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

Night Sitting

[ Page 3587 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Committee of Supply: Department of Transportation and

Communications estimates On vote 235.

Mr. Morrison — 3587

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3587

Mr. Morrison — 3587

Mr. Smith — 3587

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3590

Mr. McGeer — 3592

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3594

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3594

Mr. McGeer — 3595

Mr. Cummings — 3595

Mr. Phillips — 3597

Mr. Gardom — 3598

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3602

Mr. Wallace — 3603

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3605

Mr. Wallace — 3606

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3606

Mr. Phillips — 3606

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3608

Mr. Phillips — 3608

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3609

Mr. Phillips — 3609

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3610

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills

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

like to explain to the House and describe the use of the new

computer-type cash registers which have been ordered for the

ferries. How they propose to use them and…?

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

I'll get an exact description of that if you'd like to hold that until the vote

comes up, if you don't mind. We'll get an exact technical description for you.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I brought it up at this point because I

really wanted to get a description of it and then ask if it was

planned for other areas other then just for the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll get the information for you for the

ferry vote.

MR. MORRISON: Right. Another question which I've asked a

number of times, some time ago I did get an answer but I'd like

to bring it up-to-date if I may. I've been trying to get this

answer from your department for about a week now.

I'd like to know what the lay-off of the risk is to Lloyd's

of London, what portion they underwrite of the liability

portion of the auto insurance, and what portion they underwrite

of the liability portion of the general insurance. And I'd like

to know what base figures you're using for a base. Do you have

that figure now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know that I already answered the part

with regard to the Autoplan.

MR. MORRISON: That was quite a long time ago and the figures

you gave me were quite old. I'd like the current ones.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It was during the session, my friend.

MR. MORRISON: The figures were for a period quite

before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was the period at that time. Do you

want me to bring in an answer every week, okay, I'll do

that.

Now let me answer that question. I think the answer was 0.67

per cent of the total premium income.

MR. MORRISON: That the date that figure was computed was

quite old, is the point I'm making, not that you gave it to me.

I'd like it current, if I could get it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've no more current figure than

that.

MR. MORRISON: Another question which I would like to ask

again, and which I've asked a number of times, is on the

central communication centre for aircraft. Where is it going to

be located, and what is the frequency that you're planning on

using?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll get a detailed report for that too,

when we get to the aircraft

section and the ferries.

MR. MORRISON: Okay.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): There are 2 couple of

things that bothered me concerning the implementation of the

auto insurance plan in the Province of British Columbia. I

think it's about time that the Minister, perhaps, gave us some

facts and details about the plan.

One of the things I would like to ask the Minister is: why,

when the general insurance industry in the Province of British

Columbia was able to provide coverage for all the people in the

province — depending upon what they wished to buy, not what the

government told them they had to buy — the total premiums were

in the neighbourhood of $160 million to $165 million per year?

Now, suddenly and very unexpectedly, I would suggest to the

people of this province, under this great government monopoly

we find that the total premium income for the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia for insuring automobiles in

this province will be in excess of $200 million in the first

year. That's a pretty substantial increase for a Crown

corporation on a monopoly basis who suggested to the people of

British Columbia that they should be able to buy auto insurance

for $25 a year.

[ Page 3588 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you want me to answer that?

MR. SMITH: You'll get your opportunity, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're making a speech on nothing.

MR. SMITH: Not on nothing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can answer it.

MR. SMITH: Any time the people of British Columbia have to

divvy up an extra $40 to $45 million a year in premiums it's

not anything; it's not nothing. It's one devil of a lot of

money, Mr. Minister.

It happens to be just about 25 per cent more premium dollars

than the private insurance industry has charged in the previous

year. I know you're going to say that because everybody has to

have certain coverage there's an additional premium.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, that's not what I'm going to

say.

MR. SMITH: But that's not all of it. You not only charged

them 25 per cent more premium in the first policy year that the

contracts are in force and they have no opportunity or no

choice because they have to buy their insurance from you, but

you dream up a gimmick which will require people to pay a

minimum of $10 per year to insure their driver's licence.

You know that by adding that one premium, the corporation

immediately guaranteed themselves a $13,980,000 more premium

income than they had any right to expect. And that's the

minimum, Mr. Minister, because you dreamed up another gimmick.

That gimmick was to retroactively surcharge everyone who had

had any prize points against their driver's licences in the

last three years. So you took a total of the points even though

they may not presently be on their driver's licence, and

decided that you would not only take the total of those points

but you would square them and that was the extra premium that

people would be involved in.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that that threw up

a minimum of $20 million of rip-off profits to the corporation

this year, and probably more than that. A minimum of $20

million that you ripped-off the people of British Columbia for

in excess premiums in this one year.

You also dreamed up another little gimmick. You decided that

even those people who paid no more than the basic $10 would pay

a prorated premium until their birthday, sometime during the

latter six months of 1974, and then you'd collect another

10 bucks. So it means that those people who pay a prorated

premium will pay not $10, they'll probably pay $13, $14, or

$15 in 1974. So you threw up another $4 million to $6 million

of excess income to the corporation.

No wonder the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

queried you on how you were going to finance the rebate to

people who have to pay 8 cents or 8.5 cents or 9 cents per

gallon extra for gasoline in the Province of British

Columbia.

You already know where the funds are coming from. You took

it in one hand out of the people who are paying excess premiums

in the Province of British Columbia, and you're going to hand

it back to them on the other and say, "Look what we did for you

people. Aren't we nice? We're going to rebate to you part of

that increased cost of gasoline that those nasty oil companies

have charged you." But you collected the money first of all,

Mr. Minister, and you put it in a bank account and you

collected interest on that money for, the term of the time that

is there before you have to pay it back out. And nobody in

British Columbia is going to get the benefit of that. You know

it and so do I.

If there was ever a programme introduced in the Province of

British Columbia which will be abused by the government, not by

the people, it was auto insurance under ICBC.

I'd just like to ask you this, Mr. Minister: are you going

to file a complete financial statement in this House concerning

the assets, the liabilities and the costs of operating that

corporation? Is that fair to ask you to do?

Are you going to tell the people of British Columbia how

much money you have paid for property to set up service

centres?

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): He'll tell

all the people how good the insurance is.

MR. SMITH: Well, well, well!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: There is a chirper from the backbenches. You

know, it is amazing to see this gentleman…. He chirps from

the backbench but he very seldom gets up and contributes

anything to the debate in this House.

I want to know if you are going to come clean with the

people of the Province of British Columbia and tell them

exactly how much you are paying for land to build these great

service centres on, how much it has actually cost the people of

British Columbia to set up this corporation, which is

duplicating the service that was available to every person in

the Province of British Columbia before

[ Page 3589 ]

without the interference of ICBC.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the first year of operation

of this corporation, between the money that is spent for rental

quarters, for purchasing property and for setting up service

centres that were not really required, it will cost the people

of British Columbia a minimum of $100 million in rip-off. That

is going to have to be absorbed in the premiums that you are

charging.

No wonder most of the people in this province are paying

more in premiums now than they paid before. Lord help the

individual who in British Columbia drives himself and has two

cars in his family and his wife drives and he has three

teenagers. You didn't do them any service. When they pay the

total premium that will be involved for the coverage they must

maintain on those vehicles, including their driver's insurance

certificate, they will pay more than they did before.

It's not much wonder that the corporation can rent some of

the most exclusive office space in the Province of British

Columbia. After all, who is paying the tab? It's only the

people of the Province of British Columbia that have to pay the

tab. You've got the bucks to the tune of $200 million

immediately after the plan went into effect because you didn't

even allow people the option of paying for their insurance on

an installment basis through yourselves. If they elect that

option, they have to pay a substantial amount of interest on

the premiums that they borrow.

So you've got it in the bag, Mr. Minister. You've got it in

the bag. The only unfortunate part of it is that you don't seem

to realize that the people who are being gouged are the ones

you pledged to protect in the Province of British Columbia.

Let us know, Mr. Minister, just what you are going to

produce for the $200 million-plus of premium income that you

are going to collect this year from the drivers in the Province

of British Columbia. Let us know what you are going to give to

the people of this province for the $20 million to $25 million

of income that the province will receive through the driver's

certificate insurance in the first year that it is in

force.

You really loaded the cards against the people. Not only do

you retroactively surcharge them but you said you would be very

generous and allow them to drop three points a year. The

interesting part of that is this: people who may have no more

than three points on their driver's licence at the present time

will find themselves being surcharged for 10, 12, or 15 points,

because you are going to go back three years.

If they were unfortunate enough to have had a couple of

speeding convictions — caught in a radar trap or whatever — they could easily have had in the last three years 12 to 15

points. Those points will be reduced by the great total of

three points per year.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Bad risk? Have you never been caught in a radar

trap, my friend? Have you ever been caught in a radar trap

going 30 mph in a 25 mph zone?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the chair, please?

MR. SMITH: Have you ever been caught in a radar trap doing

55 mph in a 50 mph zone?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the chair and confine his remarks to vote 235?

MR. SMITH: I suggest to you, in the business you were

previously in, that you're not being quite truthful with the

province and the public. I don't know a taxi-driver that ever

drove for very many years that didn't get caught at one time or

another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member….

MR. SMITH: All I'm suggesting to you is that you load the

chances of being caught for speeding charges and violations far

more than….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked the Hon. Member to….

MR. SMITH: If you draw him to order, then I will stay in

order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't even speak as long as you're standing.

Be seated.

MR. SMITH: I will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And remain seated.

Now the point of order. I would like the Hon. Member for

North Peace River to address himself to vote 23S of the

Minister's estimates and also to address the Chair. On two

counts you were violating the standing orders.

I would remind the Minister of Highways Hon. Mr. Lea) that

he is not to interrupt a speaker when he has the floor.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Why don't you call

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to order? You're afraid

of him.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

ruling. I'm sure that you 'are not really offended by the fact

that some of us get a little

[ Page 3590 ]

wound up when Members from the opposite side — particu larly

cabinet Ministers who should know better — interject in a

debate that is taking place on the floor of the House. If they

are going to set an example for the backbench Members, surely

to goodness they should perform in a more civilized manner on

the floor of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: It's nice to see the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) back in the

House this evening. Welcome back to Victoria, Mr. Minister. I

hope you had a nice junket. It's nice for you to get back in

time to put in three or four hours of debate before the House

adjourns tomorrow afternoon. It's nice to recognize the fact

that you are back in the House.

