1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3547 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act,

(Bill 146). Hon. Mr. Lauk.

Introduction and first reading — 3547

Committee of Supply: Department of Transport and Communications estimates

vote 235.

Mr. Chabot — 3547

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3547

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3560

Mr. Chabot — 3548

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3548

Mr. Chabot — 3549

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3549

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3549

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3549

Mr. Wallace — 3550

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3550

Mr. Gibson — 3550

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3552

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3553

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3553

Mr. Gibson — 3554

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3555

Mr. Phillips — 3555

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3555

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3556

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3556

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3557

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3557

Mr. Morrison — 3557

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3557

Mr. Morrison — 3560

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3560

Mr. Morrison — 3561

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3561

Mr. Morrison — 3562

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3562

Mr. Rolston — 3562

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3563

Mr. Phillips — 3564

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3569

Mr. Gardom — 3569

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3571

Mr. Gardom — 3572

Mr. Phillips — 3572

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3575

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3575

Mr. Gardom — 3575

Mr. Cummings — 3578

Mr. Morrison — 3578

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3579

Mr. Morrison — 3579

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3579

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3579

Mr. Morrison — 3557

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3581

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3558

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3581

Mr. Morrison — 3558

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3582

Mr. Curtis — 3558

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3582

Mr. Curtis — 3560

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3559

Royal assent to bills — 3583

Placer Mining Act (Bill 144). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 3583

APPENDIX — 3584

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, because

of Prince Rupert's geographic location it's not too often that

I have the pleasure of introducing someone from my riding to

the assembly, but today I do have that pleasure and I'd like to

ask the House to welcome with me to Victoria today two officers

of the Pulp and Paper Workers Union from Prince Rupert, Local

4. Angus Macphee and Nick Gardiner are sitting in the Speaker's

gallery.

Introduction of bills.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF BRITISH

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Lauk presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Development

Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 146 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.

Oral questions.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 235: Minister's office, $100,716.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, just a brief

question to the Minister regarding the one insurance firm which

ICBC purchased, Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance. I speak for

those minority shareholders of Fruit Growers Mutual, being one

of the 28,207 shareholders of Fruit Growers Mutual. I have one

share with a value of $25, which hasn't been refunded yet.

I was wondering if the Minister would give me some

justification and some reason as to why the government found it

necessary to purchase Fruit Growers Mutual. Why Fruit Growers

Mutual and no other insurance company in British Columbia?

Was there an independent appraisal of the net worth of this company prior to

its purchase? If so, would the Minister tell us who the negotiator was for the

purchase of this firm? Would the Minister be prepared to table in the House

this independent appraisal of Fruit Growers Mutual?

What was the price paid for this firm? What was its

financial position at the time that it was purchased? I have

the 1972 report where this firm made a net profit of $45,000.

It has some assets — it has real estate valued at $167,000. Is

that in the neighbourhood of the price paid by the provincial

government?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I said real estate in 1972 valued at $167,919.

It made a net profit in 1972 of $45,339. Did it make a profit

in 1973, or was there a loss? What justification was there for

the purchase of this firm and what price was paid?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. While the Hon. Minister is

digging up the answer, perhaps someone else has a question,

there being no speakers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get impatient, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got about 28 advisers, and he's got to

ask them all.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman,

the investments were valued at $1,629,000, the land was valued at $112,000,

the buildings were valued at $190,000, furniture and equipment were valued at

$24,000. We had a firm of chartered accountants make an appraisal. The excess

of purchase price over assets acquired was $13,000. The deficit in the Fruit

Growers Mutual financial statement of December 31, 1973, was $120,000.

There were liabilities off-setting the assets I listed and

we finished up paying them $107,518.

MR. CHABOT: The cost was $107,000?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: What was the purchase price?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was actually….

MR. CHABOT: You're talking about $190,000 worth of assets,

of real estate. You are suggesting that you paid only $107,000

for it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listed the assets and indicated to you

that there were liabilities…

[ Page 3548 ]

MR. CHABOT: Certainly there were liabilities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …matching those assets. As a matter of

fact, we paid $ 13,000 over the price of the assets required,

but then the liabilities were off-setting that. So we didn't

actually pay for…. We accepted the liabilities too, you

see.

We paid $736,000 because the liabilities were not equal to

the assets. And we paid the difference between the assets and

liabilities which were $736,000, and we paid $107,000 over and

above that difference.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, he didn't answer some of the

questions.

First of all, the 1972 statement to the Superintendent of

Insurance suggested there were 28,207 shares of par value of

$25 each, paid for by each shareholder. Have you made

provisions in the purchase price to reimburse all these

shareholders their $25, which is $706,175, based on the 1972

annual statement? Did you pay $736,000 for the firm?

Now are you suggesting you are going to refund $706,000 more

to the shareholders in reimbursing the value of their shares?

In other words are you suggesting you paid $.5 million for a

company that made $45,000 in 1972, and lost $120,000 in 1973?

If that's the situation, why did you buy this firm? Why this

firm and no other firm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me answer your question before you go

off on a tirade, will you?

The answer is no.

MR. CHABOT: What's no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As to whether or not we're going to pay

another $706,000. You see, you asked the question, you assumed

the answer; you assumed the wrong answer. And then you get mad

at yourself.

MR. CHABOT: That's not true.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Chabonic plague was in full flower.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: That's worse than matkinitis, I suppose.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, all right. Out of the moneys

which we gave them they have to pay the shareholder.

MR. CHABOT: When?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's up to them; you're a shareholder of

that company.

AN HON. MEMBER: They take no responsibility.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, no. The company….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is that the way you

handled Dunhill too?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Your discussions will be with the company

itself. We took over the assets and liabilities, that's what we

did.

MR. CHABOT: Well, that's part of my question….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me tell you the reason that this was

done. It became obvious very early last year that there was

going to be a problem in supplying automobile insurance to

every resident in the province because of some of the attitudes

some of the private companies — and I say some — were adopting,

and we wanted to be sure there was an agency of some kind

available to maintain the market. We asked Fruit Growers,

because we had to be sure that there was some group, some

existing organization, to sustain the market during that

interim period.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a further question. I really

can't accept that that would be the reason why a small company

like this, why a company located in the Okanagan, a small

company of 28,000 shareholders, rather than any of the other

companies….

Would it be because the vice-president, one of the

directors, is a defeated NDP candidate with this firm — is that

one of the reasons why you decided to pick this company,

because one Robert Charles Maddocks, defeated NDP candidate in

Rossland-Trail in 1963, is the vice-president and director of

this firm? Is this one of the reasons why you selected this

particular firm as a back-up insurance company? Or are there

other socialists on that board of directors as well? Is that

the reason why you spent so much money in purchasing a firm

that has very little value?

In other words, you're suggesting that you paid in the

neighbourhood…. Is it correct that for a company that lost

$120,000 in 1973 you've paid in the neighbourhood of $800,000?

It just doesn't make sense that you'd buy this kind of firm.

You could have bought any other kind of back-up insurance

agency in British Columbia rather than Fruit Growers

Mutual.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Where? Come on, tell

us where.

[ Page 3549 ]

MR. CHABOT: In Vancouver.

HON. MR. COCKE: Where?

MR. CHABOT: In Vancouver.

HON. MR. COCKE: Just what insurance company? You're

so full of hot air….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: How's that?

MR. CHABOT: Why don't you go see Foulkes for a while?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health needs his head examined,

Mr. Chairman.

But I want to know — $800,000…who paid for the purchase

of Fruit Growers, was it the taxpayers of British Columbia or

was it the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Let the Minister of Highways have the floor,

he wants to condemn the ads again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would suggest to the Member that his

usual political accusations are unrealistic, untrue….

MR. CHABOT: They're true; he's a vice-president and a

director.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know whether Maddocks is a

director or not. But it so happened that it did not become the

firm that was the back-up agency. I would ask you to suggest to

me any other company in the province who could have supplied…. As I say, this is what we were after, a back-up. It so

happened that it didn't become the back-up agency because BCAA

were able to do the job.

I want to remind you too that with the acquisition of the

company, we acquired profitable book in fields other than the

auto, and we acquired some staff that are very worthwhile and

the goodwill that goes with the firm.

I suggest you talk to your colleague, the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Richter) who sits behind you, about the Fruit Grower Mutual. I think it was

a firm which was a British Columbia company and performed a very useful service

to the people of the Interior of this province. And I don't think he will appreciate

you talking about that particular company that way.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I want to pose a few direct questions to the Minister, and they

won't be very long.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has undertaken

a tremendous task, and the Minister and the ICBC have been

subjected to a great deal of criticism. But I think it would

certainly assist the Members of the committee and, indeed, the

citizens of this province to recognize exactly how large the

problem has been. I wonder if the Minister could make a note of

these questions:

How many private passenger vehicles are licensed in British

Columbia, and how many commercial vehicles of all types?

Because this really forms the major burden of responsibility of

ICBC.

Could the Minister indicate what the gross premium income to

ICBC has been from those two categories, private passengers and

commercial vehicles?

In addition, I just have two other short questions, Mr.

Minister. In addition to the vehicle coverage, we have driver's

licences. I wonder how many driver's licences have been issued

in B.C., all types. Of those, how many insurance certificates

have been issued which involved additional premiums because of

bad driving records?

Lastly, could the Minister indicate the gross premium income

to ICBC on all driver's certificates, whether they involve a

premium or a surcharge or not?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, 900,000 passenger vehicles;

250,000 commercial vehicles; 1,340,000 driver's licences;

80,000 will be subject to a surcharge.

I haven't got the breakdown on the amount of income from the

different categories of drivers, but so far the income from

vehicle insurance this year is $179 million and from the

driver's insurance so far it is $7.5 million.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Do I understand from the Minister that

the total premium income of $179 million is both private

passenger and commercial vehicle coverage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it is the total vehicle income so

far this year.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And the driver's insurance certificate

income is both those with and without surcharges?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

[ Page 3550 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just want to remind the

Minister that he said he would follow up a question I asked

yesterday to find out a reason why the carpeting on the 33rd

floor of the building in downtown Vancouver has a certain layer

cemented to the floor and a subsequent layer of very expensive

carpet laid on top of the original layer of carpet. As I

recall, I asked the Minister to look into this very serious

matter and he said he would. I wonder if he has an answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the 33rd floor some cheap green

carpeting was laid down in the legal office area totalling

1,038 square yards while construction was still going on in

that floor. The final layout of that floor was not known.

More expensive carpeting was subsequently laid when the

floor was completed. These two different carpetings met in the

reception area when everything else was finished and there was

an obvious clash of carpets out in the open. So 75 square yards

of the green carpeting was removed from the reception area,

leaving 963 square yards of the original green carpeting in the

office areas. The 75 square yards were replaced with the more

expensive carpeting. It wasn't laid on top of other carpeting;

it was laid on an underlay, which is normal procedure with the

more expensive carpeting, to protect it and make it last

longer.

There are some 75 miscellaneous carpetings stored at ICBC

headquarters. I was under the impression last night that that

was all that was stored but there are also 8,000 square yards

of carpeting worth a total of $82,000 currently in storage at

Johnson Terminals in Vancouver. However, this carpeting has

nothing to do with the 33rd floor; it is carpeting that was

ordered for the claims centres, all of which have been delayed

by construction problems and the strike.

