[ Page 9443 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Salary of Expo '86 management consultant. Mrs. Dailly –– 9443

Mr. Barrett

Steel contract for ALRT. Mr. Leggatt –– 9443

CIPA timber allocation. Mr. Lea –– 9444

Water-licence fees. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9444

Increase in Hydro's debt-equity and interest-coverage ratios. Mr. D'Arcy –– 9444

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill 89). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Introduction and first reading –– 9445

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Mr. Stupich –– 9445

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 9447

Mr. Cocke –– 9448

Mrs. Wallace –– 9450

Ms. Sanford –– 9450

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9451

Mr. King –– 9452

Mr. D'Arcy –– 9454

Mr. Hall –– 9455

Mr. Barber –– 9457

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9459

Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 86). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On the amendment

Mr. Barrett –– 9461

Tabling Documents

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission annual report.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 9466

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to have with us in your gallery this afternoon a fellow primarily from Fort St. James in that great constituency of Omineca, but now, for the winter at least, living in Tsawwassen — a very longtime and close friend of mine, Mr. John Doyle. I would ask the House to make him very welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: It's a great pleasure for me to introduce to you today Gladys and Ivan Arnold from Sparwood, British Columbia. They're visiting Victoria, and I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome this afternoon.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting from Noordwijkerhout, Holland are four friends: Mr. Nick and Loes Van Hage and Mr. Bert and Adrie Hogervorst.

MR. BARRETT: Visiting the Legislature today is a former teacher of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bill Munday, who taught in the East End of Vancouver and saw some of his students do well; others he's still checking on.

Oral Questions

SALARY OF EXPO '86
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Was the management consultant, Mr. Mike Burns, a former campaign manager for the Minister of Human Resources, hired by Expo '86 at a salary of some $750 per day?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that. It must have taken place before I became Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services. I would have to take that question as notice and bring the information back to the member to satisfy her interest in this matter.

MRS. DAILLY: When the minister takes that, would he advise the House when he returns — which we hope will be shortly on an important matter such as this — what special services were offered which qualified for payment at this level?

Will the minister confirm that the total payment....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is it urgent?

MRS. DAILLY: We consider it urgent in a time of restraint. I want the minister in charge to come back and tell the House if it is true that Mr. Burns, in a time of restraint, collected a total of $258,000 — over a quarter of a million dollars — for payment. We will be awaiting that answer, and the public will be awaiting that answer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Burns was a consultant to Transpo '86 and Expo '86. He filled the two positions of president and general manager while he was a consultant. Mr. Burns is no longer a consultant or an official of Expo '86, his contract, or his consultant role, having expired on September 7, 1982.

MR. MACDONALD: You know all about it, don't you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: As far as the money portion is concerned, I'm not aware of the kind of remuneration Mr. Burns has picked up from his role as a consultant. I would be glad to take that portion of the question as notice and bring the information back to the member. At this time I have some difficulty in determining how long the position was filled by Mr. Burns, and this might have a bearing on what kind of payment was received by him: whether he was engaged for a year or for three or four years. I'm not aware of that. I'll have to determine it, and I'm sure the member wants that information as quickly as I do. I'll make sure I bring that information back to the member, because she's inquisitive on this issue.

MR. BARRETT: While the minister is checking out the $250,000-man's past performance, could he also advise the House whose campaign manager or adviser he will be in the forthcoming provincial election? Will it be a Social Credit cabinet minister? If so, will he confine his activities to one minister or to the whole cabinet — for two hundred and fifty grand?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is question period. All members are familiar with the rules.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is a bit of a facetious question that isn't deserving of an answer.

STEEL CONTRACT FOR ALRT

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Education in his responsibility for ALRT. Western Canada Steel in New Westminster previously employed about 400 workers; it is now down to 235. They expect to dismiss another 50 workers next week. Can the minister explain why they did not receive any contracts for reinforcing steel for ALRT? Instead, it is being supplied entirely from non-British Columbia sources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not have all the details, but I understand there was a letter to the paper or a story in the Province yesterday. Perhaps I can give part of the answer and check out the balance. I understand that Commonwealth received the contract, worth more than $11 million. The steel component referred to by the member was about $200,000. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the manufacturer referred to by the member would not enter into a contract with the main contractor for the provision of this steel. Therefore the main contractor had to obtain this particular steel elsewhere — the $200,000 worth. The hon. member can be assured that in every contract for the completion of rapid transit in greater Vancouver there is a requirement that a percentage of the components be manufactured in British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: Is the minister now advising me that Western Canada Steel was not invited at all by Commonwealth to put in a bid on the steel?

[ Page 9444 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll get the correct information for the member, if it should be otherwise, but this is the information given to me by the Authority. They were invited to tender the $200,000 worth of material that is being referred to here. Apparently they did not want to supply the contractor that had the main contract; instead they wanted to do certain other work themselves or deal through another company. That's why it was quite legitimate, I am advised, that they didn't get the contract.

MR. LEGGATT: I thank the minister for his answer. The facts are clear, therefore, that this is a contract that's gone out of British Columbia. Could the minister advise why he didn't make a provision in all the contracts on the urban transit system that when B.C. taxpayers are putting up the money there is a 100 percent guarantee for B.C. jobs and B.C. suppliers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have a requirement in every contract for the B.C. component, but obviously we in British Columbia do not want to rule out competitors from other parts of Canada — in this particular instance Alberta. The Alberta contractor apparently entered into an arrangement with the main supplier for the $200,000 worth of material out of the $11 million-plus contract. We would hope that, in every instance, our own companies could not only compete but could obtain all the work possible, but we cannot say that we would take whatever is British Columbian, regardless of the price. If we did that, I think our taxpayers would deem that to be irresponsible.

CIPA TIMBER ALLOCATION

MR. LEA: In 1975 the Ministry of Forests received a report, signed by forest ranger Jim Hart, outlining that previous timber cruises had not been accurate and that there wasn't nearly the amount of timber on the Queen Charlotte Islands available for logging as had been thought before. He outlined his reasons for it. The ministry ignored that report in 1977 and allocated a further 60,000 cunits to CIPA, formerly known as Queen Charlotte Timber. Can the minister now confirm that, because of the ministry's refusal to accept the Hart report, the quota holders — in other words, the small British Columbia logging operators — are being forced to be cut back on their allocation of timber because the ministry refused to take into consideration the Hart report, which has now been proved accurate?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Has the minister now decided — as promised during his estimates earlier this year — to table the full data on which the allocations of timber were made to CIPA in 1977 so that the public is aware of the information upon which the allocation was made?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: During debate on my estimates I told the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that I would table the Hart-Hernandez report, as it was called, which in fact is a two-page memo from one branch of my ministry to another. I'm more than happy to provide that so-called report to the member. I'll make it available to him this afternoon, if he wishes.

MR. LEA: I have the memo that accompanied the report. It's the report that I want.

Another question to the minister: has the minister decided to convene a judicial inquiry to determine what considerations — at either the local or provincial level — led to the suspicious allocation of timber in excess of supply to CIPA Industries in 1977?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the memo the member refers to is the report to which he referred earlier. As for the second part of his question, the answer is no.

WATER-LICENCE FEES

MR. D'ARCY: A question to the Minister of Finance. As the minister is no doubt aware, every metal mine in the province of B.C. is either shut down or operating in the red, idling thousands directly and forcing many small businesses into bankruptcy. Has the minister decided to rescind the Socred royalty on mineral production in the form of water licence fees in order to stimulate mining and production and restore needed revenue to his ministry?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question posed by the hon. member is very similar to a question which was posed to another minister yesterday and was answered at some length by that minister in the correct portfolio. I reject the use of the word "royalty" with respect to water rentals in this context. I think it's very important that we understand the difference between a charge on water which is used in this connection and royalties as we knew them under the NDP administration. The answer to the question is no, I have not decided.

INCREASE IN HYDRO'S DEBT-EQUITY
AND INTEREST-COVERAGE RATIOS

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister has been responsible for ordering the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority to increase its debt-equity and interest-coverage ratios from 1.1 to 1.3, even though no known threat exists to Hydro's credit rating. The effect of this order has been a second-tier Socred mining royalty — and, by the way, a royalty on the production of every other product in the province of British Columbia. The amount of revenue his ministry will get out of this is approximately $35 million additional from an industry which has already declared it's going to lose more than $100 million this year. Has the minister decided to restore the former equity and interest coverage orders in view of the depressed state of the mining industry?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to that question is no, I have not decided. But it's necessary, I think, to reflect on the number of tax options which were open to us in preparation of the budget for the fiscal year in which we are now operating. We reviewed — as a question on the order paper reminds us — a number of fees and levies which were assessed by the government of British Columbia, some of them very small and some very large. We increased a number which have not been touched for many years. That is a reflection on a number of British Columbia governments going back perhaps 40 and 50 years.

We decided that this was one that was underpriced and had to be adjusted, and it was adjusted. I am not persuaded,

[ Page 9445 ]

notwithstanding the difficulties faced by the mining industry on an international basis — not solely on a provincial basis, I think the member would admit — that the fee or the rental charge to which he referred yesterday and today is significantly responsible for the difficulties in which this mining industry finds itself in comparison with difficulties being experienced by mining industries in other jurisdictions.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister explain to the House what threat to Hydro's financial credibility existed that the debt-equity and interest-coverage ratios had to be increased?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was a matter of government discussion with the minister responsible for British Columbia Hydro. I think that to describe it as a threat is perhaps overstating it. Nonetheless, we were particularly interested in correcting any possible imbalance in that ratio.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I implore this House, and I ask leave to introduce the amendments to the Vancouver Charter, which is Motion 29 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, by the same procedure, I wonder if I could ask leave of the House to proceed to deal with Motion 13 on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House that what the government has just said no to is one of their own members' motions dealing with commitment to the support of post-secondary education.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, prior to recognizing the Minister of Education, I would advise members that it is not proper for one member to raise or make a motion standing in the name of another member.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Services (Interim) Act.

Bill 89 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 81.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it seems some time ago that we started talking about Bill 81. It was my hope that in the interim the Minister of Finance might have produced the bill that he spoke about in second reading, rather than the one we have before us. You will recall, Mr. Speaker — and I'll very briefly repeat some of what I said — that when the minister was introducing the bill he said it was going to impose limitations on various Crown corporations and would impose discipline on government itself. The government would also feel constrained to increase charges within these limits. You will also recall that the press release that came out with respect to the Rate Increase Restraint Act said: "Effective immediately, all rate increases in these areas are held to 6 percent for a one-year period." That wording is not in the copy of the bill that I had. I had hoped that perhaps the government was reviewing its position and was going to bring in legislation more in line with what the minister had to say than the bill before the members on this side of the House.

I also discussed the effect that the implementation of the limitations in this bill might have on the operations of B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Steamship Company and B.C. Transit. I expressed the hope that the minister, in imposing these limits on these four Crown corporations, would insist that there not be any serious disruption in service, that the level of service would be maintained and that there would not be any greater unemployment caused in the province. We have more than enough already. We have cabinet committees that are supposed to be trying to put people to work.

It's my hope that the Minister of Finance would make sure that the implementation of this legislation will not create even more unemployment. We've already heard of several hundreds being laid off by the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We know of layoffs in B.C. Hydro. I'm not just talking about the administrative people in the glass tower. In every division of the province they are looking at the possibility of laying off the production workers. I talked of my concern about the B.C. Steamship Company in the same way, and of my concern about B.C. Transit.

Today I'd like to go on and deal with the remaining entities mentioned in my copy of Bill 81. The first of them is ICBC. I'm not clear on the legislation itself, but it's my understanding that ICBC is simply not allowed to run at a deficit. Certainly everything the government has said up to this point in time — right from the very beginning of ICBC, long before the Social Credit formed a government — indicated that they were very concerned that ICBC not run at a deficit. So I would think that they do not want to depart from that policy

I'm told also in the reports and advertising.... I saw one newspaper report that said that 99 percent of the premiums are paid out in claims. I think they intended to say 90 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 99.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, 99. If that's the case....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm getting a lot of advice. Whatever the figure was — 90, 99 or somewhere in between — it's a lot of

[ Page 9446 ]

money. It's a pretty high proportion of the total amount paid in premiums.

If ICBC has to operate at a break-even position or better, and if that proportion of the premiums is being paid out in claims, then I can't understand how they can hope to cut staff to the extent necessary or even free salaries to the extent necessary or even curtail service. All of the MLAs, I'm sure, get concerns expressed to them by their constituents about breakdowns in service from ICBC. It's not always a one-way street — I appreciate that — but there is a concern to maintain a certain level of service within ICBC.

I ask the minister, when he's imposing this particular restriction on ICBC.... He did say it was an average, in this case, but some people might find their premiums increased much more than 6 percent. I think it would be very hard to argue against the fact that some drivers might very well earn the right to have their premiums increased by substantially more than 6 percent. But if the average is to be 6 percent, that means that the bulk of the driving population will have no increase at all. If the average increase is to be kept within 6 percent, how is the minister going to ensure that the level of service from ICBC will be maintained without staff cuts or staff salaries, yet recognizing that up to 99 — whatever the figure is — percent of the premiums are paid out in claims?

Is it going to be against the law to claim when you've been injured? Is it going to be against the law to claim for compensation if you have collision insurance? How are the costs of ICBC going to be kept within 6 percent when it seems to be an almost uncontrollable situation? Again, my concern is that there not be cutbacks in service or staff, which would increase the already very high unemployment rolls, and that there not be cutbacks in salaries.

Municipalities. I gather from the legislation that it's simply referring to certain levies, not property taxes. I ask the minister to comment on that in second reading. It seems clear to me, but I would like clarification as to whether the reference to municipalities is simply with respect to fees that they levy, for example, for business taxes and things like that, and actually has no reference to property taxes.