The points that I have made, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, I think are very valid and legitimate points. They

are points and questions that are being asked by the public

generally in the Province of British Columbia.

By the decision of your party you decided that auto

insurance would only be available to the people in the Province

of British Columbia through a monopoly corporation. That was

your decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that you have been debating the principle of Bill 34

from last year rather than addressing yourself to the estimates

that are before you.

MR. SMITH: Not at all. I'm debating the responsibility of

the Minister who is presently justifying the reason why we

should vote him his salary in this House.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Be serious; be

serious.

MR. SMITH: I am serious. We are in the business of providing

insurance on a monopoly basis because it happened to be a

government decision that that was the way to go. All I'm

suggesting to the Minister is that before he gets his salary he

had better tell us at least two or three things.

Why, on a monopoly basis, were the premiums charged to the

people of this province increased from $165 million to $200

million-plus in one year? Is there any justification for that?

Why, Mr. Minister? Why was it necessary, after increasing the

premiums generally to the public in British Columbia by $40-odd

million, to charge an additional basic $10 per person for

driver's insurance — particularly when you know as well as I do

that many of the drivers in the Province of British Columbia do

not own a car?

There are many situations where three or four people drive

one vehicle in the family. But it was necessary, according to

the wisdom of this new corporation, to charge everybody a

minimum of $10 regardless of whether they had any demerit

points or not.

Why do you think it is fair or reasonable to retroactively

surcharge everyone who has a driver's licence in British

Columbia for the total of all points they may have accumulated

in the three years prior to the time that ICBC came into

operation in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to welcome the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) back. We missed him this

afternoon.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): And every afternoon.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And every afternoon. I'm glad your plane

made it. Your colleague, sitting behind you, didn't get here

until five o'clock, then got up and gave a big speech. I expect

the same thing from you.

The Member for North Peace River raised a number of items. I

want to remind that Member that it wasn't my decision that we

adopt the monopoly system of automobile insurance. It was a

decision of the duly elected Legislative Assembly of the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. SMITH: Yes, 38 to 17.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why did we put it on a monopoly basis?

That was a decision made by this House.

The Member then went on to make a number of erroneous

statements. I am sure he didn't intend to, but nevertheless, he

made a number of erroneous statements — misleading statements,

not deliberate. But I realize that as an insurance man, perhaps

he doesn't pay too close attention to the figures he is

using.

Mr. Chairman, he used the 1972 premium income to start with,

and compared it with the 1974 premium income, and then said

this increase is in one year. That is what he did, which, of

course, gets you right off base because the 1973 premium income

figures are not yet available. So he goes from 1972 to 1974 to

start with. He ignored completely the fact that for the first

time there was compulsory collision on all automobiles eight

years old or newer, which increases the premium income. He

ignored completely the fact that for the first time there is

compulsory insurance on trailers. He ignored completely the

fact that for the first time many agencies and groups who have

been self-insurers are

[ Page 3591 ]

now part of the total insurance package in the province of

British Columbia.

He ignored all of these things, and then attributed that

increase in total premium income to an increased charge on the

individual automobile owner in the Province of British

Columbia.

Now, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is a grave

error for that Member. I regret very much that he hadn't really

considered the whole situation — first of all, the base from

which he was starting when he said it was a 12-month increase,

then secondly the facts that I have raised with you.

He complains about the monopoly situation. I want to remind

the Member, and I want to remind the people of this province,

that every party in opposition has said that if they win the

next election they will introduce competition back into the

automobile insurance field in this province. I want to remind

the people of this province that is the commitment they have

made, because certainly I will remind them, come the next

election, that if they elect any one of those parties, they

will turn their backs to the private insurance companies in the

Province of British Columbia. And you will live to regret that

commitment my friends, all of you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What else did the Member say? He says we

collected the money, we are going to get the interest on it and

nobody is going to get it back.

The Member obviously wasn't listening, hasn't been

listening, when I have repeated, repeated, repeated — I said it

again last night — that every penny of every kind of income

derived from the automobile insurance part of the business

stays in the automobile insurance fund to be used for the

reduction of premiums.

What do you mean you will never get it back? Well, I have

repeated and repeated, but you keep on raising that same old

canard. Mr. Chairman, these people keep making these wild,

silly, false accusations. They know it will get printed in the

newspapers, and they try and delude and mislead the people of

this province with malicious and false statements. It is a

bilious, sick procedure you are using, right down the line.

Debate after debate they keep repeating these absolutely false

statements, knowing they will get publicity, and hoping that

some of the people will believe it.

Now, I don't know how often I will have to repeat it: every

single penny — interest, premium, everything else — that

accrues from the automobile insurance business stays in the

automobile insurance plan. Get that into your heads once and

for all. I have said it time and time again.

Mr. Chairman, the Member asked for the final financial statement in this House.

The law requires that I file a financial statement in this House. The law requires

it and I will file a financial statement in this House.

That Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) got up

with those millennial figures just last night, and again he

hasn't read the report. He hasn't read the report on how to use

those figures, or what the figures meant. He is a great legal

figure, but he didn't read the wording of the report and what

these figures meant. I am not responsible for his ignorance,

and I refuse to accept responsibility for his ignorance.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Look, this is an annual report. We

already knew on the basis….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have told you that I will file the

financial statement. There will be a financial statement filed

when the law calls for it to be filed. Am I going to tell the

people how much we pay for property? Certainly I will tell the

people how much we pay for the property.

MR. SMITH: When? It won't be part of a profit-and-loss

statement, I wager.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will give a report to the people on how

much we pay for property. No question about that.

The Member said that service centres were not required.

Again, I explained earlier that the Insurance Bureau of Canada,

the amalgam of all the private insurance companies, are now

selling in eastern Canada a brand new proposal which is going

to bring great automobile insurance to the heartland of this

country. The very core of the proposal includes service claims

centres. We haven't got them in this province now. It is part

of the only reasonable way to handle automobile insurance.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada, the private industry, have

now recognized that and they are promising the people of

eastern Canada the same service that we are providing now in

the province of British Columbia.

There is another figure that I will remember when I table

the next financial statement about this company in this House — that $100,000 wasted on claims centres. Now there is a figure

… I don't know where he got it from. It is so far from

reality that it completely destroys even the minute vestige of

anything you have said that approaches reason or right in your

debate so far on the Insurance

[ Page 3592 ]

Corporation of British Columbia. I will remind you of that

figure of $100,000 a year from now for service claims centres

in the province of British Columbia.

Driver's insurance I have already explained to you. But I

want to tell you…. Again, Mr. Member, you say here is

somebody who only has three points this year, but we have gone

back three years, and if he had nine points three years ago we

are charging him on nine points. That is not true. But there

you go repeating that canard again; you continually do it, you

and all your colleagues because you know it will get printed in

the papers. Completely erroneous statements.

I am getting thoroughly fed up with you and your whole crew

because you keep repeating these silly statements. You know

they are wrong; I have corrected you; you refuse to recognize

facts. And that is the answer to your question.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, the

Minister is exercised this evening. I can remember the days

when he was Leader of the Opposition, and his caucus wasn't as

large as all the assistants he has from the civil service and

Crown corporation executives.

As I recall those days he wasn't able to make any better use

of his caucus as Leader of the Opposition than he is of all the

information that he's brought with these gentlemen to sit

beside him….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. A point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That Member wasn't in the House this

afternoon. I gave reams and reams of statements, reports and

figures this afternoon about which you are completely unaware.

Therefore, you have no right to make that statement.

MR. McGEER: I admit now the Minister may have been….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! It's a custom to allow

the Chair to comment on a point of order. I would point out to

the Hon. Member that the Hon. Minister's point is well made. I

would ask him not to cover ground that's already been covered.

Also he should confine his remarks to the vote before us.

MR. McGEER: Quite, Mr. Chairman. And I quite can see that the Minister

may well have been brilliant this afternoon, but he certainly wasn't brilliant

this evening. Nor was he particularly to the point that the Member for North

Peace River (Mr. Smith) raised with regard to the cost of ICBC and the way in

which the people of British Columbia are contributing to those costs.

I listened very clearly and carefully to the statements the

government made prior to the establishment of the ICBC

regarding premiums and how people would be paying less. When

comparisons were made it turned out that a great many people

were paying more.

In order to save face the government did something which I

consider to be unacceptable. They made two classes of premium

payers in British Columbia: one who paid the full fee and

another that were able to prove beyond doubt that they paid a

lower rate the year before and therefore were to be given a

rebate and an advantage over other drivers in British

Columbia.

I paid a full rate last year to a private corporation. I

paid a full rate this year. And I see no reason why others

should be paying less to the ICBC. If the rates are higher for

some people, then the government should honestly have declared

that the rates would be higher — and not to try and sneak

around it by giving rebates to certain individuals on the basis

that no one would have to pay more.

Why, Mr. Chairman should there be two classes of ratepayers

in British Columbia? I condemn the Minister and I condemn the

administration of the ICBC for allowing two classes of citizens

to exist in British Columbia — getting the same insurance,

paying different rates, because the B.C. government wanted

somehow to make it appear they were honouring a promise that

they obviously could not honour. It's sneaky, Mr. Chairman, and

it's unworthy of an executive of a Crown corporation.

I say quite frankly that if this is to be a democracy

everybody has to be on the same basis. You cannot take that

person there and say they will pay less premium although they

drive the same car and fall into the category as the person

next door. That is manifestly unfair, and no way to open the

operation of a corporation. That kind of thing should

absolutely be withdrawn. It's dishonourable and

disgraceful.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to move on to another point which

was raised by the Member for North Peace River. I want to

dissociate myself completely from a government that would do

that kind of thing; and in no way would I excuse an executive

of a corporation for going along with it.