This carpeting only arrived during the past month and it is

being stored at a monthly cost of $250 which will decline as

the carpeting is removed from storage and installed in claims

centres as they are completed. The contractors will, however,

share the storage costs to the same proportion that they are

responsible for the delay in the claims centres.

The Member raised another question yesterday about $500

mini-computers. Only two have been purchased, both for the

finance department which has complex calculations involving

interest, installment payments and other schedules of that

kind.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the detailed reply from the

Minister. I think he is being very frank and I appreciate

it.

In regard to the miniaturized calculators, as a matter of interest, were they

the most expensive ones on the market? I understood from yesterday that the

Minister said it was a bid process and we took the lowest bid. My information

is that that is the most expensive unit on the market.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My information is that it is the only one

that would meet the requirements of this particular job in the

finance department.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a number

of questions for the Minister, mostly in connection with

ICBC.

I would like to start out with what seemed to me to be a

really very major policy announcement he made yesterday in

terms of controlling growth on Vancouver Island by the use of

the ferry system and particularly the use of reservations.

Could I ask the Minister if, when he replies, he could

confirm that it really is the intention of the government to

control population growth on the island by this means, whether

he has any growth target, and whether he doesn't foresee that

creating some problems in the rest of the province,

particularly the lower mainland? Growth on Vancouver Island and

particularly on southeastern Vancouver Island has been one of

what I would almost call safety valves for the tremendous

number of people coming to British Columbia every year. It has

allowed for some dispersion of this growth away from the lower

mainland so that area hasn't had to absorb the whole of the

pressure. It's had to absorb the majority of it but not all of

it. I would ask the Minister what he foresees on the Island by

means of keeping the ferry fleet lower than it would otherwise

have to be to meet natural demand and what impact he sees this

having on the rest of the province.

Moving, on to ICBC questions, I have, as I said, a number of

these. First of all, one arises out of the recent conference of

the B.C. School Trustees Association. This was a resolution

submitted by school district 59 and was carried by the meeting.

I will just read the resolution:

"Whereas ICBC has stated publicly that no one will be

penalized by this switch to a government insurance programme

and subsequently made it clear that this would not apply to

vehicle fleets, and since school bus fleets enjoy one of the

safest driving records of any type of transportation, these bus

fleets should not be categorized with other types of commercial

fleets. Under the present system, absolutely no credit is given

for a previous record of safe driving where a school bus fleet

is involved.

"Furthermore, although bus fleets may earn a deferred

discount on this year's safe driving record, this would not

apply in the ICBC ruling to any new vehicles added to the fleet

during

[ Page 3551 ]

the year.

"Therefore

be it resolved that the BCSTA urge the Minister of Education to consult with the Minister

of Communications to devise a more equitable system of insuring

school bus fleets and thus reduce this unnecessary expenditure

of public funds."

I hope the Minister might be able to comment on that

proposal because certainly school boards need all the help they

can get in their financial operations. Would the Minister

prefer that I go on with some of the other questions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are they related to ICBC?

MR. GIBSON: They are related to ICBC but they are each quite

distinct.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You might as well give me…. It saves

having to get out some research later on.

MR. GIBSON: The next question relates to page 8 of the

Autoplan Insurance Guide, 1974. There seems to be some

discrimination either with respect to sex or to marital status.

Item 1 mentions that, for a totally disabled person employed at

the time of injury, they are entitled to $50, subject to an

annual review after 104 weeks. On the other hand, a totally

disabled housewife is entitled to $50 for a maximum of 26

consecutive weeks.

I would ask the Minister how he explains this difference in

time period between an ordinary employee and a housewife who,

after all, if she is totally disabled, obviously has serious

continuing expenses if her disability continues beyond 26

weeks.

At the same time, if the head of the household is killed,

$5,000 is paid to the surviving spouse or other primary

dependent,

whereas, if the spouse of the head of the household

is killed, $2,500 is payable to the surviving head of the

household. This again seems a curious anomaly. The Minister

might explain the thinking that went into getting that kind of

scale.

The next question is really a matter of some curiosity to

me. This arises from a friend of mine who had his car

registered in the name of his small company. Because of the way

the ICBC rates go, he thought it to be to his advantage to

transfer the car into his own name. What he had to do, of

course, was to take the licence plates off his car, go down to

the ICBC agent, go through the regular paperwork, and then go

back and put the plates back on his car again. But he also had

to pay sales tax. He paid sales tax in a cheque made out to the

Minister of Finance and the cheque came back deposited to the

account of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

There are really two questions that arouse my curiosity:

(1) Is the ICBC an

authorized agent of the Minister of Finance for the purposes of depositing and

cashing cheques and handling money?

(2) Is the ICBC agent paid the 3 per cent

commission that I understand is paid to automobile dealers when they collect

sales tax?

My next question relates to the location of the head office

of ICBC in Vancouver, and again in a way indirectly relates to

the problems of growth that we have in British Columbia and the

lower mainland.

I think it might well be that the Minister, had there been

more time available, might have preferred to see the head

office located somewhere else.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've answered that question.

MR. GIBSON: Have you? I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I wasn't in

the House at the time. Have you answered the ongoing question,

have you future plans for the movement of the head office?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've answered that, yes.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you. I'll look that up.

Next, a brief and simple question: has the ICBC any present

intention of getting into the life insurance business?

Next, a question that is raised by a gentleman who I

understand is no longer — well, he may be, it's not clear from

the wording in this letter — in any event he represents himself

as knowing a good deal about collision repairs. He writes as

follows:

"I have personally owned two collision repair shops over the

last few years and presently I am the landlord for four

collision repair yards. I think that I can speak as a

reasonably informed person on these types of operations.

"I think your method of claims centre estimating rather than

competitive bidding will eventually cost the people of B.C.

millions of dollars in excess premiums. I know now why most of

the body shop owners have been giving Strachan some heat on the

hourly rate. They are basically getting far more than they

expected.

"Your claims adjusters are throwing in lots of extra hours

where necessary to keep the heat low. I'm sure it will be just

like any other government-run monopoly — pay anything, just

don't create problems. There is no bottom to our money

barrel."

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the

obvious dangers in keeping proper account of the cost of claims

repairs — the hourly rate really is meaningless without some

way of keeping good account of the hours assigned to the job.

Any amount

[ Page 3552 ]

of money can be put in the hands of the repair shops simply

by jiggering around with the hours.

I don't say that is the Minister's intent. I ask him what

control procedures the corporation is instituting to make

certain that reasonable hourly assignments are in fact being

made with respect to particular claims.

Another general question as to the financial affairs of the

ICBC. Much of the premium income of the corporation will be

from business that was formerly self-insured and didn't pay

insurance premiums to anyone. I believe that would include much

of the government vehicle insurance, B.C. Hydro and other

agencies.

I wonder if the Minister could give the House an estimate of

the ICBC income that will come from what is, in effect, a book

entry and the subsidization of the ICBC by government agencies

that formerly did not pay insurance premiums. We really need

that to properly adjudicate the financial efficiency of the

corporation.

Finally, and I would be very grateful if the Minister would

address this question first because it does relate to an issue

in my own riding, and I don't want to lose track of it. It is

the question of the ICBC claims centre property, the two

properties, in the District of North Vancouver.

With respect to one property there is a particular problem — the storage of wrecks on the Dollarton Highway property. In

that connection I would like to read a letter written May 24 to

the ICBC by Mayor Andrews of the District of North Vancouver. I

remind the Minister that I asked him a question in this regard

in the House the other day, and this confirms that question.

The letter reads:

"Dear Sir:

Re North Shore east claims centre.

"As you are well aware, the District of North Vancouver took the position last fall that the

proposed claims centre on Dollarton Highway should be subject

to municipal taxation, and since that time we have attempted

unsuccessfully to secure such assurance from the provincial

government. Despite repeated correspondence and meetings

between ourselves, your office and members of the provincial

government, no written commitment has been forthcoming. The

subject was again discussed by my council on May 21 as a result

of numerous complaints from residents in the area regarding the

storage of wrecked cars on the site.

"I have been directed to inform you that before any further

consideration will be given to your land at tender, this matter must be resolved,

it being our understanding during negotiations for the site that the centre

would be a clean operation which would not include the storage of wrecks on

the property.

"Your prompt attention and reply would be appreciated."

As I said to the Minister during question period, this is a

matter of some importance to the district and it was, according

to the mayor, a matter of understanding during the initial

negotiations that the property would not be used for the

storage of wrecks. So I would be grateful if the Minister could

address himself to that problem, and if he could at the same

time give assurance that it will be the general policy of the

government to pay taxes, full municipal taxes, on ICBC

properties — not just in North Vancouver, of course, but

throughout the province, and not just in 1974, as is provided

for by the order-in-council, but through the years.

I think probably that plain assurance to this House would go

a great distance to resolving the problem that exists with the

District of North Vancouver, so I ask the Minister, with the

greatest spirit of good will, if he could give those

undertakings now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll start off with the

first question the Member asked regarding the statement I made

yesterday with regard to the reservation system. As I recollect

the statement, I didn't indicate that I was going to control

the growth of Vancouver Island. I said it would give us some

governor on control of the growth of the ferry system.

MR. GIBSON: Aren't they the same?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not necessarily. The fact that you have a

reservation system means that the people who must travel, and

who know ahead of time, are able to make a reservation with the

result that it avoids and removes the terrible frustration that

is part of the present system where business people, or people

who are planning to go on holiday at a certain time, arrive and

they have a six- or seven-hour wait. It brings a rationale to

it and it becomes a more rational operation.

I agree with you, but I admit that I have concern, and I

must have concern, about the magnet that lower Vancouver Island

and the lower mainland have for people. This is not peculiar to

British Columbia. It's something that is a factor all over the

world. There's this tendency of people to congregate in mass

humanity. Even in the most regimented societies, such as China…you must have a permit to be in the City of Peking. They

check the permits once a year and they have to expel 200,000

people.

Oh, yes, it's a human factor that seems to be a part of

today's society, irrespective of where it is in the world. I'm

concerned about it; we're all concerned about it happening in

British Columbia.

Let me tell you, the other programmes that this

[ Page 3553 ]

government has instituted are related to our trying to bring

a balance into the Province of British Columbia by maintaining

economies and developing economies in other parts of the

province. We cannot allow the economies in other parts of the

province to collapse. We must bring stability first of all,

then build on them, which allows larger communities to develop

in other parts of the province. With the larger communities you

get the cultural development, the social development, the

educational development, the medical development which will

bring some balance into the province. So I am concerned about

it, but as I say, the other policies of the government are

designed to take care of that factor. My concern was getting

some control on the growth of the ferry system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A very quick

supplementary.

I appreciate the Minister's remarks; he's clearly thinking

about future problems. Can I ask him whether this restriction

is limited to B.C. Hydro's refusal to expand facilities,

particularly with respect to gas? There's no way you can get

gas for a restaurant in Victoria now because it's simply not

there. Is that part of the government programme as well, to cut

down on growth in this area?