The remaining one that I'd like to ask about is a very serious one. It is WCB. There are many reasons for being concerned about a limitation like this imposed on WCB. The assessment levied against employers, for example, varies with the experience of that particular employer. There is good reason for an employer to make sure that he is operating his enterprise in a way that will reduce the risk of accident, because the assessment on his own payroll will vary with his own experience. It may be that we're talking here again about a total increase of 6 percent. I don't know.

Goodness only knows that there is a great deal of concern in the community about the level of service from WCB. Several Ministers of Labour have agreed that the appeal board process is very badly behind. We don't have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) or the ex-minister with us today. Certainly the immediately previous Minister of Labour was very concerned about the length of time that was taken up with this appeal board system, not that the appeals themselves took up the time, but that the claimant had to wait for an appeal in the first place, and then wait for as long as a year for the results of the appeal to be made known, and then wait some more before the compensation board got around to it. The Minister of Finance is agreeing with my concern. What I want from him is some assurance that this intolerable situation is not going to become even more intolerable, by their simply saying: "Well, it suits our policy right now to say that the assessments will not increase by more than 6 percent this year, whatever the cost to the claimants or to the board in delivering service." I suppose that the one thing the board was trying to do.... In the last auditor-general's report it spoke optimistically about the funding of the pension system; that it would be up to the required level, I think, by 1986 — I'm not sure of that figure. I imagine that is one of the things that will have to go out the window. If that has to be, so be it.

When the minister closes debate in second reading, I sincerely hope he will be able to reassure us that there will be no cutbacks in service. I would think the Minister of Labour would want to enter this debate before it winds up to tell us something about what he has in mind with respect particularly to the whole process of appeals — the appeal board level — but also everything else to do with the administration of the compensation board.

I know it's a difficult thing; it's a difficult process. I've been an MLA since 1963. I have constituents come in with their concerns about their own experiences with the WCB. Every time I listen to one of them, I know that there are two sides to the question. Yet in some instances it would seem to me that the people on the other side of the fence are seeing only one side. In many instances I find myself obliged to pursue the WCB on behalf of a claimant when I'm not really convinced in my own mind that that claim is particularly justified. But there are many other instances where, because I know the individual and something about the history of the case — I know what's going on — I really do have a great concern that the claimant is not getting a fair deal from WCB.

Now there is a way of working through the system. We are getting through the system, but unfortunately the delays are so long.... As the minister agreed, it's a very intolerable situation.

I have expressed concern about many areas. Apparently the government has no intention of exercising restraint upon itself, because it does not intend to deal with all the charges directly under its control. I've expressed concern about all these areas that may be controlled. I emphasize again that the legislation says only that the cabinet "may" ask the cabinet to exercise some restraint in approving increases. In the event that anything is done, my concern is that there not be any serious cutbacks in the levels of service in any of these organizations, that there be no cutbacks in the number of employees. We don't need any more unemployment at this particular point in time. We would like to see the rate of increase for some reduced from 6 percent.

In any case, I would hope that the minister would accept an amendment, so that the pressure is on him and on his cabinet not simply to say "may," but to insist that cabinet will exercise this kind of restraint in reviewing the charges that are being levied against the people of the province. It's only for one year. In spite of the concerns I've raised, it would seem to me that the government would be well advised to follow some kind of example. If they're really going to try to provide leadership in the province on this question of restraint, then I think they owe the community something better than to say that cabinet "may" ask cabinet to keep the 6 percent figure in mind when they are looking at the rates about to be levied by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, B.C. Steamship Company,

[ Page 9447 ]

B.C. Transit, ICBC, and the municipalities and regional districts, in respect of rates under the B.C. transit act.

If that's all they're going to deal with, surely in these areas at least they can say to themselves not "we may" by regulation limit any increases, but "we shall" by regulation limit any increases in rates for a period of one year to this 6 percent. As I say, we'd like to have it even lower. That should be the minimum amendment the minister would be prepared to accept: that the word "may" be changed to read "shall."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on Bill 81, the Rate Increase Restraint Act. As minister responsible for ICBC I did want to comment on the possible impact on ICBC, but also the challenge that has been put to them.

Before I proceed, I would like to quote from the statement of operations for last year, for the benefit of those present: premiums earned totalled $562 million; claims incurred totalled $552 million. So you can see it comes pretty close to almost one hundred cents on every dollar going back to the motoring public in the form of payment of claims. The operating costs, of course, come from our investment income. We have a large amount of dollars coming into the corporation, which are invested and give us a rate of return that comes as part of our revenues. That's why we can pay back, in the form of claims, almost one hundred cents on every premium dollar.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is quite correct when he says that since 1976 ICBC has had a mandate not so much that it will not run at a deficit or a loss — we've done that on occasion — but that it will not be subsidized from the public purse. In setting our premiums, we must take into consideration, of course, the 12 months ahead of us, determine our premiums accordingly and try to raise sufficient dollars to cover claims. We come fairly close to breaking even. At times we fall a little short; at times we make a little bit of money on that year. I think the track record of the corporation has been very good. I would tell the member for Nanaimo that I don't see a change in the level of service. The corporation will provide the service to the motoring public, even though it recognizes the challenge it is faced with by this bill.

Mr. Holmes, the president of the corporation, said it very clearly: "It is a clear challenge to both ICBC and the motorists of this province to get behind this legislation and make it work." I think that's the key to how successful we'll be with this restraint program. By setting the premiums at no more than 6 percent above the current year, we may suffer a loss in 1983; but if we make a coordinated effort — and by a coordinated effort, I mean both the corporation and the driving public of this province — we can meet that challenge and possibly beat that challenge.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

We need the support of every motorist out there. We need to get the message out to the motorist. I had a meeting at lunch today with some of the senior management of ICBC on this very topic, and asked them: "How are we going to do this? How are we going to get the message out to the driving public that we want to involve them in meeting this challenge with regards to no more than a 6 percent increase on 1983 premiums?" I don't think there's a motorist out there who wouldn't like to have an automobile insurance premium come in at no more than 6 percent over this year, or no more than 3 percent or the same as this year or less than this year. That could happen. Very simply, all it would take is a little more defensive driving, a little better use of seat belts, a little more courtesy on the road. Those people who like to go out for a drink in the evening or attend a party or a dance or whatever, recognizing that they've had one too many, instead of taking a car would take a taxi, or they would have somebody else drive them home. If we had that total cooperation of effort by the motoring public and the corporation, I'd have no problem at all with meeting 6 percent. I'd even like to think that we could hit only 90 percent of last year's premium, and give every person who drives a car in this province some relief on automobile insurance costs.

If we want to make this work — and I'm speaking now as minister responsible for ICBC — it's important to get the message out. I'll give you some ideas that I had in mind, which I tried out on the senior staff of ICBC. I'd like to involve the radio and television stations of this province; every hotliner, every newscaster. Every time a program changed, I'd like somebody to come on and say a few words, about three seconds long: have you used your seatbelt? Is your seat belt buckled up? How many people in this province, driving cars up and down the highways and byways, have the radio on? Just think: if every station had that message coming across or if I went so far as to move beyond the radio stations and television stations for that type of cooperation — and I guess that type of free advertising, if you will — I could move a little further.

Since I'm the minister responsible for liquor distribution and liquor control, I'd love to see in every neighbourhood pub, every beer parlour and hotel dining-room, a sign on the wall saying: "Help ICBC meet the challenge. Help us keep the 6 percent limit on insurance premiums this coming year." So every person who left that neighbourhood pub or that dining-room after enjoying an evening meal and a few drinks would recognize that "Wait a minute. Maybe I've had one too many. Maybe I'd better take a cab home, or maybe I'd better walk home" as opposed to getting behind the wheel of a car. I'll even go so far as to say that every liquor store in this province should have a sign right inside the door that says: " Help ICBC meet the challenge," or "Help keep our hospital costs down," or "Help keep our police costs down," or "If you're going to drink that bottle that you just bought, make sure you take care, if you're going to be driving, that you haven't had one too many." We could do a lot. All it takes, really, is the cooperation of a lot of people.

I tested the ICBC senior management today. I said to them: "Between now and when next year's rates are announced, give some serious thought to every avenue we can approach to make the public aware that the Premier of this province has given ICBC a challenge." He's also given the driving public a challenge. If we make a good effort, we can beat the 6 percent — no question about it. We can even go so far as to see a nice discount on our insurance premiums in the coming year, if we really want to make it work.

We've got a lot of programs, a lot of cures and everything else. We bring in stiff penalties and jail sentences, we suspend licences and all those things, but that's always after the fact. As I see it, the key to making this strategy work, the key to giving ICBC the opportunity to meet the challenge that the Premier has given them, is prevention. If we get the message out to prevent the accident, we're going to save the dollars and meet the 6 percent limit. If we don't, then ICBC will be

[ Page 9448 ]

faced with a possible operating loss next year. I guess members opposite could give us a long discussion on how bad it's going to be, but I'd like to be positive and say that I think we can develop the strategy now to prevent that loss and to meet the 6 percent challenge that we're faced with.

With those comments, I support Bill 81. I think it is necessary at this time to reassure a lot of people who deal with public bodies: ICBC, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Hydro. By giving them the reassurance that their costs aren't going to continually rise, they'll be in a better frame of mind when they're discussing labour contracts, if there are employees, or when they're setting prices on goods for sale to the public. I think it's a good bill, and very timely.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry you have to be in the chair, Mr. Speaker, because a venerable gentleman should be very careful what he listens to. I have to say, this flim-flam bill that we have in front of us is nothing more than now you see it, now you don't.

Isn't it interesting? This morning we were debating a bill which gave the government a free hand to spend or go into debt, borrow or just have a great time. This afternoon we are debating a piece of window-dressing. The heart of this bill is the word "may." If the heart of this bill was the word "shall" we might have an entirely different proposition.

Let me read it to you: "Notwithstanding any other enactment the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by regulation in respect..." and so on and so forth, telling us how they're going to limit the Crown corporation — if they wish to. But implicit in the word "may" are the words "may not."

HON. MR. FRASER: Where did you get that copy?

MR. COCKE: I have a unique copy of the bill. If the minister feels there's another bill available that I could be debating, then I wish he would put it in my hands. As long as I'm debating the only copy available to me, I must debate it the way it is.

I listened, and I listened very carefully, to what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) was talking about in his discussion of the bill. I remember a few words that he said. He said that he is going to ask the motorists to cooperate to make it work. You see, they're not confident that it's going to work. They are confident, however, with another bill that we're discussing in this hallowed hall, that they can raise all the money they want for their own purposes.

We have included in this bill a word that, as far as I'm concerned, makes the bill nothing much more than window dressing. Their friend Pierre — I'm not sure who follows whom — Trudeau in Ottawa...his 6 and 5 program....

MR. MACDONALD: The guy you're in debt with.

MR. COCKE: That's right, the guy you're in debt with. Mr. Speaker, their friend Pierre has very much the same kind of program — no limits on his spending of $20 billion. They say no limit on their spending. Then they come and they ask: "What will we do to make ourselves look restraint-like?" It's a word that has apparently caught on. Gallup tells them that a lot of people like it. So what do they do? They say that they may, if they feel like it, restrict the B.C. Ferry Corporation to a limitation of 6 percent increase in its rates — not necessarily, but we may.

We "may" limit B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. I listened to what Bob Bonner had to say about that the other day. He was talking, before this government introduced this bill, about the fact that there's no way you can limit an electric company on a 6 and 5 proposition. He was very definitive on CBC, and I listened very carefully. It was a rather long interview with the chairman of B.C. Hydro, Bob Bonner, who used to sit in this House, as I recall, right over there where another Liberal now sits.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a member for Cariboo.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I remember when he carpetbagged up to Cariboo.

The B.C. Steamship Company, B.C. Transit and then the Insurance Corporation.... Then we go down to the Workers' Compensation Board. I want to make a prediction. I'll predict that the only people who are going to have to comply — you remember: may, could or may not — the ones they have in the back of their minds to be "shall," will be the Workers' Compensation Board. They'll keep their rates down. I'll tell you why: because their rates are paid by the employers. I understand that the employers are not all that terribly happy with the Socreds right now. The bagmen are out and they're not having the success that they've had in previous years. So it could be that the WCB are going to be the ones really affected.

It's interesting that it should come out now. It's interesting that it comes on and off the floor for debate. But let me give you a prediction, Mr. Speaker. I predict this bill will never go to third reading in this House, because they don't really care. I predict that they will not take this bill to third reading and proclamation.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Will you agree to bring in the L-G and drop the writ?

I also noted that when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was imploring people to cooperate, he met with the management of ICBC and said: "Now look, gang, we've got to work together. We've got to do everything right and we've got to promote no drunkenness." I am one who believes that that is what we should all be promoting — with good reason. But what are we doing right now in this province? We saw an alcohol-education program funded by this government let go. We saw the original Attorney-General in this government set up the Counterattack program, which wasn't working badly.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's still there.

MR. COCKE: Still there, my foot!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE: We're talking about this bill, about restraint and the possibility of ICBC being able to stay within the guidelines — and that's all they are — of this particular piece of legislation. Counterattack is operating right now at far less than 50 percent of its capacity. I've heard report after report from place after place in this province. If we really want to make some changes in terms of driving habits....

[ Page 9449 ]

I must confess that I was delighted when the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) brought in a bill with respect to compulsory alcohol-testing.

Let's think about restraint. The government suggested they will restrain different groups. I suggest that they do not restrain themselves. It might be interesting to a lot of the folks out there that the next price list of the liquor distribution branch of this province has been printed. It's now in the hands of the liquor stores. The minister responsible for ICBC, who is also responsible for the LDB, would, I'm sure, jump up and acknowledge the fact that the average price increase that will be put forward in October will be roughly 20 percent. I'm not for or against that increase in the price of liquor. But I am suggesting that we have different rates for different groups. We're all over the place; we're in absolute chaos.