I mentioned yesterday a particular case where the ICBC

failed to honour a promise of the Premier and a commitment made

by the executive of the Motor Vehicle division that people who

took driver training courses would be given a $50 rebate on

their course.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I reported on that this afternoon. I'm

sorry you weren't here.

[ Page 3593 ]

MR. McGEER: Yes, but when I asked the question you didn't

have the answer. I merely want to point out that there is a

double standard with the ICBC. In one case they create two

classes of citizens in British Columbia to honour a false

promise that you made. Something which is….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I read

a lengthy report to the House this afternoon which completely

refuted the accusation made by the Member and clarified the

whole situation. Again, I'm sorry he wasn't here. But I don't

think this House should be subjected to a repetition of the

speech he made last night when I've already refuted it this

afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order. The point of order is

well taken in that the matter which the Member is discussing

was thoroughly canvassed this afternoon.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm only using this as an

illustration of the double standard of the Minister, the double

standard of the government and the double standard of the

ICBC.

Now I want to go on to another point, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, go on to another point.

MR. McGEER: May I go on to another point, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. McGEER: Thank you.

One of the practices which I think is justly condemned in

this House is retroactive legislation, retroactive taxes and

retroactive penalties. If I commit an offence, I do it in the

full knowledge of the consequences of that offence, whether

it's speeding or committing non-capital murder.

But Mr. Chairman, the way ICBC has been set up — with the

concurrence of the government — people pay a retroactive

penalty for their driving record.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the former Minister of Industrial

Development, dear departed soul, used to say that kind of thing and the

Members of the opposition used to say: "You keep your hands out of the

people's pockets." I can recall the Minister of Transport saying that

when he was given a similar piece of advice by the former Minister of

Industrial Development, the former Premier, both of whom are long gone

from this House and whose departure is not regretted by most of us

here. But I must say to the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon.

Mr. Lauk), through you, Mr. Chairman, that when they said it, they said

it better. Their hands in the people's pockets when they say on the one

hand that the premiums for their insurance shall be X many dollars; but

there is one little extra thing: that's the $ 10 you pay for you

licence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that this subject has also been canvassed.

MR. McGEER: I'm asking the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he

will grant having gouged these people this particular year

complete amnesty on their driving record for the purposes of

collecting money for their insurance next year to wipe out all

the points on everyone's driving record.

Personally, I don't think something like that should be

done. I think a system which is completely fair and completely

above-board should be introduced. It was announced by the

government and the ICBC that the previous driving records of

people would not be taken into account in establishing the

insurance premiums.

Mr. Chairman, the ICBC knew it would have to say that,

because the insurance companies quite properly would not

divulge to the ICBC excess premiums that these people paid

because of their driving records.

I admire the private insurance companies for respecting the

privacy of the people that they insured while they were

providing service in British Columbia. But of course, Mr.

Chairman, those kinds of ethics did not need to be followed by

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) department as far

as the driving records the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald'

s) department as far as the driving records of the

provincial government.

They could set a different ethical standard, and so they

did, Mr. Chairman, by moving in retroactively, seizing the

records, if you like, and extorting money from these people in

order that they might continue to drive.

I ask for this amnesty, Mr. Chairman, on ethical grounds. To

impose surcharges for driving licences on the basis of points

that were accumulated before the ICBC commenced operation,

which was April 1, 1973, to my standard is unethical. I think

if the Minister and the government are to be fair and above

board, to stand by the statements of principle they made in

establishing this Crown corporation, they should be completely

consistent and, in being completely consistent, expunge these

records. As of April 1, everybody starts from zero. Go ahead

and impose these surcharges if you wish, but let the drivers of

British Columbia know that will be the consequence of an arrest

and the accumulation of points on their driver's licence.

In the free and easy days when the point system

[ Page 3594 ]

was being introduced, many people would willingly accept

points rather than challenge the validity of their arrest in a

court of law solely for the reason of reducing the number of

points against their licence. Having as a matter of convenience

admitted their guilt, later on they find points have been added

to their driver's licence and that they are now required to pay

an extortionist fee to continue to drive.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a fortunate person; I have no points on my

driver's licence. But I can well imagine, being faced with a

questionable arrest, accepting a number of points on my

driver's licence rather than take a day off work in order to

prove my innocence. But I certainly wouldn't anticipate two

years later to have that admission counted against me in the

number of dollars I had to pay in order to continue

driving.

This is what the government has imposed. It's unfair; it's

iniquitous; it's unethical; it's unworthy; it's undemocratic;

it's disgraceful.

I ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the

Minister of Transport and Communications to regain their

principles, which they abandoned when they marched across this

floor to government, and begin to stand for the fairness and

democracy I thought they stood for when they used to make

speeches on this side of the House.

What's happened to them, Mr. Chairman? Where did their

consciences go?

Interjections.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The power has gone to their

heads.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think power has gone to their

heads. Sometimes I wonder if they can get their heads through

the door at the end of the day. But maybe through debate in

this chamber they can regain those things they lost when they

walked across the floor and begin to dispense fairness and

democracy in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was the usually garbled charade from

the good Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. He was smiling all

the time he was giving that histrionic display. He enjoys it;

we all enjoy it.

He knows as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that the private

industry searched the records, looked at the points, and

assessed the individual on the points that were on his record.

Private industry did that. He knows that. Again, it is one of

the strawmen he enjoys creating, and then he whumps away at it….

MR. McGEER: You said you weren't going to count it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He thrashes it and rehashes it and

rehashes it. He knows he's putting on

an act.

MR. McGEER: You lied to them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I didn't lie to them.

M R. McGEER: You lied to them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I didn't lie to them.

MR. McGEER: You told them it wouldn't be counted against

them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I didn't. I explained a year ago when

the legislation was coming up — perhaps you weren't here again

when I explained it…. Incidentally, speaking of you not

being here, would you like the report on the driver training to

be repeated? Oh, you'd better read it in Hansard .

MR. McGEER: I'd like it to be repeated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Somebody asked: When are you going to

give us how much it cost for your land? When are you going to

tell us how much it cost you for your buildings? Mr. Chairman,

it's in the annual report that I tabled in this House weeks

ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it isn't.

HON. MR, STRACHAN: There it is, there. Land: $9,045,000;

buildings: $456,000; construction in progress: $5,137,000;

total: $14,638,000 as of February 28, 1974. Now there it

is.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You say we don't tell you anything. "When

are you going to tell us?" I filed it in the House and it will

be filed again next year. "Are we going to get financial

statements?" I gave you financial statements and you don't even

read them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, before supper I

was asking the Minister about a discrepancy between the

statement of a director of ICBC and the head of the Insurance

Agents Association. The Minister quite properly pointed out

that he himself had been very careful not to say that more

agents had been requested by the Insurance Agents Association

of British Columbia.

Indeed, to refresh his memory, because he did not have the

Hansard in front of him, I read out the quote which made

perfectly clear the Minister himself did not state that they

had requested more agents.

[ Page 3595 ]

The Minister, I think quite correctly, took some

satisfaction in the fact that he had avoided that….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't say they hadn't requested them.

I said I hadn't said the request.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I would like to ask the Minister

now if there is some doubt as to whether his statement

represented, in response to a direct question on that subject,

the whole truth. Would he now like to state whether they did or

whether they didn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know whether they did or not. I

stick by my original statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This might be a question, then, that he

could put to assistants, of whom nine have been present in the

room for most of the day.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Minister replies,

would he use his mike?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …were associated with ICBC; you know

that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there are people with him

responsible for ICBC. I understand Mr. Bortnick is not far

away.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've just stated that you haven't

answered the question, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I've answered the question….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the question again is there. We

have the statement by the president of the Insurance Agents

Association, Mr. Jack Hamilton, who stated he had no request

for extra agents: "No, we did not. None whatsoever," was

his quote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair. I would ask the Members not to speak from their

seats because it does cause consternation with Hansard .

I would ask you to speak one at a time and into the

mike.

M R. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would also point out to the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that he may not insist

on the answer given by the Minister; he may not press the

point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How many times would you suggest we can

repeat a question? I understood the Minister before supper as

having said, no, he had made no such statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I made no such statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As the question was not properly answered

by him earlier, I would like him now to answer a question, very

straightforward, by consulting with his assistants who are

responsible for ICBC and who are not far from him. Did the

Insurance Agents Association in fact request more agents to be

appointed or did they not? It's the same question I asked back

on February 18 in the House, to which the Minister responded in

terms which avoided the question.

MR. McGEER: I'm not in the category of people who didn't

think government automobile insurance was a good idea. I

thought it was. I certainly fall in the category who would say

we should keep government automobile insurance. I hope that

when the Minister is going to go round and tell everyone that

the opposition would dispense with government automobile

insurance, he'll make a specific point of excluding the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey as falling in that

category.

One thing we would absolutely guarantee the people, however,

is that no more of their insurance premium would go to Manny

Dunsky. I'm certain that's where my insurance premium went. It

went to Manny Dunsky advertising.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter of advertising for

Autoplan has been covered several times fairly thoroughly.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: You know, we don't have the Blues any more. I

used to be able to read the Blues when I came in, but we've

been denied that. Can the Minister give us a flat guarantee

that no more of our premium money will be spent on Manny

Dunsky?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CUMMINGS: I have a few questions here. Actually, it

concerns the Liberals because they seem to want to delay the

Minister's estimates. They wanted to know about disclosure.

Will the Second

[ Page 3596 ]

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) disclose how

many insurance companies he was employed by in 1970?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering the

estimates of the Minister.

MR. CUMMINGS: No, no. We're discussing a possible conflict

of interests. If a man is procured by the insurance companies,

we want to know now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are considering the estimates of the

Minister of Transport and Communications, and it is not proper

to direct a question to another Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could the Member

put that question on the order paper?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule any pursuance of this question

out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not a question of order. Ask him to

put up or shut up.