Finally, may I ask the Minister whether or not he plans on

moving members of his department up to Kamloops or Prince

George or other areas to decentralize his department more so we

can again move some of the people out of the town who are

presently here, and get away from this crowd he talked

about?

I'm not asking him for value judgments; I'm just asking him

whether this is an area which is being explored by his

department.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and as a matter of fact the

reorganization of the department, especially the department of

commercial transport, will be moving people from the lower

mainland into different parts of the province.

B.C. Hydro — I can't answer the questions about B.C.

Hydro.

Now to your questions on ICBC — the one about the school bus

safety driving record. We're certainly going to examine that

aspect of the operation for future years — the matter of school

buses, their safety records and so on. I've had several letters

about it from the school boards.

Incidentally, yesterday I was asked a question by the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) about this, about

schools and so on.

Regarding driver training incentives, I'd like to state that drivers

graduating from the recognized high school or commercial driver

training course since January 1 this year can apply through the Motor

Vehicle Branch for a $50 rebate by ICBC.

So far the Motor Vehicle Branch has approved 2,070 rebates.

Because of the processing time lag, ICBC had issued 1,443

cheques up to Wednesday of this week for an amount totalling

$72,150. No applicants have been refused so far and ICBC

expects to pay out $600,000 during the first year of this

incentive programme.

Now the next question. The Member referred to page 8 of the

Autoplan booklet and the inferred discrimination inherent in

that particular wording. I want to point out first of all to

him that the head of the household could be a female. I have to

apologize too for the fact that this is here.

As a matter of fact, perhaps because of a time factor,

perhaps for other reasons, but to give us the base on which to

start, we adopted exactly the same standard as was part of the

Insurance Act of the province and that adopted by the

private insurance companies. So this is exactly the same as

applied under the private insurance companies' operation. Now

it's been drawn to my attention several times in this House and

certainly I think I can assure you that will be corrected next

time around. We inherited it from the private industry and I

apologize for that. We should have examined it perhaps a little

more carefully.

Sales tax. The ICBC is an authorized agent for the Motor

Vehicle Branch. As you know, the Motor Vehicle Branch has

always accepted the sales tax. They have always handled the

sales tax from the transfer of vehicles. You couldn't get the

vehicles transferred unless you paid the sales tax. We have

collected on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Branch some $38

million already this year, but the agents don't commission for

that particular sales tax collection.

Has ICBC at the present time any intention of getting into

the life insurance business? Not at the present time. No, we

have enough on our plate right now.

Claims adjusters allowing more hours than needed. Well,

we've had complaints from the official opposition that we're

not paying enough, that we're being too tough on them and that

we're going to put them out of business. So I think there's a

balance in there somewhere. We do send quality control groups

visiting the different agencies to be sure that the allowances

are maintained on a fair basis throughout the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many inspectors are there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have six or seven inspectors

who are checking the adjusters all through the province

continuously.

You referred to the fact that some business was

[ Page 3554 ]

formerly self-insured and asked for an estimate of how much

from government agencies. Insofar as the government vehicles

themselves are concerned, I answered that question earlier in

the session. I can't remember the exact amount. I think it was

$690,000 for 17,000 government vehicles. Anyway, that figure is

on the record. I haven't got the separation as to how much B.C.

Hydro has paid, but as I told one of the Members the other day,

that becomes public information.

Claims centre in North Vancouver. Even before the Member

raised it in the House, the MLA who represents that

constituency spoke to me about the matter. There is a meeting

taking place on Tuesday next between the corporation and the

council. We're meeting with the mayor next Monday, as a matter

of fact.

It is true that we guaranteed that the centre would be a

clean operation. Had the municipality allowed us to go ahead

and build this, it would have been in operation now and it

would have been a clean operation, but for reasons best known

to the municipality they decided not to let us go ahead. They

posted a stop-work order.

I indicated right at the very beginning of the corporation

that it was our intention to cooperate, to live with and to

live up to, and to work with every municipality, to go the

whole normal route for permits, for zoning, for everything

else.

In some isolated areas in the province we have run into

difficulties and North Vancouver was one of them. We are having

a meeting next week. As I say, we followed all the proper

procedures, the same as any other corporation. They asked for

some assurance as to our attitude towards paying full taxes. As

a demonstration of good faith I took the cabinet an

order-in-council, guaranteeing to pay for this year. I have

demonstrated my good faith on behalf of the corporation. I

expect and hope that municipalities will demonstrate some good

faith, too.

MR. GIBSON: I don't want to get into a wrangle on this North

Vancouver district matter. I just want the problem to be

solved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So do I.

MR. GIBSON: I would explain a bit to the Minister the reason

for the extreme sensitivity of the North Vancouver council on

this.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the MLA for that constituency has

already explained it all to me, Mr. Member.

MR. GIBSON: Well, let me just explain it a little bit

further in the House if I may.

The district is already losing well over $120,000 per year in tax revenue from the fact that the B.C. Railway

in its major terminus in British Columbia — its southern

terminus — pays no taxes to the district at all. For that and

other reasons the district has become very touchy about the

intentions of the government, because the government has

continually, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer), indicated in principle the idea of paying full

municipal taxes, but when it comes down to actually putting it

in writing it seems to be a little more difficult.

So while I appreciate the fact that the Minister has gone to

cabinet and gotten an order-in-council for 1974, I wonder if he

couldn't go back to cabinet and get an open-ended

order-in-council saying that until that order-in-council is

revoked it will continue to pay full taxes under the

section in

the ICBC Act that says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

do so. It seems to me, as I said before, that that kind of

action would go a great way towards solving the problem, making

the council of the District of North Vancouver feel easier

about this, and allowing the work to go ahead.

As the Minister knows, the council has tried to cooperate

on this. Indeed, a delegation of two councillors representing a

broad spectrum of political views came over to visit him and

describe their unanimity on this subject. The mayor has been

very consistent in his representations over the last six to

eight months and I have a pile of correspondence here to

indicate that. I would ask the Minister if he would consider

going to cabinet and asking for an open-ended assurance of that

kind over the coming years.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've just got some questions that I'd like to

ask the Minister while he's here in the House, and it has to do

with automobile dealers and their insurance.

When the Minister brought out a change in the regulations

with regard to dealer plates, I must say I was very happy, and

I discussed this and I told the Minister so, right out here in

the corridor. I thought it was a change in the right direction.

However, you've given dealers use of their dealer plates, but

now with the change in insurance we're paying very dearly for

that use.

I would just like to ask the Minister: do you plan on going

into the dealers' demo insurance, making some changes in future

years? I doubt there's a dealer in the Province of British

Columbia whose insurance costs for demonstrators, or the use of

his own cars — call them demonstrators or company vehicles,

whichever you may — haven't gone up thousands and thousands of

dollars. The majority of dealers were far better off under the

old scheme with the limited use of dealer plates. I'd just like

to ask the Minister if he had any comments on this, because

there's going to

[ Page 3555 ]

have to be a change somewhere along the line.

It works just that much more of a hardship, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Minister, where there are no licence plates

on used units. It necessitates buying more dealer plates, and

when you're paying out close to $334, I think it is, in the

northern part of the province for a set of dealer plates,

that's pretty costly for a set of dealer plates for use,

particularly just on used units that before had licence plates

on them and you could take them on the road. I wonder if the

Minister would care to comment on what he plans on doing in

that regard.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate the problem raised by the

Member. We did, I think, as you recollect, re-examine on the

basis of the information we were given, but were unable to

satisfy the wishes of the dealers at that time.

What was happening of course was — and this applies in a

number of areas in the whole vehicle insurance field — with the

multiplicity of companies, the multiplicity of agents, there

were umbrella coverages, different kinds of deals with

different dealers. And there were some dealers who found that

our operations were extremely beneficial to them. There were

others who found that because of some special rate they had it

was costing them more.

I think too, some of the dealers because of their umbrella

coverage had an advantage which is no longer with them. I know

one dealer who, for instance, in his family cars found himself

paying hundreds of dollars more for his family cars with the

institution of ICBC because he had his family cars, and he had

a number of them, included in a blanket coverage for his

business which meant he was getting two gains there, I suppose.

The insurance on his family cars was a write-off on the cost of

doing his business, and because it was included in this blanket

coverage it was at a much lower rate. So that was the sort of

thing that was happening. Now it is all separated and then

paid.

But I want to assure the Member that we will take a good

look at that section, and next year we hope we're able to

decide the rates on an individual basis — on the basis of your

experience — which again would get you back into a more

rational form than what we now have.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, can that be based on either payroll or gross

business or something? Because right now, it depends a lot on the particular

layout of the dealership how many dealer plates are required. It doesn't matter

how many dealer plates you have, other than use for family automobiles which

in some instances, as you said, were classified as demonstrators. It depends

on the layout of the business, and I don't think you're going to use dealer

plates any more extensively, other than for personal use.

It is a matter of convenience if you can have a set of

dealer plates on each used car lot and for your body shop and

for your different operations, but right now you just can't

afford to do it because it costs you $334. If you would get it

on the basis of volume…and I think this is what the

majority of auto dealer plates were based on before, so I wish

you'd really take a look at that.

The majority of the dealers in the province are paying a

great deal more, and what they're paying for is the convenience

of having dealer plates to use in their dealerships. I know in

my own case, I thought I was going to get by with a certain

number of dealer plates, and the employees complained so bad

because they couldn't find them, they weren't there, that I'd

have to go out and spend an additional large sum of money just

for the convenience. Really, I'm not getting any better

coverage, it's just a case of convenience, so I wish you'd take

a look at it.

Now, one other question, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the

ferry system. How much do you anticipate the reservation system

on the ferry system is going to cost? I was just going to ask

you, prior to you announcing the reservation on the ferry

system, if you would get with Ottawa and the Air Transport

Commission to see if you could get an air-bus system set up

between Victoria and Vancouver, where reservations wouldn't be

necessary, similar to the one they have operating between

Calgary and Edmonton.

That service has worked out 100 per cent. You go into the

Edmonton International Airport and you jump on the plane; you

don't have to have any reservations. You do the same in

Calgary. There are some 16 flights each day between Calgary and

Edmonton, and I'm sure that there's as much traffic between

Victoria and Vancouver, although I realize it's covered by

ferries and by harbour-to-harbour.

I know that PWA at one time did ask the Air Transport

Commission for permission to put in an air-bus service between

the Vancouver International Airport and the Victoria

International Airport, and were turned down strictly because

the airlines want to use this route between Victoria and

Vancouver for continuation of flights, and mainly Air Canada,

which is owned by the people of Canada. But in the interests of

Victoria and in the interests of Vancouver and in the interest

of air flight between the two cities, I think this

recommendation and this offer of Pacific Western Airlines to

inaugurate an air-bus system would be upgrading the service and

be of great benefit to all the people — also flights at the

high-density time, which now don't always work out because of

extensions of other flights. So maybe the Minister would like

to comment on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I agree. I'd certainly be happy to

take that to the Minister of

[ Page 3556 ]

Transportation in Ottawa, whoever he may be after July 8.