We see a bill put forward by a very desperate government to try to take advantage of the opinion polls — nothing more, nothing less. If it had been more, the word "shall" would have been in this bill, which would have committed the government not to let those rates increase under any circumstances beyond 6 percent, the rate identified in this bill. It would have been really courageous if they had said no increase. In any event, they have said neither; they just say they may. If you look at the regulations section of this bill, it even gives the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council all the flexibility imaginable.

It is not a bill of great import. I predicted that it won't come to proclamation by virtue of the fact that I don't think any worthwhile counsel would want this on the statute books of the province of British Columbia. It's an embarrassment. It really says nothing, if you get right down to it, other than the fact that they recognize that there's trouble out there in the economy. We all acknowledge that.

I suggest that there are areas we should be dealing with, way beyond the kind of window-dressing we're discussing here today, such as getting people back to work, such as providing a level of health care and education that we need. Instead, here we are debating window-dressing and waiting until the Premier finally decides to make that fateful trip to Government House, and a writ is issued. I suspect that time isn't far away. I hope that time isn't very far away. I believe the people in this province need a break. That break is a long holiday away from Social Credit government.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll give you a permanent holiday.

MR. COCKE: You've been trying that ever since 1969, but my majority keeps growing. Something is wrong. Your tactics are haywire.

In any event, it's very difficult for we in the opposition to take seriously a bill that really does nothing more than give the government an opportunity, if they wish, to do what they could do without it. So tell us it's not anything more than window-dressing. Every director of B.C. Hydro is appointed by the government. If they don't do what the government wants, they're gone. Why do you need a bill to tell them what to do? Every one of them is appointed by the government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Who appointed Cass-Beggs?

MR. COCKE: We did, and he was the last decent chairman up until Jim Rhodes.

Tell me, who appoints every director of the B.C. Ferry Corporation? Not us, that's for sure. Therefore we can't take responsibility, can we? They do, so why this bill? What are we doing? It's window-dressing: limiting their power, rate structure and so on when they're all government-appointed directors.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll do what they tell them anyway.

MR. COCKE: Of course they have to do what they're told; otherwise they get canned. We've seen that happen quite often.

Every director of the British Columbia Steamship Company is appointed by the government. The same with the majority of B.C. Transit. Every director of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. is appointed by the government. The municipalities and regional districts in respect to rates imposed on the British Columbia Transit Act.... We know who controls that. It's the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). It's almost a joke, but it's a fact.

So here we are debating a bill that gives the government the right to say that they may or may not — don't forget that the may or may not is implicit in this bill — restrict their increases to 6 percent. Is there anybody in this House that can tell me now that this bill will ever be proclaimed, for heaven's sake? Why would it be proclaimed when everything that is asked for in this bill is done without a bill?

MR. BARNES: Headlines were all they wanted in the first place.

MR. COCKE: That's all you wanted. It's absolutely true.

I just can't help but laugh when I think that I've been in this House since 1969 and have been looking at some of the most incredible legislation in the last two or three weeks that I've ever seen in my life. It was almost as though it was drawn in some artist's garret, creating an impression. Then I suddenly realized that that's exactly what it's there for — to create an impression of a government actually doing something. For heaven's sake, they could have just made an announcement saying: "This government, under the leadership of Premier Bill, is announcing that Hydro rates will not increase over 6 percent." Let the directors stand up and say: "Oh, but we must." They'd get fired.

HON. MR. FRASER: What we want is your input.

MR. COCKE: Bury it! You're getting our input: it is a piece of window-dressing. I'm giving it probably the easiest ride that one could give it, because there are lots of adjectives that could go with this a lot better. I like to stay as parliamentary as I can, particularly in front of the innocent ears of the gentle member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: There was a division called on that statement, but I don't think you're going to take that seriously, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how the House would divide on that one.

I suggest to you that this piece of legislation is only called before us today, as it was a few days ago, to try to create an impression of a government doing something. This government is so caught up in inertia that they can only manage to

[ Page 9450 ]

move themselves slowly but surely from one fire to another and from one crisis to another. If there had been any planning in this province, we wouldn't be standing here today discussing this piece of legislation — this piece of utter flim-flam. The Premier's back, and he's going to defend it. We're just waiting patiently and desperately to hear him get up and tell us why it is that he has to bring legislation forward in this House when he has full control over every one of those groups he's suggesting they're putting controls on here. Where is it? Where's the reason? The only reason is that they want to create those headlines and create that impression. Mr. Speaker, what can we do with a government like that?

MR. KEMPF: You just can't stand our success, eh? Is that it?

MR. COCKE: Your success! You broke the province, and we can't stand their success. Mr. Speaker, we're just waiting to see, when that test comes, whether or not that member for Omineca has all the answers. He's going to need every answer he has when he finally goes back to his riding, after these months and months away, and runs against the WCC. He's going to have some difficulty, I would think.

Mr. Speaker, let's see what the rest of this House has to say about this piece of window-dressing.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I get disturbed when I see a bill like this, which, as my colleague has said, is a nothing bill, taking up the time of the Legislature and being brought in by a government that has the power to undertake the very things that are included in this bill.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's not funny, Mr. Speaker. It's sad that a government is so desperate that it stoops to this kind of measure to attempt to delude the electorate, to pretend that they are going to take some steps to protect people who are hurting desperately out there; people who don't have the money to pay their hydro bill — and believe me there are many of them; people on low incomes who are letting those bills slide. Check with your Hydro offices and find out how many disconnects are going forward; find out how many people in this province are doing without hydro because they can't afford to pay the bill. And you bring in a bill like this that pretends to say that you're going to hold those increases to 6 percent — and that is all it does, pretend. "May" means one thing and "shall" means another. "May" is something you can do right now, as has been pointed out by my colleague. You have every power. If you disagree with Mr. Bonner, you can tell Mr. Bonner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire him.

MRS. WALLACE: If he doesn't like it, you can fire him. You have that power, and you have the power now. You have the power to actually control, but you're not prepared to say that you will. You bring this in to pretend that you're going to do something, to pretend that you're going to hold these increases to 6 percent. That is what makes me very angry. It makes me very upset for the sake of people who are so desperately in need of help to have this kind of a bill presented. I'm surprised at the Minister of Finance for bringing in this bill. I really am surprised that he would come in with a bill like this — a nothing bill.

B.C. Ferries — he may control the rates and he may not. We've had this government talking about restraint for a long time, and really, what this government has been doing with its programs is aiding and abetting the recession that we find ourselves in in this province. Every move that is taken, every step that is introduced, has led to less employment. It's aided and abetted the downward spiral that our economy is in; it's a program of recession, not of restraint. This is supposedly a bill that is going to do something to improve the situation. I just don't understand why the bill was presented. I guess I do understand, but I am surprised and shocked that the government would move to this kind of level to pretend that they are going to do something to help the general public.

They're talking about ICBC, and the minister responsible made a great speech in the House about how he wanted programs on every radio station and every TV station. Sure, we have to do something about our driving problem. Yet when we were discussing other legislation in this House and a motion was put by this side of the House that we should include, in order to help the police, an amendment to make illegal the use of radar detectors in private cars to detect where the police were located with their radar equipment, what happened? It was turned down. Surely speeding is one of the big problems that causes these costs to ICBC, and yet that government is prepared to turn down that kind of an amendment. They really don't have a commitment to getting at the root cause. They come in with a simplistic kind of bill with no meat in it, no meaning, nothing, and ask us to debate it and discuss it.

My colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned that I am really concerned about why Workers Compensation Board is included in this list. We've had bills in this House before — I recall one — that recouped various funds, bills that included funds that just should not have been recouped. A case in point, of course, is the Farm Income Insurance Fund, which was made up of contributions from the farming community. I'm hoping the minister will have a good look at why Workers Compensation is included here. I don't know what it means. What is it going to cover? Is it going to cover the assessments on employers so that they don't go up more than 6 percent? If that's the case, it certainly is a licence for employers to operate unsafely. Or does it mean that allowances paid to injured workers as a result of appeals, or whatever else may come before the Workers Compensation Board, are going to be limited to 6 percent? If that is the case, it is unjust, unfair, and it's riding on the backs of injured workers.

The only bright spot in the whole thing is that it will probably never come to anything because of the way the bill is written. It's an unnecessary bill; it has absolutely no meat in it; it should never have arrived on the order paper. I can only say again that I'm surprised at the Minister of Finance for bringing it in. I'm surprised he would use this chamber as a means of fanfare and propaganda for political purposes, and that's all this bill is.

MS. SANFORD: It has already been pointed out by a number of my colleagues that this is an unnecessary bill and just represents straight politics on the part of the government. They are hoping the public will really think this 6 percent will be applied to all of the Crown corporations listed in the bill. It's strange that just after B.C. Hydro and ICBC have huge rate increases, they bring in a bill which says the government

[ Page 9451 ]

may apply a 6 percent increase limitation on the rates they charge.

I want to follow up with respect to the Workers Compensation Board. We have a very serious situation here with respect to injured workers in this province. If this bill does actually come to fruition and they apply a 6 percent limitation on Workers Compensation Board, as the bill states, then injured workers in this province are going to be denied the compensation they are entitled to under the Workers Compensation Board. A formula has been worked out. Workers on compensation receive 75 percent of their actual salary, up to a maximum rate. This is determined under the Workers Compensation Act itself. That maximum rate is calculated through a formula which determines the ratio of wages in 1974, when this section came into effect, to the wages now. In 1974 the maximum wage rate was $11,200; in 1982 it is $24,700, and it will rise to $27,600 next year, by applying the formula to reflect cost-of-living increases; so injured workers can survive without having to turn to Human Resources or some other source for their income. That's why we have a Workers Compensation Act and a Workers Compensation Board. In 1983 it is to rise to a maximum of $27,600, but if we apply the 6 percent limitation, it means that those injured workers are going to be denied part of the income they are entitled to under the formula developed to accompany the Workers Compensation Act. So it's a rather clever way of limiting the income of injured workers to a 6 percent increase in spite of the fact that the cost of living is much higher than that. Not only does the worker have to suffer because he is injured and has to accept only 75 percent of his normal income; he is also penalized by this bill, which will keep the increase at 6 percent.

What's going to happen now? Some 80,000 letters go out each year to the employers in the province, telling them what their assessments are going to be for the next year; 20,000 have already been mailed. The Workers Compensation Board commissioners have stopped the rest of the notices from going out, because they don't know what all this means. They don't know whether those industries that have not shown a good record in terms of the rate at which injured workers are making application under the provisions of the board are going to be held down to 6 percent, as this bill would indicate, even though their record in industrial health and safety is bad. Are we going to reward those companies and industries with a bad record in terms of providing a safe environment for their workers? Are we going to reward them by keeping their assessments down to 6 percent'? That is what it appears to be under this bill. Twenty thousand letters have already been mailed out; they're withholding 60,000, waiting to find out what this government is up to. I don't think those people have had any consultation on this. They are hoping that at least they will be informed by somebody in this government about what the whole thing means. Can they now continue the mailing? Do they have to recall the 20,000 already sent? Do they have to restructure the whole basis on which they calculate what the assessments are going to be next year? What is that going to do to the unfunded liability that is already at half a billion dollars?

These people bring in legislation that has been dreamed up for political purposes only, without ever thinking what kind of effects their actions will have on a service as important as that provided by the Workers Compensation Board. Injured workers will be penalized. The deficit of the Workers Compensation Board is going to be increased. Do you know what that means? There is going to be even more pressure on government to come up with money to try to bail out the Workers Compensation Board, because they are already down half a billion dollars of unfunded liability. It's going to make it worse. And it provides an incentive for those employers who don't take an interest in industrial health and safety, because they'll be held down to 6 percent just like everybody else, no matter what their record is.

These figures are calculated after a lot of thought and study to determine what assessments will be for each section of the various industries. They are based on the unfunded liability, on projections, on penalizing those employers who have a bad record, and the whole thing is dismissed through this one section under this bill, which says that the whole thing will be limited to 6 percent — or may be limited to 6 percent. Let's not forget that. We don't know yet whether the government is even going to implement the provisions of this bill. They may. The workers are going to be penalized because, if they're going to be held down to a 6 percent increase, they will not be entitled to receive what they would otherwise be entitled to receive under the provisions of the formula which was worked out and established some years ago.

It's not too long ago that this government imposed again, without any consultation with the Workers Compensation Board, a $35 surcharge for any patient who had to go to the hospital. If they'd been injured in this province and had to be hospitalized, there was a S35-a-day surcharge added, even though the Workers Compensation Board pays for those hospital costs. Now that was a pretty neat way of bringing more money into the treasury. Again, the board had to scramble in order to readjust its figures and its budget to meet that $35-a-day surcharge. Right out of the blue, just overnight, they applied a $35 surcharge for each patient who required hospitalization.

We know that they're pretty desperate for money. We know how they've mismanaged the money in this province over the last six years they've been in office. We know that they have spent all of the moneys contained in special-purpose funds. We know that they are facing a deficit of over a billion dollars and that they're going to have to borrow. But for them to try to make political points out of a bill like this, when they already have the authority to limit any of those Crown corporations to any amount that they want at any time, is pre-election politics designed to convince the voters that this government is finally going to do something in the interests of the voters of this province. It doesn't matter what they do to something like the Workers Compensation Board or the injured workers of the province or assessments, rewarding those companies that fail to provide a safe working environment for their employee — none of that matters. This government is so keen on perpetuating itself in office that it will bring in this kind of legislation — redistribution legislation, add new Socred seats and borrow any amount of money without any reference to the Legislature. They will do anything, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the government will immediately contact the Workers Compensation Board people to let them know exactly what this 6 percent means to their unfunded liability, to their assessments and to the injured workers of the province.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to make a few comments on this very important piece of legislation, the Rate Increase

[ Page 9452 ]

Restraint Act, and to respond to the remarks the silly socialists on the other side have been making. Imagine accusing the government of playing politics in the Legislature! It's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in my life. They don't do that in here, and neither does this side.

I want to make the observation, after listening this afternoon to the silly socialists who have spoken on this bill, that we could have done this by edict. The individual corporations could have done this by edict, and it shouldn't be brought into the Legislature. It seems that no matter what the government does.... If we had done it by edict, we would have been hammered by them for not bringing it into the Legislature. Now, for the first time, we're being hammered for bringing it in and discussing it in the most democratic institution in the world. I just can't understand their approach, other than that it is consistently negative. It doesn't matter what it is; good or bad, they have to be opposed to it. It will be interesting to see whether they vote for or against it. Yes, they talk a big story, but they end up being "me too" and voting with the government to save their own political hides.

The point regarding individual boards is, I guess, correct to a degree, in that they could have imposed that 6 percent restraint. I think, from the Premier on down in the government, it's a good thing to show leadership, and that's what this bill does. It's what the government wants to achieve, and that's a 6 percent maximum.

Two of the Crown corporations mentioned in Bill 81 are a responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which is the main reason I wanted to get up. The opposition has also said they may institute a 6 percent ceiling, making a story that it sounds like window-dressing because the legislation says "may." On behalf of the two Crown corporations which are my responsibility on behalf of the government, I want to tell this House that it will be "shall " in the case of B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Steamships; they will not increase their rates by more than 6 percent. The boards of directors of both these Crown corporations agree with this and have been organizing to do just that.

In the case of B.C. Ferries, policy was made some two or three years ago that we would review the rates of the Ferry Corporation once a year. The way it works in law is that under the B.C. Ferries act, the B.C. Ferries board of directors recommends to the executive council — whenever they wish, but we lay it down once a year — what the rate increase should be. Then it's up to the executive council to decide. Speaking for the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, they decided quite some time ago not to go for any more than 6 percent. The recommendation has not yet been made to the cabinet, but it will be shortly. I want to assure this House and the users of that fine transportation system that they're not looking at more than a 6 percent increase this year, and it certainly won't happen before the first of November, which is a policy item.

I'm not saying that 6 percent will be asked for; we don't increase rates unless it's necessary. But it appears, from what I can find out from operations of B.C. Ferries so far, that they probably will be asking for an increase of something in the area of 6 percent. That's caused mostly by the escalation of fuel costs. As far as B.C. Steamships is concerned, the last I heard from management is that they don't intend to increase the rate by even 6 percent. But under this legislation, which the opposition has been calling window-dressing, I'm saying, on behalf of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it will not be more than 6 percent, it won't happen until November 1, and it won't happen then unless a good story is made to substantiate it. The other thing is that they say we could do it. That's correct, but I don't know a better or more democratic way.

I'd like to mention B.C. Hydro for a minute. The last I saw, prior to this bill's coming in, B.C. Hydro was asking for about a 20 percent increase rate and they were before the Public Utilities Commission. It was public knowledge. The government has decided it's going to be 6 percent. I think B.C. Hydro can live with 6 percent. I think maybe they can practise some restraint, like other people have been practising it. Maybe they have been, to some degree, but now they've got a firm guideline on how much restraint to practise when you talk in percentage lines. That did not exist before. The same applies to B.C. Transit and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I listened to my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) regarding ICBC, and I agree. One thing that hasn't been said is that it's my information that their claims are down substantially. I don't think we should even be worrying about what will happen to them — whether they lose or win in 1983. I think that overall people are driving better each month that goes by, and that is going to reflect. Along with them practising restraint, I don't think we're going to have difficulty.

The point is that the government has put out a policy that they want these Crown corporations to follow. I'm sure they will.

The Workers Compensation Board. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned that. I note that she made quite a play regarding the injured workmen and so on, but I'm getting from my riding, as an MLA, a lot of complaints regarding the employer and the cost to the employer for the assessment of workers' compensation. This bill says that it will not go higher than 6 percent. What I am saying is that the employers, particularly in the forest industry.... It is very excessive. Surely they can hold with.... The government is only asking all these things for 12 months. I believe the date this expires is September 30, 1983; it isn't forever.

We all should share in the restraining of public funds. That's what the majority of the citizens want. The opposition has never come out and said where they stand on restraint, and I have to assume they're opposed to it. There has been some indication that they are definitely opposed to it; that's fine. I invite them to vote against a bill like this that imposes restraint. Thank you very much for listening.

MR. KING: I want to advise the Minister of Transportation and Highways that we're against this kind of restraint. We're against the blowing of taxpayers' money for Social Credit advertising. This is going on throughout the length and breadth of the province at the moment: this government hypocritically imposes restraint on the citizens of this province while using their tax dollars for self-aggrandizement through this kind of advertisement, which is costing thousands and thousands of dollars daily. We're against that kind of restraint. If the government is serious about an intelligent restraint program, certainly we'll debate that. We'll debate that in very serious terms.

What has me concerned about the bill before the House at the moment, as the minister knows very well, is that one or two of his cabinet colleagues sit on the board of B.C. Hydro. One or two of the ministers of the government sit on the board of ICBC — indeed, on the board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation; in fact, every one of those Crown corporations resides

[ Page 9453 ]

within the precise jurisdiction of one of the government ministries. This legislation is not at all necessary to direct those agencies in terms of the permissible increases in costs for the coming year. They have the statutory authority to do that. They have political representation on those boards. What this is, Mr. Speaker, is just an appeal to the electorate, saying: "Look, we are getting serious about curbing the cost that we have heaped on the taxpayers for the last seven years." It's an empty political gesture, is what it is.

It's more serious than that in terms of its implications for the Workers Compensation Board. The Workers Compensation Board is unique. It is not a Crown corporation. It is an agency which was designed and set up, very carefully, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, but which operates independently and at arm's length from politicians. It has a board of commissioners who have their mandate outlined very strictly in terms of the statute. That agency has been in existence in this province since 1937 — well, since 1917 in one form or another — and it has always been a principle of that statute that the Workers Compensation Board would be insulated from political interference and tampering, whether it be the Social Credit coalition, a New Democratic Party government or one of any other political stripe.

What we have here in this statute is language that places the new bill directly in conflict with the statutory language of the Workers Compensation Act. Section 39 of the Workers Compensation Act requires that there be an assessment for an accident fund. It says:

" (1) For the purpose of creating and maintaining an adequate accident fund, the board shall every year assess and levy on and collect from independent operators and employers in each class, by assessment rated on the payroll, or by assessment rated on a unit of production, or in a manner the board considers proper, sufficient funds, according to an estimate to be made by the board, but the established practice of assessment and levy shall be varied only with the approval of the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council " — which is the cabinet — "to (a) meet all amounts payable from the accident fund under this part during the year; (b) provide a reserve in aid of industries or classes which may become depleted or extinguished; (c) provide in each year capitalized reserves sufficient to meet the periodical payments of compensation accruing in future years in respect of all injuries which occur during the year; (d) provide a reserve to be used to meet the loss arising from a disaster or other circumstance which the board considers would unfairly burden the employers in a class; and (e) provide and maintain a reserve for payment of that portion of the disability enhanced by reason of a pre-existing disease, condition or disability.

" (2) Assessments maybe made in the manner and form and by the procedure the board considers adequate and expedient, and may be general as applicable to a class or subclass, or special as applicable to an industry or part or department of it."

All of the terms and conditions are laid down.

Section 40 deals with that assessment being made each and every year that is required by the statute — with notice. It requires the board to give full notice to the employer of assessment rates or percentages determined by the board in respect of the industries in which the employer is engaged. This is what my colleague the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about. The notices for those assessments have in fact been issued by the board in large measure. It's my understanding that some 18,000 to 20,000 notices have gone out to the employers. Now the government comes along and pulls the rug out from under the board, and says that any increase in assessments is going to be limited to 6 percent. I have some questions regarding the legality of that policy imposed on the board, because it's directly in conflict with section 39. Section 39 already gives the cabinet the authority to validate the rates recommended and imposed by the board.

But the interesting part is that this is a government that in the past has talked about financial responsibility and proper accountability. The fact of the matter is that the Workers Compensation Board has been analyzed, scrutinized and criticized by employers, newspaper reporters, actuarial experts and firms of accountants out of a concern that their reserves were inadequate to meet their unfunded liabilities. Along comes the government on the eve of an election and says: "Because we have been taking heat over the large increases in cost that we have heaped upon all and sundry in the public, we are going to arbitrarily, across the board, limit all Crown corporations to a 6 percent increase." They're paying absolutely no heed to the fact that a 6 percent increase may put the Workers Compensation Board in the position of having inadequate reserves to meet their unfunded liabilities.

It's my understanding, based on a report by a reputable accounting firm, that the board had increased assessments to amortize their debts — in other words, to increase their reserves to meet unfunded liabilities over a nine-year period. By imposing this 6 percent limitation on assessment increases, this government is saying to the Workers Compensation Board: "Those reserves you had set up in the plan of payment to meet those reserve requirements are going to be deferred, and your unfunded liability is going to grow. The actuarial soundness of your financial accounting system is going to be jeopardized simply because we wanted a political plum to go to the electorate with something that sounded good on the hustings." That is the mark of crass, total and blatant irresponsibility. I suggest that the Minister of Finance had no dialogue whatsoever with the Workers Compensation Board and totally misunderstands the position he is placing that agency in.

Mr. Speaker, there are other implications in terms of the impact on the Workers Compensation Board. Under the formula for partial-disability claimants and for those who have been totally injured and are on the 100 percent disability pension — that is not only injured workers but also their widows and families — there is a cost-of-living adjustment provided for in the statute. That rises from year to year, based upon the cost-of-living index in this province. In a given year, depending upon the inflationary rate that this government has been feeding over the past seven years. that rate may be 8 or 9 percent. The government is not saying to the widows and children of injured working people in this province that the statutory benefits to which they have been entitled since 1937 are being pared down. They are not going to give them that statutory cost-of-living increase. As I read it, the bill says compensation. It includes "assessment, budget, charge, collection, fare, levy, premium, tax, toll and workers' compensation and other items...." The benefits that widows receive and the benefits that injured workers receive, either in

[ Page 9454 ]

partial-disability or total-disability pensions, are in fact compensation. It's compensation, Mr. Speaker, and if the government doesn't understand that, they have either not read their own statutes or they're extremely careless, because that is compensation. You are going to deny the victims of industrial accidents the full applicability of cost-of-living increases that would be statutorily due to them. It could be that economic circumstances this year would not entitle them to any more than 6 percent; but you don't know that and I don't know that. What you are saying is: "If it goes beyond that range, you shall not be entitled to more than 6 percent." I say that is an awful thing to do. Of all the people who should not be gouged any further in this province, those who have been injured in the mines, factories or in other working places of British Columbia.... They and their families have paid the price, and they should not be penalized while the government has its own particularly frivolous way of demonstrating its own restraint.

Interjection.

MR. KING: There's another way. Yes, compensation does include medical aid too. So when the Minister of Finance calls across to me and says, "No, the cost-of-living benefits under workers' compensation will not be affected," I think he's wrong. I think he should seek some advice, not only from the board but also from someone in the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams) department, on the proper interpretation and understanding of the statutes — I wouldn't recommend the Attorney-General, but perhaps one of the staff people could help him.

Mr. Speaker, there's another way that workers will be gouged as a result of this particular amendment. My colleague from Comox has explained that and I want to reemphasize it to the minister. On the one hand, the partial-disability pensioners and the total-disability pensioners will be restricted to a maximum potential increase of 6 percent. On the other hand, the average time-loss claimant under workers' compensation — and at any given time there are something like 15,000 in the province of British Columbia who are temporarily injured in their day-to-day occupations — is, as it stands at the moment, entitled to receive time-loss benefits representing 75 percent of his income up to a maximum of $24,700. But under the statute there's a built-in formula whereby each year the permissible ceiling on wages on which time-loss benefits are calculated increases. That increase this year was slated to take the ceiling from $24,700 to $27,600. In other words, someone working in a construction job or a sawmill as a millwright or sawyer and earning $27,600, which is hardly a luxurious salary in this day and age, would be entitled to draw 75 percent of that salary as time-loss benefits were they injured on the job.

The amendment that is now before the House that the government has brought in, the rate increase restraint bill, means that that statutory increase that was due this year in the maximum range salary will be reduced. It cannot rise to $27,600 this year. So every worker who is injured during the coming year will be receiving less than the statute originally provided to him. I say to the government that I think the people of the province of British Columbia will agree with the need for restraint, but how is it that this coalition gang always inflict the restraint on those least able to afford cutbacks? How is it that they provide handouts to their millionaire friends? How is it that they provide all kinds of incentives to some of their political friends? The man who is an adviser to B.C. Place got $750 a day. There was no restraint for him, but there are cutbacks for injured workers.

I say that that priority is wrong and immoral. You should not be gouging injured and handicapped people in this province to make the Social Credit fortunes in an upcoming election a bit more rosy. That's what's happening. On three counts under this particular bill you are gouging injured workers, their widows and their children. That's demonstrable. I say that that is absolutely unconscionable. I'm certainly not going to support this bill with that provision in it.

I hope that the Minister of Finance will have a second look at this particular bill. I hope he will consult with the Workers Compensation Board. They are there as a board of professional people. They are not political; they represent neither Social Credit nor NDP. They are a commission to ensure that we have intelligent and accountable management under the Workers Compensation Act. I think it would behoove the Minister of Finance to consult with them and to find out the implications of this particular bill in terms of the administration and the proper financial accountability of that agency, and certainly with respect to its deleterious impact on injured workers and their widows throughout the length and breadth of this province.

If he ignores that, he shows what I fear is a consistent insensitivity by Social Credit to the people who are least able to defend themselves in British Columbia, while handing out to certain gluttonous friends all of the incentives that this government can put together. Incentive, I fear, is just a euphemism for political grease, in many cases. I think that's a shocking situation. I urge the Minister of Finance to withdraw this particular bill and reconsider its applicability to the Workers Compensation Act.

MR. D'ARCY: This bill, as far as it applies to the Crown corporations of this province, is a welcome commitment from government in limiting the increases that those corporations might impose upon the public of B.C. At the same time it's a hypocritical bill because, as the minister well knows and as every member on that side of the House knows, the government already has within its grasp, through order-incouncil, all of the powers proclaimed in this bill. In fact, the only reason the government is bringing this bill in is for political window-dressing.

What is starkly absent from this bill is any limitation on the government's ability to receive increased income taxes by changes in the brackets due to inflation, through their agreement with the federal government; any limitation on the government's ability to raise fuel taxes; to raise water royalties, as discussed earlier today in this House; to raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco; and to raise a whole variety of other discretionary charges which this government, in the last year or so, has taken upon itself to charge the public of B.C. In this session alone, the session which began early last April, the government has brought in a number of bills, including a number of sections — about three dozen — which remove prescribed fees, rents and taxes, and which give — and I quote, Mr. Speaker, because the wording is always the same — "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to prescribe fees."

What this means in plain English is that the government has taken upon itself the right to change and raise fees, rents and taxes in a whole variety of ways which are no longer

[ Page 9455 ]

spelled out in detailed amount. They simply have the discretionary powers to raise these things in the secrecy of the cabinet chamber. It's possible that the government may not want to raise these fees, rents and taxes in a public way, that they may not want to raise them at all. If that is the case, they should be open and above-board and be upfront and tell the public about it by including those fees, rents and taxes within this bill.

The minister well knows that his budget this year is in the neighbourhood of $7.7 billion. He also knows...and here's where we had a whole lot of extra hypocrisy from the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser), when he talked about Hydro, Transit and ICBC as though they were corporations separate from the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, please, The member is not imputing any dishonourable motive to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, is he?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, if I'm going to impute a dishonourable motive to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I haven't got to that point yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I presume you won't. Thank you.

MR. D'ARCY: If I do, Mr. Speaker, I hope you would immediately bring me to order.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways, and every member across the way, well knows that the Crown corporations are in fact political arms of the government. The government has an energy arm, and that energy arm is B.C. Hydro. The government appoints, by a stroke of a pen — the Premier does — every member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, including the cabinet ministers who sit on that board of directors. Hydro policy is government policy. It's made in a cabinet room in Victoria. ICBC policy is government policy. The minister knows that. Transit policy is government policy. The minister knows that. B.C. Ferries policy is the policy as laid down by the head of that corporation, which is the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

We also know that the entire gross income of all corporations controlled and limited by this bill — which the government can limit anyway, without the bill — comes to a mere 20 percent of total government revenue. The total take of all these corporations is around $2.2 billion, or slightly less than $2 billion. The total budget of B.C. is $7.7 billion. Eighty cents on the dollar of what the government controls is not controlled by this bill, yet the government would have us believe they are moving to limit their own right to raise fees and taxes on the province of British Columbia. It's absolute balderdash, absolute hypocrisy and absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

I note that this bill does not limit the government's right to transfer the costs of local services to municipal governments and school boards. We have seen a disturbing tendency over the past few years, particularly in this fiscal year, for the government to pass a greater share of education costs to local government, a greater share of local costs to municipal governments and regional boards. These increases had nothing to do with increased costs at the local level. It's simply that the province paid less of a share and the local governments therefore had to charge more. So while there may be a limitation on the ability of local government to increase their budgets, their spending, at the local level, there is no limitation placed on the government not to require them to raise a greater share of their costs through taxes on property and industry at the local level.

Again, it is absolute and total hypocrisy. If they really believe for an instant what they say, they would show good faith by establishing that they are not going to increase costs to local government in this province. Every school board trustee in this province, every alderman, every mayor, every regional district director knows what I'm saying is true, and they know how hypocritical this bill is.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We in the opposition are not going to hold up passage of this bill. Even though it's window-dressing, even though it's flim-flam, it does show that the government is at least sensitive enough to be concerned about increased taxes, rents and rates in the public sector.

It would, however, show a lot more concern if they would only apply the same restrictions to the $7.7 billion of revenue that they control directly, not indirectly through the Crown corporations. I would like to see that change. I would hope that the Minister of Finance, if he wishes to retain any of the credibility he has left, would see fit to make a declaration before this House that they are going to apply the bill to all government operations, not just to the Crown corporations.

MR. HALL: I think the bills that we've been debating today are two examples of a latter-day conversion of the minister. I made passing reference this morning to a total, radical change of policy by the government. Now this bill picks up the cry of restraint for its own operations. They are examples of conversion to policies that have been called for. I think there's a principle in this bill that can be supported, particularly in view of some amendments that we'll be placing before the Speaker in due course.

The principle of trying to bring our Crown corporations under some control is one which, I think, would find favour with any member of the New Democratic Party administration from 1972 to 1975. I suppose one could smile at that, from a number of points of view that have been expressed over the years. Certainly I know I share some concern with this minister, both privately and publicly, over, for instance, B.C. Hydro and the way that particular beast has an insatiable appetite for its capital requirements, which are now becoming almost impossible to meet.

Control over our Crown corporations is an admirable target for this Legislature. But these late converts to the program of even-handedness bring a wry smile to the faces of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that when you were the Deputy Speaker earlier this year we on this side of the House called for equality of sacrifice. We called for even-handedness on the part of the government during the past 16-week session, which ended during the last few days of July. You will recall that those cries for even-handedness, for equal treatment, were ignored by the Treasury benches opposite. We pointed out that it was not good enough to try to run the province by press release, wringing one's hands and calling for restraint and at the same time not applying those kinds of rules to those things over which you had direct control.

[ Page 9456 ]

What's happened in the tax-increase field since we first saw, during those fateful days in February, the Premier demand time and tell us about his restraint program? What's happened on the user-charge side of government endeavour this past year, since the first rumblings of restraint, the first cries of "pay as you go" came floating over from that minister in this particular fiscal year? He talked about the solutions he was going to offer — short-term, mid-term and long-term — as the Minister of Finance introduced those bills following his address on budget day. What has happened to the government's restraint in the treatment of our basic industries?

Farmers and fishermen have had to pay a 26 percent tax increase for coloured gasoline. Business licence fees went up 15 percent last December. Free-miner certificates went up 150 percent in the corporate-mining field and 400 percent in the individual field. Guide-outfitters had a 100 percent increase. Fisheries have gone up 100 percent. Fish-buying stations have a new fee. Fish-processing plants have had a 100 to 300 percent increase in fees. Water rates increased 300 percent. B.C. Hydro has had a general rate increase of 31.5 percent, April 1, 1982, for industrial users — after the Premier first started talking about restraint. In other words, when the government was talking about freezing the public sector's income and the workers of B.C. having to tighten their belts, we saw the government get its share out of our basic industries.

What about the poor old taxpayer? On this list we've seen — while the Premier has been talking about the clouds on the horizon and fighting his way through — medicare go up in the last two years ranging from 76.5 percent for a single person to 50.6 percent for a family. Nursing-home fees have gone up 61.5 percent in the past two years. Emergency-room fees are up 100 percent in the past two years. Bus fares have gone up 25 percent for adults and 50 percent for seniors and children. Drivers' licences have gone up 100 percent. Licence plates have gone up 38.9 percent. Vehicle inspections have gone up 66.7 percent. Provincial camping parks have had an increase in fees from 17 to 33 percent. You'll notice that there's no 6 percent in these figures. They're all more than 6 percent. Angling licences are up 100 percent for B.C. residents. Hunting licences are up 100 percent for B.C. residents. ICBC rates went up at the beginning of the year by 21 percent and 18. 2 percent, depending on which of the two major cities we're talking about. Court fees are up 86.5 percent in the past two years, for just doing simple business with our courts.

Those are the ones that are published and you can easily find out. What about the hidden tax increases? The Business Licence Act, which we passed in this House.... From information in a news release from the Ministry of Finance at the end of last year — there are no detailed figures given — we've worked out that, on average, there has been a 15 percent increase for a business licence. Clear gasoline, clear diesel, propane — the favourite subject of the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — aviation fuel, bunker fuel, propane, butane and marked gasoline for farmers and fishermen have all gone up ranging from 8.8 to 26 percent in the period October to April. Since then, in the minister's own press release number 46, June 29, 38 cents [sic] a litre was added right across the board due to tax purposes.

Health premiums have gone up 21.7 percent, as I mentioned, across the medicare field in terms of people with taxable income. Pharmacare fees have gone up 21.7 percent. Acute care per diem has gone up 15.4 percent. Acute care, emergency care, day-care surgery and every figure you can think of has gone up considerably more than the figure in the bill in front of us.

In the Land Act — not, I suggest, a revenue source that would produce an awful lot of money for the Minister of Finance, but I'm sure it produces a fair amount — we see instances of 566 percent increases in charges. These are new fees and other horrendous increases in simple administrative procedures to do with the Land Act.

The Marriage Act. A marriage licence for a native Indian has gone up 900 percent. There's a 100 percent increase for all others.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I'm not going to mislead the House. I agree that the figures we're dealing with are $1 and $5 that have gone to $10 each. I want to give the House the full information. Nevertheless, that's a 900 percent increase....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't you think it's worth $10 to get married?

MR. HALL: No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm not putting worth on this. I'm saying that by your actions you are to be judged. I'm saying that you're late converts to the whole question of controlling your appetite for taxes. You're late converts to the side that has been calling for restraint. You've voted against every single amendment we've made on advertising, travel and so on.

Registration under the Marriage Act increased by 100 percent. Marriages by a justice of the peace increased 166.7 percent.

MR. RITCHIE: Are you against marriage?

MR. HALL: It would appear that you are if you put it up 300 percent. You're certainly not making it any easier, let me put it that way. I'm not saying that you're going to make it any harder by putting it up from $1 to $10, but you're not making it any easier.

Mr. Speaker, under the Coal Act applications for licences, permits and leases to produce coal and to extend terms of lease are all up 100 percent to 150 percent, and in one case 1,100 percent. The Mineral Act and mining and petroleum acts have had a 100 percent increase in all their fees. Motor vehicle licence plates, as I mentioned before, are up a tremendous amount of money. Drivers' licences are up 100 percent. The cost of licensing an average vehicle is up 16 percent. Passenger vehicle inspection is up 66 percent. Commercial vehicle inspection is up 40 percent. Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is up 200 percent. The Park Act.... All of these miscellaneous fees and charges are up tremendous amounts of money.

All I'm saying here, Mr. Speaker — and I don't want to go on to all of these minor things in terms of the number of dollars.... I agree that the percentages are high but the numbers of dollars are low. They pale to insignificance again when you get to B.C. Hydro, when we are talking about real money and large amounts of money. It's about time that we saw this bill in front of us; the same with ICBC and the same with the Urban Transit Authority.

Mr. Speaker, the province dealt with this at length at the beginning of the year, when it pointed out that government

[ Page 9457 ]

fees hit those the least able to protect themselves against this kind of activity. So I say that while we can support the principle of the bill, in view of the amendments that we are putting forward, one of the things I want to reiterate for the benefit of the House is that when we, during discussion of the budget.... Amendments and estimates pointed out that the government — the treasury benches — were late converts to the program of even-handedness. We now congratulate the government for coming across to our point of view and indeed meting out fair and equal treatment to both sides of the ledger, to both sides of the activity that's going on in this province, and not just simply scapegoating one side of the industrial equation. In fact, they're not saying, "do as we say, not do as we do," but at least they're making a late effort to start behaving as they've been trying to tell other people to behave.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats believe in a policy of restraint. New Democrats believe in fiscal prudence. New Democrats believe in cutting back the appetite of Social Credit to spend and spend like drunken sailors on the longest weekend spree you ever saw. Social Credit has the worst — repeat, the worst — record of fiscal mismanagement under which British Columbia has ever suffered. The Minister of Finance presenting this bill has himself the lamentable reputation of being the least able Minister of Finance this province has ever had in regard to his ability to forecast revenues and expenditures with any accuracy or credibility at all.

New Democrats believe in a program of restraint, and even though the record of this government is none too commendable, we will support the bill — better a late conversion than none at all. For two years Social Credit voted down every proposal made by New Democrats for restraint. For two years we have proposed to reduce in every estimate, in every area of non-essential spending. For two years New Democrats have advanced motion after motion asking that this government abandon its wasteful and corrupt practice of spending public money on partisan advertising, partisan television and partisan propaganda of every disgusting sort.

We asked them to cut back on the amount of money that they spent on travel for cabinet ministers. We asked them to cut down on the amount of money that they spent on renting luxury office accommodation around the province. We asked them to cut down on office expenses in their own ministries. For two years, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have been first and foremost in preaching restraint. We led the way in asking the wasteful coalition opposite to cut back in every conceivable area of non-essential spending. We proposed cuts amounting to almost $200 million and led the way in favour of restraining non-essential public expenditures. And for two years the coalition opposite has voted against every single remedy we have advanced.

They made a couple of small improvements this year. First of all, they got rid of Hyndman; this was an improvement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is fully aware of the rules of this House.

MR. BARBER: Well, he's no longer a minister, so I can't call him that.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is aware of the rules of the House.

MR. BARBER: They got rid of the second member for Vancouver South and that was good. Now they've gotten rid of the member for Okanagan North, and that's better. However, the government remains in power, and that's bad.

As long as that Premier remains in office, the wasteful expenditures of Social Credit will remain in effect. Social Credit, coming as it does from a party of high livers, big business, big spending — fancy wine, fancy limousines, fancy Broadway shows, all paid for by the taxpayer, by tax loopholes, by the customer, and never by the individual business person.... Social Credit, deriving as it does from that philosophy and that culture, has no difficult at all in making the transition to the kind of irresponsible and wasteful spending that we've seen. Social Credit is a very recent convert to the program of restraint. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago the New Democrats pioneered a program of fiscal restraint in British Columbia. For the last two years the Socreds have voted against every single motion we have made to cut back non-essential spending in the fields of advertising, travel, ministerial allowances and so on. The public reaction to Socred indifference and waste was the firing of two cabinet ministers, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Hyndman) and the former Minister of Tourism (Mrs. Jordan). Both of them were bounced because they had the nerve to do explicitly what the government has been doing implicitly for the seven years of its administration.

Two years after the New Democrats pioneered a program of fiscal restraint in British Columbia, finally the Socreds propose to take up the banner. They haven't done it very convincingly. Let's review the record for a moment. How much did the Socreds waste on their maladministration of the Princess Marguerite, the Rupert and the Surrey, and how much do they propose to save today? When you compare the two today and yesterday....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly, while we have some scope in debate, the member must now and then at least refer to the bill so that there is some context for his remarks.

MR. BARBER: I'm currently discussing the then, Mr. Speaker, and shortly will proceed to the now.

The then was the Marguerite and the waste of $20 million; the now is the claim by the Socreds that they've learned their lesson. Frankly, the people of British Columbia think the Socreds are wonderful slow learners at best. The government that wasted $20 million on the Marguerite fiasco now purports to believe in restraint. The House may wonder why the opposition is skeptical about the sincerity and knowledgeable of the incompetence that riddles Social Credit. The Socreds, to make a brief comparison again, wasted $15 million on an unworkable, unmanageable and now unavailable compulsory heroin treatment program. Every experienced person in the field told them it wouldn't work, but they went ahead anyway. Fifteen million dollars later they found out it wouldn't. Today they tell us they believe in restraint, after wasting $15 million on that particular fiasco, and they wonder why we doubt them.

Although we will support this bill, because we ourselves have advanced its principle — the notion of fiscal restraint in

[ Page 9458 ]

tough times, which was pioneered by our side two years ago — they wonder why we doubt their motives. We doubt both their motives and their competence.

To repeat, this is the single most incompetent administration British Columbia has ever seen. Proof of that may be seen in the fact of this bill's presentation. If they actually believed in, and could manage, a policy and program of general application called fiscal restraint, there would be no need for such a bill. If they had their own house in order on a day-to-day basis, the policy they've enunciated in this bill would be unnecessary. You see, all it would need is for a minister who cared about restraint to order that such a policy be carried out within his own department, through the deputy and the public service. A Minister of Finance who cared about restraint would do the same through the Treasury Board.

In point of fact, there is no need for such a bill. If this were a well-managed administration, they could achieve every single one of these proposed restraints through better management, through Treasury Board, through their own membership on the boards of directors of Crown corporations, through their own direct control of the entire apparatus of the Social Credit state in British Columbia. There are two reasons why they don't do it that way. First of all, they are not competent. They are clearly and provably not competent. Do you remember the Ministry of Deregulation? Do you remember Seaboard? We have hundreds of proofs of the glaring incompetence of Social Credit.

The reason they need this bill is that they are not competent to manage their departments correctly. They need, they think, the superior authority granted by statute, because their own inferior administration makes it impossible to introduce such policies. Do they need a law that restricts, for instance, the board of the British Columbia Ferry Authority to keep its prices down next year? They don't, because they control that board. That board is appointed exclusively and entirely by Social Credit. Every one of its members is entirely beholden, in their tenure on that board, to the political will and whim of the Socred ministers responsible. If the Socred ministers knew what they were doing they would simply order a policy of restraint in fees and fares. If the Socreds knew how to manage the business of this province, they would do so directly. They would not need the subterfuge of a bill like this.

This bill is here today for two reasons: first of all, because of their hopeless ineptitude, their proven incompetence and the demonstrated fact that if incompetence were a criminal offence this cabinet would be in jail — every one of them. But it is not a criminal offence; it is merely a political offence, and they are not in jail; they are in office. At least, they are not all in jail; some Socreds in the past have been, but currently I don't think any are. If incompetence were a Criminal Code offence, the whole coalition would be doing time in one of the Queen's hotels. However, it is a political offence, and it is that for which they are being held accountable today.

They do not need one single word in this bill to enact a policy of restraint. They already can do it and should have been doing it. Through every legislative device that exists to control the many agencies, arms, departments, ministries and corporations of government, they already have all the power they need. But they don't command the respect of their underlings. They are openly laughed at by senior public servants. They are openly ridiculed and jeered at by people in their own administrations. They are openly held up to contempt by public servants within and without the government agencies and the Crown corporations of this province. They need the force of law, because the weight of their own office does not command sufficient respect.

That's one reason they need this bill. The second is that they're trying at long last to ally themselves to the cause that New Democrats have been promoting for two years. Two years ago, when we started to move what turned out to be a total of $90 million worth of budget cuts in one fiscal year, they thought we were being negative, unnecessarily cautious and punitive. We said: "Not so. We read that bad days are ahead. We read that tough times are upon us. We read that we should start saving money now, cutting down on non-essential expenditures today, in order to prevent an even worse day in the weeks and years ahead." The Socreds laughed and giggled, in the immature way they always deal with these matters, and voted down every single proposal we made to cuts in budgets in areas of advertising, travel, office expenditures, etc. This year the New Democrats advanced the same strategy from the point of view of the same principle. The New Democrats, at least, have consistently advocated fiscal restraint. We have consistently advocated cutting back nonessential areas of public spending, and the Socreds have just as consistently voted against those cuts.

This year we advanced similar cuts in every single estimate. This year the Socreds voted against all of them — but with a difference. This year we caught them misspending public funds. This year we had documented proof that cabinet ministers were spending money without any proper authority, without any correct accountability, without any justification and apparently without any qualms. Why, the Minister of Finance himself had to pay back money that he admits was misspent, he says, on his behalf and without his direct control, in order that his colleagues and friends in New York — whoever — could go to Broadway shows. I guess a lot of people would like to go to Broadway shows, but most people think it's more honest to pay your own way. The Socreds apparently think it's more appropriate to get someone else, preferably the taxpayer, to do it for you. The former Minister of Energy went to Broadway in limousines; he spent a lot of money. He got caught too. He too was forced to pay back the money. These Socreds are awfully late converts to a policy of restraint. The former Minister of Tourism got caught. We only had her at onePublic Accounts meeting, and within a few dozen hours she was out the window. It took three meetings to finally put to rest the political career of the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the second member for Vancouver South. It only took one meeting to catch the former Minister of Tourism. In every instance on every account, at each and every opportunity, when the Socreds have had a chance to waste money, preferably on themselves, they have taken it. When they've had a chance to waste money on their friends as well as themselves, they have taken it. But when they have been given the opportunity to vote for a program of restraint, such as that which we have carefully advanced in every estimate for the last two years, they have turned down that opportunity. "Yes," they say, "we'll go to Sugar Babies." "Yes," the minister says, "we'll go to a show, or I'll have my friends go to a show, called The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." "Yes," the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says, "I'll get the taxpayers to pay for my fancy wine and my 60-cent cartons of milk." "Yes," the former Minister of Tourism says, "I'll

[ Page 9459 ]

sponsor $9,000 breakfasts in Peking." They say yes to all those opportunities; but when the more important opportunity presented itself to vote for budget cuts in their own departments, they said no to that for two years.

Now we have this bill, and we're expected to treat the Socreds with some sort of non-contempt, some sort of non-disrespect or some sort of non-laughter at their most recent conversion. The Socreds have at least been consistent in their disregard for their own philosophy. It's another bill that represents yet another turn. It's a bill that will establish uncontrolled borrowing for uncontrolled purposes.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has been very tolerant of the member's remarks. I have been hoping that the member would somehow return to the bill presently before us for debate. I would remind the member that we are neither in a throne-speech debate nor a budget debate. At this time our remarks must be strictly relevant to the bill at hand. Had the member been in the House to listen to the remarks of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), he would have heard a very relevant debate on this particular topic. I must advise the member that if he is not prepared to make his remarks relevant, then he must take his place and give way to someone who will.

MR. BARBER: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

What we have seen today in this bill is a failure of administration, the patent admission that they are so incompetent to give directions within the current law, which is, in fact, entirely adequate to their purposes, that they must summon up the spectre — we know who's pulling Bill's strings — of the additional weight of this law in order to find a way to stop their own public servants from laughing at them behind their backs, which is what they've been doing for the past many months on this issue. We also know they need this bill today for public-relations purposes. They know that their public relations on the question of restraint are in fact dreadful. It has led to the firing of two grossly wasteful cabinet ministers. It has led to the end of the entire political career of one minister; she has been an MLA for 16 years. It has led to the fact that the Premier continues to dangle in the wind on the question of whether or not to call an election, because he's getting contrary poll advice. One of the things advising him is this bill. He wonders whether or not he can persuade the people of British Columbia, through this bill, that he finally believes in restraint — restraint of his own appetite, of his own government's ambition to tax and tax more and more, until finally all small businesses are gone, swallowed up by their pals in big business, which may in fact be part of the political agenda of the coalition.

We will support the bill because for two years we have taken the lead in advocating cuts in non-essential areas of public expenditure. We will support the bill because we will support any measure that helps even one person manage a bit better during the time of a recession significantly aided and abetted by the Trudeau-Bennett policies that govern this coalition. We will support any bill that helps even one citizen to fare just a little better in tough times. What we cannot do is support the notion that Social Credit is sincere in these efforts. If they were sincere, then two years ago they would have supported our budget reductions. One year ago they would have supported our budget reductions. And come this spring, if they continue to do the chicken dance around the election that the Premier's been doing for the last week, and if they're still in office, it's easy to predict that we will be advancing further budget cuts. They will have a third opportunity to prove whether or not they mean it when they say they want to ease the burden and reduce the load. If they really meant it, they would have done it two years ago when we first gave them the opportunity. If they mean it this year they can do it without the aid of this bill.

If they require the bill for their political purposes we will support it because it is a principle we supported long before them, and will continue to support long after: fiscal prudence, fiscal restraint, good management and careful husbanding of the taxpayers' dollar. The New Democrats believed in that and did it when they were in office. We believe in it now, and we will do it again when we are returned to office after the next general election.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: End of career.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That member has been predicting my demise for a number of years. He's never been able to forgive the fact that I was one of those who succeeded in seeing the defeat of the government of which he was a member. The comment doesn't bother me, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've listened very quietly to the debate. I ask, as a single member of the House, to have the same courtesy of the House in closing debate.

Mr. Speaker, I think Hansard this afternoon will make interesting reading for those people who somehow feel that there is a team effort on the other side of the House. We had, prior to today, a first critique of Bill 81 by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). Fair enough. I will attempt to answer some of his comments, as he is the official critic of the Ministry of Finance in this chamber. Then we were told by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is in the chamber, that the bill was meaningless and unnecessary. That was a theme developed by several other socialist members who participated in the debate. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) picked up the same theme.

I want to return to one comment made by the member for New Westminster, who is studiously appearing not to hear what I am saving. "This bill will never be taken to third reading." That was his first statement. A little later he added: "This will never be taken to proclamation." Then he expanded further. As he leaves the chamber, let's stay with his first statement: "This bill will never be taken to third reading." At the close of debate today I will ask if we can move to committee stage. If that is not permitted, as is the right of the members opposite, then it will be on orders of the day for committee stage at the next sitting after today. It will be taken to third reading, Mr. Speaker. And it will be enacted, and it will be put in place on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I have to paraphrase the comments by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. If I do not quote her precisely, certainly I have the essence of her comments with respect to the Rate Increase Restraint Act. I think she came close to describing it as empty, as meaningless, as posturing, if she not in fact did

[ Page 9460 ]

so. Yes, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the comments of those two members, i.e. the member for New Westminster and the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who described the bill as unnecessary, empty, meaningless, one which we do not intend to proceed with and one which will go no further. We see that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), while perhaps not agreeing with everything in the bill, nonetheless views it seriously enough to put amendments on the order paper. Which is the official view of the NDP? Is it empty and meaningless? Is it not to be proceeded with? Or is it a serious document with which the official critic takes some difference, as is his right and duty as a member of the opposition, and offers some amendments which will be debated at a later stage?

I get a little tired of the sanctimonious approach of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). I assure the member that I don't lose any sleep, but I get a little tired when he tells this House and those interested citizens of British Columbia in the galleries that somehow he invented restraint. Mr. Member, you've told us repeatedly — I do not want to stray too far from the principle of this bill — that you and your colleagues offered up savings of something in the neighbourhood of $90 million in the budget before last. Mr. Member, that isn't even a pathetic start on the kind of restraint we introduced and imposed on ourselves.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You can laugh. There was $90 million in the first Treasury Board cut on the 1981-82 budget. We cut many times more than the $90 million which the member repeatedly cites in this House. It is the job of government to review ministry requests.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think I touched a nerve. They're cackling. I won't pursue it much further, but Mr. First Member for Victoria, you don't know anything about restraint. You don't understand anything about the budgetary process. You have no idea how tough we were on ourselves in reviewing our budget.

MR. BARBER: Who believes that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Laugh if you will. Hansard will note that the first member for Victoria chuckled and banged his desk. I simply say, very quietly, that he doesn't understand the extent to which we reviewed, cut, trimmed and reduced constantly for months on end before we came to this chamber with an expenditure level which would maintain services in British Columbia, and yet would not lead to higher taxes for the people of British Columbia. So much for that.

I commend Hansard this afternoon to those people who wonder if that group opposite is, in fact, as it claims, ready for government. You certainly didn't have your act together today. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) had very good critical comments. I have a few words to say about some of his comments. Other members stayed strictly with the bill, explaining why they believe that certain restraints should be imposed on these Crown corporations and agencies. Others, however, wandered all over the ballpark, giving us a rerun of speeches which have been trotted out and placed in Hansard for a good number of months, if not for the last couple of years.

The government of British Columbia made the decision quite some time ago that restraint was going to be necessary in the current circumstances. I alluded in my opening remarks to Bill 28, which flowed from the statement made by the Premier of the province in February regarding compensation stabilization. That was the cornerstone, the fundamental part to go into place with respect to our total restraint program. We made it clear at that time that Bill 28 was by no means the end of the program to control government expenditure. Indeed, events through the summer and into the early fall proved otherwise. Indeed, that is what Bill 81 is all about. It says to Crown corporations: "You can have an increase, but it will be a modest increase."