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, you know the Liberals are very

brazen.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your job is to tell him to put up or shut

up. Do your duty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a straight violation of the rules of

this House, and you know it. Now, face up to your

responsibilities and tell him to put evidence before….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Hon. Second Member for Victoria

has a point of order, would he rise in the proper manner and

make his point of order instead of speaking from his seat?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know full well that claims of

conflict of interest, as raised by that Member, are in

violation of the rules of the House, and you should instantly

ask him for evidence, ask him for some information, or ask him

to withdraw. You know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has ruled that the

point which he's raised is out of order, period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then ask him to apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There has been no request made for withdrawal

of the remark.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain to withdraw any imputation of

wrongdoing by his choice of remarks, without qualification.

MR. CUMMINGS: For a possible conflict of interests? Everyone

knows that a lawyer will sell himself out to the nearest

available insurance company….

MR. GARDOM: We're fed up with this guttersnipe language from

this Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Second Member….

MR. CUMMINGS: Today a lawyer stood up…this motion's in

trouble. These guys have been selling out the laws and the

justice of this country forever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put up or sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've requested the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain to withdraw any imputation

of wrongdoing involving the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey in regard to the remarks that were made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Or the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce.

MR. CUMMINGS: I withdraw any remarks…. Can I work on the

Second Member for Victoria?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is to withdraw

unconditionally the imputation….

MR. CUMMINGS: I withdraw it unconditionally, but now I would

like to work over the lawyer from….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member must address

his remarks to vote 235, and to the Minister whose vote we are

considering and not discuss other Members of the House.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: That does it! When I'm attacked by a man that

can't even tell the difference between the sexes of whales, I'm

in trouble.

[ Page 3597 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member confine his

remarks to the vote and to the Minister's estimates,

please?

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, the point I'm trying to make is that

the party that's leading this attack on the Minister who has

brought in the finest legislation, the finest insurance Act in

British Columbia, is a little bit prejudiced in the fact that

they've been an employee, especially that one Member…no,

he's Simon Pure. I believe that he's the only one in the whole

world of the legal profession who has never been hired by an

insurance firm, therefore he's Simon Pure, and that's true for

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

But the rest of the profession has managed to make themselves

rather tarnished when it comes to insurance companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just point out to the

Hon. Member that we are not discussing the legal profession,

we're discussing the vote of the Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications.

MR. CUMMINGS: We're discussing the legal profession's attack

on the insurance corporation, which is probably the greatest

thing that's ever happened to the people of British

Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: I don't mind being attacked by a…no, I

better not say it because not only are they disrespectful,

they're brazen faced. They ignore what their brothers do in

Ottawa, They are completely without moral character.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would bring to the Hon.

Member….

MR. CUMMINGS: It's the Liberals I am discussing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Member

that we are discussing the administrative responsibilities of

the Minister of Transport and Communications. I would ask the

Hon. Member not to discuss other Members of the House.

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm discussing the Liberal's attack — the

cheap political tricks of the Liberals who are attacking the

finest Minister who brought in the finest legislation for the

people of British Columbia. Now what's out of order about that,

Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All questions or comments must

be relevant to the Minister's responsibilities and not with….

MR. CUMMINGS: Oh, you curb free speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope that when I ask the Minister of

Transport and Communications some questions that the Second

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain will not feel that I'm

attacking the Minister. All we're trying to do in this House is

let some light shine in. But you know, Mr. Chairman, the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) brought up a very

interesting point when he talked about retroactive charges to

points on driver's licences.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Member

for South Peace River that it states in May clearly that you

are not to canvass your own arguments again, or the arguments

of others again. I would ask you to bring up a new point or

else discontinue your speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: With your great indulgence, I intend to

introduce into the House some new evidence on this particular

matter.

I wish the Minister would stay because this is a very

important part.

AN HON. MEMBER: If he'd answer some questions, it would be

much better.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, a person who within the last

three months had committed a crime like stealing or peddling

dope or any other crime, and had served his jail sentence is

far better off in British Columbia today than a person who has

points on his driver's licence because if he picked up points

on his driver's licence he's going to be penalized by the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. When he received

those points, he did not know that he was going to be

penalized. He felt he had paid his debt to society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point made so far has

already been made a number of times. I would ask the Hon.

Member to get to his new point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the point is this: when those

points were given to that individual, he did not realize that

this government was going to bring in an insurance scheme

whereby he would be penalized.

I'd like to refer to an

article in the Vancouver

Province , dated February 5, 1974. The headline is: "The

Demerit System Cited." The point is this: "Contested traffic

tickets skyrocket 80 per cent." Why do people start contesting

traffic tickets at this point?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the rest of the article,

[ Page 3598 ]

Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will read the rest of the article.

"The number of traffic violation charges being contested has

shot up 80 per cent because of the linking of driver's licence

costs with the demerit point system, court officials say."

Now this is fine if you start from day one, Mr. Chairman.

And this is the whole point of the situation: if you start from

day one when you introduced this system and advised people that

they're going to have to pay more for their insurance if they

have demerit points on their driver's licence, then you're

being perfectly fair. But this government is not being fair by

making this fine system…and that's really what it is, it's

introducing a fine system on driver's licences. I'd like to

continue reading the article:

"Under the provincial government's Autoplan, drivers with

five or fewer demerit points will pay a basic $10 fee for

licences. Those with six or more points will pay $10 plus a

dollar figure equal to the square of the total number of

points, giving a total: cost for the driver with six points,

for example, of $46, or one with 7 points, $59."

This, Mr. Chairman, is retroactive legislation; you're

penalizing people for something that when they received it,

they did not know they were going to be penalized.

That's why I say a person who has committed a crime within

the last 36 months and has paid his debt to society is far

better off in this society under a socialist rule than one who

has got demerit points on his driver's licence, strictly due to

the dictatorial policies of the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia. We've seen retroactive legislation before in

this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is repeating

the arguments that have already been made. I would ask him to

raise a new point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm asking the Minister if he will not

reconsider starting from day one on the point system. The

people of British Columbia did not elect him to go back and

penalize them for points which they received 36 months ago. I

know myself, I was picked up for speeding just outside of

Vernon last year, and I had an argument with the traffic

inspector with regard to the condition of the road. He said:

"You can contest it. It'll cost you $10.

One of your own backbench Members went over that same piece of road that particular

night and verified the situation. The road was dry, but I didn't contest it.

Why didn't I contest it? I'd like to advise you that it's the only three points

I've had in over 20 years of driving. Why didn't I contest it? I didn't contest

it because I didn't know that the insurance Corporation of British Columbia

was going to penalize me for that. Had I known at the time, I would have contested

it. I certainly would have contested it.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would have contested it. If you want the

floor…. All the silent backbench — they don't get up and

make any speeches, they don't get up and ask any questions, but

they yack across the floor. Why doesn't the silent backbench of

the NDP get up and ask some questions if you want some

answers?

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

please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Hon. Chairman quit harassing me? Mr.

Chairman, if you want to harass somebody why don't you harass

the Minister, because I've asked questions in this House that I

still haven't got an answer for. I want the Minister to tell me….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've answered all your questions.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you haven't answered all my questions, Mr.

Chairman. The Minister has not answered all my questions.

I want the Minister to tell me before he gets his estimates:

is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia going to be

involved in the plan of the Premier to reimburse, or to assist

the automobile drivers of this province to drive their

automobiles for less money? Is, or is not, the Insurance

Corporation going to be involved in this plan? We want to know

before these estimates are passed because if it doesn't involve

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman,

let the Minister stand in the Legislature and tell us. If it is

going to be involved let him stand on the floor of this

Legislature and tell us.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I still would like to hear from

the Hon. Minister why he's refusing to inform people in this

House, most of whom own cars and all of whom are taxpayers, and

the people of B.C. about their concerns about the dollars and

cents of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Despite

the very wild rhetoric that we've heard this afternoon and this

evening and the preposterous, vicious and untrue charges, these

seem to me to be valid questions. They are questions that have

been put to me. There have been questions that have been put to

the Members of the official opposition and also to the Members

of the Conservative Party. They are questions, Mr. Minister,

that your own party has received, and they are questions that

Mr. Bortnick has received himself as the chief executive

officer of this

[ Page 3599 ]

huge corporation.

Since it is a public corporation, and since the public have

the ownership of it and will bear the brunt of its failure and

will profit from its success, if there's success, they are

entitled to ask these questions. It's no answer, Mr. Minister,

to get into a personal attack. They're valid questions. What's

invalid about a taxpayer or a motorist asking what this thing

is costing? What is invalid about that?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You're not, Mr. Minister. What is the salary

scale of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia? Why do

you refuse to give us those figures? You haven't answered that.

If you say you're back to back to that, Mr. Minister, I'm going

to say categorically that's a lie. You agree you have not

answered that question. You've also not answered this question,

Mr. Minister: how much are the projections of ICBC for claims

losses payments in 1974-1975? You've not given us those figures

and those figures, Mr. Minister, are available. Are you

prepared to say that those figures are not available and have

not been processed, and those estimates have not been taken

into account by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?

Are you prepared to say that? I don't think you are, Mr.

Minister, because if you did that it would be a lie. That would

be a lie.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What would?

MR. GARDOM: If you said that the Insurance Corporation of

the Province of British Columbia has never gone ahead and had a

projection of what they anticipate for claims losses in the

1974-75 period, that would be incorrect because they've done

that work and you're nodding your head. Then why don't you

volunteer and give that information?

Is it improper? Is this going to be a subject of personal

vilifications? Is it improper to ask you, Mr. Minister, as to

what the administrative expense of ICBC is running at today in

percentages, or what it has estimated for the 1974-1975 period?

Is that an improper question?

Is it 12 per cent, like Manitoba, currently? Is it more than

that? Is it less than that? What is projected over the coming

period? Is it going to be more or less than $27 million, which

is the figure that I worked out from your financial statement,

Mr. Minister, utilizing the Manitoba experience? Those were the

only figures that I had at my fingertips, but you've got them

all. As the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) said, why don't you level with us?

You've talked about the expenditure for capital improvements this year and

you've waved your annual report. I know what you said in your annual report.

You have indicated how much you've spent for capital improvements. You've also

broken it down into land and construction costs. I ask you one question: why

is it that the land seems to be twice as high as the construction cost? You

haven't answered that question.