It's the sort of thing I'd intended to raise with Mr. Marchand

when I was due to have a meeting with him a month or so ago,

but he hasn't recovered from that virus attack he had and he

had to cancel that meeting that was arranged. I would certainly

be happy to take that up with the new federal Minister of

Transportation.

You want to know how much the reservation system will cost.

That's difficult to say because it hasn't been decided, but I

expect it will be somewhere between $1 million and $2 million

per year.

Yes, we're looking at either payroll or gross receipts in

that matter of the dealers. Let me assure you, as I did with

the Motor-vehicle Act and amendments I made with regard

to dealers, this is going to be my attitude right through: I

want any regulations to be as simple as possible. I don't want

to build up a structure of regulation and regulation. This is

why I took the action I did with regard to the dealers, to

simplify a lot of the red tape with which they were confronted.

That's going to be my attitude as much as possible right

through the whole operations of the department. I think that

answers your questions.

The Motor-vehicle Act amendments that are before the

House provide for a new type of plates too — repairer plates

for body shop use. I understand this is going to be a fairly

low insurance rate for the use of those plates.

Finally, applications for refunds which as of now must be

made by May 31, that's very soon now, I think I'm going to

extend that date for another 30 days to allow anyone who hasn't

yet had their application in — give them a chance to apply for

a refund during that extra 30 days.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to raise a question raised

yesterday but not answered — the purchase of a flight simulator

by the government of British Columbia, a purchase for $400,000.

This flight simulator is for an aircraft type known as the

AE-90. We have some Cessnas, and apparently we're buying some

Super King-Air 200s. But the particular simulator in question,

purchased by the government, is for an aircraft that we don't

have in our fleet.

Mr. Chairman, there is a distinction between simulators and

trainers. A simulator is one that is an exact mock-up of a

certain aircraft, and obviously costs a great deal more. A

trainer is something which has characteristics which are

adaptable to a number of different aircraft. Now, what we've

done is purchase a simulator for an aircraft we don't own, an

aircraft which is out of production and an aircraft which

apparently it's very unlikely we ever will own. I believe there

are 13 in Canada, of which nine are owned by the federal

government.

Sure, the aircraft simulator can be used for general

training, but, Mr. Chairman, the Rolls Royce can be used for

driver training in high schools if you want to waste money. I

think that's pretty well what we've done.

A few quick words to show the difference between the A-90

and the Super King-Air 200, a few specifications: your gross

take-off weight of the King Air is approximately one-third

higher; your speed is 289 knots as opposed to 220; rate of

climb is about — it's an extra 500 feet a minute — 2,000 on the

one hand with 2,500 on the other; service ceiling is half

again; take-off distance is half again and landing distance is

once more substantially greater, 2,400 feet as opposed to 1,800

feet; the engine horsepower is 850, as compared to 500. It's a

different aircraft altogether, in other words.

So I wonder why this simulator was purchased. Sure, I know

the pilots want it. Naturally they want top of the line. I bet

if you ask the fellows who do driver training, they'd be

delighted to have Rolls Royces issued to them to teach kids to

drive. But the simulator in question simply doesn't make a

great deal of sense inasmuch as there are other companies which

produce simulators which have characteristics much closer to

the Super King-Air 200 which the provincial government is

purchasing.

For them to have purchased the A90 doesn't make a tremendous

amount of sense, in particular when PWA and CP Air are willing

to let them have their jet simulators at Vancouver at somewhat

under $100 an hour, and the federal government is willing to

let the Province of British Columbia use its A-90 simulator at

cost. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why we've

bought ourselves a Rolls Royce to do the job of a Chev.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, the federal simulator will

be in Ottawa. This one will be on the west coast, in Victoria.

It will be available to pilots not in government service for

their training. The A-90 is similar to our older turbine

Beechcraft; it is a junior version of A-200 Beechcraft to come.

The simulator will allow us to do certain things. It will

provide advanced navigational training related to British

Columbia locations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A Link trainer doesn't do that, my

friend. A flight simulator is different, as you said. The

trainer will not do that. It will provide intensive training in

operational procedures with 27 different failures programmed

into the simulator; it will train pilots and co-pilots as

operational teams; and it will allow us to evaluate pilots

under intensive circumstances far beyond that possible in

actual flight. All of this can be carried out in an

organized

[ Page 3557 ]

programme integrated with our regular flight operations.

Further, in this day of fuel concern, at the present time

our training programme requires four hours per month per pilot.

Without this operational training available, this must be done

in the aircraft. The simulator will allow us to reduce

in-flight training to a bare minimum and this can be worked

into regular flights. The net overall effect will be to reduce

the use of the aircraft with attendant savings in fuel,

maintenance and depreciation, and to provide a higher level of

training than is now possible.

Some may question, as you did, why we bought an A-90

simulator when we do not own A-90s. This is a one-of-a-kind

simulator developed specially by and for the federal Ministry

of Transport. No other simulators for this size of aircraft are

available.

If we do want to have an A-200 simulator developed, another

year or so will be required and the costs will be much greater.

We might have costs to a total of $1 million. Remember, we are

getting advantage of development costs that the federal

government put in. We save $200,000, because that was the cost

of developing this particular simulator. Anyway, there is the

possibility that we can have it upgraded to simulate an A-200

if such is deemed necessary at a much lower cost than would be

involved if we waited now and had an A-200 simulator especially

built for British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do I understand the Minister correctly

that this simulator can be upgraded to be the King-Air 200 that

the government intends to purchase?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said it may be a possibility.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it may be a possibility. Many

things may be possible, but it is highly unlikely. The whole

purpose of buying an A-90 simulator is to duplicate exactly

that aircraft's characteristics, and that is why it took some

time to read out the differences between the two aircraft. We

don't have a multi-purpose simulator, as is implied, we have a

unique one for a specific type of aircraft.

Sure, it will be useful, but whether the cost is justified

is the question that the Minister has not answered. Surely at

this stage we should be looking at cost effectiveness in

simulators, as well as other things.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're being critical of me for buying it

and I accept the criticism. I just happen to disagree with you,

that's all.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I wonder if the Minister could

answer some of the questions that I asked last night. Or would he like me to ask them again? He

hasn't answered any of the questions that I posed last night

before adjournment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, you asked me about ICBC's rebate

time. I told you that now it has been extended.

You asked me something about if ICBC was paying an agent

remuneration. For doing what?

MR. MORRISON: For assisting the customer in drawing up his

rebate application.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

The number of ambulance calls in 1973-74. There have been 31

air ambulance calls to date.

You asked about scheduled flights to Vancouver; there are

five scheduled round-trip scheduled flights each day — two in

the morning, one at mid-day, and two in the evening. The planes

are all stationed in Victoria except the Beaver, which is

stationed in Kamloops.

The two new Beechcraft are due June 19. I just answered the

simulator question that you asked. Those were all the questions

I got down. We'll see what the Pinks say here; maybe there were

some others. Oh, one of the planes is coming June 19 and the

other is coming July 31.

Then you asked me about air strips. I don't have the

information on how many are blacktopped and how many are

gravelled. I know that our Cessnas can land on all of the

blacktop strips and many of the gravel strips, because they

have landed on them.

Incidentally, I had May 6 set as the date on which I was

going to go up and take the ferry to Kelsey Bay, look at the

ferries, look at the harbour development there, and then drive

east and look at the airports on the way, because I had a

delegation come down from the north to talk to me about

aircraft up there; I didn't make it.

However, I have a letter which I sent to every regional

district in the province in which I pointed out that there is a

federal programme available for developing air strips. I think

11 communities have already made use of that federal programme;

applications are in from 10 more. I was asking each regional

district so that I could get an overall picture of what was

required, check them out, and then take that situation to the

federal Minister in an effort to upgrade these smaller airports

in the province to allow for greater mobility for aircraft

around the province. I'm waiting for replies from the regional

districts now.

MR. MORRISON: I appreciate the Minister's answer because I want to be

sure that we are taking advantage of the federal government's participation

in any airport programmes. I would commend to him

[ Page

3558 ]

that we do as much as we can to encourage municipalities

throughout the province to have air strips.

One of the questions I asked that he did not yet answer was:

are the aircraft insured by ICBC and how much passenger

liability is carried on each aircraft?

Referring to official use, he didn't answer either about the

trip in September on which the aircraft carried one Peter

McNelly, who was not at that moment an employee of the

government, as well as the Premier.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think that was answered. It was an

emergency situation. I answered someone there the other day.

However, it was an emergency situation. We just simply couldn't

make the connection unless a government aircraft was used. As I

say, he travelled under the Premier's department. There is

evidently some regulation which says you can't accept payment

when you are….

MR. MORRISON: How well I know that one.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. But it has happened on occasions. It

happened to me once. I was explaining the other day where I

sent my wife by commercial aircraft up to Prince George the day

before I was due to speak to a loggers' convention. That was

while the firemen were on strike and she didn't know when she

could get back so I brought her back in a government

aircraft.

MR. MORRISON: We'll ask you about that one next year.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, ask me about that one next year. So

the odd occasion develops where there is a situation and

someone else wants to go up. But it is not a practice that we

intend to….

Regarding insurance, we carry $10 million liability on both

jets, $5 million on the Beaver and $5 million on the aircraft

we use by the land service. None of it is with ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One more brief comment from the Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I'm not quite so sure that I ….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The proper procedure is to

recognize the Members in turn.

MR. MORRISON: It's related to the same subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, the Hon. Member for Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair just wants to be fair

to all Members on the opposition side.

MR. MORRISON: I would like to sort of conclude that part of

the discussion, then. Could the Minister advise us if there is

any method whereby the department itself is charged back the

use of the aircraft for those departments which use the

aircraft? Does that all come out of your budget? I notice there

are some departments that use it a great deal more than

others.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, I asked for a use

report a couple of months ago and I have that. It all comes

directly out of this budget at the present time. There's no

charge left.

MR. MORRISON: Well, in the same manner then, Mr. Chairman,

if someone charters a private aircraft, does that come out of

their budget or does that charter use — that's assuming that

one of the government aircraft is not available and there's a

need and the Minister then authorizes the charter of someone's

aircraft — does that then come out of his department or is that

charged back into your department?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That comes out of the department that

does the hiring. It is not charged to this vote at all.

MR. MORRISON: Right. I've got some other questions.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I've been present

for most of the debate dealing with the Minister's salary vote.

I've heard some of the balance in our office and I've read the

Blues — or as they are now called: " the unverified advance

draft transcripts," or words to that effect. I can see

nowhere a firm and definite statement by the Minister on the

subject of B.C. Ferries with regard to dining-room

facilities.

The Minister took me to task last week when we were speaking

about this when I used words along the line of "…the

stated intention of the Minister to do away with dining-room

service." Then other Members have dealt with the surveys which

have been conducted, one official and one apparently

unofficial. But we still do not know in this committee what the

Minister intends to do with dining rooms on British Columbia

ferry vessels now operating.

I refer to Hansard for October 9 last year when

the

[ Page 3559 ]

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), in a question

period indicated, or directed a question to the Minister with

respect to the possible phasing out of cafeteria or dining-room

operations. The Minister replied by saying:

What is happening right now is the normal reorganization of staff that usually takes place when the

ferries go on winter schedule. That's all that is taking

place.

