as the Minister of Finance implies. It arrived at the deficit figure using information supplied by the government, and the purpose of that information was simply to discredit the New Democratic Party government which preceded it.

One thing the Minister of Finance did say, that did ring true in his introductory speech, is that the Clarkson, Gordon report was widely publicized. It's no wonder that report was widely publicized. According to Peter Hyndman, whom we don't hear too much from any more, it was sent out to all 72,000 members of the Social Credit Party in British Columbia. In fact, he said it would cost $23,000 in stamps alone; he didn't know what the printing costs were going to be.

But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, one of those supposed Social Credit members who received the Clarkson, Gordon report was my constituency secretary. I think they've even inflated their membership list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: So we checked the stamp on the envelope. We checked the stamp on the envelope to see if it was sent out by Peter Hyndman, but it was sent out of the postal branch of the parliament buildings in Victoria, B.C.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: Sent out from the postal branch down here — Peter Hyndman said it was going to cost $23,000 in Social Credit Party funds. Yet it was sent out of the postal branch in Victoria, British Columbia, to somebody who was not even on the Social Credit membership list.

Not only have they created an inflated membership list, but they have created a deficit for this province by sending out a political report like the Clarkson, Gordon report at public expense. We're going to have to pay for that expense out of this $400 million which they want us to vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a terrible thing!

MR. SKELLY: Straight politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: No need to mail it out; they could have picked it up anywhere.

MR. SKELLY: We're paying for a political pamphlet through the accounts of this province in 1975-76.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Clarkson, Gordon report was a straight piece of political pamphleteering. It was a traitorous attack on the economy and the institutions of this province. It was reminiscent of that big-lie technique that was used to

[ Page 529 ]

such an effect before an election in 1932 by a party that is similar to that one in office right now.

The same is true of the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, a speech that was blatantly politically partisan, a shameful attack on the economy of the province and institutions of the province that were built, not by Social Credit, not by the NDP, but by the combined efforts — the cooperative efforts, as the Minister of Mines and Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) said — of the workers, the investors, the companies and the governments of this province over the last two centuries.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would suggest to you that you will have ample opportunity to discuss the budget when you take your place in the budget debate. At the present time we are discussing the principle of Bill 3.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I am discussing the principle of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad you drew the House's attention to that because the cost of printing and mailing these political pamphlets to the people of British Columbia is being borne out of this $400 million supposed deficit — anticipated deficit as it is called in the bill — that we are expected to approve under Bill 3. So this is the reason that my remarks are directly related to the bill at hand.

Mr. Speaker, in that budget speech this government attacks the people of the province, the companies of the province, the investors of this province and governments of this province over the previous two centuries who worked so hard to build the economy. It's a traitorous attack on the economy that those people worked so hard to build.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. Will you please return to the principle of Bill 3 and not debate the budget at this time?

MR. SKELLY: It's documents such as these, Mr. Speaker — the Clarkson, Gordon report, the budget speech and Bill 3 — that, while they are designed to attack the New Democratic Party and the principles of democratic socialism, are really creating a deficit in this province, a deficit of public confidence in people of all political persuasions. This is a deficit that we will all be forced to bear, as elected members and as citizens of British Columbia, for many decades hence.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I have no wish to prolong the debate on Bill 3 and I am prepared to admit, as are many members on this side of the House, that ICBC did experience serious losses over the last two years. We've admitted that time and time again. All insurance companies did. All insurance companies did.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Wait till your brain is engaged before your mouth is in gear. In the public accounts committee last year, chaired by the hon. member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), of which the now Premier was then a member, Norman Bortnick said that he anticipated losses in that corporation for six years running. He said that any corporation just beginning could expect losses over the first few years of its operation.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, all insurance companies over the last three years....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The member for Alberni has the floor.