You also have not answered the question as to how you arrive

at $19 million plus for the coming period as an estimate. Your

word, your figure, your book for capital expenditures in

1974-1975. Where is that money going to be spent? How much of

it is estimated to be spent on land and how much of it is

estimated to be spent on structures? Is it all to be spent on

structures? Does this only refer to claims centres?

Don't you think that a shareholder has the right to ask

those questions? They do have the right to ask those questions.

It doesn't matter how hot the debate may get, Mr. Minister — the questions are totally valid and the answers have not been

forthcoming.

Also, the answers concerning the Adams situation have not been forthcoming,

and again it is a very, very valid question indeed. If, Mr. Minister, Mr. Adams

was performing his job, who went ahead and made a waterlogged decision that

he should be taken off his work, put into retirement and receive $52,000-odd

sum of money for doing nothing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he is tending to be repetitious.

MR. GARDOM: So indeed, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister in not

answering these questions. Tonight at least he's doing one

thing which he did not do yesterday and he didn't do this

afternoon — he's writing them down. He's giving me that

courtesy.

If Mr. Adams, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon.

Minister, was not doing his job, why wasn't he discharged

without the gift, without the bonanza? What was his job in

ICBC? The football coach or something or other? What did he do?

What did he do wrong? What did he do right?

That's an awful lot of money — $52,000 is an awful lot of

money. A lot of people in this province would like to have that

sort of money, Mr. Minister, for not doing anything because of

the virtue of a difference of opinion. Who was the difference

of opinion with and what was the difference of opinion? Was the

difference of opinion with the administrative side of the

Insurance Corporation of B.C., or was it with the political

side?

Don't you think you've a responsibility to answer that

question? Is it a war-time secret? A problem of national

security?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point

[ Page 3600 ]

out again to the Hon. Member that he's continuing to be

repetitious.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Minister, another question. Under the

statute which brought the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia into being — the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia Act — we find under

section 10(2), Mr. Minister,

that the corporation is an agent of Her Majesty in the right of

the province.

Mr. Minister, when this statute was brought into being,

prior to the Crown Proceedings Act which is being

considered in this session, the net effect of that

section is

that a person would not be entitled at law to effectively sue

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is a fact

that I'm sure is exceptionally well known to the gentleman on

your left (Mr. Bortnick) are you going to recognize and give

validity to those law suits and have ICBC not plead that

section of the statute? Or are you going to put a provision in

the Crown Proceedings Act to the effect that it would be

retroactive to the commencement of the ICBC statute? Or was

this just a

section that was brought in to give the government

good and clear sailing in its current law suit? How did that

come about?

I received a letter, Mr. Minister, from a constituent who

was very concerned about one specific matter dealing with the

documents required to effectively drive a car today. The

constituent referred to an

article in the Sun by Mr.

Jess Odarn — a very respected writer in the Province of

B.C.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Not now he isn't.

MR. GARDOM: Not now he isn't? What's happened? Is he no

longer respected by you, Mr. Minister? Who said that? Oh,

you're pleading anonymity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

address the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development is

pleading anonymity. We shall let him rest in his plea.

Mr. Odam says that the documents that a person must have to

effectively drive a vehicle include four: a valid registration

certificate, an owner's insurance certificate, a driver's

licence and a driver's certificate. But Mr. Odarn says this,

and if it is correct we have, I think, a very serious situation

in the province:

"If any one of these documents cannot be produced, all of

the others are held to be invalid. It matters not that they have been paid for

in the normal way and that no notice is received from either the Motor Vehicle

Branch or ICBC pointing out that they are no longer in effect.

"Legally, the vehicle becomes unlicensed and uninsured and

the driver and/or owner is subject to all the penalties that

this situation involves. Because the vehicle is uninsured the

owner or driver will be liable for claims arising from any

death, injury or property damage for which he is held wholly or

partly responsible.

"What will happen in practise is that the ICBC will pay out

the claims and then do its best to recover from the technically

uninsured owner or driver even though they may well have paid a

premium for coverage."

If this is a fact, Mr. Minister, you have certainly got to

indicate that this is not going to be practised and this type

of a law is certainly not going to continue to exist in the

statute books and you've got to put an amendment in on it this

session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows

that the matter that he is discussing or recommending is a

matter of legislation and cannot properly be considered in

estimates.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, that's always a thin line, really

and truly. It is also a matter of policy. Are you going to

accept, Mr. Chairman, as government policy that if you don't

have one of four certificates in your possession at the time of

an incident you lose your right to insurance? That's absolutely

preposterous. That's an administrative duty and an

administrative function and you know it. I ask the Minister to

comment upon it if that is the fact. I can't say for sure that

it is; I don't know that it is not. But I would certainly like

to have comment on it because I have heard from more than one

person about this point which was raised by Mr. Odam.

I have one opportunity — and these don't come too often,

obviously — to compliment the Minister. I'm glad to see that he

has announced and given additional particulars of the $50

arrangement whereby first drivers who take a certified driving

course are able to receive that, I gather, as a reduction from

their insurance. Is that correct? It will be off the insurance

policy. I welcome that and it is a step along the line.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We give them a cheque.

MR. GARDOM: You give them a cheque. Well, that's even

better. Whether they happen to take out a driver's policy or

not? No, that's not the case, is it? No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair?

[ Page 3601 ]

MR. GARDOM: Obviously the Minister is a little mixed up in

that but when he stands up he can inform the House what it

really is. But, Mr. Minister, that is not enough in itself. I

take it from being constantly chastised by the Chairman in

other debates that driving is the responsibility of this

Minister. Highway safety is, to a great extent, under this

Minister too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Different vote.

MR. GARDOM: Well, we'll talk about it now. Mr. Minister, you

brought in the $50 — that's fine and dandy — but you've not

gone far enough. What we should have in the Province of B.C. is

compulsory driving courses given in all of our high schools and

make it as well documented as we possibly can and let them be

given practical expertise by officers and, indeed, visitations

and lectures by coroners, firemen, doctors and all of the

people who are involved in the rather ghastly results of

automobile tragedies. Compulsory driving instruction, Mr.

Minister, in all of the high schools should become a thing of

reality in September, 1974, in this province. I'll ask you if

you are prepared to bring it in. I don't think you are and if

you are not I think it is exceptionally unfortunate.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, I would ask why you do not go ahead

and proclaim a

section of a statute that was supported by you

and by your colleagues when you were in the official opposition

in 1969. That was an amendment to the Motor-vehicle Act .

It was

section 2(d). I will read it to you:

"Except with the consent of the Superintendent "

referring to the Superintendent of Motor

Vehicles, who does an exceptional job in the Province of

British Columbia

"no person under the age of 18 years may drive a

motor-vehicle unless he is certified under a driving training programme

approved by the Superintendent to be qualified to drive a

motor-vehicle."

That

section is still not proclaimed in the Province of B.C.

and to me it is straight dereliction of duty that it is

not.

Next point, Mr. Minister. I would commend you to phase in,

throughout all of the province, including the outlying areas,

for the problem drivers — adults and students as well — the

defensive driving course. That should be available in every

community in B.C. If it is not already, and I gather it is

not.

I have always stressed, Mr. Minister, and other Members on all sides have as

well, that we have not given correct emphasis at all to compulsory, province-wide,

motor-vehicle inspection and testing. In statistics that we have perceived in

the report filed in this House via the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles or his

department, I suppose, we find some amazing statistics. One was that 37 per

cent of the cars in the Vancouver, Victoria and Richmond stations were rejected.

Think how, indeed, apart from the fact that it is almost like playing roadway

roulette, how much this kind of exposure can create and increase the risk and

increase the cost of insurance in the Province of B.C. On the basis of one million

cars — and I think your figure is that we have 1.3 million now, is that right?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Total vehicles. There are 1.1

million.

MR. GARDOM: Okay. I think that is closer. That would mean we

find 377,000 cars in the Province of B.C. likely to be rejected

on the basis of this sample, and this is an awfully good

sample. As I've said, that's just like playing roadway

roulette. We have one mobile testing unit operating today. The

testing units are pretty well concentrated in the lower

mainland and Vancouver Island. Proposals, I gather, are

underway for Kamloops but there is not too much in the

north.

Mr. Minister, you have got to get some more mobile testing

units and properly staff them. I would say it would not be

unreasonable to suggest that right off the bat we should buy

four or five.

Apart from that, this programme of motor vehicle inspection

and testing can readily be programmed into all of the areas of

the province. In my view, we don't have to go ahead and build a

raft of expensive structures. You can utilize existing public

structures for that purpose or you can utilize the existing gas

stations and service stations in order to do that particular

kind of a job. But we have got to have this testing done on a

compulsory basis throughout the province. In the hinterlands — in the outlying areas — if they require more time, which would

only be fair, to come to the stations to comply with the

compulsory nature of the thing that I'm suggesting, let them

have that time. But for God's sake, Mr. Minister, make sure

that no longer are we going to have to feel that we are driving

down the highway with over 37 per cent of our cars in a

situation of being rejected and unroadworthy. Too many lives

are lost, and you have the capacity to prevent that loss of

life.

I would like to say just one word about drinking and driving

before I sit down. I don't know who was responsible for this

advertising programme, but whoever was responsible for it I

think is owed a great vote of credit by all of the Members of

this House, and certainly by the public of the Province of

British Columbia. It is the non-drinking-driving

advertisements that were coming over the airwaves, I believe,

during the last major holiday season, the Christmas holidays.

They were excellent, and they brought the point home; and that

is the only way it

[ Page 3602 ]

can be handled.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Motor-vehicle Branch.

MR. GARDOM: Three cheers for the Motor vehicle Branch for

doing exactly that! It was a first-class job. We have got to

have one policy, and one that has to be continually proclaimed.

It is not enough to say you are going to bring the policy in

and it is there. This is something where repetition pays off,

and that policy has got to be loud and clear.

You have got to be sober to drive, or keep off the road in

B.C.