Later, in answer to a supplementary by the same Member:

That's what I explained when I answered you first of all. It's the normal reorganization of staff that has

always taken place when the ferries move on to winter schedule.

It makes a more efficient operation when you have the normal

winter

schedule and winter

schedule crewing.

Then in the answer to a written question on March 25 of this

year, the Minister indicated that with respect to the motor

vessels Queen of Esquimalt, Queen of Victoria, Queen of Saanich

and Queen of Vancouver, the ferry dining-room capacity, or

upper dining-room capacity, had been reduced: in the case of

the Esquimalt, from 104 to 72; the Victoria, 108 to 72; and the

Saanich and Vancouver, from 132 each to 80 — on route 2 the New

Westminster and Burnaby remaining the same.

One part of my written question on this subject was: "Will

dining-room floor area or capacity be increased on any major

ferry vessel for the 1974 summer season?" The answer to that

question, filed by the Minister, was: "To be determined."

Well, we are now in the midst of the rush for 1974, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and I note from travelling

back and forth on the first route, route 1, very recently that

we are still at the winter size in terms of capacity in the

dining rooms. I want to know from the Minister — and I hope

that he will be very explicit: is dining-room capacity going to

be increased for this summer on the vessels now in operation or

are dining-rooms going to be done away with altogether? Search

as we can, we do not see a definitive statement by the Minister

with respect to that second question.

Now the Minister has talked a couple of times in answer to

questions about Gabriola Island and the wind and wave studies

which are underway and which have been underway for many

months. He indicated in responses yesterday that you're looking

at several possibilities. You may find that one of them is

acceptable, that more than one is acceptable, or that none are

acceptable.

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman: is the Minister and the B.C. ferry system

committed to putting a major ferry terminal on Gabriola Island? Yes or no? If

the wind and wave studies which have gone on tediously, I might say, for quite

some time indicate that the sites you have in mind are not acceptable, will

you look for another site on Gabriola Island? Or, if there is no site suitable

or available on Gabriola Island, what will happen then?

What is the contingency plan? Will you stay in Departure

Bay, or are you looking possibly at a site in downtown Nanaimo

to bring the vessels right into the downtown section?

Please, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, don't just

leave us up in the air with wind and wave studies — or in the

water with such studies.

But what happens if Gabriola Island is not available to the

service in any way, shape or form? Are you committed to it? Do

you have an alternative thought in mind to get the terminal out

of Departure Bay?

And finally, for the moment at any rate, it seems to me as a

layman that a number of the senior operating personnel of the

ferry fleet are approaching retirement age. Many of them have

come to British Columbia ferries over the years from other

operations on the B.C. coast, passenger-carrying and

non-passenger-carrying. They have served the British Columbia

fleet very well indeed, no question about that; but looking at

them, it appears to me that they are in their late fifties,

approaching retirement age.

Is there the danger that you are going to lose a fairly

large block of your top people, operating people, all at one

time? If this is the case, what plans does the ferry system

have for some kind of in-house training, or utilizing some of

the educational facilities which are available — community

colleges, regional colleges — to permit those individuals,

those who are younger, to upgrade their qualifications and to

serve as masters and first officers and in other senior ranks

when this apparently large block of men steps out of the

service over the next two, three or four years, or whatever it

may be?

So restaurants: may we hear something specific and definite

on the service in that respect?

Gabriola Island, please; and the training of new men to take

the place of those who obviously are going to leave pretty

quickly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A definite statement on dining rooms.

Dining rooms are not going to be done away with altogether. We

are still examining the effect of the Nanaimo run. I have no

intention of doing away with any dining rooms until we get

that. I said so at the time; the Nanaimo one was an experiment

to see what it was. I don't expect they'll be done away with.

That's as far as I'm prepared to go. The new ferry, for

instance, is coming. We'll have a dining room on it, the

Danica.

Gabriola: are we committed to putting a major ferry terminal

on Gabriola, yes, or no? If there's no site available, what

will happen then? Are we going to have a site in downtown

Nanaimo, or are we going to have a site somewhere else than

downtown Nanaimo,

[ Page 3560 ]

or are we going to have a site somewhere else on the island?

If there's no site available on Gabriola Island, then we're

back to square one and we have to take a look at the whole

picture.

MR. CURTIS: What is square one? Departure Bay?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're back to the existing situation and

we have to see if we can live with it and find some other

place, or what happens. But we just have to wait and see what

those wind and wave studies…. There's nothing else I can

tell you; that's the situation.

I agree that it takes a long time. It takes a long time, and

it worries me a little sometimes. I can't do the job myself and

it takes time to make these decisions. So we'll wait and see.

But I'm optimistic that it will be one of the Gabriola sites

that will meet our needs.

The other thing, too, about the reservation system is that

it reduces the impact that any site will have in the future. As

we've been getting pushed now for a number of years, we've been

pushed into more and more acres of blacktop surrounding every

terminal because of the waits and so on.

As we move to a reservation system it means you won't have

to find places to put people for six and seven hours, because

they won't have to arrive until just before their…. It will

reduce that impact that the ferry terminal might have had

without a reservation system.

Members of the senior operating personnel approaching

retirement age. Yes, a number of them are and that's why we're

developing within the service itself in-service training,

moving people up in preparation for that. We are trying to get

a maritime college developed in British Columbia to encourage

our young people to follow the sea and come to work for the

ferry. But it is something we do face, and there are people in

training — some of them, but not enough. I agree with you; we

need this maritime college facility.

MR CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, just to pursue

this a little further: having shown an interest in the sea, and

perhaps having a relatively minor position on board the ferries

now, one doesn't become a master within the space of two or

three years. So I put it to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that

there is a very definite possibility of a shortage of

top-flight personnel for a short while when these retirements

take effect.

The comments with respect to Gabriola Island: I take it then

that you are still committed to Gabriola Island and so

Gabriola, as an island, will cease to exist because of the

connection which is necessary to move traffic from the Nanaimo

area over to the terminal.

The reservation system notwithstanding, I think we see at all major terminals

a considerable shore side support organization required — various buildings

to house catering and offices, ticketing and so on. We have to keep this in

perspective. It's not going to make it an insignificant little terminal. It

may not have to be hundreds of acres of blacktop, but it's still going to be

pretty massive development on a relatively small island.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, you reduced the

dining-room capacity on existing vessels as the fall and winter

of 1973 approached, and you gave that as your reason for doing

so in answering questions from the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland). Are you going to, within the next few weeks, for

the 1974 summer season, expand back to the point on one or more

vessels where the dining rooms were at that time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In answer to your last question, I'll

discuss it with the manager. I won't say yes or no at this

time. I'll discuss it with the manager. I want to tell you that

there is a shortage of deck officers and engineers right now.

Ads are going in the paper across the country because we will

require additional officers for the new ferry that is coming,

and we will discuss the matter with the Canadian Merchant

Service Guild to see what help they can give us in the way of

locating personnel. There is a shortage right now.

MR. CURTIS: Will you look overseas to get them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We still have some names that we have

from overseas who we told weren't required at that time. So in

all probability if we can't get them in British Columbia, then

we'll look in the rest of Canada, and then we'll look

elsewhere.

MR. CURTIS: Scotland?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there's probably the odd one around

Scotland. I know a few names around the present ferry captains — names like MacLeod and so on.

MR. MORRISON: Last night I also asked a couple of questions

which I wonder if you could answer.

One was: do the terminals have to be altered to affect the

bow on the new ferry? Is there any change required?

And concerning the reservation system: could he advise us

whether he plans a penalty on a no-show? That's a man who makes

a reservation and doesn't show. Are you planning a penalty for

those people or not — the ones who make a reservation on the

ferry system and then don't show up?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There will be some

[ Page 3561 ]

changes required to the docking facilities. As I recollect,

we allowed $1 million, I think it was, for changes to the ship

itself and slight changes to the docking facilities.

With regard to the reservation system, we haven't got to the

point of making absolute decisions. Really, it would be

difficult, under the reservation system I have in mind, to give

a penalty to someone who didn't show because he hasn't paid for

his ticket until he gets there. Because of the fact that you

are not allowing for 100 per cent reservations — only 80 per

cent reservations — then if 5 per cent didn't show up, it just

means that that many more of the standby people would be able

to get on. So we are not looking at penalties.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I also asked him if he could

tell us a little bit about what happens with an individual when

they are adjusting a claim. I'm not referring to an automobile

claim; I'm referring to a theft claim, where the adjuster….

How does he settle with the amount of the theft claim? And when

the agreed amount is settled, how is the cheque actually

written?

Really, what I'm referring to and what I'm leading up to is

that I understand that an adjuster on a theft claim did in fact

make an understanding with an individual who was in the

business of establishing a value on the claim; and then, when a

claim was settled, the adjuster in fact wrote a cheque himself.

In other words, everything was handled by one individual from

the initiation of the claim to the conclusion of the claim,

including the writing of the cheque. If that's normal

procedure, I don't think it's good business. I just want to

know if this is an unusual experience, or is this a normal

experience for the settling of that type of claim?

The next question I want to ask — and one which I also asked

last night, which he didn't answer — concerns the buildings.

I'll give those to you later if you want to answer this

one.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What buildings?

MR. MORRISON: Well, the use of some of the buildings here in

the city. I asked those last night.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the buildings in the city…. What

we have in mind is the bringing together of the scattered

sections of the department. You know, they are scattered in a

number of places. This is to bring them together into the one

building.

MR. MORRISON: And that will be the old Victoria Press

building now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that will be it. We may require part

of the old Gibson Bowling Alleys.

We may require part of it. It's difficult to say at this

time because we are just in the process of developing the

department.

Now with regard to the theft claim. Yes, as I told you, I

like as little regimentation as possible, and I keep everything

as simple as possible. Up to $10,000 drafts are used and

signed by the claims personnel in this priority: The adjuster

can sign the cheque, and only one signature is required on a

claim worth up to $500. On any claim worth up to $2,500 two

signatures are required, that of the adjuster and the

supervisor. From $2,500 up to $10,000 two signatures are

required, the branch manager and the supervisor. Then on

anything over $10,000 cheques are signed by the general manager

and the finance executive. So it depends on the value finally

arrived at in the settling of the claim.

MR. MORRISON: Would it not be just as simple, even on claims

up to $500, to require a second signature? On this basis, I'm

not suggesting that there's any impropriety. But it is very

simple and could be…. Those of us who have been in business

for many years know that it happens, in spite of people, that

there can be accidents.

In conclusion, on the buildings, I wonder if the Minister

could tell us — and I know you are going to combine some

departments now — but is any of this for TV and for cable TV…? Are any areas permitted for that?

And could you tell us what the results of the last two days

were, Monday and Tuesday, here in the city. The House has not

been informed. We've read some of the reports in the newspaper,

but we've never heard anything officially in the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With regard to checking on the issuing of

these cheques, there are review teams, as I indicated earlier.

These are quality control teams. So we have review teams that

check regularly to see that everything is in line and in

order.

As a person involved in a claim, I think you would

appreciate the expeditious procedure that is possible here.

Certainly our aim is to produce satisfied customers, and this

is what we are doing. But we do have the review teams who check

them out.

None of the buildings are for installing TV studios or

anything like that.

The results of the last two days — Monday and Tuesday — the

meeting with the other federal Ministers, I think the press

agreed that there wasn't much publicity that came out of it. We

did arrive at certain decisions but they're the decisions that

we're going to take to the federal Minister and they are not

yet finalized really.

Some of them are looking for some additional back-up

equipment. It really would be frowned on by the other Ministers

if I stood here today and told you

[ Page 3562 ]

everything.

It's a new development, let me tell you, in the development

of Confederation that has been going this last 10 years where

we don't sit in isolation in our own province. We meet as

Ministers and arrive at conclusions, look at the problems we

each face, look at how we all solve our problems. Then we meet

with the federal Minister to try and get a reflection of the

wishes of the provinces.

It's a great new development in Canadian Confederation. At

the present time, I really can't let the House know what

exactly the areas were. As I told the press, the process has

been one of defining and crystallization. We're very close to a

crystallization of the provincial attitude.

We said very clearly that we were unhappy with the responses

we had received from M. Pelletier as a result of our first

meeting. M. Pelletier then travelled from province to province

meeting with each Minister in his own province. That's where he

gave his individual responses and discussed the federal

responses to the unified provincial requests. We examined the

federal response and how we were going to meet it and what we

were laying out as our position.

MR. MORRISON: On the claims centres, particularly the one in

Victoria, are they going to all be of a similar design? Could

you tell us how many there are and what the present plan for

the claims centre in Victoria is? There doesn't appear to be

anything happening in the way of construction here; you're

using the old facilities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm afraid there is a case of

discrimination here. (Laughter.) We do have a standard plan for

the claims centre. We're able to enlarge on it, depending on

the requirements in the individual communities.

We thought the capital city required something just a little

extra. It's going to have a design of its own which is now

being done. It's on the main thoroughfare into the city and we

want to do something a little extra special with that one.

That's why it is taking a little longer.

MR. MORRISON: I don't want to knock it, but having viewed

the one on the North Shore, as a former Cadillac dealer I

couldn't afford those kinds of facilities. I would have loved

to have had that kind of money to spend. I'm glad to hear

Victoria is going to get a fancier one.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a pretty crucial piece of property.

As I say, we want to cooperate with the cities and we want to

put up buildings which will fit the locale so that we can be

proud of them.

MR. MORRISON: Could I ask the Minister if I could get an

option on that so if at any time they give it up it would be

available? It would make a great facility.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you want to give us $5 million for an

option, we could probably give you an option. First call. Put

up $10 million or something.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): I asked the Minister a year ago

about the strategy of dealing with growth. There is at least 9

per cent growth in the B.C. Ferries. Our caucus and government

has discussed it and I think our legislators here need to

suggest innovative ways.

When we say the ferries are an extension of the highways,

that's obviously true in the movement of people but they are

not an extension of pavement. We are not here to make it that

easy to drive to the mainland or to Vancouver Island without a

little bit of thought.

Last year, I asked the Minister some questions and so far I

haven't really had answers. I know he has been struggling with

these questions. The Minister will remember I asked the

following question: Could we, first of all, encourage small

cars? I asked you if there could be three long lines for the

small cars to ensure that the small cars would get on the

ferry. The three lines wouldn't go on first but the three lines

would go up the ramps….

MR. PHILLIPS: You're discriminating against the family man.

You can't put six kids in a Volkswagen.

MR. ROLSTON: I know you sell cars but give me a chance.

(Laughter.)

The three lines would go up the ramps much faster. We would

begin to encourage people to have a small car. There are two

Members in this Legislature who have many, many cars. They

would be encouraged to take that small car. That was the first

question I asked and I would like an answer.

Also in your planning, I asked a question and I would like

an answer. I think there should be a price system. I frankly

think you should be jacking up the price for the car. Please

don't touch the price for the passenger; if anything, take it

off. I think you need to look at an increase on the price of

the car and a two-price system. I'm not going to bore you, but

most jurisdictions have a differential price for the long,

large, heavy car and the small car. Obviously, an LTD is

one-and-two-thirds as long — certainly one-and-a-half as long — as a Datsun. There is no comparison in the cost of moving those

two cars.

I would really like you to consider removing the passenger

price but increasing the car price. We are interested in moving

people. If the Premier is serious about car pools, we take as

many people and I go

[ Page 3563 ]

back with other MLAs back to my riding in a car pool. We are

simply interested in moving people. We need to do things to

discourage people from going with one or two people in a car.

The car pool obviously will help.

Charge a flat rate for the car. I suggest two prices for the

large and small car. It wouldn't matter how many people are in

that car. Our object is to move people.

I understand, in checking with ferries and the skippers — occasionally I go up and talk with the skippers — that there

aren't that many times when you reach the full passenger

capacity. There are some times but it's not that often when you

reach the full passenger capacity that the DOT allows. I

understand the new ferry will carry many, many more

passengers.

I think we should get some kind of an answer from you. At

least it should be fed into the planning process as we deal

with this alarming growth in the ferry system.

I gave you a little drawing which I drew half an hour ago,

suggesting, after picking up from what the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey said, that we should consider in the

designs for the new ferry terminals, if not revamping the

designs for Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay, something like we have

at the airport. You can have the buses go up and drop people

off right above the loading ramp on a deck where people can

wait in the waiting room and walk 150 feet onto that ferry.

Again, our object, is to move people — people, as in my case,

with luggage or a briefcase. That's our main object. Those

people would wait for 20 minutes; the bus would drop them off;

the bus would wait for the next group of people who came off

the ferry. To me, it's a simple interchange of people.

As one who goes by bus and does not bring a car to the city,

I've noticed that people really travel fairly lightly. I've

noticed a very big increase in the bus traffic on those

ferries. You'll notice they're not packing a lot of stuff. I'm

not talking about the person who is going camping or off for a

period of time. Obviously he is going to take it by car. We're

talking about the regular movement of commuters.

I was hoping in your new designs on your terminals, wherever

they will be, you will consider something where you can drop

people off at the level, just the same as at the airport where

you drop people off at a higher level. They wait 15 or, at the

most, 20 minutes, they walk straight into that ferry and the

same bus would take the people who come from the other

direction back to their various destinations.

Those are some very basic things. I would hope that eventually you could incorporate

that at Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay. You have done some work at Tsawwassen; you've

got sand which you are preloading for an extension of the parking lot. It could

be possible to run a ramp up there. It's an awfully long walk. We've got to

make it attractive for people to get on and off that ferry to take buses or

jitney transportation.

I wonder if it might be wise to consider that there might be

three routes to Vancouver Island from the lower mainland. I

understand it is still an alternative to have three routes — maybe Horseshoe Bay, Iona Island and, obviously,

Tsawwassen.

I also asked you about federal subsidies. I understand at

one time you got 35 per cent and now you only get 17 per cent

on the hull capital subsidy. I would like that verified.

How about the fact that we lose $13.9 million on the

operating, presumably including some capital? Is there any hope

of us getting a federal subsidy? I hope I won't get the usual

answer that it doesn't go between provinces; I don't find that

very convincing, when you think there are federally subsidized

ferries between P.E.I. and New Brunswick and between Nova

Scotia and Newfoundland. Surely we're not like Mr. Bennett and

deliberately antagonizing the federal government. We are

relating to them so let's hope there can be a subsidy as we

extend what, after all, is simply the Trans-Canada Highway.

Finally, as a government I know we are not just responding

blindly to over a 9 percent growth in the ferries. As we design

new terminals and even modify old ones, which we seem to be

constantly doing, we're making it attractive for the foot

passenger. We have a planning process. I would like you to

consider a free passenger service; the costs should go on the

cars. The object is to move people so let's make it attractive

to move people. Even in the big car, it would still be very

cheap if you charged them $10 and it had four passengers. That

would still be very reasonable saving.

All the MLAs know we have an excellent ferry service and a

very inexpensive ferry service. Contrast that to eastern

know, there is just no comparison. With Scotland and England

and the services there, there is just no comparison with the

quality of our services.

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: Right. That's where we get all our skippers. I

think we have an excellent service and I know it is in good

hands.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have just a few comments on what the

Member said.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A year ago he raised the point and I

answered his questions at that time.

Now, he suggested bus operations similar to what

[ Page 3564 ]

they have at the airport. I would remind the Member that

when you get off that bus at the airport, sure, it is only a

few steps to the waiting room, but then you have a long, long

walk down to the take-off point on many occasions. However, as

I indicated, we are looking at procedures for the future that

will allow the easy movement of people in the ferry

terminal.

Federal subsidies — 17 per cent on the hull. I expect this

year there is, I think, a $10 million operating loss. You

suggest a higher price for the larger car, and a lower price

for the smaller car.

MR. ROLSTON: Leave the price alone.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, leave the price alone. You suggested

that the first rows be small cars, and to give them preference.

If you want to get into trouble with passengers, then you just

let somebody get ahead of somebody who has been waiting — no

matter what size their car is — that's where you are asking for

trouble. We did try it, as a matter of fact, with recreational

vehicles over a certain height. We put those in separate rows

and were only going to allow so many on. Then, what flak we got

because some car that had just driven up got on the ferry while

this man who had missed the ferry…. now if you're looking

for trouble…. We do try to keep them in line.

There is a real problem attached to this business of loading

a ferry. If you have too many high vehicles then you can't let

the ramps down and you're going to have to leave cars behind.

There are all sorts of problems related to getting maximum use

out of the ferry.

As far as price is concerned I would draw your attention to

the fact that the Washington state ferry — I don't know how far

it is — on a run from Anacortes to Sidney, charges $7 for the

automobile alone.

Channel. I have been on them and they are far inferior to

anything we have operating on the coast. They have just

increased the rates; with the new rates it would cost an

average family with two children and their small car a total of

$115 for a return ordinary fare between Dover and Calais.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is an agreement among four

governments, as I understand it. It is an agreement among

Belgium, France, Britain, and Holland. It is a consortium that

operates these ferries, and that is the kind of money that they

are having to pay there. If you compare that to ours, we are

getting a good bargain here.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was very disappointed, Mr. Chairman, in the remarks

of the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston). Several times lately we have been getting

suggestions from cabinet Ministers that big families be discriminated against.

Is this going to be a decree of the socialist government — to tell how many

children a family can have? You try and cram eight kids into a Volkswagen or

into some of these small cars. Don't tell me that I'm trying to talk for the

big car dealers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You sell big cars, don't you?

MR. PHILLIPS: I sell small cars too; lots of them. I sell

more of them than I do big cars. But that Member is

discriminating!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So you're in favour of big families and

small families.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. What about the family that has only

two little kiddies — small kiddies — and they pack all their

goods in a big ranch wagon and go camping. Are you against

them? Sure, you are going to have them, with their small

kiddies, sitting at the ferry terminal for hours, feeding the

baby out of a bottle, heating the bottle out of a thermos jug.

You're discriminating against babies! I'm surprised. I'm

surprised that a man of the cloth would stand up here in this

Legislature and want little babies to be left waiting at that

ferry. (Laughter.)