MR. SKELLY: All insurance companies over the last three years lost money. ICBC wasn't isolated from the economic conditions — worldwide economic conditions — that other insurance companies suffered from. I am sure when you were selling insurance, Mr. Speaker, that you represented companies that suffered serious deficits as a result of world-wide economic conditions over the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, I am even prepared to admit the possibility of a financial deficit for the year 1975-1976.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Most people on this side of the House have said that they anticipate the possibility of a financial deficit for the year 1975-1976. Even the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Stupich), before the Clarkson, Gordon report or in response to the Clarkson, Gordon report, said that they anticipated a cash shortfall of something like $40 million. Many governments and private corporations over the same period, in a period of world-wide economic slump, of world-wide economic recession, have experienced deficits for the same reason.

The need to borrow to make up cash shortfalls is common with those corporations and with those governments over the world as a result of those present economic conditions. But we are not prepared to agree that the deficit that we experienced over the last year — if, in fact, there was a deficit — was of the magnitude of $400 million, as this bill attempts to suggest. The decision to inflate the deficit to that magnitude was a decision taken by Social Credit and resulted in the illegal move made by the government the day before yesterday to transfer to ICBC $181 million.

[ Page 530 ]

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Order, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: The fact that the government illegally transferred $181 million to the Insurance Corp. of B.C. the day before yesterday, even before they had the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor, indicates that they intended to transfer those funds simply to inflate the deficit of the general fund of this province.

Mr. Speaker, many of us on this side of the House are prepared to pass a bill similar to the one before us, but a bill less political in its intent and more general in its application. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) advised the House that we should rid this province once and for all of this pathological fear of deficit financing. I find it difficult to believe that the present Premier's father (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett), who believed in a fiscal surplus as a means of putting away money for a rainy day to tide the province over difficult periods, would not also support the idea of deficit financing when world-wide economic conditions dictate that deficit financing is the best solution to our problem.

We increased the surplus — we doubled it — and you're going to call on us to spend that surplus over the next few weeks. Basically, Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the other side to be reasonable. We're willing to accept the possibility of a cash shortfall in 1975-1976 and possibly even in the next fiscal year.

We're willing to accept the general principle of deficit financing so this province will have the economic flexibility to operate during world-wide economic conditions such as the one we are experiencing right now, the same economic flexibility that most other governments in the world and most other corporations have. But we are not prepared to accept a document like this: politically motivated to discredit the opposition; far too specific in its terms, and in fact is designed to do nothing more than to certify a bogus cheque that was issued by that government to ICBC, contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should call on the government now to withdraw that bill, and to present one that is more acceptable to both sides of the House. I think all parties are in readiness to accept a bill that will provide flexibility to any government in the province of British Columbia to meet the possible problems which face all governments during a time of economic difficulty and world-wide recession.

If the government did adopt this reasonable approach in the first instance, we wouldn't have the problem of a prolonged debate, such as we're experiencing right now. I think that the government, in good faith, should withdraw this bill and present another one that doesn't consist of simply a political attack on the previous government. We would be prepared — all parties in the House — to accept a bill in those terms. Thank you.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, before I go into my remarks, at the risk, I hope, of not creating some perhaps unfortunate discussion across the floor, I would like to answer some of the implications made about the operations of Crown corporations — implications made by the member for Omineca who has a long and, I think, fairly distinguished history and membership in this House — particularly relative to Canadian Cellulose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Skeena.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Skeena, that's right. He carpet bagged...that's right, he rotated in his interregnum.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to point out that Canadian Cellulose pays stumpage, and always did pay stumpage.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The member for Rossland-Trail has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I hoped that I did not cause members to get into discussions across the floor, but the remarks that I am referring to.... I don't believe the Premier was even in the House at the time.

I'd like to point out to the House that Canadian Cellulose, and all other corporations operating in the forest industry, integrated forest companies, paid stumpage at exactly the same rates; there was no special preference for any company at any time.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: The implication across the floor is that there is, or there should be, one set of rules for multinational conglomerate corporations in this province, and another more stringent set of rules for companies which are owned by the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: I would ask that group over there:

[ Page 531 ]

do you really think there should be some kind of special treatment for companies that owe their allegiance to people who sit in board rooms in Atlanta, Georgia; in New York; in Pittsburgh and in Tacoma, Washington — and another more tougher set of rules for companies whose shareholders are the people of the province of British Columbia?

I wonder who your paymasters are over there. Who are you really serving? Who are your paymasters?

Interjections.

MR. DARCY: There were some other remarks made about the prices paid for chips in this province. I would like to advise the province that prior to the Forest Products Stabilization Act coming into effect, Canadian Cellulose paid slightly higher, voluntarily slightly higher, prices for chips than was the average in the private sector of this province, and that they voluntarily, before an independent tribunal, recommended a chip price increase under the Act. They voluntarily were the first. A number of other companies followed suit in voluntarily raising prices, but they were the first company to voluntarily raise their prices to somewhere over $30.

Interjections.

MR. DARCY: Mr. Member, you had your chance. I did not interrupt you and I suggest that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D'ARCY: At least MacMillan Bloedel is a Canadian corporation. Most of the others that we're referring to are not Canadian corporations.

Mr. Speaker, what I really want to talk about is Bill 3. I realize there's been some wandering off the subject. I suppose it's all related to the economic situation in British Columbia, but we have been told over and over again that the reasons why Bill 3 is absolutely essential is because the economy is slack and there is not enough revenue coming into the provincial coffers to pay for the existing programmes and for the capital requirements for the province during fiscal 1976-77.

Now I don't want to spend a long time on discussing certain economic facts, not just statements in the air such as have been produced tonight by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that say that the economy is in terrible shape, because people over there are convinced that had they been in office for the last three years things would be much better. Maybe it's too early to say what their performance will be, because their term of office so far has been mercifully brief.

But I would like to compare some pertinent facts, very briefly, over the last three years compared with the preceding seven years, when there was another Social Credit government in office. I appreciate that most of the members of this executive council and people who occupy the treasury benches here were not part of that government. However, it was a Social Credit government and it operated under the same name.

During the seven years ending in 1972 there were 240,000 new jobs created in British Columbia — 34,000 a year, a pretty good record. But in the following three years there were 149,000 new jobs or 49,000 a year, 34,000 a year to 49,000 a year, a 45 per cent increased growth rate. That's a federal statistic quoted from your own records.

Let's look at capital investment. Growth rate per year increased by $1.6 billion in the seven years ending in 1972, a rate of $220 million a year more than each previous year. Not a bad record. Some years it went down — 1968 was a bad year. In the three years that followed, $1.9 billion, a growth rate of $633 million a year — $1.6 billion in seven years, $1.9 billion in three years — and we've had a recession for the last year. That was a growth rate 190 per cent higher than when the former Social credit government was in office.

My friend for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who was not in his chair tonight when this subject (good evening, I'm sorry I missed you ) was raised earlier by another member — I think it was a day or so ago — said it was because government spending was up; that was where the investment was coming from. So I checked the manufacturing figures.

Manufacturing, the private sector, that risk capital that was supposed to be fleeing the province over the last three years, according to those.... What are the figures? Once again a growth of $140 million. A growth rate of $140 million over those seven years, $20 million a year in manufacturing. What did it grow in the last three years, though? From $580 million to $780 million per year, $200 million growth rate over three years, $67 million a year, a 235 per cent increase. Risk capital in this province came in at a faster rate than the overall investment picture over the last three years.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I assume you are going to relate these remarks to....

MR. D'ARCY: Of course, the reason we have been told by the government that we need Bill 3 is because there is a slowdown in revenue, a likely shortfall, and the government's money, as the throne speech told us, is only the people's money which comes in through taxation. If the economy is weak, then the government revenues will be weak. So that's

[ Page 532 ]

what we're talking about in terms of the amount of money.

Interjection.

MR. DARCY: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is pointing at the clock.

Mr. D'Arcy moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents the 1975 annual report of the British Columbia Cellulose Company.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.