[ Page 8829 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 58: ministry operations –– 8830

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 58 –– 8830

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. King

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Kempf

Division

On vote 59: boards and agencies –– 8833

Mr. King

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 59 –– 8835

Division

Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982. (Bill 35). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8835

Mr. Stupich –– 8836

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8839

Mr. Cocke –– 8840

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8841

Mr. Barber –– 8842

Tabling Documents

Director of trade practices annual report, December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 8846

FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, I would very much like to draw to the attention of all members of the assembly the following message from their Royal Highnesses, the Prince and Princess of Wales, in response to the resolution that was passed in this House: "We were enormously touched to receive your very kind letter following the birth of our son, and send you our warmest possible thanks. The reaction to the news has been overwhelming and thoroughly heartwarming and we are rapidly discovering what it is to be proud parents. Charles and Diana."

Secondly, we're delighted to see the return of the quarterback and find the table at full strength.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In the gallery today visiting from the faraway land of Indonesia is the Hon. Dr. Subroto, the Indonesian Minister of Energy and Mines; Professor Samadikun, director-general, Energy; and accompanying them, His Excellency Mr. Budidarmo, the Indonesian Ambassador to Canada. These gentlemen have just finished a tour of Canada. Of course, they saved the best until the last, and are with us in British Columbia today. I hope the House will give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We have other distinguished visitors in the gallery today, in the persons of senior officials of Japanese regional banks who are today commencing a mission to Canada, and then will go briefly to the United States, a trip which will occupy some two weeks. The delegation is meeting with officials of the Ministry of Finance today for briefing prior to travelling to Vancouver, and then will move eastward in our country. It is led by Mr. Eiichi Ujiie of the 77 Bank. Would the House welcome these friends.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is a gentleman from Kelowna in the Okanagan Valley, Mr. Ron Evans, the general sales manager and assistant manager of CHBC-TV in Kelowna. Along with Ron is his wife Pat, his daughter Charla and young J.T. Evans. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions in this session and previous sessions, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in objecting to absences, has raised standing order 8, which says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House." The first member for Vancouver Centre flew out of Vancouver on July 13 for Frankfurt, and does not return until August 17 –– I don't know whether he's going to check the banking system in Switzerland...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...but I do know, Mr. Speaker, that he's absent from this House, and Vancouver  Centre is not represented. The second member (Mr. Barnes) having been absent for one month, I would have thought, because of his position....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister knows that the way in which standing order 8 is interpreted in this House is that every member is bound to attend the service of the House. But any member who is within the precinct.... There is no way that the Chair can tell from an empty chair whether a person is in the precinct or not.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I've given evidence that he left Vancouver on July 13, not to return till August 17.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. members. This is not a matter in which the Chair can intervene.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to ask a question of the Speaker in this regard, because Vancouver Centre is not represented in this House. I suggest to you that in view of the fact that he's left the country, it's very disrespectful to the members of this House, and I consider it to be utter contempt.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. on several other occasions in this House members have drawn, or sought to draw, the attention of the Chair to the fact that members may be present or absent. This is a matter in which the Chair has steadfastly refused to intervene; this is a matter which likely can be cared for through the Whip system in the House. Unless there is a substantive motion, for which there would have to be notice on the order paper, we cannot entertain this kind of point of order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, hon. minister.

lnterjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, hon. minister.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BRUMMET: I ask leave to make an introduction. I'm sorry — I did stand up before, but I was not noticed.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Please proceed.

MR. BRUMMET: I'd like the House to welcome three members from the Peace River–Liard Regional District: Mr. Jack Hannam, the chairman of the board: Mrs. Shirley Pomeroy, a member of the board: and the executive director, Moray Stewart.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

[ Page 8830 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)

On vote 58: ministry operations, $30,960,720.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I ask the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and all other members to please come to order. We are on vote 58.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the Premier has just left, because we have been trying to make this government understand the meaning of restraint since the estimates were introduced. We have made motion after motion in this House to have various votes reduced, and under vote 58 we intend to make another reduction. The government does not seem to pay any attention to its own expenditures. When you have a 69 percent increase for travel in the ministerial offices, the government doesn't know the meaning of restraint.

I notice the Premier has gone again. At least the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is sitting there. Perhaps he is listening. I know the Minister of Finance would like to know how to save money, and we would like very much to be able to assist him.

Mr. Chairman, in vote 58 there is an increase of 30 percent in data processing, and an increase of 22.5 percent this year over last year in advertising and publications — 22.5 percent at a time of restraint. I wonder if the Minister of Finance is indeed paying attention to all of these recommendations that we are making. We're advancing positive suggestions to save the government money. Here in ministry operations we have an increase in expenditures on office furniture and equipment of 28.9 percent. Why can they not spend at last year's rate, when the government is in such a difficult financial position? They seem to prefer to cut hospital beds and other programs than to listen to our recommendations about saving money for the taxpayers of British Columbia. An increase of 28.9 percent increase in office furniture this year over last year is completely unacceptable.

I would like to move that vote 58 be reduced by $1,381,293. I think that money would go a long way in assisting to provide some much needed services to the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I certainly cannot support this amendment. I think it would be much more appropriate to reduce the salary of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is holidaying in Europe at the same time he is drawing his salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, I remind the committee, and in particular the Minister of Forests, that we are on vote 58 in the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Labour. We must contain our debate to that ministry and be relevant.

Also, in Committee of Supply, or at any time in the Legislative Assembly, it is quite unparliamentary to engage in personal allusions or reflections upon a member.

MR. KING: I rise on a point of order, to make the point that when out-of-order statements are made and left on the records of this House, they should be allowed to be answered; otherwise, order should be called before that statement is made and recorded in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The committee is, of course, well aware that the Chair intervened at the earliest opportunity.

On the amendment to vote 58, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Of course, I'll be rejecting the proposed amendment by the official opposition.

Mr. Chairman, one of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Labour is to be certain that the workforce in our province remains productive and competitive, and that the ability of our various industries — including the forest industry, the mining industry, manufacturing and so on — remains competitive with other parts of the world. Something which is recognized as a nagging problem which crops up from time to time is absenteeism from the workforce. We have had many examples of this, and it's known. Industrialists from all over the world — managers and everyone else — recognize that whenever absenteeism reaches levels of about 5 percent, you're in a situation where the operation can no longer become competitive.

We have tried extremely hard, from the earliest days in our society, to discourage absenteeism. I note, for example, that our school system.... When I was Minister of Education, attendance records were kept. You build into your workforce that attitude of responsibility. Some of our secondary schools, at one period, were not keeping attendance records, and I discovered that some high schools were running only 80 percent attendance, whereas others would be up in the 95 percent area. But when I asked for attendance records to be kept in the high-school system, immediately the attendance began to increase and went back to the norm of about 95 percent. This shows, Mr. Chairman, that there is inherently built into our society this concept of responsibility, and the necessity of attendance at the workplace. As we all know, it's extremely difficult. This was a measure that I as Minister of Education felt was necessary to undertake some years ago so when people in our school system later entered the workforce they would recognize what their responsibility would be. The Minister of Labour is going to have to carry on from that beginning we get in our school system, and see that that degree of responsibility remains in the workforce. That's a vital task that he has, just as the task of the Minister of Education is to develop that sense of responsibility in the youngsters before they enter the workforce.

Mr. Chairman, you and I know the responsibility that we as legislators have to set an example in every way in our society. If we're asking for restraint in our society, we must be the ones to set the example. Just the other day, a bill before this Legislature was discharged, and every MLA knows it's because the example set by that bill is not appropriate for the difficult economic times we're facing today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must remind you that we are discussing an amendment to vote 58. In Committee of Supply you cannot reflect on legislation. I

[ Page 8831 ]

would ask the member to please relate his remarks to this amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm not reflecting on the legislation. I'm reflecting on the difficult task that the Minister of Labour is having, and the help that he must have in order to do his job from all members of the Legislature. That is not just giving that Minister of Labour the full amount that he requires. We're going to help the economy by setting an example, and taking less from the taxpayers' contribution to government than we otherwise would take. All the money we save can go into the vote of the Minister of Labour to help him do his job. But we need more than money; we need example. We in this Legislature cannot afford to be the ones to set the bad example of absenteeism from work. Absenteeism is a first.

One can judge absenteeism simply by inspecting the record of attendance at divisions in this House. It causes me a great deal of concern when some members never attend divisions on Fridays and Mondays, when the average attendance at divisions among some groups is less than 80 percent and when we've got a rampant problem of absenteeism in this House and a disgraceful example set for the labour force of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: There's a minister who's mentally absent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the committee to order

MR. KING: I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. I want to say that absenteeism is indeed a problem. As a former Minister of Labour in the province, I certainly concerned myself with that during the period of 1972-75 when I was minister. And I'm concerned in an ongoing way.

The minister has hit the nail on the head. I recall so well the then Leader of the Opposition leaving the House in 1972, going on a world cruise and then returning to British Columbia, and shortly thereafter resigning his seat and leaving the constituency of Kelowna unrepresented for a long period of time. I think that set a precedent that may be a bad one in terms of the Minister of Labour's responsibility to ensure that absenteeism is kept to a minimum.

Interjection.

MR. KING: A world-cruise holiday by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the Premier's father.

I think one of the other things the Minister of Labour should be more concerned with than absenteeism at this point in time....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. member. Would the committee please come to order.