And while we are at it, what about big dogs?

We get double standards in this government, Mr. Chairman.

Here are all the new Ministers of the Crown over there driving

big cars with radios — they don't drive little cars, they drive

big cars. They talk out of one side of their mouth and tell the

population to drive little cars, then they go and drive great

big limousines themselves. How often do they have a family in

these big limousines? Ninety per cent of the time, Mr.

Chairman, there is only the Minister in that car, complete with

all its paraphernalia and radio system. Why don't they drive

small, little cars? Why doesn't the Minister of Consumer

Services drive a little car?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

I want to tell you, I'm glad the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is back in the Legislature because

I've got a case for the Minister of Consumer Services. I said

in this Legislature yesterday afternoon that the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia was ripping off the small

businessman — whether he drives a big car or a little car.

I have a letter here from a small businessman who has more

than two vehicles. He has a very good case, Mr. Chairman, and

I'm certainly glad that the Minister of Consumer Services is in

the House because

[ Page

3565 ]

this gentleman is being prevented from driving two of his

vehicles because of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

If this isn't a case for the Consumer Services Department, I

don't know what is. I'm going to read this letter, Mr.

Chairman, because it is a very well written letter and it is

not one-sided. It praises the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia as well as condemns it; but the man has a problem and

he wants this problem straightening out.

The Minister wrote him back a letter and said he was looking

into it. That man wants to use his vehicles now, and he doesn't

want to have to pay two or three times as much insurance as he

paid last year. I think all the Members of this House, Mr.

Chairman, will find this letter very enlightening and I would

like to put it in the record. This letter was sent to Mr.

Norman Bortnick of ICBC, the Hon. Mr. R.M. Strachan, the

Minister, and to the Premier himself. He should have sent the

letter to the Minister of Consumer Services, because I know she

would have taken action immediately against the Insurance

Corporation. I'm going to quote you this letter:

"As per your request in your full-page ad in our local news

my opinion concerning ICBC Autoplan Insurance, this letter is

written for that purpose.

"Firstly, my praises:

(1) I am in total agreement with the

concept of every driver having compulsory liability protective

insurance to protect everyone.

"

(2) Also, I support the demerit point prorated surcharge. A

careless driver should pay for his careless attitude.

"

(3) The no-fault feature of the programme has some very

good points and does serve as an added benefit for our modern

society.

"

(4) There are numerous other features I do approve of that

do not require mention at this writing.

"Secondly, my complaints: I must say that I have been very

disappointed in your attitude of meeting the March 1, 1974,

deadline which you were so very obviously not prepared to do

with any efficiency or expert management ability. In your haste

you have displayed so vividly to the citizens of British

Columbia a classic display of bureaucratic incapability and

ill-thought-out policies which have created so much confusion,

distrust in your plan and unnecessary waste of money through

your employment of full-page newspaper ads, massive radio and

television commercials, notices, and, yes, even propaganda

which have offered so many excuses, retractions, promises,

denials, more statements, et cetera, et cetera, that personally

I feel sick inside."

I hope the Minister of Consumer Services takes that to heart.

HON. MS. YOUNG: What did you say?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, she wouldn't be listening anyway. She

wouldn't listen to anybody who has a real complaint against one

of her people's government-operated companies. Oh, no. They are

above reproach according to the Minister's thoughts.

"I truly wonder if I am insured, due simply to the confusion

within your ICBC Autoplan. No, I do not share your glowing

statement "After all, it's your company." I have not been

allowed, to date, to contribute any input into this plan, nor

have any complaints to your agents, et cetera, been

considered.

"As far as most citizens are concerned this whole plan has

been unilaterally decided, initiated and enforced by a very

select group in Victoria with obvious disregard for the

people's wishes.

"One case in point is your basic, required coverage on

category I vehicles. Unilaterally, you have decided that I must

have collision and comprehensive coverage on my 1967 Mercury

one-ton truck.

"This truck has been highly modified to do a special job for

my requirements. I am a master mechanic; I own and manage a

truck and auto service and major repair centre as well as light

manufacturing and design of special machines, et cetera, which

provides a needed service for many companies and private people

which is not available from any other outlet in this region. I

am a fully licensed and incorporated company in British

Columbia.

"Okay, I built this truck with my own hands and brain power.

I do not want your collision and comprehensive coverage forced

on me. This must be my free choice, and only mine, to take or

leave. Liability, yes; it must be mandatory. But when a person

owns their vehicle outright, no loans against same or money

loans to protect, then it must be their own free choice;

nothing less.

"I don't appreciate your absolute and dictator-type approach

to this situation. In my opinion, this is money-grabbing and

rip-off in the foulest form. Simply because you are the

government with less than 40 per cent of the citizen votes,

you feel you must force your will on 100 per cent of the

citizens. Now, again, you are double-taxing us for

insurance."

This is the same type of thing I was talking about in the

Legislature last night. This is the type of unilateral decision

that is being made by this insurance corporation. This is why

we need free enterprise and not socialism, communism as we

have

[ Page 3566 ]

in British Columbia today.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Who wrote that letter?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that

question from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce, questioning the authenticity of this letter which is

from a constituent in my riding…. I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, every time someone gets to the meat of their problems

over there, they question the authenticity as only ever they

were right.

That is not socialism; that is communism. That is

dictatorship and that's the thing the people of this province

are getting sick and tired of. I'll tell you who wrote the

letter when I get through reading it.

What you are doing through your questioning, Mr. Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — who isn't in his

seat and who is known as a "do nothing" Minister in this

cabinet: do nothing but bring in legislation and do nothing

once you have it…. You have no right to question the

authenticity of this letter. You just wait until I get through

and I'll tell you who wrote the letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll continue on with the letter without

further interruptions from that "do nothing" Minister.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Get back in your seat.

HON. MR. LAUK: Get back in your teapot.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, would you tell that Minister to

get back in his own seat or be quiet. He doesn't even know the

rules of the House.

I'll continue with the letter: "The $10 minimum…."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's another source heard from. Well,

you're back from your travels, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall). Did you have a good trip because you're not here in

the House looking after the people's business? I'm surprised

all of the cabinet didn't go away during this Minister's

estimates because you're ashamed of what he has done. That's

why the Premier is away; that's why all the other power in the

cabinet is away. They're ashamed of this Minister.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The whole bunch of them are hiding, that's

right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member continue with his speech,

please?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Provincial Secretary says he hopes

it's more accurate than the last letter I read. Well, I haven't

heard anything back from the Minister yet. He promised to get

back to me, but it will probably be another six months before I

hear from the Minister.

"The $10 minimum driver's certificate yearly adds another

$50 to the driver's costs. Under private insurance, all of my

vehicles were covered well under my one business liability

policy without all your red tape, et cetera, and for

considerably less premium costs.

"I remember, as do many others, your statement: '22 per cent

less than private costs; you will be refunded any excess

charges, et cetera.' Now your further statement that only

private passenger vehicles are eligible for refund; no

commercial vehicles."

The same question I asked in the House last night, Mr.

Chairman,

"My 1967 Mercury one-ton was built by myself for my own

private use to tow my personal trailer and my personal river

boat, et cetera, but it carries commercial licence plates. As a

result, I cannot afford to licence this unit that I worked on

three years to build and invested several thousands of dollars

which required many years of hard work to save. So I have at

this time an expensive, heart-breaking dream sitting in my yard

collecting snow and rust because of your Autoplan dictatorial

policies. How do I tow my river boat to some beautiful river

for a nice trip through the wilderness to observe nature

unspoiled by myself and my fellow river boaters?

"I am 51 years of age; I have been forced to labour for

myself since I was 12 years old. I have never received welfare

or any aid from any government source. I have always paid taxes

plus many thousands of dollars into charities. I happen to be a

Shriner and contribute to Shrine hospitals for any and all

crippled children. I believe our record will speak for

itself.

"In short, I tell you these things just to point out to you

the simple fact that I am not asking for special favours or

money or anything else, except you change your attitude and

allow people to choose our insurance averages after compulsory

liability as we desire.

"I can take care of myself and wife. I don't

[ Page 3567 ]

need any or want you to be my god, conscience, morality, et

cetera. I can take care of myself a devil of a lot better than

you could even hope to do, and I darn well intend to do so.

"My wife and I immigrated to Canada 11 years ago to escape

the total, big-boss government attitude that was prevalent in

the USA. We became Canadian citizens by choice and invitation

of the Canadian immigration office in Denver, Colorado.

"Please do not form an opinion that I oppose you as our

government."

The man is being realistic.

"In fact, I feel you are forming many good pieces of

legislation."

The man likes you and he's being fair, but he doesn't like

your dictatorial, dogmatic attitude, forcing your will on the

people.

"However, my observation and information and contact with

many people of all political persuasions proves without doubt

that you are creating many political dislikes, mainly through

your brash, hasty actions and lack of dialogue with the people

concerned.

"If, in fact, you would slow down and consult and negotiate

before and then legislate well-planned programmes, you could

save yourself many headaches and confrontations. As it is now,

you have alienated many of your devoted party faithfuls,

several of whom I know personally here locally."

This is exactly what we've been telling this government ever

since they started bringing in the type of legislation and

forcing their will on the people. These are exactly my

sentiments.

"I feel very strongly that all citizens should work hard to

preserve our government through praise, encouragement and

constructive critiques. I truly hope you consider my remarks in

context. Most of us in our society do not accept dictatorial

decisions. If it continues, I'm afraid of the consequences at

the next election.

"I might add this comment: I am expecting to receive your

prompt reply to this letter with a definite statement of your

intentions as concerns the dictatorial policies included in the

Autoplan structure. Hopefully, you will see fit to delete them

and create a free-choice attitude such as many of us in the

past have fought and died for to defend.

"I do not enjoy confrontations but, if necessary, there are

many of us who are prepared to do legal battle to protect our

freedoms. My personal opinion is that you people are open to

suggestions and are willing to effect change, thereby making

right the wrong and thus avoiding such waste.

"In closing, I shall make some suggestions for your

consideration and we will analyse your attitude and actions to

and on them.

"First of all, Mr. Barrett, please direct your Ministers to

refrain from comments such as follows concerning overcharges on

insurance assessments, et cetera. 'The people don't mind

because the money stays at home in British Columbia.'

"Mr. Barrett, such comments just serve to infuriate people

and cause us to judge the supposedly responsible Minister to be

void of responsible judgment, ability and compassion,

consequently damages your government's ability to govern in a

congenial atmosphere.

"Second, allow people their basic freedom of choice.

Discontinue your dictatorial, unilateral attitudes which I feel

are not necessarily intentional on your part. People consider

them as such, however.

"Third, to eliminate double taxation, please deduct the $10

driver certificate from the vehicle liability premium for those

who have five or less demerit points. Disallow the deduction

for anyone with six or more points, thus creating a further

incentive for good driving.

"I have never had an accident or been charged in my 37 years

of driving. People like us deserve consideration. I observe

young people. One case 16 years old within eight months of

obtaining his driver's licence, he had three accidents, causing

around $2,800 damage and his insurance premium is considerably

less than mine, plus others that are hazards to society.