I continue to criticize the fine system. I have always felt

that it is a very unfair and rotten yardstick. Make no mistake

of that fact. I think that there should be some form of custody

for a person who is convicted of drinking and driving — not

necessarily jail. Perhaps it could be some sort of social

agency custody, say spending some time in a hospital performing

a function, or a community centre or wherever it may be. But

that person should have to spend some degree of time, certainly

through the daylight hours, for his transgression.

In order to continue to bring the point home to the general

public, Mr. Minister, you should right now come out with a pro-

gramme whereby in every gas station and every gas pump in the

province, in every liquor outlet in the province, the warnings

are posted; the penalties are shown for drinking and driving;

the impairment levels are stated there so people will know what

they can consume, know what they are not permitted to consume

and know without question the penalties that they will have to

face. And they should face those penalties.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to thank the Member for his

helpful suggestions at the end of his speech. I will certainly

give all of them serious consideration. I agree with much of

what he said.

The defensive driving course I agree should be all over the

province.

I want to assure him that I did take notes of his previous

speech. There they are, away back there, with the name Gardom

right up at the top. Back as far as that. So I did make notes

last time.

MR. GARDOM: You left out the adjectives.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am not responsible for Jess Odam's

interpretation of the law, and I won't accept Mr. Odam's

interpretation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I say I am not responsible for what Jess

Odarn says.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is wrong?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Wrong? I don't know. I don't know what

Jess Odam said. I would have to read the

article myself

carefully.

I don't know what law suit you were talking about under that

section. You asked me about something political. What was it

that you wanted to know that was political?

MR. GARDOM: Was it a political decision to can Mr.

Adams?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. It wasn't political.

MR. GARDOM: Was it an administrative decision?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: High school teacher driving course.

Through a grant from ICBC we enabled — I am answering your

question, Mr. Member — we, through a grant to the safety

council, enabled high school teachers to get the

driver-training course so that they could teach the students.

It is my hope that eventually we will have it all through the

province. We are continuing to help with that programme so they

can do it economically.

I'm sorry the Member rejected my offer to table the Adams

documents this afternoon.

MR. GARDOM: Oh no I didn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you did. You rejected my offer.

MR. GARDOM: That is not correct.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you did.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, brother!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked me a question: why is the land

twice the cost of the buildings?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am trying to answer your question: why

is the land twice the cost of the buildings? Because up until

that particular time the buildings hadn't been completed. After

you get all the buildings completed, that will bring the thing

back into ratio again.

How much are the expected claims? They are within the

projection that we have allowed. But you know, Mr. Chairman, in

finishing answering….

Interjections.

[ Page 3603 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: After two speeches from that Member and a

number of other speeches from other Members about public

information, public corporations, I would like to quote to the

Member from Hansard of May 2 — the Ottawa Hansard

of May 2…

MR. PHILLIPS: We're in British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …where a Liberal spokesman in the

House, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport

in Ottawa….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, would you like to listen?

This was the parliamentary secretary to the federal Minister of

Transport, answering a question in the House of Commons on May

2 of this year. And what does it say?

He is replying to a Member of the opposition who wanted

information about a Crown corporation. He says: "However, I

doubt very much whether my honourable colleague has directed

much thought to the long-term repercussions of taking such a

step." He's talking about divulging this information.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't want to listen, do you? You

don't want to listen to the Liberal position in Ottawa.

"After all, regardless of other considerations, we must ask

ourselves whether in this House we want to open to scrutiny all

documents which have been drawn up on the understanding that

they would be immune to public disclosure.

"Does this House want to set a precedent which might

undermine the whole system under which so many of our vital

Canadian Crown corporations have negotiated their business in

the past?"

Wasn't that a terrible thing? That is the attitude the

Liberals in Ottawa take about Crown corporations. But we get

this unctuous, self-righteous speechifying from the Liberal

Members across the way.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Come on now! Thank you very much; I think

you have done a very fine job this evening. I appreciate your

efforts.

MR. WALLACE: Now I know I am in trouble, when I get the government cheering

me. I just have one or two simple questions to ask.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions about the

whole manner in which the insurance of motorcycles has been

handled by the government, or by the Minister and his

department.

Again, in referring to Autoplan, I have to reiterate one of

the fundamental reasons that we have Autoplan. That is that it

was an election plank, based on two claims by this party that

they could provide more efficient, better coverage at lower

cost to the consumer. Now that is clearly on the record. And,

as I pointed out in an earlier speech, it was a political

motive and an economic one. Politically it was attractive to

win votes by promising the consumer a better service and at a

cheaper price.

What did we find as far as motorcycles were concerned? After

all the claims this party has made about the private companies

ripping off the consumer by way of insurance, we have the

Minister stating publicly a short time ago that in fact the

private companies had been charging far too little in premiums

to cover the costs of insurance for motorcycles.

This I think, Mr. Chairman, is really quite a revelation

because, as I say, there was never the slightest suspicion in

the election campaign of 1972 that some of the private

companies might be charging too small a premium. All we heard

was that the companies were not efficient, and that in fact

there were abuses of the system, such as investment of prepaid

premiums and that there really wasn't competition; and there

were many other complaints.

But the basic promise by this party in opposition was that

they would bring in a government-sponsored plan which would

provide a better programme of insurance — and at less cost than

was being provided by the private industry. The Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) agrees with the premise that I have

outlined. So does the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). Any

more claps? The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). Any

advance on three?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

If you'll sit down.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I know you'd like me to sit down because

I'm getting back to a little bit of truth.

Interjections.

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

Maybe "truth" isn't the word. Fact. Let's just stick to the

facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, I'll let you sit down.

MR. WALLACE: That's what they do on

[ Page 3604 ]

"Dragnet." They stick to the facts.

The fact is this was a basic plank in the platform. When the

rates were finally published…. I'm sure any Member of

this House could quote from a great deal of their

correspondence. I've just picked one from the motorcycle file

at random.

"I wish to bring this matter of insurance on motorcycles to your attention as my MLA. I along with many

others are most upset at the increased rate on motorcycles. I

am most certain that by the end of 1974 the motorcycle industry

in British Columbia and all other small, mobile machines will

be crippled due to the Insurance Corporation Act. This year

with basic $100,000 liability, plates, basic coverage with no

collision, I shall pay $100. Last year my insurance was

$52.

"I understand that a petition (et cetera, et cetera) is being circulated to the Minister."

There are many other letters on the same theme whereby the

writer quotes what his premium was last year and what it's

going to be this year.

I know well that the Minister received the brief. Setting

aside for the moment the comparison of rates in British

Columbia this year with last year, on page 2 of the brief they

pick out what they call "heavy classification of motorcycles."

They compare, let us say, the person aged 16 who in British

Columbia would be paying for PL/AB coverage $208,

whereas in

Ontario the figure quoted is $169 and in Alberta $131.

On that basis also, I wonder if the Minister could perhaps

comment on the validity of these figures. In other words, if it

costs $208 in British Columbia under Autoplan, why should it be

$169 in Ontario? The same kind of difference exists in other

age groups.

I think it also would be important to have the Minister tell

us what figures and statistics he was using to come up with

this dramatic public announcement that the private companies

weren't charging enough. That's certainly a 180-degree turn

from the claims before the election day in August, 1972. It is

indeed causing a lot of concern to young motorcyclists.

Since the Minister of Health got in the act with a little

bang on his desk a minute ago, I think it's only fair just to

comment on the statement the Minister of Health made a little

time ago on the question of advising people not to use

motorcycles because of the heavy morbidity and mortality that

arises from their use.

We certainly know that motorcyclists sustain many accidents. When a

motorcycle and a car are in a collision it is not hard to understand

who comes off second best. But I think we should make it plain that in

a large percentage of cases that have been studied it is certainly the

majority of cases where the motorist is to blame. He has four walls of

metal around him and the motorcyclist is very vulnerable. Because

motorcyclists are involved in many accidents that take up hospital

beds, I wonder if it is fair to assume that for some reason or another

people should be unduly penalized because they use a motorcycle and

should pay very high insurance.

Of course, if we are going to adopt the no-fault philosophy

that certainly changes one's approach to a degree.

On the other hand, though, I think the Minister of Health

was thinking purely in terms of trying to help the motorcyclist

maintain his health. The statistics I've seen quoted certainly

indicate that quite often, in the majority of cases, it is not

the motorcyclist who is to blame for the accident, but he or

she is certainly the vulnerable party inasmuch as they get

thrown from the cycle and quite often are seriously

injured.

The Minister could give us some answers, perhaps. First of

all, what, if any, compromise has been reached? I know the

motorcycle industry and the motorcyclists met with the Minister

I think about a month ago. I would like to know if any

compromise decisions have been made to reduce the original

rates that were announced and which I am quoting from in the

brief.

Secondly, what statistics from private industry was he using

to make the statement that the private insurance companies were

not charging enough for the premiums?

The other related point in Autoplan, in relation to motor

vehicles, from another series of letters which I think we have

probably all had, is the question of the insurance on an older

vehicle where the person maintains the vehicle and perhaps buys

a vehicle only every 8 or 10 years.

This man writes a letter pointing out that he is paying a

great deal of insurance for a 1962 six-cylinder compact sedan

and he is only paying $10 less than the young man next door

with a 1972 V-8 Duster which is approximately seven times the

value of his car. I needn't go into all the details on this one

either but he asks the question: is the relationship which his

insurance bears to the value of his car not rather high

compared to the kind of cost of repairing a supercharged V-8

sports car? He also adds the fact that it is very clear that,

while the younger driver has had his premium rates reduced in

large measure, it has been at the expense of the age groups

over 25 who are either paying more for their insurance or

certainly have not had it reduced by the 20 per cent which the

Premier promised in his election platform of 1972.

Perhaps the Minister could comment on these two points: To

what degree is the rate on an older car high compared to the

rate charged for a powerful 1972 or 1973 model? To what extent

would he agree that the reduction of rates for the under-25

driver has

[ Page

3605 ]

been achieved at the expense of some of the people in the

age groups above 25?

This was a point I raised in this House a year or so ago

when we went down to Winnipeg and talked to people in the

Autopact plan and talked to citizens at random on the street.