MR. KING: I think a point the Minister of Labour might well be more concerned with than absenteeism, as much as that is a grave problem, is the question of unemployment. If, as the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications suggests, we should be concerned with the loss of productivity represented by 5 percent absenteeism, we should be scandalized by the spectre of 18 percent unemployed in his own constituency. Think of the lost productivity that the economy of this province is suffering. Think of the human tragedy of that 18 percent of forest industry workers in the Prince George area who are unable to meet their obligations to their families and to society. Why is the Minister of Labour asking for this 69 percent increase in his travel allowance? Does he intend to line up the unemployed and review them? Does he plan some kind of military review of the ranks of the unemployed in this province? Is that why he's travelling? Or is the 69 percent increase in this year's travel budget for purposes similar to those of his colleagues the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer Affairs: to attend Broadway shows at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications was correct when he said that the Legislature should set an example. The purpose of this amendment to cut the travel expenses to last year's level, is to set an example of the kind of restraint this government is preaching but failing to practise. When the vote is called, they will have an opportunity to demonstrate whether they are serious about showing restraint, or whether there is a double standard: one standard for working people, for the unemployed and the senior citizens and the poor of this province, who are obliged to practise restraint because of the policies of this government, and a much cushier, luxurious standard for the ministers, who increase their travel allowances 69 percent in one year. That's the issue. Let's face it squarely and see how the House votes on it.

HON. — MR. HEINRICH: First, the overall increase in the Ministry of Labour for fiscal year 1982-83 over 1981-82 is 3.7 percent. I would suggest that there has been some demonstration and exercise of restraint. If you wish, reduce the amount of money in the Employment Development Fund, and you will find that the increase is insignificant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The facts speak for themselves.

We're talking about travel. On examination of my own office, the Ministry of Labour, you find that travel has been kept to a bare minimum. The increase in the vote this year over last year is a sum which I had set aside for the purpose of employing an assistant. That money has not been spent, and that's the reason for it. I'm not looking for a special warrant; I'm putting it in the vote and bringing it in here.

Concern was expressed about unemployment. You bet I'm concerned about it. One very evident thing, which I hope we are all part of, is the creation of a climate in British Columbia whereby there can be a major amount of investment and development. All we have to do is look at the number of projects throughout the province. I'm not going to stand here and deny that we are in difficult times; we are, and there's no question about it. I know what the unemployment level is in my riding and in the province. I'm concerned and it bothers me a great deal. But there is only one answer: everybody must pull together and support the projects that are coming on line, must encourage investment in British Columbia. There is the southeast resource development, the

[ Page 8832 ]

northeast resource development, the northwest resource development with terminals, ports, railway upgrading, petrochemical plants, the LNG plants that were announced yesterday. All these things are a tremendous support to the construction industry. In the lower mainland there's ALRT, B.C. Place, the Pier. Add it up — all of those are coming because investors realize that British Columbia is a good place to do business in. One of the points made by the members some time ago, obviously laying a lot of the problems at the feet of government.... Reference was made to the Employers Council submission. Fair enough. The Employers Council submission was clear: yes, there is a lack of confidence. Why is it, when we read through the article further'? It's high interest. We know it very well, and it's been said so many times it sounds I like a broken record. The fact of the matter is, it is.

Getting back to the vote, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the House that the overall increase in the Ministry of Labour over last year is 3.7 percent.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the minister is sure proud of that 3.7 percent, isn't he? That's a disgraceful commentary on his ability as a minister: 3.7 percent for employment, 69 percent for travel. That's the minister: a 3.7 percent increase to try to put people to work, and 69 percent for the minister to wander all over the land and live it up at the taxpayers' expense. That's what the minister said. The unemployed people in his riding will enjoy knowing that.

The 18 percent unemployed, Mr. Chairman, is a figure that needs to be adjusted somewhat. As the business people from Prince George say, if you exclude government employees from the workforce — and government employees have a sense of tenure involved — then you've got a 30 percent unemployment rate in the city of Prince George in the private sector. The minister represents that city, and he stands up in this House and says: "All I was able to squeeze out of the Minister of Finance was 3.7 percent for work projects, but I was able to get a 69 percent increase for my own high living, my own first-class travel, and my own wine expenditures."

The minister is the most disgraceful exhibition of a Minister of Labour that this Legislature has ever seen; the most highly paid, incompetent apprentice that one could perceive of existing in this province. He talks about employment programs. The only employment program he is engaged in is the people he socked into his own ministry to give them tenure. He doesn't care about the workers out there. It's a disgraceful performance on the part of the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps the first time the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King) and I have ever agreed on anything. I certainly agree with him when he says that he agrees with our side of the House that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is setting a bad example by travelling to Europe when he should be attending to the duties of the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have reminded the member before that we are on the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I was misquoted, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Forests has quoted me in completely incorrect fashion, and I want the records to show that. He manufactured something again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, it doesn't require a point of order; simply debate during the estimates.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, earlier you very correctly and promptly pointed out to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) that he was not being orderly in pursuing a certain line of debate. Then the minister rose to his feet a second time and deliberately provoked the Chair, an act which I find offensive, and I would hope that you would take direct action if there is another provocation similar to this. You are showing more patience today than you did the other day when you threw out two of the best-behaved members of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. NICOLSON: Do you say Garde is not a well behaved member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the record will show that the Chair has acted on two occasions with respect to statements which were not relevant to the debate in front of us.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to speak on this amendment — I'm certainly going to vote against it — but I was sitting in my office listening to the remarks made in debate by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I've just got to ask him this. He talks about accountability; he talks about being in this House. Where was he in the 20 years he spent in Ottawa and only 33 percent of it was in that Parliament? Where was he when he was getting $30,000-plus, when he was supposed to be the Indian adviser to this province, and he was living in Hull, Quebec?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will take his seat.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. KEMPF: That pompous member over there throws aspersions across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I have no recourse but to ask the hon. member for Omineca to withdraw from the House. He remained standing while the Chairman was standing. Will the member please withdraw. The rules are clear, hon. members: when the Chairman stands, no further debate is allowed; all members take their seat and are asked to remain silent.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.)

MR. HOWARD: I have one comment. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) unfortunately isn't here to listen to this. He made two comments, both of which were grossly inaccurate. If I were outside the House, I'd classify them as something else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes his point.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 8833 ]

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 24

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 58 approved.

On vote 59: boards and agencies, $3,356,378.

MR. KING: I have a few questions for the minister respecting the workers' compensation boards of review.

I've made some inquiries with the chairmen of the boards of review and some of the members of the boards to try to determine what the existing complement of those boards is. I'm advised that John Jensen left the boards as a chairman in September 1981, and has not been replaced, except by a part time chairman; I think it was Barbara Bluman. The boards of review are short one and a half chairmen: one full-time and one part-time.

Why has that full-time position not been filled since almost a year ago, September 1981? Has the minister inter viewed any applicants for those positions, and is a decision on new appointments pending'?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the delay in appointing, it was really my design and wish to change the structure. That has not come to pass; some of the reasons for that were dwelt upon yesterday. You are correct, Mr. Member; there are one and a half vacancies. I have interviewed a number of candidates. I very much want to conclude those appointments by the end of this month at the very latest. In addition to that, while I'm on this, I might mention that there are one or two other members leaving August 1, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said. I'm interviewing right now to replace them as well. I gave you that assurance in the House, Madam Member, about a week or ten days ago that all of them would be slotted — I certainly want them filled by the end of the month.

MR. KING: I just want to outline to the minister what the consequences are of his failure to make these appointments. He has acknowledged to the House that, indeed, there is a large backlog of cases which cannot be heard by the boards of review, due to a shortage of staff. I appreciate the minister's dilemma in attempting to change the structure of the boards but the practical consequences should concern the minister more than structural changes in the board.

As an example, I have one young man in my riding from Revelstoke. He was injured early last spring and has a back problem. He's a hard-working young man and has worked all his life. He was turned down for workers compensation by the claims adjudicator. I assisted him, through the worker's consultant, in filing an appeal. The appeal was heard yesterday or the day before. and a decision will be rendered sometime in the future. Mr. Chairman, that was one of the quicker processing of claims. But the consequence is that this young man and his family — two or three children, I'm not sure which — have had absolutely no income since last spring. They have had to exist on piecemeal assistance from the Ministry of Human Resources, which is a frustrating, debilitating proposition for a worker who should be entitled to an expeditious processing of his case, to determine his entitlement. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's not good enough that the boards of review — I am convinced they ultimately will — will find that his case is valid and he deserves compensation. But the fact is that since last spring that young man and his family have had to exist on the vagaries of assistance through the Ministry of Human Resources, doled out sparingly, intermittently, with no right established. It's just not good enough.

It's also not good enough for the minister to sit back indecisively saving: "Well, I'm thinking about changing the structure, so I haven't made these appointments." Mr. Chairman, the consequence of that kind of indecisiveness is human suffering. Lord knows there's enough pressure on the family in this day and age, due to the difficult economic times we're in. The family doesn't need additional pressure placed on it by the inaction of the minister and his government. If the minister has that much difficulty finding appropriate people and making appointments to replace staff who for one reason or another are leaving the boards of review, I'd be glad to assist him. What is the problem, for goodness' sake? You know there's a backlog of six months already. That backlog is being exacerbated because the minister won't replace staff that retires, quits or is ill.