Sometimes I feel took, so maybe reconsider some of your rate

structures.

"Four, the possibility of huge increases in premiums if an

accident occurs seems to be partly unfair. Fifth, I considered

putting all my vehicles under your fleet programme to be

eligible for the discount, but when I studied the fine print

statements stating 'If one vehicle was involved in an accident,

all vehicles were subject to 100 per cent increases in

premium,' well, I never had that sort of intimidation from any

private company. So I have parked all but two and the irony of

the whole mess is that my wife and myself are the only

operators of our vehicles and I can drive only one at a

time."

"Even our motor home which we built ourselves is retired.

You sure have helped us have a nice vacation. No motor home. No

boat tow-truck. Thanks fellows.

"I feel that the penalties on the fleet should be amended

and a better rate established in a case of this sort, and there

are numerous cases very similar, the same as mine.

[ Page 3568 ]

"Gentlemen, look around. You will find many recreational

vehicles parked. You will find many special-use vehicles

parked. You will find many 1967 and newer passenger vehicles

parked due to your compulsory policies. In dollars, which you

seem to lust for, please calculate your losses in revenue from

licensing fees and liability coverage and fuel taxes and sales

taxes and income taxes, plus, plus, plus, that would be derived

from these vehicles being in operation, plus the cost of

maintaining people you support that could be employed in the

service of these vehicles, plus the revenues generated from the

many people taking vacations and spending money.

"Also consider the resentments and bitterness generated

within these people towards the benevolent people's government.

Fellows, I know what I am saying to you as I am exposed to the

frustrations of my own family unit and my friends and

customers, constantly. These are facts. You are losing revenue

and friends.

"I am advancing these opinions in my most sincere attitude

toward helping both the government and our citizens to come

closer together instead of drifting further apart in a feeling

of hatred and frustration. Believe me, I don't hate nor do I

become frustrated. I know what I can do and I know what I shall

do as dictated by my own mind.

"Again, I shall be awaiting your reply to this somewhat

extended letter, but I feel the time has come for you, as our

government, and myself, and many others to bring this hassle to

an end and go on with meaningful dialogue and mutual

cooperation and respect one for the other and form a healthy

atmosphere in British Columbia.

"I don't like to see business being pulled out of British

Columbia as it is now. Please don't try to tell me differently.

Again, I see it personally, plus I know many that want out.

This is sad. B.C. is my home and has been for 10 1/2 years.

Let's get together.

"Incidentally, I don't belong to any political party. I

judge only politicians as people, not parties. Another bit of

information for your consideration. The big snake in the bush

is called inflation."

and he goes on to talk about inflation which is nothing to

do with insurance. Signed, Thomas A. Meyer, 1565, 109th

Avenue.

Now this man and many others in the province have some of their vehicles tied

up because of the increased cost of insurance. But if you had been paying attention

— but you never pay attention anyway, and you're not in your seat, and you're

a do-nothing Minister and now you're deaf.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'll tell you who wrote the letter again,

but this time please pay attention, Mr. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) the do-nothing

Minister, hear-nothing Minister, see-nothing Minister…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! Would the Hon. Member…

MR. PHILLIPS: …hear no evil, see no evil, fear nothing,

think nothing, see nothing!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member address himself

to the vote before us, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is another attack on

the poor little opposition over here. That Minister of

Industrial Development was mouthing off all afternoon. You

haven't made him take his seat.

You don't tell him to be quiet but the minute the little

Member for South Peace River goes off, just goes one foot off

the narrow line you draw him to order. Now is that being fair,

Mr. Chairman? I ask you, is that being fair against the

opposition? Why don't you bring that do-nothing Minister of

Industrial Development to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! If the Hon. Member would stop I

would do just that and I would point out to the Hon. Members on

the government side and I'd request that they not interrupt the

Hon. Member. Every Member is entitled to be heard in

silence.

MR. PHILLIPS: You told him that before and it doesn't make

any difference.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, this gentleman gets a letter

back from the Minister saying "I can assure you that the

complaints you list at some length will be given full

consideration as we move into preparation for next year's

automobile insurance."

Mr. Chairman, we don't want to wait for next year's

automobile insurance. These people want action now. They want

to be able to use their vehicles and they don't want to be

ripped off by this benevolent Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia — the people's insurance corporation.

They want action now and I want the Minister to stand up and

tell me that he's going to make some changes now so that these

parked vehicles can be driven this summer. So that these summer

homes,

[ Page 3569 ]

trailers etc., can be used this summer. Mr. Chairman, are

you going to allow this Minister through the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia to spoil many people's

vacations this summer? Maybe the Minister will tell me what his

policies are in this regard because, as I said yesterday, Mr.

Chairman, as I said yesterday, if some people have been

overcharged and have the right to refunds, why doesn't

everybody that's been overcharged have the right to refunds?

Because this government before they started the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia were going to provide insurance

at less money — or at least, not more money than the private

sector. Mr. Chairman, in many cases that is not the case, it is

not the truth, it is not being done, and I want to know

why.

Why should certain people in this society have the right to

a refund and the right to a claim? Why not all people, Mr.

Chairman? Why, when some people are being ripped off because

they have more than one vehicle and they drive a half-ton as

their family car, why should they be ripped-off by this

government? Why don't they have the right to refund, Mr.

Chairman? I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that there are many in your

constituency.

Now will the Minister tell me is he going to take some

action? Is he going to do something? I'll resume my seat and

wait for his benevolent answer, from the benevolent people's

government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member just read

a letter which was sent to the Premier. The letter asked the

Premier to keep the letter in confidence and then by some means

or other the Member gets hold of a copy of that letter and then

makes it public. It makes it a little difficult to…. Well, I

don't know. The letter said — he read the words. The letter

sent to the Premier "Please keep this in confidence." Well,

that was how I got it, but anyway it's been read.

I've indicated that we are re-examining every aspect…as

I said in that letter, too. That's the only reply I can give

the Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the only answer? The only answer?

Interjection.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yesterday afternoon,

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Hon. Minister a number of questions,

none of which to my knowledge he has as yet answered, and I

would reiterate some of those questions with the hope that we

should get answers this afternoon, and certainly answers before

his estimates are over as is his responsibility not only to the

Members of this assembly but to the general public.

Number one, I'd ask the Minister what is the salary

schedule

in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia from the top

to the bottom? How many employees are there? What are their

classifications and what are their rates of pay?

I'd be quite prepared to accept this undertaking if he would

give it to this House to file that as a return providing he

would do it as soon as he possibly can, and certainly well

before the end of this session. I would tend to think though

that that information is at his fingertips or would at least be

at the fingertips of Mr. Bortnick who's in the House this

afternoon.

Secondly, I'd ask him what is the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia's claim pay-out projection for the 1974-1975

period? Noting that the Minister did not have any difficulty in

estimating revenues but he's seen fit not to estimate claims or

expenses.

Thirdly, I'd ask him what the insurance corporation's

administrative expense projections for the same period are, and

I would make the same comment that this too has been ignored by

the Minister and by ICBC in its report.

Fourthly, I would ask him when, where and how this $19

million of capital expenditure estimated for 1974-75 is going

to be spent. When, how and in what manner?

Fifthly, I would ask him what the projection of ICBC for its

net for 1974-75 is going to be both for automobile and from the

other side.

Sixth, I would ask the Hon. Minister some more questions

about the Adams debacle. The only statement he has seen fit to

make to the Province of British Columbia was that there was a

difference of opinion. Are we going to assume that everyone who

has a difference of opinion with your government who happens to

be under contract is going to face or perhaps, better stated,

be rewarded with early retirement and receive a $52,000

bonanza?

You say there was a difference of opinion. What was that

difference of opinion with Mr. Adams? I see there is a

newspaper account that he was under contract and an employment

contract. Is that true or false? Would the Hon. Minister inform

the House of the terms of that employment contract? If not, why

not? Will he table that employment contract if, in fact, there

is one and the correspondence dealing with it. And if not, why

not?

Is it correct that he was receiving the salary referred to

in the newspaper accounts? I'm referring to the statements from

the Vancouver Province . I don't see the date on it but

the Minister can have a copy if he wishes. Is Mr. Adams getting

a monthly salary of $2,916.67? Are you paying that salary to

Mr. Adams — not you, the people of B.C. are paying Mr. Adams

until April of 1975? He's not working for the people of B.C. as

far as I know and as far as the people of B.C. know. They

wonder why. It's not an

[ Page 3570 ]

unreasonable suggestion on their part to question the

Minister as to why people are being paid for not pulling their

weight and not doing their job.

Was he offered a lump sum at the time of departure? What did

he do for ICBC at the time he was working? Was Mr. Robert Adams

a senior executive? Was he dismissed for cause? If so, what was

the cause? Did he quit?

In either case, if you answer those questions yes, why did

he receive that most handsome settlement? Was he dismissed

without just cause? Was there an error made in firing him? Did

he have a good legal action against ICBC? I may say, unless the

Act is amended, ICBC cannot be sued in British Columbia. I

would certainly like to hear the comments of the Minister on

that too.

If the settlement was arrived at and if this newspaper

account is correct, how was Mr. Adams' settlement arrived at?

Did he request more? Is this a compromise? I think the public

is entitled to full particulars, Mr. Minister. It is not enough

for you to say earlier on that there was a difference of

opinion, or as of four months ago yesterday, and think the

public is going to accept that as a reason for paying a person

for not working.

Maybe there are justifiable reasons, but you've not

indicated that fact. If you don't indicate that fact, well, the

public is certainly entitled to their inference and it would

certainly be an adverse inference.

I would also ask you, Mr. Minister — and I know you have

these figures, and if not, you could obtain them by merely

snapping your fingers — how much money in actual dollars has

been lost to the provincial treasury as a result of the

takeover of the private sector without compensation, again

referring to the insurance industry? How much corporate tax is

no longer collected from private insurers as the result of your

takeover? How much land tax, business tax, excise tax and

premium tax?

So far we've only been able to put our fingers on one

figure, and that was from the City of Vancouver. It was

estimated by the mayor of the City of Vancouver that the

private insurers had been paying the equivalent of $30,000

worth of business tax in Vancouver for 1973. ICBC is not paying

any. There is at least one figure.

That could be utilized and multiplied throughout the

province. To what extent are there losses to the provincial

treasury?

You have a responsibility to inform the public of that when

you come out with misleading advertising as you have been

doing. You say that's house advertising. Well, it's in-house,

out-house, call it whatever kind of advertising you wish to

name it; it certainly lacks propriety in every sense of the

word.

I asked you questions yesterday, Mr. Minister, dealing with items that total

$6.5 million. I asked you to inform me who received the following seven amounts,

whether there were tenders for the following seven amounts and could please

furnish this House and the people of B.C. — taxpayers who want to have these

answers and we're just here being their advocates….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm getting a lot of chit-chat from the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and it's interesting to hear that.

We're talking about $6.5 million worth of money. No answers

from the Hon. Minister.

The $6.5 million, Mr. Minister, for your own information, is

more than the estimates of the Department of Consumer Services,

which is $1.2 million. It's more than the estimates for the

Minister of Industrial Development of $4.3 million. It's m