The most frequent comment we encountered was that the younger

person was quite happy with the government automobile insurance

because they were paying less but, almost without exception,

the person in the middle or older age group made the comment

that they were not paying any less. It was clear they were

subsidizing or, at least, the rates had not been reduced for

them in order to make it possible for the younger driver to

have cheaper insurance.

The last point I would like to raise is the question of

cablevision. The Minister has recently been in conference with

other provincial Ministers and there was a release in the

newspaper yesterday. I wonder if the Minister can be more

specific than he was in his press release as to the specific

kind of progress which he feels was made in seeking federal

agreement to the transfer of authority to the provinces in

regard to cablevision.

This government is on record as being interested in the

little man and the individual. There are a lot of individuals

in apartments who find that once the apartment is converted to

a condominium they are immediately hit by the owner of the

apartment stating that there has to be individual increases in

the cost of providing cablevision to that building.

Again, there is no need to go into all the details but I

have one particular case documented here. I think the

Attorney-General might be interested and I can go into this in

private with him if he wishes. Finally, the owner of this

particular apartment just simply stated that service would be

discontinued by a certain date if they didn't pay another $2.50

per unit per month. I have been in touch with the CRTC and you

get the usual sort of runaround: this is, of course, under

discussion and they are going to hold public hearings, et

cetera, et cetera.

This is obviously a very contentious matter, this question

of cablevision and where the jurisdiction should lie. I wonder

if the Minister could tell the House what point we are at and

where do we sit with the present Liberal government? Presumably

you can't answer this if the government changes federally, as I

am sure it will, but where do we sit at the present time?

I just remember one other question since the

Attorney-General is here perhaps to help you out. Is it

possible for vehicles entering from outside of British Columbia

to drive on the highways without valid public liability

insurance?

If this is the case, what is the legal position of someone who is injured or

killed by a vehicle from outside British Columbia which does not, in fact, carry

any form of valid public liability insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Going backwards on your question: to the

best of my understanding it is possible for someone from

outside the country to drive without valid driver's insurance.

It depends on the law of the state in which the individual

resides, and we would have to check every car coming into the

province, have a customs bar, to be sure that no one from

outside the country was driving. We have reciprocal agreements

all across the country, and it is now uniform across the

country that you must have valid insurance to drive in any

Canadian province. I think there still are some states which

haven't got mandatory insurance provisions, so it is possible

for it to happen.

The CRTC hearings on the matter of the rates on these

condominiums, being held June 19 in the Empress Hotel, are the

direct result of the complaints and requests made from me to

the CRTC about this whole situation.

I did discuss earlier today, I think it was, the situation

with regard to the meetings we had on Monday and Tuesday, when

I pointed out that I really can't be more specific because it's

the country-wide discussion between provinces, and there are

still some final background to be prepared and final decisions

to be made. Normally you don't, until you present them to the

federal…because this was just the provinces, you see.

We're moving towards determining our position before our next

meeting with the federal Minister, whoever he may be. I

wouldn't disagree with what you said about any change that

might take place. So it is difficult for me to…. I'd really

be breaking confidence with other Ministers if I said we did

this and did that. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I will say this: they have

continually claimed complete federal jurisdiction as an

extension of the Aird Commission recommendation back in 1926.

They tried to say cablevision is the same as radio. They are

basing this on the Aird Commission decision arising out of the

Aird report back in 1926. All of the provinces are completely

dissatisfied with that reaction. All of the provinces.

How much have older drivers, younger persons…? Well,

the young driver stands on his own record according to his

points. Young drivers stand on their own records.

There may be an anomaly in that when you compare that older

car to the 1972 V8 Duster. There may be an anomaly there, and I

would appreciate it if you sent that particular information

because there are some anomalies that are in that VIC code — it

[ Page 3606 ]

partly due to the classification by the manufacturer.

The motorcyclists — our rates there were based primarily on Green

Book statistics, the raw data, supplied to us by the private insurance

companies. In the October issue of the Canadian Underwriter

which I haven't got with me, is where there was a clear indication that

the motorcycle rates were going to be increased by private industry.

They are looking at the whole Canadian picture and in that report they

point out that only in the previous two years have they started to

separate motorcycle records from the general records. So for the first

time came this realization that the cost of motorcycles to the

insurance business was a much larger factor than they thought it had

been in the past.

The comparison between Ontario and Alberta, I don't know

just how valid those claims are. I point out that in both

Alberta and Ontario they cannot drive their motorcycles because

of the different weather conditions in those two provinces — it's an eight months of winter thing.

There are parts of British Columbia which have the same kind

of weather, but as you know, 75 per cent of the population of

this province is on the lower mainland or the lower half of

Vancouver Island where they can drive a motorcycle for a much

longer period of time than they can…. This may be-a factor

in the difference. But what….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, okay. I know they get a rebate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why don't I do that here? Again, Mr.

Member, I wish you would listen to what I have said over the

months that this has been…. The private insurance companies

last year stopped giving rebates to drivers who didn't….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just listen to my answer. The private

insurance companies stopped giving rebates, but ICBC

reintroduced rebates. They can get rebates. Why do you ask me

why don't I do it here? We are doing it here. I think that

answers the question.

MR. WALLACE: My question is: why were the motorcycles not included in

the refund programme similar to the motor vehicles? This was another bitter

point of contention that I omitted to mention. Presumably many motorcyclists

own the same vehicle under the same circumstances, driving in the same area,

that they did last year. What was the government or the Minister's reason for

not including the motorcyclists in the refund programme?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, because in our opinion,

according to the data we were given, the rates have been way

too low for the cost experience. This is according to the

information given to us by the private insurance companies. It

was too far out of line.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect, if the rates

were too low, these were rates that were too low being paid to

a private company. They haven't been too low paid to the

government. If anybody was losing money last year it wasn't the

government. You weren't providing the motorcycle coverage. It

was the private companies. At least you would agree then that

the private companies were losing money on motorcycle

insurance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's according to their figures,

yes.

MR. WALLACE: Those figures you accepted in determining rates

for the future, and therefore the contention that all private

companies were ripping off the consumer, was inaccurate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not all the companies in every case, but

in this particular case. As I say, the insurance companies have

just realized themselves that there was an imbalance in the

cost factor contributed to motorcyclists.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just have three short questions for the

Minister. I would like the Minister to explain to me…. I've

asked this question before and still haven't had an answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, every time I get up you are out. Go

ahead, ask the question. I'll answer them. (Laughter)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have to go out, the same as you do. Of

course, Mr. Chairman, I've noticed that the Minister has had to

leave the House from time to time, but I remember one time that

I was kept in this House from 2:30 in the afternoon until 9:30

at night without even going out…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was your decision.

MR. PHILLIPS : …to eat, drink, or…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Be merry.

MR. PHILLIPS: …look after other necessary duties.

[ Page 3607 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was your decision.

MR. PHILLIPS: That was your dictatorial decision, of your

government, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Go ahead — what are your three

questions?

MR. PHILLIPS: My three questions: Will the Minister please

explain to me…justify why he is going back for three years

to impose a fine on people who, when they received points, at

that time did not know they were going to have to carry the

burden of those points 36 months later? The Minister was out

when I pointed out — and if he wants to dispute these figures,

let him dispute them — that contested traffic tickets in the

Province of British Columbia skyrocketed 80 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR, PHILLIPS: This is an

article in The Province

dated February 5, 1974. And I'll read it again for the sake of

the Minister, because I think he was out when I read it the

first time:

"The number of traffic violations charges being contested

shot up 80 per cent because of the linking of driver's licence

costs with the demerit points system, court officials say.

"Under the provincial government's Autoplan, drivers with five

or fewer demerit points pay a basic $10 fee for licences. Those with six or

more points will pay $10 plus a dollar equivalent to the square of the total

number of points, giving a total cost for the driver with six points, for example,

of $46, or one with seven points, $59."

As I pointed out, Mr. Minister, a person who has committed a

crime in the last 36 months and has paid his debt to society is

far better off then the person who willingly accepted demerit

points on his driver's licence not knowing that this

dictatorial socialist government was going to bring in this

fine. And that's exactly what it is; it's a reinstatement of a

fine. The absolute reinstatement of a fine for having a driving

offence.

MR. CHABOT: A double penalty.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you just reinstate the fine and let

the money go to the government? That's exactly what it is, Mr.

Chairman. It's a fine.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there is a complete double standard because

when it comes to the rebate — and I've asked you this before, Mr. Chairman,

and you haven't tried to justify it and you haven't tried to answer it — you're

only rebating certain people. But in the case of many of those people who are

paying excessively high premiums you did not take into consideration their previous

driving record or their previous accident record. I want to know why, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to quote from an

article in The

Province , dated the same date — Feb. 5 — where this double

standard comes in. It says: "One in Five Drivers Due Rebate — Autoplan Refund System Outlined."

"About one in five Autoplan motorists is paying too much for

his ICBC insurance but he may not get a refund unless he

insures before the March 1 deadline. This was the message from

ICBC general manager, Norman Bortnick, Monday as he announced

details of the government agency's promised refund

programme.

"Special refund application forms will be made available

early in March at Motor Vehicle Branch offices throughout

British Columbia, he said. These, accompanied by previous

insurance documents showing the automobile cost to be higher

must be sent to ICBC's Department R for refund.

"Strictly according to the rules as set out by Bortnick,

anyone failing to meet the March 1 deadline would be ineligible

for a refund even if he made no attempt to drive his car until

he obtained the required insurance. But an ICBC spokesman said

later that the issue is still being discussed with Autoplan

agents, implying that a firm decision is not yet made. It would

be pretty hard, for example, he said, to cut off someone who

was out of the country for the winter to tell him he can't get

a rebate even if he has proof that he is paying more.

"But in any case, the comparison used by a motorist to make

his case for a refund must involve the same owner, using the

same vehicle, the same way, in the same territory. Commercial

vehicles, taxis, leased and fleet vehicles, trailers,

motorcycles, farm trucks, and tractors, unlicensed vehicles and

camper bodies are excluded."