We have another gentleman on the boards of review that the minister has to be familiar with — Mr. Dave Haggarty. He underwent surgery just a couple of days ago. It's known that this gentleman, unfortunately, is going to be off work for some period of months. Is the minister not acting to get replacements so that the boards can function and carry on their work, and provide justice and expeditious decisions to the injured workers of this province? Or is it going to be more months before we see I temporary replacement for Mr. Haggarty? People are not that hard to find: there arc all kinds of competent people around. Some retired staff from the boards of review would probably he willing to come back on a part time basis to help out and keep the workload down.

Mr. Minister, I've been there I know there are some problems. But when the consequences are so difficult, when they result in the kind of human suffering, family disruption and family pressure that is created by delays of six months and one year in failing to appoint adequate personnel to process these cases, that's unforgivable. I asked the boards of review about their appointment, the schedule of their hearings, throughout the province. As the House knows, the boards travel to Kelowna, Kamloops or Prince George to hold hearings for the injured workers in those regions. I'm advised that unless staff is brought up to full complement

[ Page 8834 ]

immediately, scheduled hearings in the interior of the province may be cancelled, which means further delay.

I want to suggest to the minister, and I want to appeal to him on behalf of injured working people and their families in this province, that he at least give them their day in court; at least bring in the necessary staff to prosecute the cases quickly. They can't stand delays of six months to a year in having their cases heard by boards of review. As the minister knows, of the cases that go to review, the percentages allowed is very high. This means that many legitimate cases are delayed; they should have been receiving benefits for the previous six months or a year, and they've been denied those benefits. That is just unacceptable. If the minister wants to change the structure somewhere down the road, fair enough; do it! I'd rather see the personnel of the boards of review inconvenienced in some fashion than see injured workers and their families denied benefits for up to six months and a year in British Columbia. That's totally unacceptable.

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister is going to respond to the questions posed by the member.

I would like to add one thing Mr. Chairman. The minister has as much as admitted that the change he was planning in the structure of the boards of review has in fact not received the support he had hoped for, and he is therefore not planning to proceed at this time with that change. Could the minister assure us then, Mr. Chairman, that he will reappoint the vacant positions — one and a half chairmen — as well as fill the other two positions that are going to be vacant at the end of this month? And will he at this time, because, as my colleague has pointed out to the minister this morning, workers are suffering, appoint additional boards of review to try to reduce that backlog? The minister knows the backlog can be reduced if he fills the vacant positions as well as appoints additional boards of review. It has to happen, Mr. Chairman.

I know the minister would like to make these changes. He has not received the support he was hoping for; therefore he has decided he is not going to proceed with those changes at this time. It is incumbent upon him to give the assurance that additional boards of review will be appointed so that we don't have to wait. Workers are waiting up to a year to have their cases heard. That puts an additional drain on the finances of the government, on public moneys, because they have to turn to Human Resources in order to tide them over until their appeals can be heard. So money that should be paid to these workers through the Workers Compensation Board and the assessment put on employers in this province is in fact being paid out, on a somewhat erratic basis at times, through the public purse, through the Ministry of Human Resources. It doesn't make any sense in terms of the suffering, or even in terms of economics. Will the minister give us that assurance?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The only assurance I can really give is with respect to the appointment of the chairman — perhaps another full-time instead of part-time — and certainly an appointment to replace the two who will be leaving as a result of injury and another disability.

With respect to the appointment of an additional panel, I appreciate why the member raises it. The problem is that I did that not too long after coming into the portfolio. I think there was something like a 30 to 35 percent increase in claims. I will consider that as, perhaps, an interim measure. I can't stand in the House and confirm that that will be done, but it will be considered. I think your point is made.

I mentioned to you yesterday with respect to this area that there seem to be two areas to address. One is the adjudicator's handling of the original claim. The fact is we've now had a change of policy at the WCB, so that if new evidence comes forth which wasn't available at the time the original decision was made, then the adjudicator on his or her initiative can bring it in. That's probably one thing that may start to remove some of the problems. That has always been the allegation made by the workers and their representatives — that the problem was not at the boards; the problem was there. I think they're partly right. The new chairman of the board and commissioners have recognized that and changed the policy.

With respect to the other areas, I would hope that we could expedite something to get that backlog down to a more manageable level, so that the hearings can be held much earlier than later. I appreciate the point with respect to the travelling portion. Without members, there may be the danger of certain hearings being cancelled, and I certainly don't want that to come to pass.

MR. KING: I have just two things I want to talk about briefly. The minister indicated that he appointed another panel after taking over the portfolio and that the claims and the number of appeals continued to rise and the backlog increased. I just fail to understand the minister's logic in saying we have to hold the line. If you want to move to a new structure that can handle it more efficiently and cost-effectively, by all means do so; but you don't halt the process while you're considering that change, because that results in great damage to human beings who deserve to have their cases heard. That's analogous to saying that if the caseload before the courts increases we start to curtail access to t, he courts — we're going to cut down on judges because the cost of hearing cases in court is too high. If the caseload increases, you don't cut down on staff. If the caseload increases for Human Resources, by your logic, Mr. Minister, you'd start laying off social workers. That really doesn't make any sense. I can understand your concern over the accelerating costs. By all means have a look at it and try to find a structure and a process that is more cost-effective. But don't halt the process to the detriment of the injured workers while you're struggling with a new structure. That's irresponsible and foolish. I think if the minister thinks about it, he will recognize that and bring the staff up to full complement, and increase, as my colleague suggests, the number of boards of review so the backlog of cases can be brought within manageable limits. That's what's at issue here, and that's the logical way to go.

The other question I want to ask the minister is: what kind of communication does he have with the boards of review? I really don't remember — it's been a while since I was there — whether the chairman of the boards of review keeps in touch with the minister's office in terms of staff requirements, or whether that is done through the board. Have you had any representations from either Mr. Gibbons of the commissioners or Paul Devine, the chairman of the boards of review, with respect to the need for getting that complement of staff up to par? Have you received any communications? If so, what were they and did you answer them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I really don't accept the comment that if more come in you appoint more boards. The fact is that these can swell and swell and swell, and I'm convinced, when I look at the probable number of cases that

[ Page 8835 ]

would go to the Labour Relations Board as compared to the number which go to the boards of review — and, admittedly, the latter is substantial — the number of people involved can be handled much better.

As for meeting with boards of review, I've met with Mr. Devine about three or four times. We've talked about this, I have his most current letter on my desk, which came in within the last couple of weeks.

MS. SANFORD: Does it say "Help!"?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Certainly concern is expressed

I'm not going to stand here and say not. I was interested in his comments on a submission I received from the Canadian Federation of Labour. My idea was to change this, so I passed it over to the chairman to see what he thought of their position. I also sent the same request to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, who responded as well. I had a letter within the last couple of weeks. Contact was made with my office. Also, contact was made with my ADM in that area.

The concern that you raised is a genuine one. I appreciate that the appointment of two forthwith would perhaps assist to stem the backlog. It's not going to make a severe impression on its reduction. Regarding the possibility of adding another panel, I don't know if it would really make a significant impression. I still stand by my reasoning that there's only way to handle that: to change the system, the structure with respect to hearings.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know that we're going to convince the minister of the need for immediate changes in that board. I would think that one of his problems is probably money. I'm going to make other suggestions as to how he can reduce the expenditures contained in this budget, so that he will have extra money with which to hire more boards of review and replace the people who have needed to be replaced for the past year. I bet it's all related to money.

I'm going to make some more recommendations, through a motion, as to how this government can reduce the unnecessary expenditures in this budget, and have that money to use for boards, agencies and employment programs, which are so desperately needed in British Columbia.

Office expenses. Last year, under boards and agencies, the government spent $100,000 on office expenses; this year it's almost $132,000, a 31.3 percent increase. In a year of restraint, when they can't afford to hire boards of review, to bring in employment programs or to give the people the services they need, there is a 31.3 percent increase in office expenses. Why isn't $100,000 good enough? It was good enough last year. They got $100,000 worth of new furniture last year — carpets, chairs and whatever else they needed. Surely they could manage with the same expenditure this year, when we're so desperate for funds that we can't even hire an additional board of review to take care of the injured workers in this province. It's a disgrace.

I'm going to make another recommendation. As a result of the minister's statement yesterday, in which he stood up in this Legislature and agreed with me when I stated that the Essential Services Advisory Agency is a waste of money, that it's doing no one any good and that it's performing no services in this province, I'm including a $236,786 decrease — the amount of money now going to that agency — as part of the reduction in vote 59. When the minister himself agrees that it's performing no useful function and that it is in effect a waste of $236,000, and he admits that he has trouble hiring boards of review and replacements on the existing boards of review, then surely he can do away with this agency that is performing absolutely no useful function.

The workers of this province, through the B.C. Federation of Labour, have their own policies with respect to providing essential services if there are labour disputes. They have a program in place. We have this Essential Services Advisory Agency collecting $236,000, and completely wasting the much-needed taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 59 be reduced by a total of $332,086.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 224

An Hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 59 approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT
REFINANCING ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the government is seeking, through this bill the authority to refinance a portion of the direct debt of the province of British Columbia. Before explaining the reasons for this measure, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the origin of this debt. Only one time in the last 30 years has it been necessary to borrow for operating purposes in this province. Only once has it been necessary for the government to incur direct debt. I need not remind this House at length the that the one occasion arose out of the deficit left by the previous Socialist administration in the period 1972 to 1975.

MR. LEGGATT Keep a straight face.

[ Page 8836 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Coquitlam-Moody will come to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Coquitlam Moody interjected with a very telling phrase: "Keep a straight face." Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, and I have no difficulty keeping a straight face. The member can laugh as members over there frequently do — laugh and giggle but this is an important matter.

The deficit was left by the previous administration. The failure of that government during its brief time in office from 1972 to 1975 — its failure to adhere to the sound fiscal management practices which had become a tradition in British Columbia — resulted in a cash shortfall of $261 million, a shortfall that had to be made up by borrowing. Fortunately the people of British Columbia in late 1975 threw that gang out of office, and turned again in 1979 to an administration showing responsible financial management. What would have happened if they had not been thrown out in 1975? Mr. Speaker, ponder that for a few moments. Larger deficits undoubtedly would have been incurred. The people of this province have been paying for this NDP-incurred deficit for the past five years, through interests costs and debt-retirement payments. It's a burden that the government has been able to meet in the period of strong economic growth which followed our government's return to office in 1975.

However, in the 1982-83 fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, the difficult international economic situation and our admittedly poor revenue prospects — which I spoke about in the budget and which a number of us have spoken of in the time intervening — have caused us to reconsider all expenditures. The provision of $26.1 million for debt repayment would have in this particularly difficult year meant a corresponding reduction in some other activity for the people of British Columbia. Which of those services would we have had to cut because of the NDP debt? Would it have been a cut in employment development? Would it have been a very serious cut in some other ministry activity? We carefully considered the alternatives, and we reached the decision that is presented to this House through this bill. In a very difficult time, the provision of essential social programs, housing and employment development opportunities, particularly employment development initiatives, is much more important, at least to the members on this side of the House, than a repayment on the debt caused by members opposite. I want to point out, however, that there will be do default on the debt. This bill will provide authority to borrow funds to make the payment. The terms, the conditions, and the timing of the borrowing will be determined during the balance of the fiscal year, depending on our judgment of market conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I stressed in the budget speech that the course we have charted for this fiscal year is a very narrow one. By borrowing to finance this year's debt repayment we are providing ourselves a little more room in which to manoeuvre. It is a fiscally responsible measure for a period of extreme financial difficulty. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: It's always a disappointment to me when the Minister of Finance gets down into the mud at the level of some of his colleagues when he's talking about finances.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member who has control of the floor of the House has the right to be heard.

MR. STUPICH: I can recall when his predecessor in that position actually brought forth a budget that was so low in terms of political conduct that he was obliged to withdraw it and issue a second edition. As I say, it's a disappointment that the current Minister of Finance tries to get down on the same level when he's talking about finance.

I wondered if the Minister of Finance would repeat the remarks from the budget speech, and he did. I'm going to repeat them again: "...to retire the debt incurred by the previous government in 1975-76." They have to refinance this portion of the retirement of the debt incurred by the NDP administration, which went out of office on December 22, 1975.

I'd like to refer, just briefly, to Public Accountsfor the year ended March 31, 1976, page F121. I suppose this same reference could come from other sources, but I refer to order-in-council 1061-76, approved by the Lieutenant-Governor on March 31, 1976. The previous NDP administration had been out of office for three and a third months. During that period there was not one instance recorded where the incoming administration was not able to meet the payment of any of the accounts that were due to suppliers in the province of British Columbia. I don't recall them ever having to admit that they didn't have the cash to make a single payment up to three and a third months after we left office. But three and a third months after we left office, they passed an order-in-council borrowing some $261,447,790. Three and a third months after we went out of office they passed that order-in-council, and in the intervening three and a third months they had no difficulty at all in meeting payments as they came due. I'm going to draw on the Clarkson Gordon report, as I've done in previous instances — a report that was commissioned by the Premier and that he said at the time was going to be a full and comprehensive audit, but which he knew wouldn't be and certainly couldn't be in that length of time. But I'm going to refer to that report again, and I'm going to talk about Crown corporations, since that's where most of the debt went. It went to four grants to Crown corporations, and I'll deal with those in some detail. The Clarkson Gordon report, this administration's own report — or at least commissioned and paid for by them — which they haven't referred to very much, because they didn't like what it said.... They took some very selective reading out of it, but they didn't like it in general so they don't use it. It talked about agencies and Crown corporations:

"The results of operations of these organizations do not enter directly into the general accounts of the province and therefore do not affect directly the reported surplus or deficit. Agencies and Crown corporations do affect the surplus or deficit, however, if they receive any cash from the general accounts during the year — for example, grants or loans — or pay any cash to the general accounts — for example, repayment of loans or, in the case of Crown corporations, payment of dividends.

"Similarly, if we assume a Crown corporation has incurred losses and requires a substantial infusion of cash, it may borrow from commercial lenders (will not affect provincial surplus), or the government may decide to give the corporation a grant or advance to put it in funds (will affect surplus) or may decide to

[ Page 8837 ]

defer the grant or advance until after March 31, which will not affect surplus this year but will the following year."

The Clarkson Gordon report pointed out the complete freedom the government had to shuffle money in and out of Crown corporations to create surpluses or deficits, as it shows. Certainly that government did choose, three and a third months after the NDP administration went out of office, to create deficits for political purposes, and they're still trying to bring forward those old arguments today.

One of these Crown corporations that the government likes to talk a lot about is ICBC. Again I'll read from the Clarkson Gordon report: "A grant estimated at $175 million will be made to ICBC to cover its anticipated deficit as at February 29, 1976. 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 expenditures." Remember what the Clarkson Gordon report said: " If they choose to make a grant to a Crown corporation, then it affects surplus in that period." Three and a third months after the NDP went out of office, they chose to take taxpayers' money and give it to a Crown corporation, creating a deficit to that extent.

I recall that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) speaking in the House on May 31, 1982 — I made a note of it at the time — accused the NDP of having shovelled money out to ICBC. You know that not one penny of taxpayers' money went to ICBC, other than a loan which was repaid, until this administration, three and a third months after they took office, decided to take money from general revenue — money that had been collected by way of income tax, corporation tax, sales tax and other government levies, and give it to a Crown corporation. As the Clarkson Gordon report said quite clearly, if they choose to take money out of public accounts, money collected from the taxpayers generally, and give it to a Crown corporation, they can by that means create a deficit to that extent; and indeed they did that, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: ICBC was hemorrhaging, and you knew that.

MR. STUPICH: Well, let's take a look at the records. Let's take a look at Public Accounts, again for the year ended March 31, 1976; page Fl2l, for a start: "The province of British Columbia paid to the corporation $181,510,000 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund." I thought the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations was arguing when I said the money came from the taxpayers. Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1976 makes it quite plain that the $181.5 million came straight from the taxpayers of this province, nowhere else.

I recall the minister responsible for ICBC at the time saying ICBC needed that money to pay salaries. ICBC was broke; they couldn't pay their salaries without getting that $181 million. The financial statements for ICBC as at February 29, 1976 show that ICBC had cash to the extent of $17.115 million, and investments at market value — which, it points out in a note is for short term, to be used as cash any time they want — to the extent of $110.481 million. ICBC, one month prior to receiving this cheque, had cash and investments that were readily converted into cash totalling $180.596 million. ICBC had no problem at all, at that time, meeting its commitments as they came due; what happened afterwards is another story. At that point they had in excess of $180 million, either cash or marketable securities readily converted to cash. ICBC did not need that donation of $181 million, which reduced the government's ability to pay for all kinds of other services that it would dearly love to be able to pay for today.

The transit bureau was the recipient of some cash: $26 million. This grant was to finance capital commitments payable by March 31, 1976. There is nothing in the Clarkson Gordon report to say that those commitments were payable by December 22, 1975. It says they were payable by March 31, 1976. Three and a third months after we left office, they had a capital commitment to make; so they took that money out of general revenue and thereby created a further $26 million of deficit. which they still say is a deficit created by the NDP.

What has the transit authority done since then? Let's look at Public Accounts for 1981, vol. 3, page F346. Interestingly enough — and you'll recall what I said about the Clarkson Gordon report — if the government wants to give money to a Crown Corporation, they create a deficit; if they want to lend it, they don't create a deficit. Three and a third months after the NDP left office, they wanted to create a deficit, so they gave the transit authority a donation of $26 million. Since then, they didn't want to add to a deficit, but they wanted to give money to the transit authority, so they loaned them some money. Again, from the Clarkson Gordon report, if they do that they don't add to the deficit. These are the most current Public Accounts that we have. As at March 31, 1981, there was a note for $20 million payable to the province of British Columbia. When it suited their purposes, they loaned money to the transit authority; when it suited their political purposes to create a deficit, they donated it.

There is nothing wrong with any of this, and if a lot of the people over there were saying this, I wouldn't be concerned at all: but when the Minister of Finance lends his weight to these arguments. then I cannot help but feel distressed.

Grants to B.C. Hydro, $32.6 million. I suppose B.C. Hydro also needed the cash to make its current payments. The B.C. Hydro report for the year ending March 31, 1976, the day on which they.... If they didn't receive the cheque that day, they had the right to receive it that day. B.C. Hydro was not exactly broke, Mr. Speaker. They had retained earnings, profits accumulated — whatever you want to call them — of $162,631,155. B.C. Hydro didn't need a contribution from the taxpayers of the province at that time, but the Social Crediters needed that $32.6 million to add it to the accumulated deficit so that they could talk for years about the deficit that they created three and one third months after the NDP left office and still say that it was an NDP-created deficit. On that same day, March 31, 1976, before receiving the cheque from the provincial government....

lnterjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have order, please?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I know it upsets the government when I quote from their own records. I've been very careful in every statement I've made to justify it by pointing to the volume of the publication I'm using and the exact page. If they want to check any of the figures, they may check them. If they don't have a copy of the Clarkson Gordon report, I'll make one available to them.

[ Page 8838 ]

B.C. Hydro, had $44.8 million in temporary investments on March 31, 1976. Those were investments, as were the ICBC investments, that were readily converted into cash. In effect, they had in excess of $50 million in cash or near cash on the day they received that extra $32.6 million from the taxpayers. The taxpayers collectively gave that money to B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro could do with it. Any Crown corporation can do with that kind of injection. But the taxpayers really couldn't afford that kind of largess at the time, and there was no need for them to make that kind of a contribution.

Grant to B.C. Railway, $20 million. Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that B.C. Rail is a bottomless pit. Whether it's $20 million or $200 million, B.C. Rail could make very good use of whatever amount of money was going to be given to it. But on March 31, 1976, in order to add to the deficit, the government decided to give $20 million to B.C. Rail. There are further comments in the Clarkson Gordon report — page 32 for those who are interested: "The current authorized borrowing limit" — for B.C. Rail; this is March 31, 1976 — "is $650 million, of which $623 million has been utilized." So at that point in time, when the government chose to give them another $20 million, B.C. Rail still had $27 million of authorized borrowing available to it, and every year since then that authorized borrowing has been increased. For decades it has been the practice that the borrowing authority for B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro be increased annually. There was plenty of time to further increase it, as was done in that session. The borrowing authority for B.C. Rail was raised again, but there was no need at that point in time for the taxpayers of British Columbia to collectively donate another $20 million to B.C. Rail.

Mr. Speaker, I've gone through the total grants to four Crown corporations. There were other payments, which I've talked about on other occasions, that were very questionable. There were hospitals that received money, and they wrote letters back asking what it was for. There were stories of hospital boards receiving money, and they found out later that they were paid in advance, because the government wanted to charge those expenditures against the year ending March 31, 1976. There were reports of income assurance payments being received ahead of time because the government wanted to get the expenditures into the year ending March 31, 1976.

But leaving all that aside — and, as I say, up to this point I've been careful to quote everything I've said giving the exact reference from the government's own documents — there was no need to borrow the money the day they borrowed it and there was certainly no need to borrow it on December 22, the day we left office.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Premier are making all kinds of remarks across the floor. I don't doubt that they're going to get up and speak — one, two, three or four of them — but I challenge them, in speaking, to tie their remarks and comments in with figures from Public Accounts, the annual reports of the Crown corporations or any other government document, or the Clarkson Gordon report. If you're questioning anything I've said, or disagreeing with anything I've said, show me in your own books where my arguments are wrong. That's a challenge, Mr. Speaker, that I know will not be accepted.

When the minister is winding up, I would remind him that he actually stole money from the people on superannuation by taking money out of those funds at 9 1/8 percent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. I must caution the member who is now speaking that any improper motive cannot be imputed to another member of this House. Even though perhaps it can be imputed to a group or party, it cannot be a reflection upon the conduct of any member of this House. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark that anyone stole something.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw. I didn't intend it that way. But I do say that the Social Credit administration, in borrowing money from the superannuation funds to which workers and the government are contributing....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that a call for order must meet with compliance or the provisions of standing order 19 and 20 will have to be invoked.

MR. STUPICH: Borrowing money from the funds to which those people have contributed at 9 1/8 percent, at a time when the market rates are almost double that, is certainly, to say the least.... I don't accuse any member of doing this; I say the administration is shortchanging the people who are contributing to those funds and expecting the funds to be there....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll answer that.

MR. STUPICH: I hope you will. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance is going to comment on that aspect of it. I've said it many times before, and there's never really been any comment on it. Maybe he has one now. I'll have an opportunity in committee to come back on his comment.

My question is whether or not he intends to borrow this additional $26.1 million from superannuation funds as well, or is he going to look elsewhere for that? Will he be borrowing that in the market, or does he know at this point in time? If he doesn't know at this point in time, I can certainly accept that. I think he said when he introduced second reading that a decision would be made later as to when it would be borrowed, and I appreciate that. I'm just wondering if he can tell us at this time whether it is his intention, whether he has already decided to borrow from the superannuation funds; and if so, will it be at that kind of rate or will there be some different arrangement?

The opposition looks on this whole debt created by the Social Credit administration on March 31, 1976, as nothing other than a political fabrication of what went on previously. They've determined on this way of handling it in the hope that the people of British Columbia will be fooled by their analysis of history, and will be induced by this and by any other fabrications they may come up with as an administration, to

[ Page 8839 ]

return them to office when they have the nerve to go to the people. I certainly intend to tell this story. Every time I tell it, I use the government's own public accounts, budget speeches and the Crown corporation annual reports to show that the administration is not telling the people of British Columbia the truth when they say that the NDP administration created the debt, which was not created until three and a third months after we left office. We'll vote against this legislation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Nanaimo has given what I consider a political speech in this House. However, at the beginning of his remarks I found that he was acknowledging the debt. He was just saying that it wasn't until after three and a half months that we actually put it into words, but he wasn't arguing the point that the debt was actually there. He was acknowledging it. Then at the end of his speech he says that three and a half months after, we created the debt.

I have to tell him that when we took office, it took us three and a half months to figure out the mess that you left. When we brought in the Deficit Repayment Act, section 2 said: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow on the credit of the Province an amount not exceeding $400 million...." The reason that $400 million was there was that we really hadn't gotten a total handle on the mess that you had created between 1972 and 1975.

The member knows that the losses incurred and the mismanagement that went on in the years 1972 to 1975 were left to us in December 1975. At that time, when we came into office, we had to get a handle on what was left in the till, if anything, and the Clarkson Gordon report was prepared. I'm not sure whether or not the member for Nanaimo wants to challenge the ability and the credibility of Clarkson Gordon. I doubt he would challenge that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, only an occasional interjection can be tolerated, even though it is out of order. I think the Premier has certainly used up his quota.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Throughout the member's speech he cited the fact that money was paid to Crown corporations even though they were not in difficulty. I would mention ICBC, because I am familiar with it. ICBC had a $181 million deficit at the end of that fiscal year, during which time the NDP was responsible for that corporation. It was literally bankrupt. It took the infusion of that cash to make the books, you might say, balance. The member will tell you that the cash was there, so it was no problem. I gather his previous livelihood was made from accounting. I think he does some now from time to time. I noticed him filling out tax returns in the House in April. He also knows that at that time ICBC received in February of each year all the premiums for the coming year from the drivers of automobiles in this province. So the cash flow came in right on February 28. Because of the method of assessing premiums, there was an infusion of cash then. But he neglects to tell you that that cash would be there for a 12-month period, and during that 12-month period claims would reduce that cash. On the balance sheet, the ICBC books of account, the auditor's statement will tell you that the deficit was incurred when that party, as government, had responsibility for that corporation.

The one thing we should remember is that when they left office they left a substantial deficit. The Minister of Finance of the day brought in a bill in order to set up this debt service to pay off this debt that was left to the taxpayers of the province, rather than assess them in one fell swoop in 1976. We should remember that the economy was fairly buoyant during that time when the NDP was government. British Columbia ended up out of step with the rest of the country due to the fact that the legislation and regulations they brought in between 1972 and 1975 literally curtailed the mining industry in this province. They know that's correct. They know they had a $100 million overrun in Human Resources. They didn't know what happened, until all of a sudden it was a clerical error. That's the type of administration that is standing on the opposite side of the House and debating the issue before us, Bill 35. But the track record during the time they were government — poor legislation, discriminatory legislation, poor administration and losses of $100 million, poor investment, such as Swan Valley Foods....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. members. I would remind the Minister of Agriculture that perhaps a debate on the origin of the debt would be in order; however, the line of debate on which the minister is now embarking is beyond the scope of the bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was just pointing out that the administration that caused the debt to be there when we took office was the reason for the debt-repayment legislation we brought in in 1976, which is now responsible for Bill 35, Provincial Debt Refinancing Act, 1982. I'm trying to put together a case that the member for Nanaimo attempted to paint a picture that the debt that required this bill today didn't exist.

In discussing the administration between 1972 and 1975 and the problems we inherited, let's look at the administration of 1982 — in that we're dealing with this bill, which calls for a refinancing of the original legislation and the original commitment, and the reasons for this bill — and compare it with the one between 1972 and 1975.

We're faced with a world economy, as the Minister of Finance has mentioned, that is having difficulty; with a Canadian economy and an American economy that are having difficulty at the present time; and with, of course, a B.C. economy which is being impacted by a slowdown in housing activity, manufacturing and the world need for lumber, fibre and the minerals which we extract. But the difference, since the original bill, is the leadership that this government, faced with the situation in the economy, has shown in 1982 in trying to get control on spending. The Premier's restraint program that was announced in February is one of those areas whereby we have moved to deal will the economy as of today.

Reluctant as I, for one, am to see the need for it, Bill 35 says that we have to refinance and borrow money for the purpose of replenishing the consolidated revenue with respect to that $26.1 million that is expended, which is part of the requirements of the debt repayment legislation that we passed in 1976. This bill shows the different method of this administration, as opposed to the one in that period of time, 1972 to 1975. Their answer to it was to throw money at it and maybe it would go away. Our answer is to face the problem

[ Page 8840 ]

and deal with it, and that's why the minister has brought forward this bill.

Mr. Speaker, you, may rule me somewhat out of order, but the reason for my solid support of Bill 35 is that it serves as a reminder to the public of this province of the administration that was here between '72 and '75. It serves to be a reminder to all politicians, whether they be NDP, Social Credit, Conservative or Liberal, that we have a grave responsibility as politicians to administer the people's, money wisely. That's the reason why I strongly support this bill, because the Minister of Finance has recognized the seriousness of the problem facing him today, as opposed to the previous Minister of Finance in the NDP era, who served from 1972 to 1975 — he was also the Premier of the province. How did he recognize the seriousness of his problem? I'll tell you. He appointed the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) as Minister of Finance in the dying days of his government and left him out to dry. Where is the Leader of the Opposition, who should be in here today defending his responsibilities? He's not even in the House. He leaves the member for Nanaimo to hang out to dry and to stand in the House and make what I call a "political speech" — and this from a man who has enough knowledge of the accounting profession that it must be very difficult for him to do so.

The Minister of Finance of the day in 1976, now the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), opened his remarks, if I recall, at that particular time when he brought in his budget, which the member for Nanaimo quoted from, with the words: "Never forget. The people should never forget." We must never forget the seriousness of that situation that we inherited in 1976: a $100 million overrun, the mining industry in. a disastrous situation, Swan Valley Foods investments.... I could go on and on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister is out of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I apologize, but we should never forget and we should never forget the statements that are made, such as the one made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in the House during debate the other day which really caused a stir across Canada in the investment world. He said that one of our banks was on the verge of bankruptcy. We should never forget that type of administration and that type of political comment.

As I said, the Minister of Finance recognizes the seriousness of the situation today. The Premier of this province has recognized the situation as it stands in British Columbia and Canada, and this government is working towards finding solutions: first of all, restraint, and secondly, encouragement of development and employment in this province, and addressing it so that we can recover as quickly as possible from the economic downturn. Bill 35 deals with a responsibility to the taxpayers of this province, and we have now got a refinancing act to look after the $26.1 million that is due. As I said before, it is the reason for this bill and for the original bill passed in 1976 that we should identify, as opposed to a simple one-section bill which deals very briefly with the issue. The issue was far graver, and continues to be grave, because we have this responsibility to our taxpayers.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I support this Bill 35.

MR. COCKE: I would love the world to be able to contrast that speech with the speech of the member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who dealt with facts right out of books, right out of your Public Accounts, right out of the Clarkson Gordon report. That member, that irresponsible minister, didn't even know what he was talking about. For instance, he talked about a $100 million overrun that year in Human Resources. Do you know what it was that year? It was $46.5 million underexpended. He didn't know because he didn't even bother to look. A totally irresponsible minister.

And you as a government have been totally irresponsible since that first day, when the then Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) got up in this House and made a total disgrace before all the people by providing an absolutely fabricated document that you'll never live down.

I have found great interest in the fact that each year we replay this song. Each year we talk about that terrible New Democratic government that governed this province for three and a half years. We see a debt created today, an actual deficit, but they have to turn it on to the old NDP. The fact of the matter is, the mismanagement we have seen in this province is here and it's now, and it's a result of the last six years. That's where we're suffering, that's why we're hurting, and they would love to defuse that hurt.

Take it back, into history. God knows, if we had been, government from 1933 to 1935 they'd still be harking back to those days. But we weren't; we have had a Social Credit government in this province from 1952 to 1982, with the exception of three years and four months. In those three years and four months more good happened for the people of our province than happened at any other time in our history. Look at the provincewide ambulance service, look at guaranteed income for seniors, look at Pharmacare. Look at all the things that occurred, and the most important of all was the guarantee that agricultural land will remain free to feed our children forever.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, I approved the $30 million Royal Columbian Hospital. I was out there with my shovel.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon., members. The member for New Westminster is trying to make his speech; let's not interrupt him.

MR. COCKE: I recall vividly that one day between December 1975 and March 1976 I got a phone call from a hospital. The hospital official said to me: "We got $10 million in the mail and we don't know why." They were pouring money into Crown corporations, into every kind of opportunity they could, in order to create a deficit and blame it on the NDP. Beautiful workmanship!

I notice the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who is going to get up and give us his typical speech....

MS. BROWN: Same old tired speech.

MR. COCKE: Yes; the same old tired speech that he gives us year after year — not the second member for Point Grey, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom), but the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who doesn't even know how to sex a whale.

[ Page 8841 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: What part of the bill is that?

MR. COCKE: I went back into history, and I remember what a terrible mistake he made when he tried to sex a whale one time.

ICBC was on its own: $181 million. This is the deficit they say they found. The fact of the matter is that it was a Crown corporation. If you found that they had a deficit.... Incidentally, the cash flow was okay. They didn't need the money. Obviously they didn't need it, because they gave it to ICBC and borrowed it back. But that's not the point. The point is that B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation. What do you do there? If there's a need for money, you go out and borrow it. They've borrowed for B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations.

These guys know how to borrow money. This province has gone from 1975, where our debt was something in the order of $4 billion, to $11 billion. In other words, in all of history to 1975, or early 1976, we were in hock for $4 billion. They've increased $7 billion in the last six years; over $1 billion a year. This is the group that is talking about deficits, borrowings and so on. They should hang their heads. They 've created many of these Crown corporations just in order to borrow. Public works used to be pay-as-you-go in this province. What is it now? It's a Crown corporation. They borrow. The B.C. Buildings Corporation, isn't that the name of it? Yes. The Systems Corporation is another Crown corporation.

This government showed from the beginning that they were untrustworthy. They showed it from the very beginning, when they produced an artificial deficit and blamed it on a previous government. Each year they bring up a reminder bill. If it weren't a PR stunt in the first place, how come they keep bringing it up every year? To remind the people....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: To remind the people what an incompetent government we had from 1972 to 1975.

MR. COCKE: That minister is talking about an incompetent government between 1972 and 1975. This province has never been worse off, and you're the government, and have been for six years.

I think that the situation right now is a very sad affair. I think the Socreds created the debt. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that it took three and a half months to figure out where they were. I wonder if you agree with that, Mr. Minister of Forests. Did it take that long?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Forests will come to order, and the member for New Westminster will assist me in maintaining order if he will address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture didn't even get that straight. He said that it took three and a half months. He didn't get that straight, because by February 20, 1976, not March 31, they had in their hands the Clarkson Gordon report. It took them three days to decide on the direction they were going to go. The direction they were going to go was to phony it up as best they could. and then come out with this ongoing saga. I think it's a darn shame that the people in this province who are suffering so much right now should have to go through this propaganda, year after year.

Why doesn't this government go to work and provide health care? Why don't they go to work and provide for the people in this province who so badly need them now, with jobs and so on? Instead of that, they're up here in this House, bandying around a bill that is really nothing short of a deficit bill. It's a shocking situation that we should be confronted again with a Minister of Finance and another "responsible" minister standing up in this House and giving us the balderdash that we've heard today.

HON. MR. McGEER: I hadn't wanted to enter the debate, but I found that it would have been even more difficult to resist the expectations of the member who has just taken his seat and has offered us another "Cocke-tale," Mr. Speaker.

Of course, in this Legislature we shouldn't dwell on the past we should be looking to the future and how to build a prosperous society for our children and our children's children. Mr. Speaker, what this bill illustrates is how very difficult it becomes for present generations — to say nothing of future generations — to wipe out the profligacy of the past. Probably the least respected and most required characteristic in government around the world today is fiscal responsibility. These are harsh economic times brought on by the worldwide inability of governments to manage their fiscal affairs. The pain and suffering in the world today for which, regrettably, we must pay some share, has come upon us because governments in too many areas of the world have indulged the luxury and irresponsibility that characterized the New Democratic Party administration during the period of 1972-75, and which has led to this bill.

The ones who bring fiscal responsibility are attacked — attacked by the irresponsible forces in society, attacked by the media, as takes place today; and we witnessed it here. There is no concept in our media today of the need for everyone to practise fiscal restraint; no encouragement of that, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that national and provincial governments in this nation will rack up debts of over $40 billion this year. It wasn't very long ago that our hearts went out to the country of Poland, because they had incurred debts to the west over a period of years of $23 billion, and how would those poor people pay it off?

While ve had concern for Poland, all across this land people are still encouraging government to spend. In one year alone this small country of Canada — smaller in population than Poland — racks up a debt almost twice as large on current account in a single year. That's the degree of irresponsibility that has been allowed to accumulate in this nation, with the media and the opposition not saying, in heaven's name, bring some common sense, work to reduce that, but, more, more. more: repeat the errors of the NDP: magnify the errors of the NDP; to hell with fiscal responsibility and satisfy today's demands however voracious they may be. No thought for tomorrow.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is one small bill that says that it's not easy to pay tomorrow for the waste of today and the waste of yesterday. We find no insight, no repentance, no desire to reform, no vision, no glimmer of responsibility from the opposition: not even a willingness to attend the House and be present for divisions — not even that. One can appreciate and understand why the public of British Columbia wisely rejected that party and heir philosophy in 1933, why they rejected them in 1937, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1956,

[ Page 8842 ]

1960, 1963, 1966 and 1969. The people knew, during all of those elections, what would happen if the NDP were ever elected. Then, woe betide an unsuspecting public; in 1972 they lowered their guard, and look what happened. They left themselves a debt. Here we are a full decade later, still trying to cope with the wild excesses of that brief period of time. That's why the public rejected the NDP in 1975 and why they will continue to reject them again and again and again until, at some time somewhere along the line, there is the slightest indication — however slight, and none has appeared to date — of an understanding of that major and first responsibility of government: fiscal responsibility. Remember that you're spending the taxpayers' money, not your own. Remember your responsibility to your children and your children's children, and not just to try to curry votes on whatever short-term basis you may. Until that measure of responsibility infiltrates that socialist party — mind you, Mr. Speaker, it would be a first for the world if such were to happen in a socialist party — the people of British Columbia will retain their wisdom and reject that party thoroughly and totally.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reject the philosophy of the members opposite.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition opposes the bill for three principal reasons. First of all, because this bill adds another chapter to the long and sad history of the use of the big lie in politics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the member knows that that word is unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: I attributed it to no individual, Mr. Speaker, on which basis it is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The word itself is unparliamentary, and I must ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: What word is that — "chapter"?

MR. SPEAKER: The word "lie." Withdraw it, please.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'll withdraw it, but I will rephrase it at the same time and talk about the political history of the big-lie technique as practised by others. You may come to see a parallel, Mr. Speaker.

The first reason we reject it is because of the deliberate fictions, the political novellas, written by the coalition to try to misstate, misrepresent and mislead in regard....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would recommend to the member that he remind himself that the hallmark of debate is temperance and temperate language. He has now encroached for the second time on the list of unparliamentary words. Deliberately attributing an improper motive to any member of this House is out of order. I would ask the hon. member to use the vocabulary which he has to carry on parliamentary debate. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, in the last three minutes it has not been me who has made reference to any individual; it's been you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We will not debate with the Chair. The responsibility of the Chair is to maintain orderly debate in parliamentary language, as the member is well aware.

MR. BARBER: As long as the Chair doesn't debate with me I won't debate with the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will come to order.

MR. BARBER: I am in order, Mr. Speaker, and I am in such order as to argue that this bill is unacceptable because it misrepresents, misstates and misleads. I do not attribute that to any other feature of circumstance than the bill itself — I have not done so; I will not do so. The bill misstates, misrepresents and misleads. That is the first reason we reject the bill, and I will return again to the political history of the big lie as a political technique practised by some people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please hon. member. I'll ask the second time for the withdrawal of the unparliamentary word "lie." It is not acceptable in this chamber.

MR. BARBER: I attributed it to no one, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The word itself is unparliamentary and the member will withdraw it.

MR. BARBER: What? I withdraw the word, but I ask you....

MR. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw the word "lie."

MR. BARBER: I have withdrawn it, but, Mr. Speaker, with respect.... If some member of this House accused you of having green hair, you would know that to be a lie. If you were to call it a lie, would that be out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The word "lie" is unparliamentary, hon. member. It cannot be allowed in this chamber. The member has withdrawn the word.

MR. BARBER: For the second time, the first reason we oppose the bill is the way in which it misstates, misrepresents and misleads. Secondly, we oppose it because this bill puts us further into debt and into obligation to the money-lenders. I resent that in a time of restraint and recession Social Credit has decided to put us more into debt to the money-lenders. The fiscal consequence of this bill is that we will pay more in interest than should be paid even if you could accept the phony premise of the arguments which put forward the bill we're amending today.

Thirdly, I oppose the bill because it further tarnishes the reputation of the Minister of Finance, who should not be associated with such a bill. The Minister of Finance, like the Attorney-General, has always had a unique obligation to remain somewhat distant from politics. The Minister of Finance has always had an important obligation to keep himself separate from the world of controversy in order that the statements he makes will be understood by every person in the legal and financial community to be accurate, impartial and fair. The third reason that we oppose this bill is that is

[ Page 8843 ]

tarnishes the reputation of the Minister of Finance because he has associated himself with those who deliberately misstated the case in regard to the province's financial condition in the period of 1972 to 1975.

Let me talk, first of all, about the technique practised by some who.believe that if they tell a story often enough and loud enough, it will be believed by others. In North America, this practice has been made particularly well known by someone named McCarthy. I'm referring, of course, to the gentleman from Wisconsin, who has followers. I will not mention, except in passing, the secret police. This political fib was invented by a follower of McCarthy. It had no foundation. In fact, it had no basis in reality. It had no justification in truth.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, earlier in the debate when another member alluded to a company, with respect, I think the Chair pointed out that that reference was not appropriate to the debate on second reading of this bill. I wonder if the same would not apply to a reference such as the member for Victoria has made. I don't think the member was in the House at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has also heard, I believe, the member who is now debating suggest that it was a passing remark. Should he embark on a debate on that subject, he would be cautioned, as were other members. But I don't think we could take objection to a passing remark.

MR. BARBER: It remains a matter of tragic public record that someone in this province created a fiction about a secret police force that was supposedly in existence in the period of 1972 to 1975. The person who made that comment has yet to apologize for it. It was a fabrication from beginning to end.

I ask you to consider that if the senior leadership of the government in power has already demonstrated that it is capable of those fabrications — and we know about the secret police — then what further fabrications might they also be capable of? Could they, for instance, fabricate a debt, attribute it to their political opponents, and have people believe that it was a real thing? If they could fabricate a story about a secret police, maybe they could also fabricate a story about a debt allegedly created by the NDP but in fact manufactured for political purposes in the spring of 1976.

On of the McCarthys was from Wisconsin, the other from another place. We oppose the bill because we oppose the continuing attempt by Social Credit to rewrite history, to refight the 1975 election, when they should be dealing with the problems of today. They prefer to dwell on the past. No matter how much they may misrepresent that past, nonetheless they prefer to dwell on it. We know that the political history of this province includes in 1974 certain fictional reference to a non-existent secret police force, allegedly created by the government of the day. It's a totally phony story, which has never been corrected or apologized for.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The Premier says "the bank." You know, when one of our guys makes a mistake, we own up to it in public and apologize. We've done that. When I make a mistake, I'll do that too. The person who made — shall we be charitable? — the mistake of inventing a secret police force has yet to apologize for that one. That person is a senior member of the coalition. When we hear an apology from that person, maybe we'll be a little more prepared to accept the pious preachments of the Premier, who asks other people to behave in a way that he himself is not prepared to do.

The first reason we oppose it is because it is consistent with the history of political fabrication. The history of Social Credit is consistent with the history of political fabrication. They will say anything about their opponents, no matter how wild or untrue; anything at all goes, when you're a Socred.

Secondly, this bill puts us further into debt to the moneylenders. Because of this bill we will pay more interest than we should have — hundreds of thousands of dollars more will now be paid in interest than should have been paid, even if you can accept the fake premise upon which the original bill was founded.

Let's assume that the Socreds were, for once, telling the truth when the first bill came down, that there was a real debt that had to be repaid with real money, and real interest had to be paid on top of that. Let's presume for a moment they were telling the truth, unlikely as that may sound. If they were, you'd think — were they responsible — that they would be interested in paying off the debt as soon as possible in order to get us out of hock to the money-lenders and thereby reduce the interest that had to be added to the debt. If they were responsible, you'd think they would try to pay off the debt as soon as possible.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the last four years they tell us they've been running surpluses. If you and I ran a surplus and had a debt at the same time and are paying interest on that debt, we would be prudent and pay that off right away, would we not? Are the Socreds prudent? No, they're not. I'll get to that in a minute. The imprudence and foolishness of Social Credit is such that they are actually adding to a debt that they themselves manufactured. The debt was, in the first place, phony and contrived. It was a political fiction which they have tried to sell, in the same way that others have tried to sell equally big fibs in the past, starting in 1933. Even if you could accept the reality of it — a reality which exists nowhere except in the minds of its authors — you would have to also accept that it is in the interests of this province to pay off that so-called debt as soon as possible.

But no, this bill prolongs that so-called debt. This bill means we pay more interest to the money-lenders. Why would they do that? Why do they want to drive the province even further into debt? Why do they want us to be even more greatly obligated to the money-lenders? It's probably because they don't really care about that. All they care about is continuing to bash their major political opponents in this province, which of course consists of the New Democratic Party. That is not an adequate reason to support this bill. The additional interest that will be paid to the money-lenders as the result of the prolongation of this so-called debt is an interest we should not be paying at all. The money should be spent to create jobs; it should not be spent on the moneylenders. This bill puts us further into debt over a longer period of time to the money-lenders, on which basis it is not acceptable to prudent people. At least New Democrats are prudent, and in a time of world recession, which is stumbling rapidly into depression, we should not be further into debt and we should not be paying further interest.

A great American journalist by the name of I.F. Stone pioneered a technique in the 1950s. I.F. Stone decided that in order to deal with the problems of American governments in terms the American people could understand, he would do no

[ Page 8844 ]

more and no, less in each of his, papers than to quote from published government documents. I.F. Stone made a magnificent reputation as a first-class journalist, by doing nothing more and nothing, less. The lesson of I.F. Stone was practised again this morning, by my colleague from Nanaimo. This man, himself a chartered accountant who was, a minister of finance, did to Social Credit what I.F. Stone did to the American government for two and a half decades: he simply quoted from their own sources. He pointed out the contradictions, he demonstrated the inconsistencies. This morning my colleague from Nanaimo, quoting from Public Accounts, from audited statements of Crown corporations, from Clarkson Gordon's own report, did to Social Credit what I.F. Stone did to Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. What I.F. Stone did was simply cite the documents and ask: how is it possible for a government to say one thing when their own publications say something else? For instance, how is it possible for the government to allege there was a debt which Clarkson Gordon exposed, when Clarkson Gordon, in its own report, indicated quite clearly, the instructions they were under, and demonstrated quite clearly, the option a government has to create or to restrain debt.

My colleague from Nanaimo did no more this morning than what I.F. Stone did, so magnificently for decades: quoted government sources only, and drew obvious conclusions clearly. My colleague from Nanaimo, ended his remarks with a challenge, and asked any member of the coalition to find contrary figures in those same government documents. He asked any member of the coalition to find some contrasting statement in Clarkson Gordon, Public Accounts, the vouchers, or the audited statements of the Crown corporations. My colleague from Nanaimo challenged any one of them to contradict the factual basis of his remarks by finding some other government document that did so. Not a single member of the coalition replied. Not one of them could meet that particular challenge, because it was a honest challenge. His remarks, and the factual basis for them were drawn from published government documents.

We wouldn't ask the Socreds, to accept material that we produced from our research office, any more than they would ask us to accept material produced from theirs. Obviously our political biases could interfere. The member for Nanaimo did no more than to quote — if I may repeat it, Mr. Speaker, so that it sinks in — from government publications, each of which, singly and cumulatively, indicates that the so-called debt was a fabrication from beginning to end, manufactured in desperate haste during a period of three months in the spring of 1976 in order to attempt to discredit the government they had beaten on December 11, 1975.

Why are the Socreds doing this? Because they cannot challenge the factual basis of the comments made by my colleague from Nanaimo. Because they know full well that they will lose the next provincial election, and it is of course easier and headier to simply relive the glory days of having won the 1975 election. They know which election they'd prefer to fight, because they know what the outcome is in advance. The Socreds are trying to fight the 1975 election all over again. They did so in the first three months of 1976, when they manufactured a debt, and got us further in hock to the money-lenders. They're doing so again today when they prolong the so-called debt, add to the real interest payments and thereby add to the crushing burden of debt which is the legacy of Social Credit.

During their remarks, Mr. Speaker, the Socreds talked about incompetence, and they said: never forget, for instance, the so-called $100 million overrun. Well, I have a somewhat longer list of "never-forgets" I'd like to read into the record in order that we can deal with the competence of a government that brings forward a bill like this.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about incompetence, you talk about Social Credit; they are one and the same thing; you say them in the same breath; it is the same idea; it is the same record. The record of Socred  incompetence is the worst this province has ever seen.

Let us never forget the Ministry of Deregulation, a $20 million experiment in disaster which set this province back in its public reputation by years. When you talk about incompetence, as they did in their debate earlier on this bill, Mr. Speaker, let us never forget the Ministry of Deregulation, a $20 million blunder which the Premier himself announced to the people of British Columbia. Let us never forget, in further passing reference, Mr. Speaker, the primary accomplishment of the discredited Ministry of Deregulation. Seaboard. Do you remember the night we had to come back here, Mr. Speaker? Now it's only a passing reference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: But they talked about incompetence, and so can we.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate must be within the bounds of Bill 35.

MR. BARBER: I agree, Mr. Speaker. It must be, and it is.

Let us never forget the heroin treatment program concocted by these guys.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did it work?

MR. BARBER: Did it work! It did nothing for anyone; it wasted $15 million; it was illegal, unconstitutional and unworkable.

Let us never forget the saga of the Princess Marguerite, the Surrey, the Rupert and the jetfoil — another $20 million down the drain. Later we do not forget the incompetence of Social Credit.

Let us never forget the $100,000 wasted on a study for a tunnel and a bridge, or some hybrid variant of both, from Vancouver to Victoria, that study commissioned by the guy from Point Grey who told us we mustn't ever forget the waste of money under the New Democratic Party — the waste of yesterday, he said. We're looking back to just one of those yesterdays, Mr. Speaker; we remind ourselves of the 100,000 bucks wasted on a ridiculous, insupportable and fiscally irresponsible scheme to build a bridge and a tunnel, or both, from Vancouver to Victoria.

Let us never forget the day this government appointed one minister too many. The limit was 19. They appointed a twentieth and discovered they had bungled again; then they had to rewrite the Constitution Act. Let us never forget the day that by accident they broke the law and had to rewrite it retroactively in order to appoint the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) as the Minister of Tourism. Let us never forget that Socred incompetence.

[ Page 8845 ]

Finally, for today's purposes — but the list is much, much longer — let us never forget BCRIC, $270 million worth of stock losses later. That's how much people have suffered because of the incompetence of Social Credit. We do not forget BCRIC. This monument to Socred bungling will stand for years to come as a laughable reminder of what happens when a guy who runs a hardware store thinks he can run a province. Let us never forget BCRIC.

I said the second reason that we cannot support the bill is because of the great principles of I.F. Stone. Public documents, government publications themselves, make it clear where the fabrication occurred and what its nature is. The history of incompetence of Social Credit, including the Ministry of Deregulation, Seaboard, the heroin treatment program, the Princess Marguerite, the $100,000 tunnel study, the extra cabinet ministers and BCRIC — just a few among many — is such that we cannot be persuaded that these guys know what they are doing running half a peanut stand, much less the whole one to which they think they're entitled.

MR. SEGARTY: You couldn't run a pee up in a brewery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. BARBER: With any luck Hansard will exempt the comments.

We oppose the bill on the second ground of Socred incompetence, the provable public record, the challenges made by my colleague for Nanaimo and the fact that this bill draws us further into hock to the money-lenders. The old Socreds would never have approved of that. They knew what the banks were up to. The old Socreds had a powerful vision about the ways in which people have to recapture control of their own economy from the great banking interests. The old Socreds would have understood what it meant to get further into debt, as this bill pushes us further into debt. The old Socreds knew what it meant to be burdened for generations with interest payments that you can never meet. The old Socreds knew what it meant to be indentured to the moneylenders. The old Socreds would never have approved a bill like this which prolongs a debt and adds to the interest, even though the debt itself was manufactured by Social Credit.

The third and final reason we oppose this bill, as I said at the outset, is the way it further tarnishes the reputation of the Minister of Finance. He, like the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), should be above this fray. He, like the Attorney-General, has a unique obligation to keep himself apart from the political controversies of the day in order that his statements in regard to fiscal matters, like those in regard to law enforcement, shall be viewed as ones of real integrity and as statements that are impartial and disinterested.

Every time the Minister of Finance associates himself with the fictions of 1976, he further impairs his ability to be taken seriously within the world financial community, and within the larger community of those who care about the representation of the public interest in British Columbia. When the Minister of Finance was the mayor of Saanich, he had a very good personal reputation. I commend him for it. I've referred to it before and I'll do so again now without hesitation. When he was the mayor of Saanich. he did'not identify himself with phony statements about debt, obligation or deficits. It stood him in good stead, and the man got elected for years. That's to his credit.

But now that he's a Socred, the rules have changed, and he appears to be willing — at least as long as he's a member of the coalition, although he was once a Conservative, once a Liberal and once had something to do with Action Canada.... He appears to have less concern about his reputation and he appears to be a lot more willing to be publicly identified with the specious nonsense that is the principle of this bill. That's something that shouldn't occur lightly. If the Attorney-General were to misstate the law as badly as this bill misstates the public record. he would have to resign. The Attorney-General has a unique obligation. free from political interference, meddling and interest, to represent public policy and to accurately and wholly state the burden of the law.

The Minister of Finance has a similar obligation: it is to state the fiscal position of the province of British Columbia in a disinterested and truthful way. In 1976 that position was deliberately misstated by the government of the day. We fought it then and we have fought it every year since then. We do so doing no more than what I.F. Stone did. We quote from Clarkson Gordon. We quote from Public Accounts. We quote from the vouchers of the day. We quote from the audited statements of the Crown corporations themselves. One need do no more than that in order to make the case that we have made. That case is that this bill is a kind of forgery, Mr. Speaker. It purports to represent something which is not represented in fact. This bill, as a political forgery, is not acceptable to this House or to the people, and it further impairs the reputation of its current author. As with the Attorney-General, so with the Minister of Finance, and that should not be allowed to happen.

This bill is a bill which comes in in order to serve the political purposes of the coalition. It clearly does not serve the fiscal interests of the province; were it so, it would have been paid off long ago, if it was a debt to be paid at all. It is not. Again, if you accept the premises of its authors, it should have been paid off long ago. The reason the Socreds continue to bring it back, year after year — this year in a particularly bizarre form — is in order to refight the 1975 election, dwelling in the past as they do. and in order to avoid the real issues of today, which are the collapse of our economy, the shutdown of our hospitals, the decline in health care, the failure of confidence in the credibility of Social Credit itself, the now-known public waste and extravagance of several coalition ministers, and the fact that the Socreds have no vision for the future and no vision or belief in a fundamentally civil and humane community. They believe in competition and in greed. They believe that selfishness is an adequate motive to inform public policy. They believe that competition rather than cooperation should be the rule of the day in the jungle of British Columbia that they attempt to create and have succeeded in creating in the many years they have been in office.

Mr. Barber moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8846 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as this House ends on such a high note today and we adjourn, I wonder if I could bring into the proceedings a note of good wishes for one of the members of our press gallery who celebrates his thirty-fifth birthday today. Will the House join me in wishing Brian Kennedy, of Broadcast News, many happy returns of the day.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman tabled the annual report of the director of trade practices for the year ending December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.