One member opposite indicated that his particular preference would be for a zero increase, Well, I dealt with that also at the start of the debate on second reading of Bill 81 by indicating that, yes, very early on in looking at this proposal, we determined that a zero percent increase — in other words, a total and complete freeze — would be impossible. It could not be effectively imposed on Crown corporations which face automatic increases in their cost of doing business. That is why we have legislation which allows up to a 6 percent increase for a limited period — for a period not to exceed one year, unless circumstances alter very dramatically in the course of that year. Again, let no one misunderstand. I alluded to that possibility in the opening remarks of second reading debate.

To the second member for Surrey, who listed off a number of fee increases, inasmuch as they were permitted by the Chair at that time, I assume that a brief rebuttal is permissible. I'm sure that it was in error and not an effort to mislead, but in quoting from a press release of June 29 he indicated that an increase in cents per litre was 38 when, in fact, it would be seen to be 0.38 per litre. He acknowledges, Mr. Speaker, that it was 0.38 of a cent, not 38 cents a litre. So much for that. It is a detail, and we all make mistakes in debate.

However, he did go through a number of fee increases which were altered by this government over the past two to two and a half years. I've talked of those before. I think that governments have been negligent over the past 50 years — indeed, this was touched on again in question period too — in not, on a reasonably regular basis, introducing, with inflation, gradual increases in a variety of fees which are charged and levies which are made with respect to whatever it may be: a marriage licence, an inspection permit, another licence of one kind or another. The list is long; there are hundreds of them. Some of them are voluntary in terms of the user; some are involuntary in terms of the user. You require a particular service, you are obliged to use that particular service; it may be motor vehicle inspection or a driver's licence. But we, as legislators, over the last good number of years — and our predecessors — were negligent in not gradually and regularly increasing those fees in order that the general taxpayer was not required to subsidize my purchase of an aerial photo for the city of Prince George or for the inspection of my motor vehicle or the licence for my marriage 25 years and some months ago. That's the very essence of what we have been attempting to do with those fees.

Now we are at a point where they will not need to be increased by a significant amount for quite some time. But let others who come behind, who follow in years to come, review those fees on a quite frequent basis, every two or three

[ Page 9461 ]

years, in order to avoid that increased subsidization by the general taxpayer. There is no reason in the world why someone in her seventies or eighties who does not drive should subsidize my motor vehicle licence, my driver's licence, my use of gasoline, my use of testing stations, my use of a variety of roads and highways. There is no reason why that individual should be asked to subsidize my activity as one who wishes to drive or who must drive. I use that only as an example. But I think it is a very key point, and one which I will continue to stand by in this chamber and outside.

MR. NICOLSON: Where did you lose the $1.5 billion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, will you bring that member to order? I can't hear what he's saying.

There were a number of speakers opposite who questioned the form of the drafting of Bill 81, claiming that it was permissive when, in fact, it should be mandatory. The point is interesting and I think is a subject that would be more appropriate for those who are trained in the law. It is somewhat traditional to have it in this form, as in section 2, i.e. "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciI may, by regulation...." Each member has the bill in front of him. It is traditional, I believe, to have the permissive rather than the mandatory in legislation of this particular type. It permits and insists that the executive council review these fees, and then if it decides to act, it may do this and no more.

Again, I think it would be an argument for those who are legally trained rather than for those who are laymen. Nonetheless, that was the decision taken by myself, by the drafters and by those who advise me in these matters. I think that I am happier with the permissive aspect than with the mandatory aspect, for reasons which have been developed in the debate by some members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I think that concludes my remarks. We have here a document which says quite clearly to Crown corporations: "You must also feel restraint. You must also feel limitations." Notwithstanding the fact that government appoints directors to a variety of these, I would rather have it in legislation than just by ministerial directive, verbal or in writing. We say to the Ferry Corporation, the Hydro and Power Authority, the Steamship Company, British Columbia Transit, the municipalities — only in the context of transit — ICBC, and to Workers Compensation Board: "These are difficult times. You must watch your expenditures. We are prepared to be in a position to limit those expenditures in the interests of all of the people of British Columbia." I move second reading of Bill 81.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered now.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 86.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House Leader for informing his Whip incorrectly again as to what the agenda was. Nonetheless, we shall carry on on this amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We are dealing with an amendment to the Socred reversal-of-policy bill that is before us. The amendment says that the motion of second reading of Bill 86 intituled the Financial Administration Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, be amended by deleting all the words following the word "that" and substituting therefore the following: "It is not in keeping with fiscal policy to have no limitation on the aggregate amount of money which may be raised by borrowings under the Financial Administration Act."

This amendment has been ruled in order. Proceeding on that basis, I'd like to deal with what is in front of us.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: If I were the Premier, I'd make up my mind one way or the other. If the member for Invermere (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is saying that he's out to drop the writ, it will save the people a fortune to get rid of this government, because under the legislation that this amendment is trying to prevent is a wholesale assault on public borrowing without any shred of responsibility or accountability to this House while the process is going on. I'm interested to see the reaction from the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who doesn't have any answers for questions during question period.

I was quoting this morning from a Vancouver Province editorial which pointed out that this government had deliberately chosen to eliminate the safeguards around public spending that were traditionally in place in previous administrations. I was quoting from an editorial from the Vancouver Province that was lamenting the leaving of government service of the comptroller-general under the former Finance minister, who now sits chastened in the corner.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Chastened. It is you, Mr. Minister, who are being chastised. There is a difference between the two words. "Chastened" is someone who repents their sins and sits in the corner with a cap on; "chastised" is one who has had his teeth kicked in publicly by the Premier. He has been chastened; you have been chastised. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the two words. Somebody should hold the minister's hand and explain to him what happened.

If I may return to the main burden of my remarks, that chastened Minister of Finance presided over the demise of the

[ Page 9462 ]

independence of the auditor-general in this province. Those warnings have been present to this Legislature and this government for some time. As a consequence, they went along on their merry way, raiding the public trough, spending like drunken sailors all the money that was available. Now they come here repentant, wringing their hands, saying: "Let us at more money without any accountability."

I want to refer to an article in the Vancouver Sun, dated October 3, 1981, by Brian Kieran — no relative of the former minister Kierans: "By the end of this week the halls of the Legislature were as silent as the day a couple a months ago when Finance minister Hugh Curtis asked all his cabinet colleagues to refrain from unnecessary travel and spending." After all the money was gone, they said: "Don't travel or spend any more."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's very noisy in here and it's difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to continue. Would the House please come to order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand why the former Liberals are nervous about this particular bill. This is a Trudeau-Bennett alliance to put this province into debt. The Premier of this province ran around saying, "We'll never borrow." Social Credit publications, as recently as June of this year, said: "We're a pay-as you-go government." They're handing out those brochures at the Social Credit committee room, expounding the philosophy that it was the Liberals who drove this country into debt, and that the debt this year in the federal budget alone is going to be $20 billion. They're the ones who say that the deadweight debt of the federal government is overwhelming, when we now know for a fact that in relative terms the federal government are pikers. The accumulated per capita debt under the federal government is a little over $4,000 per person. The accumulated capital debt, including, on the same formula, the capital debt of the Crown corporations, is $4,900 per person in British Columbia, the highest provincial per capita debt. The facts reveal that the Trudeau Liberals have a long way to go to catch up to that high-flying-debt crowd over there. These people have a record of deliberately blocking scrutiny through public accounts of expenditures, of playing cute games, of seeing that Mr. Bonnell left office, of overspending in an unforeseen manner. On top of that, the greatest leader of them all is the Premier's office.

In 1976 there were 13 employees in office of that modest little small businessman who long ago forgot how it was to sleep on a couch in the store, with that rhetoric in terms of saving money. In 1976 he had 13 employees, and it cost $228,000 a year to run his office. By 1981 the bright lights of Victoria had got to him, and the office expenditures went up to 19 employees costing $664,000: an increase of 192 percent. I remember the first speech given by the Premier coming into this House, bragging about how frugal he was in his office, counting the pencils, making sure that the eraser was still on the end in those days. Nowadays they've done away with that. They counted every penny. He came in with a whole formula. He spent his whole opening speech on the Premier's estimates proving how his was the cheapest office right across Canada. He sure was the cheapest office, but that bad habit fell off into Hyndman — 60 cents for a little bit of milk that he charged the people. The cheapest office is gone.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I call the House to order. To the amendment, please.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate your calling the House to order. I'd hope that you wouldn't throw the Premier out, Mr. Speaker.

In the last six years there have been overruns under this government, which is completely out of control in terms of fiscal management. The overrun in 1976-77 was $52 million, in 1977-78 it was $200 million, in 1978-79 it was $201 million, in 1979-80 it was $248 million, and in 1980-81 it was $219 million. The total is $1,158 million in overruns under this government since it's come to office. This government said that it was fiscally responsible, yet within that five year period it racked up overruns of $1.1 billion.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I understand why the minister of coal and the Premier are rattled by this particular debate. I'm not surprised that they're not sitting still and listening to this. How else would you stop a whirling dervish when it comes to policy? The memory of Socreds long forgotten has been revived today by this government that would abandon the basic philosophy that brought that party into existence to begin with. I find it interesting that the final direction and evolution of the once great Social Credit Party is that they'd end up being a pale imitation of the Trudeau Liberals.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and all other members to please come to order.

MR. BARRETT: I pointed out earlier in this debate that it was the first time since the last coalition government in the history of the province of British Columbia that we have had a borrowing bill in front of us to pay for operating expenses. The manner in which the bill was brought into the House was a continuation of the comedy of errors by this government. In spite of all the advice they get from the advisers they've hired from Ontario, sometimes the strings on the mannequins get screwed up and we get two different signals at the same time when a bill comes in.

The first signal we got on this bill was as the Minister of Finance ran down the hallway and said: "We may need this in our hip pocket." But instead of explaining that, we then got the Premier saying: "No, that's not the reason. We have to borrow this money to pay for our election expenses." We had this unseemly dispute between the Premier and the Minister of Finance over why this bill was brought in in the first place. The Vancouver newspapers were embarrassed to have to print on their front pages the fact that after spending all that money for advisers, this government hasn't even got its act together. The question we have to ask is: where did all the money that we were told was in the bank for a rainy day go? Where has all this money gone over these years while these vast heavy spenders have racked up a huge expenditure in this province, to the point that for the first time in 30 years we have to borrow money for operating in British Columbia? Shame! But there is no shame over there. Within a matter of hours of this bill being introduced, the Premier got on television and

[ Page 9463 ]

said: "This was our plan all along." To drive this province to the point of cash shortages where they have to borrow money to pay for the groceries, and then to turn blandly into television cameras and say, "Well, we've got no other option," would be an admission for any other person of being an absolute failure. This is the only government that attempts to turn failure into a political virtue. Where did they learn the twisting of failure into a political virtue? The only place in Canada where failure as a political virtue has been a modus vivendi for any government has been with the Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa. There is the exact same comparison.

In 1976, according to this government's own books, there was $552,289,975 in cash sitting in the bank. The people of this province have a right to the answer to this question. Where did this money go? What was it all spent on? Where are those hard-earned dollars left over by the former W.A.C. Bennett government and our administration? Where have they gone? What have they been spent on?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You talk about shovelling money out of the back of the truck. They just stood there and watched it slip through the cracks in the floor into B.C. Rail, the disasters of the heroin treatment program, lavish expenditures in their offices and massive overruns. Without a sense of accountability, they allowed our treasures to be dissipated, they sold off our assets in BCRIC, and now they come here cap in hand and say: "We need to borrow money." It's like a person who murders their mother and father and then pleads for mercy because they're an orphan. That's the analogy. They are self-inflicted wounds of an irresponsible government that has blown over $550 million and that brings in a budget in April of this year that is so far out of whack that any other self-respecting Minister of Finance would bring in a new budget.

I recall the semi-slanderous remarks made by these pious Socreds about Mr. MacEachen, Mr. Speaker. I recall all those statements made around this province, particularly by the astute Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is deeply involved in this debate. I remember all of those comments: "We would never build up a debt, never borrow to pay for the groceries." I remember the chauvinist admonition the Premier used to give, with his analogies about how he taught his wife not to shove bills in the back of the drawer. Somebody had better check his drawers. Some people describe it as "cold feet," but it might be something else.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that this whirling dervish of British Columbia politics has got the nerve to attack people with homilies by saying, "Don't shove bills in the back of the drawer," only to discover one day that he's going to have to borrow money and bury the bills elsewhere all over the house.

Some of you MLAs have sat here in wide-eyed amazement at the speeches by the Premier — do you not recall some of the admonitions he made to this House? "Never borrow money needlessly" — that became a national ad.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's right. "Don't spend what you don't have. I warn those Trudeau Liberals in Ottawa that they're taking us to rack and ruin with borrowing for groceries." Do you remember how those clichés and homilies used to roll off the Premier's lips? They were practised in front of mirrors until they became a rote performance; just turn on the key and it said: "Don't borrow money needlessly. Don't shove bills in the back of the drawer, and don't borrow money to pay for your groceries. Not a dime without debate." Well, who's going to wind him up now, Mr. Speaker? Are they going to flip open his back and take out the old cassette and put in a new one? That's the job of Kinsella and the gang. There they go — like this — over the mannequin and say: "Now Bill, tell them it's time to borrow with no accountability."

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I am the designated speaker, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus colleagues.

MR. LEA: Look at the camera with the red light and give that flashing quick smile.

MR. BARRETT: No, that's not the way it's done anymore. No, Mr. Member, you are absolutely wrong. Now we rent one Canadian flag, one British Columbia flag and a blue backdrop, and one tube of Pepsodent worked vigorously for three-quarters of an hour before the appearance on camera, saying: "Folks, don't borrow money to pay for the groceries. Don't listen to those Trudeau Liberals. I want to tell you that we pay as we go." What's happened? The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has adequately described it in language that even the Premier understands. We now find that Bill Bennett has crawled into debt with Pierre Trudeau.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Would you buy a salad-shredder from this guy?

MR. BARRETT: I think it's wonderful. The Premier says: "Would you buy a salad shredder from this guy?" The only shredders that ever showed up in British Columbia showed up after that government got elected. They're so paranoid that they brought shredders in. They rip up everything.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are getting an educated interruption from the former member for Prince George North. He's on leave of absence. He's the only person up in Prince George North that drives a blue Mercedes in Victoria. That's good stuff up there when they have 19 percent unemployed. He hasn't opened his mouth once in this House about unemployment in his constituency.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, please don't try to keep order. The more they interrupt, the more they reveal themselves.

Mr. Speaker, $552 million of backup cash is gone. It disappears in British Columbia. There are overruns of $1.1 billion in six years in British Columbia. There are little payouts here and there that have never been explained in this House. In the last week of March $45 million was taken out of general revenue and dumped into northeast coal. How much could that $45 million have done for the schools in this province? How much could it have done for the hospitals in

[ Page 9464 ]

this province? To this day we still don't have an explanation by the Minister of Finance as to where that $45 million went.

Look at the legacy of this government and consider the smugness of their position all along, saying you pay as you go; and then we have this panic 6 o'clock dropping of a bill, saying they want the right to borrow money without any reference back to this chamber, without any accountability, and they need it quick.

In all my years of working in prisons, one syndrome I noticed was a certain kind of person who needed money quickly, on the last-minute drop of a bill, people who had just come back from Reno where they over-extended themselves on a roll of the dice and who were looking anywhere for more money to throw at the same problem. They've got a big roll of dice going on in northeast coal. The roll of dice is coming up bad, and they want this bill to throw more money into a declining coal market that is threatening southeastern British Columbia. They don't want any accountability, which this amendment would bring. The roll of the dice came from that literary genius in the cabinet, that great exponent of free enterprise who has given more welfare to private companies than any other minister in the history of British Columbia: the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). He's thrown money at coal companies; he's thrown money outside the province to build ships in Korea and Belgium, to build a stacker-reclaimer in Japan, to create jobs everywhere except in British Columbia; and then he asks for more money to pour into that project, without any accountability.

The unemployment rate in British Columbia is scandalous. It is estimated that the seasonably adjusted unemployment rate in this province is 13.9 percent. The number of unemployed is now up to 181,000. The only places working, because of the policy of the British Columbia government, are Korean shipyards, Japanese industries, Quebec car-building plants — and Derril Warren.

A citizen came up to me in Lumby and said: "What will the Minister of Education do when he sits in cabinet and the bills coming in from the railcar plants in Quebec are written in French?" His government's policy is providing jobs for Quebec. Their government's policy is providing jobs for Alberta. Ninety million dollars worth of contracts have gone to Atkinson-Commonwealth of San Francisco. Now we're presented with a bill with which they want to scoop up more money to dump into those dumbbell decisions made by an incompetent minister of trade and industry, who has now called for meetings between the southeast and the northeast so that the Japanese can ration out how much they are going to buy. Deny it, Mr. Minister: that your own department is so concerned about the diminishing market in Japan for British Columbia coal that you're trying to get voluntary restraint of sales out of southeast British Columbia just so the numbers look good during an election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, there is enough evidence to indicate that this government is completely out of fiscal control. It was given warning signs of it by Ms. Morrison years ago. They deliberately ignored those signs, and we're in this sorry state today, debating a bill that says unlimited borrowing in secret by this government. And you sit there and smile about it.

The one thing that you have a capacity to do, Mr. Premier, is to express absolutely no shame or contradiction in terms of your position. What was good for you today is not necessarily good for you tomorrow. Just change philosophy, just change statements. Mr. Speaker, there is no philosophy. This bill coming in without any accountability to borrow money to pay for groceries — in the Premier's own definition of a cliché — is absolutely shameless. But the interesting thing is that there has not been one hidebound Socred who has publicly said: "Gee, I'm sorry, we goofed. We have to abandon our pay-as you-go policy, and we're going into debt." If there was a way, Mr. Speaker, for the backroom boys to figure this out or to blame some mother on welfare, they'd do it. If there was a way to blame some handicapped person, they'd do it. If there was a way to blame some civil servant, they'd do it. One of the most damning features of this government is that not only is it shameless, but it perceives itself to be blameless. This is a complete abandonment of a philosophical position that brought that very power into existence. They're totally philosophically corrupted to the point where now they're even trying to rationalize secret borrowings and massive debt as good for them.

When you look back over the record and the amount of money that's being spent by this government, and you see what's happening to the economy of British Columbia, you could well say that this province is in economic chaos from the lack of administration by this gang that knows absolutely nothing about restraint or caution when it comes to blowing money. The public has the right to ask what happened to that $553 million.

This is the same group, led by the same Premier, who ran around saying that B.C. was not for sale. Tell that to Noranda. This is the fellow who fought off Big Julie, only to be beat to the punch by Mr. Zimmerman. This is the group that, as they pledged when they dissipated the assets acquired by the New Democratic Party government, said: "We will never let one small group control those vital assets in this public corporation, BCRIC." That was his pledge. Does your word mean nothing to you? Some people think it means something. That's the same Premier who brought in amendments this year to allow BCRIC to be gobbled up by large corporations. Why did you change that? Every time you change a policy it's either a reflection of a poll or a necessity because of the previous absurdity of your position.

How do they view these real problems in the province? Do they view them realistically? Do they understand what has happened in this beautiful province of British Columbia, partly because of their policies? I don't think they've got a fig of perception about what's going on. I want to read an article to you from the Vancouver Province dated September 16, 1982. The headline reads: "Phillips Can't Find Jobless." "Using positive thinking and strong language, Industry minister Don Phillips wiped out massive unemployment in the depressed forest sector on Wednesday. 'There aren't that many people unemployed in the forest industry,' Phillips maintained at a press conference. After the news conference, Phillips joined other Socred MLAs in voting against the New Democratic Party motion to have an emergency debate in the House about the tattered state of the economy." The most crowded offices in any small town in British Columbia are the welfare offices and the unemployment insurance offices. That minister has never deigned to go into that part of town, so he wouldn't see the unemployed.

MR. LAUK: "Work with Bill."

MR. BARRETT: How do you like it so far?

[ Page 9465 ]

The interesting about this, as we go through just the special warrants.... We haven't even got yet to the possibilities of this bill. Let's take a look at their record of special warrants, without any accountability.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you'll never get your troops up with a dull speech like that. Come on, be your old self! Let's go!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm overwhelmed by the clever remarks of the quick quipper from South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Why don't you get up, outside this building, and say.... When you fall over somebody who's unemployed, you'll recognize them as somebody who has lost their home or their business in this province because of your policies.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development not to interrupt.

The Leader of the Opposition on the amendment to Bill 86.

MR. BARRETT: I don't mind the interruptions, Mr. Speaker. Inane comments will hardly make up for a rational debate about a crisis that exists in the economy of this province. This government, which pledged that it would never borrow money to pay current bills, has made a complete reversal of policy, and its only defence is crass interruptions, which I am highly unused to in this pacific Legislature.

That minister has not shown one whit of understanding of the serious problem of unemployment in this province. He has not given a rational explanation, not for one minute, of the tens of millions of dollars that have been poured into that northeast coal project, without accountability to this House. They've not shown one whit of interest in the plight of the small businessman or the unemployed in this province, and then just a few weeks before rumours of an election they say: "We're going to promise you goodies and then we're going to borrow money to pay for the goodies." At least that's a frank admission. The Minister of Finance tried to say it was for operating costs; at least the Premier was upfront about it, This money is going to be used to buy votes. It's going to be used to pay for the policies we announced.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let's take a look at their own record. Here's a little publication, "A Decade of Growth — 1969 to 1979," produced by the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. There he is, a beautiful smile. It says here: "British Columbia has grown during the last decade, grown substantially." What does he go on to prove? Some interesting statistics. On page 6 of his own report: during the years of the W.A.C. Bennett administration, from 1969 to 1972, there was a 10.9 percent increase.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Come on, Dave, a little enthusiasm, eh?

MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, I'll never preside over giving money to foreign nationals while our own people go unemployed. There's not much to be enthusiastic about in this government's performance, and I do say that you are shameless.

I know that the government is shameless. Bombast and rhetoric by that minister won't obscure the fact that during the following years the growth in this province was 17.4 percent annually, then dropped under this administration to 13 percent and has gone nowhere since. Can you tell the taxpayers of this province why you should have more money with an unlimited licence to pay bills and drive this province into debt, when there's not one whit of demonstration that our treasures and our resources are being counted on to provide jobs and economic development in this country? You preside over giving contracts to everyone out of British Columbia, then you expect to borrow money and be proud of that? Borrowing money to provide jobs for everyone else, but welfare and unemployment insurance in British Columbia? Then you'll go into the cabinet room and produce secret orders-in-council borrowing more money on top of more money, and you ask this House to trust you in that regard. The one thing that shows up is that this government is not trusted by the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier likes to call over about what the numbers are in the polls. The government likes to call out what it sees as the writing on the wall. The reason the government has not called an election is that every single poll reveals that this government is simply not trusted. The reason it is not trusted is that within a matter of hours they change position, they change policies and they ask for support.

I have yet to hear some of the old Socreds who are left, like the members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom, Hon. Mr. McGeer), two original Socreds.... With a deep conviction in their hearts, they floated across the floor and joined that group and said: "We now embrace the pay-as you-go philosophy." The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), whom I once described as one of the few cabinet ministers who still had a redeeming feature.... That single redeeming feature is still there: he has yet to praise the Premier publicly. The two members for Vancouver-Point Grey come very close — they choke on it a bit, but they're practising. Mr. Speaker, where is the defence now by that Socred philosophical brains trust for this complete reversal of policy'?

The Premier never thought this session would last more than a couple of days. He was armed with what the vernacular describes in our business as a "roll." He was on a roll, but the roll turned into a whirl, the whirl turned into a maelstrom, and the maelstrom is a massive public debt in this province under this bill.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Don't be interrupted, Mr. Speaker, from your rapt attention, from the outer edges of that whirlwind. Wind it is, circling wind.

Interjection.

[ Page 9466 ]

MR. BARRETT: You know, I'm amused by those inane interruptions from the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and by the Premier — their giddy little laughter. The new minister from North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has proved his comparative worth; as soon as he got into cabinet they decided they needed two MLAs for North Peace River. What does that say about the quality of that member?

There's a great deal more to say about a government that would shamelessly abandon philosophy, that would move a province from being debt-free into massive debt, that would abandon the philosophical commitment to develop the resources for British Columbians, that has no idea of the suffering of the people of this province because of unemployment and the recession. Its only response is to ignore the debate, to ignore the reversal, and believe that they can go back into power, based on inane remarks made in this Legislature.

Shortly after we were elected to government, as Hansard will show, there was a philosophical exchange between the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and myself. During that exchange there was a philosophical discussion about how to finance British Columbia's development in the future. The record will show that we shared a common interest — not the philosophy in how to do it, but a common interest in avoiding massive debt around resource development in this province. The debate that took place that day was the type of very quiet philosophical exchange that up to that point had separated the opposition and the government for years in this province. But there was one common, abiding concern: that no government should put this province in a massive-debt situation, especially to pay for operating costs, when we couldn't buffer ourselves with reserve funds. We saved those reserve funds.

The 1976 Public Accounts, published by Social Credit, showed there was $553 million in the bank. I do not believe that the Minister of Finance in Bill Bennett's government of the day was lying at that time. That $553 million has been frittered away. There were $400 million worth of assets, now frittered away in BCRIC. We had in this province the means to start a value-added philosophy for our resources — all abandoned, Mr. Speaker. We had initiated a public debate in this province around value-added resource development. We said that we must gain out of the resources the financial security that would provide jobs and economic development in this province. In five short years this government's recklessness has squandered $400 million worth of control of assets, squandered $553 million in the bank and now driven us to the point that for the first time in 30 years we have to borrow money to pay for the grocery bills. The response that we get to this amendment is the egged-on interruptions of a philosophically bankrupt government that has driven this province to the edge of ruin.

I wish that all British Columbians would understand the level of shamelessness we've reached in this province under this government in terms of reversal of policy and putting this province in massive debt. You will recall the clichés about having to protect our children and our children's children from paying off the debts, the folly of politicians. Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve in this chamber of seeing a bill passed in this Legislature that will pile debts on our children, our grandchildren and our grandchildren's children. What we lost on the Columbia River Treaty will be coffee money compared to the debt that this group is driving us into in their quest for power. The only motivating glue that holds that group together is a psychological need for power. There is no philosophy; there are no principles. They have abandoned everything they pretended to believe in, just to hang onto power.

Even though I am the designated speaker, I will end my contribution towards this simple amendment by reading again exactly what the official opposition is asking for as the traditional responsibility, regardless of political party, that we have come to expect in every Legislature in the Commonwealth.

We've amended this unlimited borrowing bill to include the simple line: "It is not in keeping with proper fiscal policy to have no limitation on the aggregate amount of money which may be raised for borrowings under the Financial Administration Act. If the government refuses this amendment, any trust anybody has left in this group will be totally abandoned, because they're hell-bent for power at any cost, will borrow money at any cost and will put us into ruin just to hang onto power. That day of reckoning will come when the people say no once and for all to a government without philosophy and principle, and with no substance except the desire to cling to power. If you won't accept this amendment, then I appeal to you to call an election, because this government can run reckless without this amendment, and the people have a right to decide. I say that that right to decide should be taken right now, before they go too far and totally ruin us in this beautiful province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure to respond to some of the comments and speak against this amendment. However, in view of the hour I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder filed the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission annual report.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.