So you have a law for one group of citizens and another law

for another group of citizens. You are going retroactive on

points on driver's licences, bringing in a fine, but anyone

else other than an individual motorist you are excluding from a

refund. When you advertised your insurance plan, as I said this

afternoon, you said it would be cheaper and you didn't say just

for some people, Mr. Chairman. The Minister didn't say just for

certain classes of people. He said for everybody. Why are not

all people who are paying more this year than they did last

year, regardless of their accident ratio, entitled to a refund?

Why are they not entitled to a refund, Mr. Chairman? Those are

two questions, and they are very

[ Page 3608 ]

important questions. They are interrelated because you are

going back in one case putting a surcharge and a tax on those

who may in some cases have taken points on their driver's

licences, not knowing that this dictatorial socialist

government was going to impose this fine; in the other case you

are giving refunds to certain people and no refunds to other

people, even though their accident ratio may have been nil. Why

do we have this double standard?

Mr. Chairman, under the Canadian Bill of Rights it

states:

"It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there

have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of

race, national origin, colour, religion, or sex, the following human rights

and fundamental freedoms, namely:

…the right of the individual to equality before the law and,

the protection of the law."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, there's the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) coming in, and he's sort of indiscriminate. Do you

want me to quote the Bill of Rights to you, and Bill 42?

No, Mr. Chairman, this government has complete disregard for

the Bill of Rights and established rights of individuals. Many,

many citizens of British Columbia fought and died for the right

of equality. This country was founded on the right of equality,

and this is the law, Mr. Chairman, because it's brought in by

the people's Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and they

bring it in indiscriminately and they say: "This is the

law."

So in essence it is the law, and certainly the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia should come under the Bill of

Rights of Canada. If not, why not, Mr. Chairman? I ask you.

There are inequalities. I'd like the Minister to explain why.

How does he justify this inequality in these two cases — going

back in one case, not going back in the other case?

My third question, Mr. Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: My third short question….

HON. MR. LEA: Your third short final question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll ask all the questions I want, Mr.

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). I'll ask all the questions

I want.

At the present time we still have a few rights. Democracy is still alive in

British Columbia. I realize it's going to die in a few days. I realize when

you bring in that report and you curtail debate in this Legislature that democracy

is going to die. The final thrust by that socialist government to kill democracy

in British Columbia is coming. I know it's hanging over our heads. But while

in this Legislature we have the freedom of debate, Mr. Chairman, still in British

Columbia, let's enjoy those hours of freedom because they're passing swiftly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member please ask his

third question?

MR. PHILLIPS: You want me to ask the third question?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you bring those Members to order over

there, Mr. Chairman? I can't talk with all that yappety yappety

yapping from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams). How can I concentrate?

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to advise me if the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is going to be used

in the Premier's plan to bring assistance to the motorists of

British Columbia to help put their automobiles on the road at a

lesser price.

Now maybe the Minster will answer those three questions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The first question is: could I explain

why I went back three years? I've explained that three times

already. The insurance companies did it. They searched the

records and assessed an individual's insurance on the basis of

his record. Remember that it was done under the private

insurance companies. There was a division of income between

those who had bad driving records and those who had good

driving records, and had we not done that then those with the

good driving records would have to pay more. It was based on

the data provided to us by the insurance companies which

included good drivers and bad drivers. Now that explains that

for the fourth time.

When it comes to rebates, why only certain people? I think

if you check the record, to the best of my recollection, any

time I spoke about rebates I talked about private passenger

automobiles only.

Is ICBC going to help reduce the cost of operating an

automobile? The prime function of ICBC is to help reduce the

cost of operating an automobile. That's why we went into the

business, and we'll continue to work at it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes or no, Mr. Chairman — is it involved in

the plan that the Premier's going to bring in, and is it going

to be announced tomorrow night

[ Page 3609 ]

after you receive your estimates? That's what I want to know

because we have a right to know before you receive your

estimates. Now, give me a yes or a no.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've given you my answer. I don't speak

for the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, this Minister knows

whether his insurance corporation is involved in this plan that

the Premier is going to bring down and he's just waiting and

the reason it hasn't been brought down before is because he's

waiting to get these Minister's estimates through so that we

won't have the opportunity to debate it on the floor of this

Legislature, Mr. Chairman. That's the reason. And I want an

answer. Yes or no. Because you know, Mr. Minister. You could

tell us — yes or no. I'm not asking you to divulge the

plan.

Does the Premier run the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia? I'm sure if the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia is involved he would have come to you and you would

have worked out the plan. I want to know — yes or no. Yes or

no, Mr. Chairman. I want the Minister to answer me yes or no.

Is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia involved?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've answered!

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't answered! You've half

answered!

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Minister can be asked a

question. There is nothing that says he must answer yes or

no.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have the right to ask a question. I'm going

to ask it again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've already answered the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't answered my question. I want a yes

or no. No sir, it's the same old game that you've been playing

with this opposition since this Legislature started, since you

became government!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You want a yes or no?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes or no! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Facetious, arrogant, dictatorial,

one-handed!

AN HON. MEMBER: Uppity! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Mr. Chairman, there's the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) making her hands go. I'll

tell you it sounds better than her mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: However, Mr. Chairman, if doing her job, she'd

be getting after that Minister of Transportation and

Communication for misleading the people of this province on

lower insurance rates. More broken promises, but no….

HON. MR. LEA: Are you Pisces?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he's Leo or Taurus.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a double-standard government. If the

insurance companies, Mr. Chairman, were going back three years

checking the drivers' records, why are contested traffic

tickets up 80 per cent? You know why, Mr. Chairman. The

Minister knows why and he can't justify it.

Why is not everybody in British Columbia who is paying more

insurance this year justified to a rebate as well as the

individual car owner? Why isn't everybody justified? The

Minister said he didn't mention it. I'm asking him why. Why is

a fleet owner not justified? Why is a family owner with more

than one car…why is the person who has a half-ton as a

family car not entitled to a rebate? Why, Mr. Chairman? Would

you care to answer that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have already answered that question

very, very clearly. I have explained to this House how the

fleets operate under an altogether separate operation from the

passenger vehicle. I have explained all that to you not once,

but four or five times. You already knew it. You are just

simply asking questions and repeating the same old questions

for some fell purpose that only you can account for.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that is a personal affront, Mr.,

Chairman. I am asking the question because I want the answer,

and the Minister has not given the answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I did.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have not! You haven't justified why some

people in this province should pay more insurance under your

plan than they paid under a private plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have not justified that.

[ Page 3610 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't given me any reason why you have,

not one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you sit?

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why do I have to sit down? The Chairman made

me sit down; it must have been on a point of order or

something, and I would like to know why. Explain your….

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Members will be seated, I have a

few comments to make on calling for that point of order. Will

the Hon. Members of this House please address the Chair?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, 12 months ago legislation

was introduced into this House to set up the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. That legislation was passed by

this Legislative Assembly.

I made perfectly clear at that time how the insurance

corporation was going to operate, how the automobile insurance

part of that was going to operate. It received the endorsation

of this House. It was supported by the people despite the

statements that were made by the opposition — the misleading

statements, the untrue statements, the completely erroneous

statements, the fervent hopes and prayers that it would never

get off the ground. They went on and on and on.

For the first month of this session, Mr. Chairman, I had to

stand in this place day after day after day under a barrage of

questions, hopes, prayers, and pronouncements from across the

way — "You will never make it work; it will be chaos; you'll

never get your service; you won't have your claim centres

ready; you can't serve the people." It was a most amazing

experience, Mr. Chairman.

Thursday was the last day of February, and the gloom and doom boys had been

hounding me day after day after day for a month that we would never get it going

by the 29th — Thursday was the 28th. The press of this province sent the photographers

out to the Motor Vehicle Branches, where year after year there had been line-ups

at these Motor Vehicle Branches. They predicted doom, gloom, chaos. "You can't

do it." The press went out to get the photographs of this chaotic situation,

but all they could get were pictures of empty wickets because we put the thing

on the road. We put it on the road despite the attempts of that opposition to

undermine and destroy it, despite the lack of cooperation from the private

insurance companies — despite their attempts to undermine it, delay it, warp

it and destroy it — despite the $100,000 campaign they embarked on to try and

upset the people of the Province of British Columbia. We got that thing on the

road. We got it on the road.

Anyone who knows a single thing about the organization of a

business from one side of this country to another will say this

is the greatest business organizational effort that has ever

been done in Canada. There's the man who did it.

MR. GARDOM: Where are the facts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The facts are there. You ask any man who

knows anything about the organization of a business.

Mr. Chairman, I've said it before and I will say it again: Being in opposition

is fine; criticizing the government is fine. But if you are going to be opposition

and do your role as opposition effectively and in a worthwhile manner, you must

have some loyalty to this province. To this day I am waiting for any exhibition

of loyalty to this province on the part of that opposition.

We are building an organization that is changing the

economic base and strengthening the financial fabric of British

Columbia, and every Member in this House should support that

because it is in your interest. It is in the interest of every

citizen of this province to strengthen the economic base and

strengthen the financial fabric of British Columbia. That is

what this corporation will do. You've opposed it. You've

belittled it. You've tried to destroy it. You're still trying

to destroy it. But we will carry on because the people of this

province realize….

As I said earlier, every opposition party has said that if

they get elected in the next election they will destroy the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The private

insurance companies made it public. The spokesmen for the

private insurance companies made it public that every

opposition party had assured them that if any one of them were

elected they would go back to private enterprise competition

and destroy the ICBC. That's what you're stuck with. Where is

your loyalty to British Columbia?

Let me tell you, this is the greatest thing that has

happened in the Province of British Columbia for many, many

years. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that despite the doom

and gloom boys, despite the fact that they have taken up

praying at night before they go to bed that it won't succeed,

this corporation will grow, prosper and become one of the most

outstanding economic efforts that will bring great benefits to

every citizen of the Province of British Columbia. We will tell

them what you tried to do to us.

[ Page 3611 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before you adjourn I would like to say that tomorrow I

am going to ask the Deputy Speaker to take my place in the morning. I'm afraid

I shan't be here. I will be thinking of you. My prayers will earnestly follow

all of you. I'll be back on Monday.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada