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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 122).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 3509

Privilege

Absence of Ministers during question period. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3509

Mr. Speaker — 3509

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3509

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Transport and

Communications estimates On vote 235.

Mr. Gardom — 3509

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3518

Mr. Gardom — 3522

Mr. Fraser — 3522

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3524

Mr. Wallace — 3526

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3526

Mr. Wallace — 3526

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3529

Mr. Wallace — 3530

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3531

Mr. Phillips — 3531

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3536

Mr. Phillips — 3537

Mr. McGeer — 3537

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3538

Mr. Curtis — 3539

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3541

Mr. Curtis — 3542

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3542

Mr. Bennett — 3543

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3543

Mr. Morrison — 3543

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3544

Mr. Morrison — 3544

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Court

Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2).

Bill 122 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, with

your permission, I realize we have moved past the appropriate

point for introductions, but I would like to draw the attention

of the House to the return to the press gallery of

representatives of the two Victoria daily newspapers, after an

absence of some six months. It's good to see them back and good

to know that we're going to have daily newspaper coverage in

greater Victoria.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's move on to the next subject. No oral

questions?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, in view of the fact that May , 18th edition, says

on page 132:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which

obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the

performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any

Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty,

or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce

such results may be treated as a contempt…."

And in view of the absence of the cabinet at a time when the

Legislature is meeting to discuss questions, we feel there is

contempt of the House with respect to the meeting of the

cabinet at exactly the same time that question period takes

place in this House, and we have no intention of asking

questions of the remaining Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member care to put a motion on

that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's contempt. What motion do you want

for contempt?

MR. SPEAKER: On a question of privilege…. I presume the

Hon. Member is raising it as a question of privilege. Is the

Hon. Member serious?

Interjections.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to work it out in percentages — our membership against the

Liberals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I don't think that any Member has the

right to consider it is a question of privilege whether a

Member is in his seat or not. Every Member is required by

standing orders to attend the service of the House without

reasonable excuse. In later years no question has arisen where

the absence of a Member has been noted by the House, whether

with or without permission. The Hon. Member has not proceeded

to make any motions. Therefore we must proceed to the next

order of business.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to have it on the record that there are nine cabinet

Ministers present who are quite willing and quite prepared to

answer any questions. I'd like that to go on the record.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Public bills and

orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would now call Committee of

Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee of Supply is in order in view of the

fact that it has priority of motion.

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. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, it's pleasing,

Mr. Chairman, to see the Minister in good humour this

afternoon. As he is not yet surrounded by his expertise,

perhaps we should get the message out that they should be in

the House now.

The little Dutch boy, Mr. Chairman, only had one hole in the

dike to contend with, but the dike that

[ Page 3510 ]

apparently this Minister has surrounded himself with is

starting to look like a colander in the eyes of the public. I

suppose that apart from just one finger being needed, every

finger of all of his experts is going to be required to bottle

up the mess that he is creating. Surely their battle cry of the

day must be "Man the pumps! "

I would tend to think that the most conspicuous individual

who is absent, Mr. Chairman, is Admiral Sterling of B.C. House,

the agent-general. We all know that his bags are packed and

he's just waiting for the word. The only question now, Mr.

Chairman, is — when? Is it going to be before the end of the

year, before the election, before the Hon. Robert Strachan

takes over his own RRSP in London? One thing I suppose is

rather encouraging. If nothing else, the transition will

certainly be a thrifty one, because from Sterling to Strachan

they probably won't even have to change the initials on the

towels.

I'd like to prophesize one thing, Mr. Chairman — that this

Minister will not be a Minister of the Crown at the next

election; he will not be a candidate and he will be living the

good life in London town.

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

his remarks to the vote before us please?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'm just really addressing myself to the

fact, Mr. Chairman, that the people of B.C. can anticipate one

thing very, very clearly — that the Hon. Minister who is

present today will no longer be a Minister of the Crown come

the next election.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm getting a little bit of assistance from my

right to the effect that the heavies have now arrived. Well, I

really wouldn't call these gentlemen heavies. I think they are

people who provide a great deal of needful assistance to this

Minister. I'm sure you'll agree with me, Mr. Member, that he's

a Minister who needs all of the assistance he can get.

Now, I've got a number of questions to the Hon. Minister,

but first of all I would like to have his attitudes to freedom

of choice because when he was addressing this assembly not too

many days ago, he made it very, very clear to the general

public and to all of the elected representatives that anyone in

the province had a right to run a newspaper. But anyone in this

province, of course, does not have a right to run an insurance

company, and similarly we're going to find out pretty soon that

anyone in this province is not going to have the right to run a

telephone company, and people are not going to have the right

to run a mine in the province of B.C. unless it happens to be

under the square of this government.

B.C. is, or perhaps better, was, a democracy. And it

certainly used to be an accepted democratic principle that

freedom of choice is an acceptable freedom in a democracy, but

not so in the field of car insurance. I want to ask the

Minister why it is not so in the area of car insurance.

I'm going to read to the Hon. Minister some excerpts from

some letters from concerned British Columbia people, people

who, without a question of a doubt, do not agree with this

compulsorily imposed service. I would very much like to have

the response of the Minister to these sentiments that are

expressed by B.C. people, because the Hon. Minister has got to

remember that through this force-feeding action that has been

taken by the government in this area and in many other areas,

he is only responding to barely 38 per cent of the people, and

is foisting the will of the minority onto the majority. These

are some of these excerpts from letters:

"I'm thoroughly opposed to this B.C. government monopoly."

"The taking over of the motor vehicle insurance business was a

completely unjustifiable piece of piracy." "Private insurance

should be allowed to compete." "Any misgivings…."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: No, they're not from the insurance industry, Mr.

Minister. As far as I know, they are just a number of

letters.

"Any misgivings I may have had are being reinforced daily.

Autoplan issues no policy, coverage and limitations are largely

unknown. By tying it to the licence year, there will be annual

chaos."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: She doesn't drive a car, Mr. Minister.

"I object to prepaying money to an agency of the

government."

Here's another one:

"ICBC will dictate repair costs, leaving overage to the

owner, without recourse to the government insurer."

I would like to have the Minister's comments on all of these

points.

"It conveniently ignores taxes private insurers paid when

explaining its degree of success or failure."

Now dealing with that, we have one very interesting

advertisement that the Hon. Members have seen. This one happens

to be out of The Victorian Express , March 30 of this

year. It says: "The Buck Stays Here." Well, I don't know if it

stays here, it seems to be rotating from socialist to

socialist. But it

[ Page 3511 ]

talks about money being paid into Autoplan…remains your

money and so forth and so on — "Autoplan is your insurance

programme, the benefits remain right here in British

Columbia."

But this advertisement, Mr. Chairman, conveniently fails to

explain to the general public what revenue sources to the

government disappeared with this plan. How much corporate

income tax disappeared? How much sales tax disappeared? How

much business tax disappeared? I believe the assessment for

business tax in the City of Vancouver alone — and I would like

to correct this figure, I'm just speaking from memory now — but

I believe it would be estimated that the ICBC would be paying a

business tax of $30,000 and it's not paying its business tax in

any other areas of the province.

How much premium tax is no longer collected by the B.C.

government as a result of this compulsory plan? Is this $10

million, is it $20 million, is it $30 million? I would assume

it's somewhere in the vicinity of $20 million up which the

provincial coffers have been robbed of by virtue of this

compulsory plan.

There's no question of a doubt that this advertising could

be explained in two words: it's misleading advertising — nothing but misleading advertising. If this was a type of

advertisement that went out in the private sector, surely to

goodness they could face legal action as a result of it.

It's very, very convenient for them to ignore the benefits

that the private sector paid, and they always do that. We never

hear any of those figures given to British Columbians from any

of the statements of the Ministers. Last night we had a long

discussion from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) about

profits and revenues and so forth and so on. Not once did he

indicate to this Legislature how much corporate income taxes

were received from the mining industry. Not once. They're only

painting one side of the picture to their advantage, Mr.

Chairman.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

A new Chairman in the chair. Nice to see you, Mr.

Chairman.

Now carrying on with some of these complaints from some of

these people: "Refund policy is a farce. No interest, just a

pile of red tape."

The Hon. Minister was asked in this House — one of the many,

many questions that he failed to respond to — were they or were

they not going to provide interest for these refunds? It is not

forthcoming, so we have to accept that as a negative

response.

Another statement:

"Socialistic tampering will leave permanent economic scars

all over this province." "Their concern is with political dogma, not with the

individual." "Mr. Barrett talks about identical premiums for identical coverage.

Who can ever tell that, let alone in later years?"

They talk about the driver's certificate. This is what

people who are complaining about this plan say: "The driver's

certificate is a thinly disguised way of assessing drivers an

extra tax, a minimum of $10 per year."

I'm going to talk a little later about that and the amount

of estimated revenues dealing with it.

Another statement:

"I'm not in favour of monopoly. If this government continues

to remain in power, the economy of this province will be

damaged beyond repair.

"Claim centres are being built all over the place. Why the

extra expense? They weren't needed under the private enterprise

insurance, why now?" "Are there anymore $52,000 hiring errors

in store?"

I don't know whether that's the correct figure, but I

suppose that's referring to Mr. Adams. The Hon. Minister in his

frankness and his openness has absolutely refused to indicate

to this House any particulars of the Adams case. Why was he

dismissed? Why was he given a salary? Why was he given his full

salary? Is he prepared to file the contract documents in this

House? He has never been prepared to do that. He takes the

question as notice, Mr. Chairman. Is he prepared to file the

settlement documents in this House? No, he's not prepared to do

that either. He's sweeping the Adams case right under the rug

at terrific public expense. Is there hanky-panky going on? The

Minister should inform us of that, we've got to know.

Another statement: "Competition and freedom to choose are the best safeguards

for a consumer, not this vast colossus."

These are the public speaking:

"Without private insurance, ICBC will be free to charge any

amount it chooses."

How true, how very true.

"If driver insurance is a must, why not include it free with

those who have car insurance?" "This two-step insurance is

nothing but a tax deceit." Another statement — and I'd like the

Minister's comments on all of these because these are the

public speaking to us:

"Autoplan wastes our money on excessive advertising on TV,

radio and newspapers. It hires high-priced help; it fires them;

it buys out their contracts. We're thoroughly fed up with that

bunch in Victoria."

Here's a pretty straight statement: "Let's have an

election." If this government went to the public today, you'd

be thrown out. When you go to the public your first time out,

you're going to be thrown out, and thank the good Lord for

that.

[ Page 3512 ]

This is a statement that really could have come from the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) because this is the

philosophy that he espouses but does not practise: "Government

should not get involved in business. All they give us is

delaying tactics and chivvying double talk."

Here's a good one: "ICBC should be subject to an

investigation under the Combines Investigation Act."

This is what a constituent thinks.

Here's another: "I'd never spend my own money the stupid way

they're using my tax dollars" — again referring to

salaries, delays, bought-off contracts, capital cost items and

so on.

Here's a good one: "There should be a law against the

confiscation of any industry, especially without compensation."

That's the type of practice carried on in Cuba. Is the Hon.

Minister going to recommend the same type of practice for B.C.

Telephone — or his colleague, the Minister of Mines, for the

mining industry? Are you going the Waffle manifesto the whole

way? You have so far, make no mistake of that.

"Government for the people by the people has achieved a new

dimension for public extortion," says another writer.

"The controlled bureaucracy and regulations are horrible to

contemplate."

"NDP…Not Me" — this is an interesting one. It's in the

form of a bumper sticker now — "NDP…Not Me." It's "ND" but

it's not a "P." It's a hammer and sickle that's not me, and

this seems to be….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Yes. Well, how do you think that is sick when

you confiscate industries without compensation? What do you

call that? What do you call that?

Here's one from another one! "I've had to work all my life…."

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: "I've had to work all my life for what I have. I

don't want to see it all squandered in taxes to pay for these

socialists."

Here's another letter. "Their attitude is dictatorial. If

they truly wish to provide competitive rates, they'd have gone

into the business on a competitive basis."

Mr. Chairman, this government didn't even have the gumption to inform the general

public before the next election that this was going to be a complete takeover

of the car insurance industry without a right to choose. They never told the

general public, Mr. Chairman, and this Minister didn't tell the general public;

and it's his portfolio. He deceived the general public into thinking that there

would be still freedom of choice, and there was not. In none of the election

material offered by the NDP did they ever indicate that there would not be any

freedom of choice.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, the Hon. Member mentions the Premier stated

that the private industry would be permitted to compete.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Premier's had trouble with his

statements and the veracity of them before, Mr. Chairman. But

that's just another illustration of no veracity on the part of

the Premier.

Here's another statement: "The previous system was better

and more democratic. There was a choice of insurer, a choice of

company and a choice of place for repairs." What is wrong with

having that in a democratic society, Mr. Minister?

Here's a person who states it pretty bluntly: "I look

forward to seeing them out of office." Here's another: "With

the government taking over so much, soon we will have to set up

another government to police the activities of the present

government." Oh, dear! "Where is their humility?"

Here's a 35th statement: "Sixty per cent voted against them.

It's just steamroller power ruled by minority." Here's

another: "We'll never know the true cost. They're just going

to bury all the overhead." You sure are going to bury all the

overheads; and I'm going to refer to some of these figures

specifically before I sit down this afternoon.

"The word 'democratic' has no place in their label."

"I want my freedoms maintained, not eroded."

These are 39

excerpts from letters, Mr. Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): All from the Liberal

Party.

MR. GARDOM: No they're not. I would think that some of these

letters, Mr. Minister, are from socialists. They've been

deceived by the party in control in the Province of B.C.

These letters, these 39 statements, have expressed, whether

you like it or not and we know we've got differences in

philosophy but they expressed the will of the majority and the

opinion of the majority of the people in the Province of B.C.

I'd like to know what the Minister's response to that is.

There have been a few letters to me, and I'd say rather a

few, that approve of the plan. But, really, those who do

approve, do so on one basis only. They feel that it is cheaper.

It is cheaper to some people at the present time. It's more

expensive to others at the present time. But the overall net

social governmental cost is going to be higher to the whole bag

and to everyone within this chamber because of the hidden

[ Page

3513 ]

subsidies and the in-built featherbedding and the

bureaucracy and the loss of taxes — the loss of revenues, which

I mentioned a little bit earlier, that were formerly paid; the

loss of income tax; the loss of the corporation tax; the loss

of the land taxes that they paid and the business tax and the

excise tax and the premium taxes. Where are those figures?

I would tend to think, with the might and the power that

this government has and their continuing desire to drag up a

batch of figures that will only support their own premise, they

might at least have the decency to show the other side of the

ledger.

I don't think in any way at all, Mr. Chairman, that we will

ever have cheaper car insurance, but more expensive. We find

$40 million being allocated for structures in two years alone.

The private insurers didn't go ahead and saddle the policy

holders with that. I suppose you're going to have to put your

premiums up to pay for those things.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: There were not any private claims centres and

you know it very well. You know it very well.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: And the private sector didn't go ahead and rent

the most expensive premises west of Toronto, Mr. Minister. Put

that in your pipe and smoke it.

But ever since you've falsely forced this plan down the

throats of B.C. residents — and I again reiterate, falsely, Mr.

Minister, because you never went to the electorate on the basis

of what this plan turned out to be…. You never went to them

and said it was going to be the only game in town.

And if you don't like the rates and you don't like…. You

deceived the people, my friend. You deceived the people and

you're not going to have an opportunity to deceive the people

ever again. You're a one-timer if I've ever seen one, make no

mistake of that.

If people don't like the rates and don't like the service

and they don't like the coverage, there's nowhere else to go.

They can complain; sure they can complain, but who can they

complain to? Deaf ears. If the ICBC or the government don't

like what a B.C. citizen may say, if it doesn't like the

excerpts that I've read from these 39 letters, you can turn a

deaf ear to all of that.

You know, by analogy, Mr. Chairman, you can remember that

story from Damon Runyan talking about the only game in town. It

was Big Louie's game. Big Louie played it the way he wanted to

play to it, just the way this Minister's playing it.

You will all remember…if we could call it a confrontation — I think that's

an inappropriate word; it's too strong — at the final part and Shorty, or whatever

his name is, rolled a six. Then it was Big Louie's turn to roll. So he rolled

the dice but he rolled them under his own hat.

Then Shorty asked him: "What is it, Big Louie?" Big Louie

peeped under his hat and he said: "It's an eight. I win." Poor

old Shorty said: "Oh, Big Louie, did you do it the hard way?"

"Did you do it the hard way?"

That's just the kind of compassion that we're able to expect

from the ICBC or from this government. It's their way and only

their way, be it soft, brittle, hard or otherwise, but they're

the only game in town. Make no mistake of that.

As I said, when this government first raised insurance — and

it was certainly one of the main planks, if not the main plank

in its platform — it didn't refer to the fact that it was going

to be the only game in town, I also said before, Mr. Chairman — I'm going to reiterate this to the Minister today — that

government car insurance is going to be perhaps the main plank

in the platform of the socialists for the next election.

When I mentioned this before, the Minister said that I was

cynical. Well, that's not true. But there's no question of a

doubt that I did hit a nerve. What the Minister is going to do

is this: he's going to use car insurance just as the former

Premier used the homeowner grant. It's going to be a

vote-getting gimmick. By dropping the cost of car insurance — not because there are going to be any savings at all — it's

going to be meddled with. It's going to be an election gimmick

and he's going to subsidize it by plugging into it the

programmes from other areas of government, just a purely and

simply subsidized programme. And one way is going to be by the

electric light bulb.

We all remember in that omnibus bill that came in last year

that B.C. Hydro, which for all practical purposes was primarily

a self-insurer, had to come under ICBC. So the Hon. Minister

goes to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and says, as

he's going to say: — ICBC is in trouble. We're in trouble. We're

not only not going to be able to give a reduction, I very much

doubt that we're going to make our way."

The Premier says: "No problem, Bob. No problem, Bob. How

much is the premium on a dam? How much do you need?"

The premiums will go up for the dam. That will be reflected

into the electric light bulb, and we'll have the people who use

electricity in the province, many of whom are motorists,

subsidizing car insurance.

I definitely say — and I would prophesy this — that the

government is without any question going to go to the general

public and offer them cheaper car insurance, in their

definition of cheaper, come the next election — but by virtue

of this kind of a

[ Page 3514 ]

practice.

Now a few questions about the business practices. When I

said this before, the Minister got all upset and red around the

collar and everything else, and said that I was being cynical.

But it's true, and he knows he's going to do it. He knows he's

going to do it, but I don't think he's going to be the Minister

to do it. I don't quite know who the next Minister in charge of

this is going to be but I'm afraid this is going to be your….

AN HON. MEMBER: Highways.

MR. GARDOM: Highways?

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants it.

MR. GARDOM: Highways wants it? I'd rather have this Minister

than the Highways…. But that's up to you, sir.

In your report, Mr. Minister, the little white booklet which

is…. If you'll excuse me a moment, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking

for his annual report.

In the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, First

Annual Report of February 28, 1974, revenues are estimated by

the Minister for the fiscal period March of 1974 to March of

1975. We find on page 3 that those revenues were estimated at

$179 million. On top of that we have to add on for new tax,

which it is. It was not certainly prevalent before under the

private sector. It is $28 million; that is their estimate for

the drivers' certificates. Those two figures total $207

million.

We don't find in here, oddly enough, any estimates of

interest accrual; at least I haven't been able to find it. I'm

going to be generous and I'm going to say that the interest

income from prepaid premiums — and insurance is a prepaid trust…. I don't think it should be, and I'd like to say a word

about that too in just a second. But I would estimate that the

interest income, on the generous side, would be $20 million.

I'd like to know why it was not mentioned. Why was the interest

income not mentioned? That would give a total estimated revenue

of $227 million.

Just a word about that. Mr. Minister, if you wish to give

the motoring public a break, don't insist upon prepaid

insurance. Or — and I'd like your views on this — if you do

insist upon it, as you are doing and as I know and everyone

else knows you're going to continue to do, why not go ahead and

give those people who prepay a deduction equal to bank interest

on the amount of their premium for one year?

Give an incentive for prepaying. Because if they kept that

money in their pocket, they would be entitled to that interest

themselves as opposed to the Government of the Province of

British Columbia.

So exclusive of the general insurance underwriting of ICBC — and that is always

going to be an exceptionally questionable figure by virtue of the fact that

the flexibility of government will come into play, and it will determine how

much it wishes to put into the pot for whatever particular reason — but exclusive

of the general insurance underwriting we find in the Minister's report a revenue

up to March 1, 1974, which I think was a 10 1/2-month period, of $2.1 million.

Now assuming, which I think is an incorrect or a false

assumption, that the government policy does not yard premiums

from Hydro and other government emanations into ICBC, I suppose

it would be a fair example of growth to say that that $2.1

million over the next fiscal period could increase, say,

two-fold to $6 million.

Exclusive of projected revenues from emanations of

government, I am predicting gross estimated revenues for the

period of March 1, 1974, to March 1, 1975, of $233 million.

These are the figures I have received, or compiled I should

say, from the Minister's annual report here of the ICBC.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Now the premium income is indicated on page 3 for this year — sorry, as of March 1, 1974. It says: "One million Autoplan

policies were in force. for a total of $133 million." So if you

deduct that $133 million from the $233 million, which I'm using

as an estimate, we find revenues conservatively increasing by $100 million.

What I want to ask the Minister is this: out of that, is a

loss anticipated? If so, how much? Is he going to tell the

motorist that he's been overtaxed? He is certainly paying more

when you take everything into account. Are you going to tell

the motorist that he's being overtaxed? And are you going to

make a reduction available for him right off the bat? Or are

you just going to wait and make that an election gimmick? Or

are you going to continue to sock it to the motorist, increase

your bureaucracy as you have been doing, and continue to make

the motorist pay more for less?

Or are you going to go into the glue like Manitoba? There is

a very interesting

article by Nick Hills which is in the very

recent issue of The Province newspaper. "Ten Million

Dollar Loss Predicted in Manitoba." Some of these statements

are interesting.

"The Manitoba Auto Insurance Plan is now in deep financial

trouble," it says. "Lost more than $10 million in its

last fiscal year, despite a 9.5 per cent increase in basic

coverage rates for the current 12 month period…. It appears

as though the plan is losing another pile of money and that

rates will have to be raised again in 1975."

Is that what we're

to face here, Mr. Minister?

"The Schreyer government has not been above

[ Page 3515 ]

playing sly politics with car insurance."

Just the same thing that's going to happen in the Province of B.C.

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

was an editorial comment.

MR. GARDOM: He says that that was an editorial comment.

Listen to this: "Schreyer has not been above playing sly

politics with car insurance." Is this or is this not sly

politics? It reduced premiums some time before the 1973

election and raised them after it was returned to power. Well,

if that's not sly politics, Mr. Minister, what is? And you're

going to practise just those kind of sly politics.

"There is good reason," the

article says, "to believe

that the NDP government knew before the election last June that

Autopak was in deep trouble and was heading for the kind of

deficit that would result in premium increases. Premier

Schreyer said he did not know the extent of the problem at

all."

Well, we've certainly had a lot of feigned ignorance in this

House too, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister.

"However, the Autopak officials have now made this denial of

Premier Schreyer seem shady."

"Like the new B.C. Insurance scheme Autopak reduced the

premiums for young drivers when it took over from private

industry. As the plan's general manager, J.O. Dutton" — an

individual I'm sure well known to all of you over there — "put

it, it was logical in some ways that you should not be charged

extra because you are in a certain age group. But as a group,

the accident rate is there. We are now saying" — this is

Manitoba — "his own driving experience will determine what his

rate will be."

And I suppose that's certainly going to be the policy here.

He carries on:

"'I'm going to catch hell for this,' he continued, 'but I

have a theory also that there's been an easing of enforcement

of traffic convictions and laws. The police are involved today

in things that have higher priority.'"

And you are certainly following that practice in the Province of B.C.

"Dutton should know what he's talking about because he ran

the Saskatchewan government's car insurance scheme for five

years before coming to Manitoba."

That's a pretty good forecast, Mr. Chairman, of what's going

to happen to B.C.

So again let's take a look at some of the Minister's figures. He says on page

7 of his report that there were 24,000 claims in one month. By multiplying that

by 12 we could estimate 288,000 claims in a year. It's a sample to go by. But

that would be more than that, because we're running one million cars, according

to his figure of 24,000 claims.

But in his report he forecasted that the number of vehicles

in the province is going to increase to 1.4 million, which is

40 per cent up. So if you take 40 per cent up again of the

estimated claims — and again you're using relatives to

relatives; the figure is a genuine figure according to these

statistics — we could find the increase in claims from 288,000

projected to 403,000. That could be anticipated.

Now let's take a look at the dollars. Then we really do get

into a sad picture. The losses, according to the Minister, at

page 7 for this one month are $11.3 million in a month. Those

are the losses paid out, not the losses of the ICBC — the

claims paid out. Multiplying that by 12 we can estimate annual

losses of $135 million.

But by virtue of your policies increasing 40 per cent, as

you said in there, from 1 million to 1.4 million, go ahead and

put in a 40 per cent increase on that claim or loss figure of

$135 million and it increases it by $54 million. You get $190

million in round figures of anticipated losses for the period

March, 1974, to March, 1975.

Now if you go back to the revenue figure that I utilize — and I again say it is on the generous side, save and except the

pumping in from government facilities of lifeblood, which is

going to come — if you utilize that revenue figure of $227

million, and you take off $190 million losses or claims, you're

only left with $37 million, which has got to pay for capital

expenditures, administration and the biggest question of all,

plough back, which has now disappeared as far as I can see.

Because of the $37 million that is left after deducting the

claims of $198 million from revenues of $227 million, you've

already labelled, Mr. Minister, $20 million for capital

expenditures. So that leaves you $17 million for administrative

expenses and plough back.

Again referring to this

article here, you have the precise

figure here; Manitoba was working on 12.4 per cent for

administrative expenses. Okay, well, if you go ahead and use

their figure of 12 per cent on the $227 million, you'll find

that administrative expenses of $27 million would put you $10 million in the red right off the bat.

I don't know what your administrative expenses are estimated

to be. You haven't given any indication of that in your annual

report. But you've got $17 million left on these figures to

utilize your administrative expenses and hopefully some plough

back to give the motorist a break; and it's just too thin. It's

absolutely too thin.

What is your administration? I should say, you've shown

$11.5 million for 10 1/2 months.

Okay, then you're running roughly $13 million, on

[ Page 3516 ]

the basis of experience, but that again is incorrect for

administrative expenses because your volume has increased by 40

per cent, according to your figures.

So there's no plough back available at all. You're charging

more, it's costing more, and I say without cooking the books

and subsidizing the motorist out of other programmes, out of

the electric light bulb, you'll never ever be able to reduce

his net costs. But you're going to increase it. You've

decreased coverage, you've increased bureaucracy, and you've

certainly increased the overall public costs through the loss

of tax revenues. And all of this for an election gimmick.

If you can't trim off some fat, let the private sector

compete. If they can come up with a better package, why not?

What's wrong with that? If the private sector can come up with

a better package, better coverage, less cost and better service

to the motorist in the province of B.C., what does it matter if

the motorist in the province of B.C. be socialist, capitalist,

NDP, Social Credit, Conservative, Liberal or Mahatma Gandhi's

uncle? Let them have that opportunity.

Now I'd like to look at a few items on his schedules here in

this report — page 15,

schedule B. This is the start-up costs

of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. He's furnished to this

House a statement of these costs and the balance sheet. He's

the principal officer in charge of the policy direction and

overall administration of this programme, and I'd like to ask

him for some particulars of these things because I don't think

it's just enough to put in these enormous figures without

furnishing a breakdown such as any accountant would furnish at

the annual general meeting of any company.

You talk about computer systems — $2,934,000. Who got that?

Was it by tender? If so, why not? Please furnish me with a

breakdown. Also, what are your projections for the 1974-5

fiscal period for computer systems? Have you got an

administrative cost projection for the period ending March,

1975?

Public information — $833,000 spent for 10 months in public

information. Who got that? What sort of public information? Was

it tendered? Give us a complete breakdown and let's have your

estimates for the next fiscal period.

Similarly with consulting services — $707,000. Who received

that $707,000? Are you going to have that same type of expense

estimated for the next period?

Staff recruitment. What does that mean? Who did it? What

were the results? Is this a continuing policy? Is this a

repeating item of expense?

Office facilities — $130,000. Again, similar questions to

you about that.

Now I refer to page 14 of your report and I direct to you

similar questions concerning leasehold improvements at

$265,000. Where did that go?

Furniture and equipment — $1,280,000. You don't answer

questions, Mr. Minister. This has been your pattern since

you've taken this portfolio. Furniture and equipment — $1,280,000. Mr. Minister, the ICBC's got the largest conference

table in the Pacific Northwest. It's so big it would make the

Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi'

s) desk look like a

breadboard. Somebody suggested, as a matter of fact, that you

could put a sail on the thing and it could have won the

Swiftsure. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: We use it to roller skate on.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you could even use it to roller skate on.

You need a loudhailer to communicate with one person from one

end to the other, it's so large. Make no mistake of that.

Let's have some particulars of these purchases. Are they

all, warranted or are they frills that are not requested and

not wanted and certainly unwarranted from the viewpoint of the

B.C. taxpayer?

Would the Minister inform us of the reasons for nominating

the Royal Bank of Canada as the bankers for the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia? What was the deal there? Was

the business tendered to other banks or were there any

trade-offs? Let the public have full particulars.

Now we find on these fixed assets that you're talking about

in here…and this again is an interesting point, Mr.

Chairman. I'd just like to ask the Minister why he feels it is

necessary for him to wait the better part of nine months to

answer questions as to what is intended by this corporation

concerning fixed assets because, Mr. Chairman, in the early

part of the fall session, when it had been going for very, very

few days, I asked the Minister for full particulars of the

capital cost expenditures that had been entered into and

contemplated, and he never answered the question once. It was

asked him during question period and he waived it in question

period and the only thing that he did was in the final day of

the session to put in a little answer. He stood up with a great

smile on his face, thinking, by gosh, all of the problems are

gone. "Your answer's there, my friend," he said. I went

to find the answer, and it just said "Wait until the annual

report comes out," or something along that line. That's

not good enough. We want to know what these projections

are.

You say you spent $14.6 million on fixed assets. Your land

values seem to be twice as high as your construction costs,

which is odd. How come? Did you buy the most expensive land

that you could get? Some people have been arguing, Mr.

Minister, that the headquarters of the Insurance Corporation of

B.C. should not be in one of the highest pieces of real estate

west of Toronto but should be in some outlying area where

there'd be, apart from anything else, less traffic congestion,

increasing traffic

[ Page 3517 ]

congestion for the city, and maybe even more pleasant

surroundings for those involved, but certainly at less public

expense.

You've estimated $19.1 million capital expenditures for

1975, plus $6 million for leases. Now that's nearly $40 million

that are being spent on capital expenditures and leases in two

years alone. You're going to need an awful lot of red ink, as

far as I can see. Where are you going to spend this $19.1

million that you've referred to in your report, Mr. Minister,

in 1974-75? Where is that money going to be spent? How much

have you projected for capital cost expenditures also for

1976?

The Minister at times has been called evasive, and the

people who called him that were called to order. But the

Minister has not answered questions. At last count there were

10 on the order paper which should have been answered before

his estimates came up.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: There are 10 unanswered questions. You haven't

answered those so we'll have to ask them of you now because we

want to have these answers before your estimates are finished,

Mr. Minister.

How much money has been budgeted or projected for ICBC

advertising since its inception, and how was that allocated — radio, TV, billboards, receptions, tours, information kits,

newspapers? What advertising agencies received that money? Why

hasn't he answered that question before? This question was

asked by a colleague from Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

at pretty well the beginning of this session. Why haven't you

answered that question? What are you trying to hide?

Here's another one: has the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

acquired by purchase or lease any land or improvements since

April of 1973? It asks for full particulars. What specific

places? How much money has been paid? You have all of that

information and you're supposed to be held to account.

Mr. Minister, if you were the secretary or treasurer of any

company at- any annual general meeting of the company, any

shareholder would be perfectly entitled to ask you these

questions and you'd have a responsibility to answer, and you

have an even greater responsibility as a Minister of the Crown

to answer. And the taxpayers of B.C. are asking these

questions.

Has the Insurance Corporation of B.C. employed any persons

for salaries or wages in excess of $20,000 a year? Who are they

and what number? Why haven't you answered that question? It's

public money you're spending, not Bob Strachan's money, you

know. The public's entitled to know where it goes.

Is the government giving consideration to the introduction of appropriate driving

tests for those drivers who drive campers, motor homes or tow trailers? A very

good question. Why haven't you answered that one, for goodness' sake? What's

wrong with you?

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Well, in my list you haven't.

Another question. What, if any, has been the total

advertising purchased on behalf of ICBC from April, 1973, to

January, 1974? What agencies? Again requesting full particulars

of these moneys that have been spent. It's not just the Members

of the opposition parties, Mr. Minister; it's Members of your

own party and the general public who feel value has not been

received. The public think they're being ripped off by these

kinds of phony ads that you've been putting out.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Information ads, my foot. You're just trying to

bolster up a weak performance — that's all it is.

Here's one which is more specific: is H.B. Earl employed by

the ICBC? It makes a request as to salary and responsibility.

Similar request to E.J. Foote. Why isn't that answered? What

are you trying to put under the rug?

Another question: in how many newspapers did ICBC place the full-page ads which

I've been referring to? What is the breakdown between weekly or semi-weekly?

What is the total cost? Why are you hiding these answers from the people of

B.C.?

Here's the one that I put to you again: what are the amounts

of capital cost expenditures expended to date? Well, you've

indicated that in your report. And for what purpose by or for

the B.C. Insurance Corporation, furnishing full particulars?

And what are capital cost expenditures estimated or projected

for the future, furnishing full particulars?

Mr. Minister, it seems to me that the automobile insurance

plan which you've brought in contrary to your promises to the

general public, contrary to giving them an opportunity which

they rightfully have in a democracy to make freedom of choice,

is being used as a political vehicle.

If you're going to level with the Province of B.C., why have

you not done so before? Why is it necessary for a person to

stand up in these estimates and have to go through these

questions that have been asked you ad nauseam?

If it's in trouble the public should know about that. If

it's not in trouble the public should know about that. But you

are creating an aura of suspicion and disenchantment.

I again say that the very best thing you could do is say

that you will permit the private sector, if anyone wished to do

it — gosh knows if any of them would

[ Page 3518 ]

today — the opportunity to compete against your plan. Let

people have the freedom of choice.

But most of all, Mr. Minister, we've got to have answers

from you to these questions. They've been raised by

individuals. All of these letters which I have received are not

from insurance companies; they're from people. They are people

who don't support the philosophy of this government, which is

the majority of B.C. citizens. They have a right to be heard;

they have a right to ask the questions. You have a

responsibility to answer them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member who just took his place after

talking for an hour….

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just about an hour.

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I know when the House started.

MR. GARDOM: Your time is wrong.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's obvious that this man has been

carrying with him a deep-seated bitterness about the…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …about the embarking of this

government on a great social project.

MR. GARDOM: I've never been bitter to anyone. Now, cut it

out.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A deep-seated bitterness which has warped

his judgment, destroyed his sense of humour, for which he was

once so famous, and tuned him right out of what has been said

in this House. He has made it very obvious to everyone that

when the Member stands up in this House and speaks about

insurance, he's fronting for the private insurance industry of

British Columbia. No question about it.

MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No question about it.

MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't know, Mr. Chairman, that in order to get

a judge-ship in the Province of British Columbia you have to act as a messenger

boy for the private insurance industry. I didn't know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But it's now very obvious that if you

want a judge-ship in the province, that man thinks you have to

be a message boy for the private insurance industry.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order. The Minister is in good

humour. I've known him for so long that I can appreciate that

he is talking tongue in cheek. However, we do have a

Hansard and these remarks are recorded. The Minister is

really suggesting something that I have an interest, which is

contrary to my….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm not.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes you are, when you're suggesting I'm

fronting for a pressure group. You're suggesting that and it's

an inference that I don't like, Mr. Minister. It's unfair, and

I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Minister….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I accept your withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The proper procedure is for the

Hon. Member to correct him on a point of order, which we

accept. Would the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Member spoke about an aura of suspicion. He and others

have been deliberately trying to create an aura of suspicion.

That Member says I don't answer questions. It seems that I'm

going to have to go through these questions that I've answered

in this session and read them into the record together. That

would take me from now until almost midnight. I have answered

questions and, Mr. Member, you either don't read Hansard

or you're away from the House so much that you don't hear the

answers I give.

You raised the item of the Royal Bank. Why did the Royal

Bank become banker? I answered that question in this House. I

told the Members of this House in answer to an oral question

that submissions were called for, and they made the best

presentation

[ Page 3519 ]

and the best offer to ICBC. I said that publicly. I made

that statement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They made the best offer of any.

MR. GARDOM: What was it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got the details here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not what you said. You said, "Why

was The Royal Bank…?" — "Were tenders called?" I wrote the

question down. You said, "Were tenders called?" I've already

answered that question. But you're out of the House so much you

don't even know what's going on here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What other question did you raise? The

headquarters in downtown Vancouver; it shouldn't be there. The

Leader of the Opposition raised the question. I answered it,

told them why and I agreed with them. No question. I said that.

Where were you? You keep getting up, creating this aura of

suspicion, and saying I don't answer questions. I've answered

more questions than the previous administration ever answered

about any situation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's all right. I have sat and listened

to you for almost an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, 40 minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty minutes, baloney!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That melange of figures, Mr. Member, which you dreamed

up is completely unreal. That melange of figures….

AN HON. MEMBER: They are out of your book.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they're not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they are.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they're not. You started off with one figure

in the book and you subtracted and you added and you estimated and you did all

sorts of things with it. But your figures are not mine. I'm not going to be

responsible for your figures or answer for your figures. They're yours, and

you're stuck with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And you're stuck with them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. GARDOM: Ah, ha!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At one stage in the presentation of that

set of figures you suggested that sometime in the future I

would talk to the Minister of Finance and in some way money

would be spirited from B.C. Hydro into ICBC because ICBC was in

trouble.

At another stage in your presentation you came out with a

set of figures which said you are going to have so much money

left over. What are you going to do with it? Are you going to

give it back to the people now in a refund, or are you going to

do something about reducing the rates in the future?

Both sides of the coin. You've said everything about

everything, and, as I say, you said both things. We're going to

have too much money and we're going to give it back. Then you

said we're not going to have enough; are we going to get it

from B.C. Hydro? That's the sort of speech you were giving, Mr.

Member, all afternoon. Completely contradictory in many, many

ways.

I'll go back to where the Member started.

He commented on a statement I made the other day, when I

said that anyone in the province has the right to go into the

newspaper business. You said, "How about ICBC?' And I said,

"That's different." You want me to explain why it's

different.

Here's a Member who has been a Member of the bar of the

Province of British Columbia for I don't know how many years. I

understand he has a good reputation as a lawyer. But for any

Member of this House who's a lawyer to stand up and say "What's

the difference between a newspaper and an insurance company?"

There's a law in this province that I didn't bring in, that's

been on the statutes for years. It's called the

Insurance Act, which governs the right of any group or

any person to go into the insurance business. The

section says….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But just let me read the Act. You're a

lawyer; you know the Act. And you have the colossal gall to

stand and make the ignorant

[ Page 3520 ]

statement you made: "What's the difference between a

newspaper and an insurance company?" I'll tell you the

difference. Just listen.

MR. GARDOM: You've got a warped philosophy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just listen. The Insurance Act:

"This Act, except as hereinafter provided, applies to every

insurer who carries on any business of insurance within the

province, and to every contract of insurance made or deemed to

be made within the province."

That has been on the statutes for years. Show me

an Act in

this province that applies to newspapers in that same way.

There isn't, of course. But you say, "What's the difference?"

Later on it says:

"No insurer shall, unless he is licensed, carry on any

business of insurance within the province."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: That's too silly to answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it was a silly statement you made.

I thought you knew better. You're now admitting you did know

better, and I suppose it was a phony, flim-flam argument you

were trying to make. Completely different.

He talks about a number of other things too. Let me get to

some of them. He talks about the inclusion of investment

earnings. He wants to be sure investment earnings are recorded

and used as part of the total operation.

I've said many times that the auto insurance plan is a

completely separate plan. The interest earnings will all go in

to reduce premiums. I've said it time and time again. Why don't

you listen?

I want to quote from this morning's Province. The

private industry didn't do that but we are. In this morning's

Province, Mr. Alan Horsford talks about hindsight.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What else did he say?

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

"'In hindsight,' Horsford said, 'when the insurance

industry presented its side to the royal commission in 1968, it should not have talked about underwriting losses and not

taken into account the return on investment of policy-holder

funds.'

"He said his recollection is that companies took the stand

that investment income was 'shareholders' money.' Now he believes 'such reasoning

is nonsense. How can you argue in that kind of way?'

"He explained that the invested funds, premiums paid and

claims reserves which are part and parcel should have been

taken into account."

They didn't do it, but we are going to do

it.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): What else did he

say? He said there should be competition.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He said there should be competition. I

read the

section again; I'm sorry if you weren't here. I read a

quote from a well known individual in the insurance field who

said that competition was going down the drain as far as….

Here it is.

"Government competition." This is in the Canadian

Underwriter , February, 1974. The gentleman is president of

the Canadian Indemnity Company, a man by the name of Harley

Vannan. He is talking about the situation in the insurance

industry in Canada — talking about competition. He says:

"I want to tell you some of the things that go on. It's

very interesting to watch. And I can tell you my company will

be watching on the sidelines and not participating.

"Be cause, perhaps, we're not then going to be confronted

with this stupid competition that gets us all nowhere except

further and further down the drain."

That's what he said. That's what the private insurance

industry is saying today. They want no part of competition

because it gets them "further and further down the drain."

"Stupid competition," he said.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what he said. I read the rest of

it; there you have it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to, but the Member did.

The reason we went into the insurance business was to do a

better job. I want to read you some of the letters I'm getting.

Let me read this one to you:

"About a month ago a lady backed into my fender while my car

was parked. She came and told me about it.

"I took it to an ICBC centre and two days later it was all

repaired again. I had even forgotten about it when I got a call from Mr. Pettie

of ICBC, wanting to know if my car was fixed and if everything was all right.

I told him

[ Page

3521 ]

I was very satisfied. In all my dealings with insurance

companies I had never had that courtesy. Keep it up and good

luck."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Another one:

"As a driver in B.C., I cannot tell you how grateful I am

that you took over the car insurance in B.C. Autoplan has, as

you say, a more humane attitude toward the problems encountered

in driving today. As a result, there will be far less

injustices, better driving records and lower costs incurred in

accidents."

Another one:

"Congratulations on such a fine job in getting Autoplan in

operation, first to yourself and then to Mr. Bortnick and Mr.

Porter."

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Signed, "Mother."

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it's from someone from Chilliwack.

(Laughter.) As a matter of fact, my mother has been dead for a

good many years.

"No criticism this time. Anything needing a

second look will, I'm sure, get it."

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Author, author!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's someone up in Chilliwack.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't even give the author.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not going to give the names of the

people. I didn't ask this Member for the names of the people

whom he was quoting.

"I'm writing you this note about ICBC. My wife was involved

in an accident on March 4. That same day we went to ICBC

offices in Delta and received fast, efficient and friendly

service from your agents.

"I have had experience with the old insurance companies, and

it was always a hassle. I will certainly pass on my

satisfaction to my friends. My compliments to your staff."

More:

"Dear Sir,

"I picked up my car today completely repaired. Everything

okay. Claim No. (so and so). Regards and thanks for prompt and

courteous service."

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll read you letters; I have lots here.

"I received the enclosed in today's mail." We told them

which form.

"Incidentally, I would like to thank you for your courtesy

and kindness to my wife and I, May 6, when we reported our

mishap.

"I would like to thank you and your staff for the prompt and

courteous service. I could not hope to have any better service

from any insurance firm."

Another one:

"I just wish to express my appreciation to you and your

staff in the way you handled my claim. Being in such a

depressing situation, I thought Mr. D'arcy handled my case

particularly well. To my amazement, the claim was settled right

there and then within an hour. Again, my compliments to you and

your staff."

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. D'Arcy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it starts with D H. (Laughter.) It's

spelled differently. Mr. D'arcy is an employee. In other words,

"D-H-a-r" It's on the notepaper of a private insurance company,

by the way.

"I would like to thank you and ICBC for the prompt and

efficient service we have had up to this point."

Another one. I'm just using one pile.

"As ICBC grows older and probably bigger, I hope it will

continue with the human touch which I found so wonderful in my

experience."

He's talking about the courtesy of the people and

the fast service.

"Thank you so much for your prompt return and prompt action

with regard to my comprehensive claim. I received cheques for

(so and so) today. I really didn't expect it quite so quickly.

Again, thanks."

Another one:

"Just a note to thank you for the fast, courteous and fair

treatment re the loss of my Volkswagen. If my case is typical

of the treatment accorded by ICBC claimants, the public shall

be well satisfied with the change in auto insurance."

As I say, I've got a bunch more here I could read, but that

gives you an idea of the reception that our claims service is

getting. I could go on as long as the other Member did, but I

think I have told him. I have answered dozens and dozens of

questions. Some of the questions were asked previously. There

are questions on the order paper; 10 of them there, I know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer them now.

[ Page

3522 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they're on the order paper. Thank

you.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister attempted to make great hay

out of the figures I utilized in attempting to estimate….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They were not realistic.

MR. GARDOM: He says they're not realistic.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're your figures, not mine.

MR. GARDOM: Just let me make the point. He attempted to make

great hay out of the figures I was utilizing in estimating

where this insurance corporation is going to be at the end of

the fiscal period, March 1974 to March 1975.

The figures I used were the only ones I could find and

utilize, and were the ones that came out of the Minister's own

report. By being generous and putting in $20 million for

interest income, which you have not told this House one bit

about as to what your estimate of this is going to be, I

arrived at $227 worth of auto premiums, including interest

income, for this period.

Okay. Again, using your figures, and multiplying them out

and estimating for the fiscal period, I came up with $190

million worth of claims. Using your figures, therefore, there

is $37 million left. Using your figures, Mr. Minister, there is

$20 million for capital expenditure which leaves $17 million

for administration expense. Using Manitoba's figure of 12.4 per

cent for administration, that is $27 million. It produces a $10 million loss for ICBC.

If you don't like my figures, you've got your figures. Where

are your cost projections? Tell the people of B.C. That's

absolutely disgraceful. You've got those figures, and you're

refusing to disclose them to the Province of B.C. Make no

mistake of that fact.

What are your projections of claims? How much are they going

to be? You have that figure, so don't suggest for one second

that you don't because I will never accept that as being a

fact.

Why won't you tell us when you have it? What are your

projections for administrative expense? You've got that; you

can't tell me these people down there with their computers and

their expertise haven't figured that out. If they haven't, they

should all be fired. They've done that job for you and you're

keeping it under the rug.

You have only furnished us in your statement with two items:

premium income and capital cost over this fiscal period.

Using your figures, there is a $10 million loss. And you snort at me. You

haven't given the public any information whatsoever. Little wonder you are

labelled with the word "evasive."

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Maybe I can get some answers.

I'll try.

First of all, this is the Department of Transport and

Communications and it existed in a very small way a short time

ago. Now the budget has risen from $63 million last year to $72

million this year. It's quite an important portfolio and covers

a lot of government activity, Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't say a few things about

Icky Bicky. I would first of all like to say, Mr. Chairman,

that I was surprised at the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) here on Friday opposing that postage-stamp rate

for automobile insurance. I would like to tell this House that

every citizen in the Interior or the north of this province are

second-class citizens when it comes to car insurance rates. I

resent the fact that a leader of a political party of this

province would say they shouldn't get postage-stamp insurance

rates, because they certainly are entitled to it.

As far as the Interior and the north are concerned, on the

institution of Autoplan by this government their insurance

premiums advanced 25 per cent on the average through all that

part of the country. I realize that didn't happen on the lower

mainland, but it did happen in all the rest of this province.

The citizens don't understand. They can't go and shop for a

rate to find out whether it's competitive or not because of the

monopoly situation that exists here.

I think we've probably heard enough about that, but I want

to repeat that the way that it is operating now, we have

second-class citizens in the Interior and the north of this

province and I resent that and so do they. I certainly resent

the remarks of the Liberal leader in the Province of British

Columbia saying that he was absolutely opposed to it because a

few Victoria citizens' insurance rates might go up.

I might say to the citizens of the lower mainland and the

lower part of the Island that the Interior and the north are

fed up sending their natural resources down here and forever

supporting them and getting charged for government services

over and above the rate that you pay down here. Certainly they

should be given consideration. Institute a postage stamp

rate.

I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the refunds that

the Premier of this province promised when they got in a bind

and found that they had made all these horrendous mistakes on

premiums. Nobody would pay more than they paid in 1972. Mr.

Chairman, that's just so much garbage because nobody could even

figure out the form and you can't get the identical

circumstances to qualify.

Another thing that is happening is that where people have

two vehicles they accept the claim of refund on one at say,

$49, and the second vehicle has an increase of $140 and they

rejected that. I'd like to

[ Page 3523 ]

know why, if the person is in the same territory and the

conditions are the same on both vehicles — and I'm not talking

about companies, I'm talking about individuals here — how can

you accept one refund and reject the other one? Is that your

policy, that an individual can only get one refund? I haven't

read that anywhere, but that's the way your administration is

administering it. They are turning down anyone who applies for

more than one refund. We have a lot of citizens who have more

than one vehicle, and I don't mean commercial vehicles — private

vehicles.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman, is going on in the Interior.

The Minister there was proud of the few letters he had

congratulating him about claim services. I would like to tell

him something about what is going on, again in the Interior of

this province. I brought it up on the floor of the House with a

question in the question period, and he very rightly or wrongly

swept it under the rug. He said it wasn't right. I want to

repeat that it is still going on.

I refer to the situation with the body shops all the way

from Clinton in the south — to Prince George in the north. There

isn't one body shop who will work for you at the rate you want

to pay. It is affecting the motorists up there right now. You

haven't got any claim service, period, because nobody will work

for the rate that you're trying to offer. You're out now giving

the rate to Port Alberni at $16. What's so good about Port

Alberni that you can't pay that rate in the Interior of this

province?

Because of this, accidents are taking place all the way

through the central Interior, including the metropolis of

Prince George, and the only way you can get a vehicle fixed in

the whole Interior of the province is by paying $1.50 an hour

surcharge. That's what the citizens are doing. After being

gouged by you for 25 per cent increase on insurance premiums,

now they even have to pay for part of their claims.

It's a shameful condition and whoever advised you has given

you wrong advice, Mr. Minister, that this isn't going on in the

Interior of the province. Every qualified body shop won't work

unless they charge the motorists $1.50 an hour and you should

hang your head in shame to let this go on. It's been going on

now ever since you went into business. You know about it and

you won't do anything about it. I'd like to know why you

segregate that part of the country. I'm glad to hear that some

people are getting service, but I'm telling you there's a lot

of people not getting any service at all and they want

service.

Getting off the insurance bit, but tied to it to some degree, are drivers'

certificates. I've had no end of correspondence from people who can't understand

how the driver's certificate is arrived at or how the rate is arrived at. I

have petitions here with 200 names on them and so on and so forth. I'd like

to read the wording of the petitions, and I'm referring to the driver's certificate:

"We the undersigned citizens of Quesnel would like to show

our disapproval at the way Autoplan is being shoved down our

throats. If this point penalty programme is fair, why are you

charging us for a previous three-year period? Those of us who

have gotten points off our driver's licences have either paid

for it by being fined or by going to jail or by losing our

right to drive.

"Our insurance rates were raised for the offence we made and

we have paid a $25 fee for a licence in order to drive again.

Now we are being charged over again at a tremendous rate. We

feel that something should be done about it."

So while a lot of people think the driver's insurance is a

good thing, and these people with points should be penalized,

there's a lot of them of course that are affected up to the

amount of $400 for a certificate. I can assure the Minister

that they're not very happy about it, Another thing I took up with this Minister by

correspondence. I want to bring it up on the floor of the House

here and I hope the Chairman doesn't rule me out of order. I'm

referring to the mandatory provisions in the Motor-vehicle

Act where people over 70 years of age and 80 years of age

must submit to a medical if notified by the Superintendent of

Motor Vehicles. Mr. Chairman, when that happens, these elderly

citizens are charged for that medical by the family doctor

because B.C. Medical Plan will not accept the charge if they

have been ordered to have this medical so they can continue to

retain their driver's licence. I have a letter from The

Minister of Transport saying that he would take the matter up

and that this has been in effect for many years. I'm aware of

that, but these people are going to change everything. I say

it's a hardship on everybody over 70 years of age — senior

citizens — and we should be looking at changing this so that

the B.C. Medical Plan will pick up this bill for these senior

citizens who must, because they are ordered by the

superintendent, have a medical.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't imagine this

Minister's had the time to take this up with the Minister of

Health and I wish he was in here, but I have. I have this

letter and in no way will he even consider accepting this

charge under B.C. Medical Plan. I would just like to read a

paragraph from his letter that I received from the Minister of

Health on May 16:

"In the first analysis, services of medical practitioners

under the plan are cost shared by the federal government and

both the federal and provincial Acts provide that such services

to qualify as insured services are only those

[ Page 3524 ]

medically required by the patient. An examination of a person

at the request of, or required by, a third party is not a service sought by

the patient due to some health symptom or condition or determined by his physician

as medically required for his patient.

" Further, to include drivers' medical examinations that are

a requirement for licensing opens the door to equal demands for

coverage for examinations required by camps, employers,

schools, insurance firms, et cetera. I even recall some senior

citizens' cooperative housing projects that required medical

examination of prospective participants.

"I do not contemplate the medical services plan including

such coverage in that context. The plan would not knowingly pay

a driver's medical examination as such."

Well, I don't agree at all, and I would solicit the Minister

of Transport's (Hon. Mr. Strachan'

s) assistance in changing the

Minister's mind. I don't agree that if he opens it up for

senior citizens who require this medical that he's going to

open up all the doors that he says he has. That's an

administrative matter and I can't buy that.

It has been brought to my attention that it is causing

financial hardship to some senior citizens. I certainly would

again ask this Minister to look into this financial hardship

that it's causing these people. While I'm on the subject of

vehicles, I'd like to bring up another subject which I don't

think has been brought up. The Motor Carrier Commission comes

under the jurisdiction of this Minister. Maybe I'm calling it

wrong. It has been brought to my attention from taxi operators

in the Interior that everybody except those in the City of

Vancouver, I believe, have to go through the commission for

approval of revision of their rate schedule. They're taking up

to six months, Mr. Minister, to process their applications for

rate increases. You know what has happened. Taxi insurance

rates have gone up; the vehicles have gone up; the fuel has

gone up.

I understand the problem: there is a dedicated staff over

there but there's not enough staff. Every other department of

government has been able to hire all the staff they want and

I'd like this Minister to look into that and see if he can't

speed up the service there. It doesn't appear that they have

any real problem in approving the rate increases; it's just the

time they take. We're going to have independent operators going

broke because of the increased costs that are going on to them

for fuel, wages, vehicles and so on. They are going on every

month and they must have the approval of this branch to pass it

on to the public, who, of course, have to finally pay it. I

think something could be speeded up in this department.

One other item, I don't know if it comes under this Minister or not. Every

time we ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), he says it does.

I refer to the telephone service in this building. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we

haven't got any telephone service. All we do all morning is dial and get a busy

signal. It's getting worse, not better.

I would like to know what you are going to do about it and

when. It's a waste of time to try and use the telephones in

this building. Even to phone locally, never mind long distance,

you just get a busy signal.

I don't know whether Telpak comes under you or the Minister

of Public Works, but I hope you'll face up and tell us what you

are going to do and when. The Minister of Public Works is

always sliding out from under and saying it's under your

jurisdiction. We certainly need better service than we have.

When you get a busy signal, even just to dial a local number in

Victoria out of this building, it's absolutely ridiculous.

I think that's enough for now and I hope I can get some

answers from this Minister on the few points I've raised so

far.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad to hear the Member say he

supports postage stamp rates as an ideal. It certainly must be

our ideal and objective to bring equality throughout the

province. I indicated very clearly last Friday that that is our

objective.

I'd like you to give me the cases where some individual has

been refused a refund on a second car because it shouldn't be.

If you give us particular cases we'll have them checked

through.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to check it out immediately. My

understanding is that in Prince George, Quesnel and 100 Mile

House, the body shops are accepting. We go to them with an

estimate: will they do the job for this much money? They say,

"Yes." It's my understanding that that's the situation in those

areas now. We go to them, we offer them this much money for the

job and they accept it. That's the latest information I have as

of this morning, but I'm checking to be sure to see whether or

not they are adding surcharge after it. They're not supposed

to.

AN HON. MEMBER: In all cases?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not talking about what has been going

on in the past; I'm talking about what happens now. There's a

new procedure. It used to be that they were just given so many

hours for fixing it. They took this to a body shop and the body

shop would do that. Then they would charge the individual $1.50

or $2 an hour extra. Now they don't get an hourly estimate;

they're offered a certain amount of money to do the job. I

understand they're

[ Page 3525 ]

accepting it. I want to know, and will check this afternoon,

if they are still asking the individual for more money. It's a

completely different system to the one that existed before.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are. Well, that's what I wanted to

know because they're not supposed to be doing that. When they

accept that amount of money to do that job, that's supposed to

be all. No additions; no surcharges; no charge on the

individual at all, except perhaps for any deductible he may

have. That's not supposed to be what's happening so we'll

certainly check that one out.

Driver's certificates. Again, the concept is part of the

total concept. As I explained earlier, it's a base on which to

place the surcharges for bad driving records. It was part of

the total amount, except I said a year ago when I put through

the legislation that this would be a base sum, a nominal sum

which is, as you know, $10 a year. It was part of the total

base on which we were basing the insurance operation.

The charges for driver's examinations. I haven't had a

reply. I sent a letter to the Minister after you raised it in

the House and I haven't had a reply from him yet. Evidently,

according to you, he said it's part of the federal-provincial

agreement.

Now, some doctors actually do it for nothing and some charge

a nominal $5. I have cases where they'll charge as much as $15

to do that rather limited examination required under the Motor

Vehicle Act. If we ask the medical plan to do it, I

suppose then every doctor would charge the scheduled rate for

such an examination.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's just like the plumbers and

carpenters.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. But, as I say, some

doctors do it for nothing now and some do it for a nominal $5. I have a case where it's $15.

The Motor Carrier Commission. As a matter of fact, it was

just today I received from the Public Service Commission the

approval to put eight new staff into that Motor Carrier

Commission. I agree with you. First of all, I sent someone in

to re-examine the whole thing and see what re-organization and

new procedures were required. Today I got the okay from the

Public Service Commission for eight new staff in there. I'm

hoping that will be improved.

I'm told since May 14 nobody has been surcharged in Prince

George. That's the indication I have. We just checked. On the

automobiles, no one has been surcharged since May 14.

If you have information that that's wrong, I'd certainly appreciate getting

it from you with individual cases, if you can get a copy of the bill or whatever

it was so we have it. That's the information we have.

Telephones. I agree with you that the telephone service in

this building is unsatisfactory. No question about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop hiring.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Stop hiring. Well, you keep asking to do

more work, more jobs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You see, I just told you that I've taken

on eight people and that made this Member happy because the job

required doing. You told me it required doing, but there are

eight more people who are going to be using a telephone.

Certainly, the number of employees within the government

service has increased to meet the kind of demands that the

Member brought before this House this afternoon to do the

job.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A ship full-steam ahead needs a bigger

crew than one that's tied up in a dock. A ship sailing

full-steam ahead needs a crew. If you're tied up at a dock you

don't need people. There you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's progress.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Socred ship was tied up at the dock

and was rotting there, with no crew and no services being

delivered But we're going full-speed ahead and need the

help.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Members please

address the Chair?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why your telephone service is

under siege within the province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute now. The people of this

province want service and we are trying to give them service.

It's not the easiest thing in the world. You can't just snap

your fingers and get new telephone lines into this building.

Just hear me out.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Members please

address the Chair?

Interjections.

[ Page 3526 ]

MR. WALLACE: It just shows there's one or two ways to get

the floor in this House. My remarks will be fairly brief. I

would like, however, to comment on the last two subjects which

the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) raised. I think the

telephone system has to be the most appalling waste of the

Members' time in this building. While I respect the Minister's

answer that….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't given my answer. I was going to

give my answer, but he wouldn't let me.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if you like, Mr. Chairman, I'm very eager

to hear the answer because I raised the issue about phones with

the wrong Minister some time ago. Perhaps if we could have a

little silence, the Minister could answer the question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The grade of service to all sectors of

the building is continuously monitored by the telephone company

traffic department. Results of these studies are analyzed at

regular monthly meetings between ourselves — that's the people

in my department — and B.C. Tel people. Orders for corrective

action are placed when the need for such action becomes

predictive.

The present poor grade of service is in the main the result

of the substantial increase in the number of people using the

system.

Secondary aggravating factors are misuse of the system such

as off-hooking, long conversations, sometimes unauthorized

calls, and some new uses of the system — you know, for data,

facsimile, and so on. The problems now being encountered — I'll

outline the problems and the proposed solution.

When one lifts the receiver, the dial tone is sometimes

delayed. This delay can be anything from one second to 15 or 20

seconds. It is the result of too few line finders for the

number of simultaneous calls being placed in that local. The

solution is to install more line finders. These were ordered in

mid-1973. With 15 months lead time, they are expected to be

installed by November, 1974. It has now been possible to

advance this date to September, 1974.

MR. WALLACE: Where do they come from? Where are they made?

Do we have to wait 15 months for that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're made by the telephone

manufacturing company that does it for B.C. Tel.

MR. WALLACE: And where is that, in the United States?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Automatic Electric.

MR. WALLACE: Where?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it? In Canada?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's good.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But, as I say, we hope to have them by

When one dials 9 for an outside line, there may be a busy

signal. This is the result of too few outgoing trunks

connecting to the B.C. Telephone central office. As of this

week the total number of out trunks have been increased from 70

to 93. This was dated May 7, so there has been an increase of

23 additional out lines.

When one dials a local in the 3000 group or the 6000 group,

there may be a busy signal after the first digit. This again is

a result of too few selectors in the exchange and the number of

calls being made. Additional selectors were installed last

month, and it seems the problem has been alleviated. But

further additions are in order. It will correct that situation

when we get these further additions.

When one dials 8 to get a Vancouver line, a busy signal is

often received. This is due to too many calls for the number of

Vancouver lines available. At the present we have a total of 57

lines between Victoria and Vancouver. Eight additional lines

were ordered on March 25, 1974, and they will be installed

before the end of this month, before the end of May. Further

additional lines will be ordered to bring the total to 74 by

the end of the year. It is expected that the eight lines going

in this month will alleviate the problem.

Overload conditions also occur on certain other inter-city

circuits. Here again the problem is to add lines fast enough to

keep up with the increased traffic — and at the same time avoid

waste of public funds which occurs if more lines are installed

than is necessary. Traffic on these lines is continuously

monitored and evaluated each month.

That's an indication of the fact that we're aware of the

problem. I have charts which show the equipment rental and the

cost and so on. But we are moving as rapidly as we can to

update the telephone system within the buildings.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the

Minister for giving us the facts and the figures regarding the

telephones, because it is a most exasperating thing to try and

do your job in the offices in the building and waste so much

time not making contact with the caller or returning a

call.

I just want to make a few comments about Autoplan because,

while this subject may appear to be getting excessive

attention, I think it has to be

[ Page 3527 ]

recognized for two very fundamental reasons as requiring the

most detailed attention of this House.

One is the political reason that it was a primary plank of

this government in the election in August, 1972. I think it was

a very major factor in having this government elected to power.

Many people, rightly or wrongly, accepted the political

interpretation which this party placed on the provision of

private automobile insurance and the zeal with which the leader

of the NDP party in August trumpeted around the province,

bragging that everyone, but everyone, who drives a car would

have an insurance premium reduction of 20 per cent. It's right

there in the clippings, Mr. Chairman, from the newspapers of

August, 1972.

What do we have? We certainly don't have every automobile

driver in this province having insurance that's 20 per cent

cheaper. In fact, the situation is such that we now have the

government bragging about a refund programme which in itself is

a shambles. They're having to refund money to come even close

to meeting the commitment which they made on the hustings.

There's no point in spending a long time on this point. The

fact is that the government made a certain promise which was

very appealing to the voter and the motorist and had a great

deal of political value in having this government elected to

power. There is no question about that.

They have not met that commitment. Although some people have

had refunds, I've certainly got lots of letters — and I don't

think it's a question of I read you my letters and you read

yours. We've all got letters coming out of our ears on this

particular subject. I have letters from people who are still

paying more than they paid the year before, where the

differences in situation are minimal.

Be that as it may, I just want to ask a first question of

the Minister. Let us take, for example, a motorist who claimed

and received a refund — for example, so the figures could be

simple, from $125 to $100. I'm taking an arbitrary example.

What I want to know is, what happens to his insurance premium

next year when there is, for the sake of argument, a 10 per

cent inflationary factor? Is the government going to add the 10

per cent to the $100 as a base rate, or by this time next year

will the government conveniently forget that it had to refund

people back to a certain base figure and then add the annual

increase to that base figure?

I think it is an extremely important point which I'm

surprised has not been publicized more in the great degree of

public discussion that has taken place on Autoplan and the

premiums.

It's all very well for the government to say: "We'll keep our word that you

will not pay more this year than last year." That's one thing. In fact, I don't

think that was the promise they made at the campaign. The promise in the campaign

was that they would reduce premiums. Anyway, the government at least has made

an effort to demonstrate that nobody will pay more this year than last year.

So with a complicated, bureaucratic system with all kinds of paper work and

expensive advertising, it has developed a refund programme.

What I want to know is, what happens next year? I accept, as

we must all do, that the costs of running this plan will go up

year by year, and whether or not this government has proved

that the private companies were ripping off the consumer or not

is something else we could debate.

But I should be able to get a very explicit answer from this

Minister, Mr. Chairman, that relates to automobile drivers who

this year received a refund to bring their premium back down to

what it was in 1972 or 1973.

When the next year comes around, will the necessary

percentage for inflationary costs be added to the base rate or

will the refund be conveniently added to that base rate and

then you'll put the 10 per cent on top of the two? I think

that's pretty important.

The other reason: I talked about the political value of this

particular automobile insurance and I want to just touch on the

financial aspect and the reason why we have to scrutinize this

part of the Minister's responsibilities very carefully. Because

there has indeed…. And I'm sorry to say this, because I

personally thought more of this government in one respect.

I used to sit on this side of the House and listen to the

NDP rip into the Socreds for their advertising — the ads we used

to get from different departments which really were supposed to

be just telling the people about anti-pollution campaigns or

highway safety, or what-have-you, but which were very subtle

advertising plans to promote parts of government policy.

The Minister is partially correct in the answer he's already

given, that there was a great deal of information to be

propagated to the people of the province concerning ICBC, and I

accept that. But this I do not accept — a $4,400 full page ad

saying "Thank you."

There's a lot of people in this province not the least bit

interested in being thanked for what you've done with your 39

per cent vote and your monopoly insurance plan at great cost.

This is the height of blatant politicking with taxpayers'

money: "Thank you." I don't know what this cost, but it's a

full page ad in The Vancouver Sun , March 1, and it

appeared in The Province . I'm not only getting support

from this side of the House, but we've got a quote from Prince

Rupert in The Vancouver Sun of May 4, when the garrulous

Minister of Highways is quoted:

"Graham Lea took another swipe at the

[ Page 3528 ]

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Friday night, saying

that he suspects some of the full page ads represent an unnecessary expense

to the taxpayer."

It goes on:

"'If the ads don't give specific information about claims centres and things like that,' he said, 'then I

think it may be a case of wasted money. It's something I'll

take up with Bob Strachan' — Transport Minister and head of

ICBC — 'when I get back to Victoria.'"

Maybe we can find out whether the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) took it up with the Minister of Transport, but whether

he did or he didn't the fact is that I've heard a great deal of

public comment about the advertising programme. The Minister

has said he provided a service through ICBC and through the

general insurance that's being sold, but the basic reason given

for a government monopoly insurance plan…. We must never,

never forget that the fundamental basic reason that was

hammered home by this government for many years in opposition

and on the hustings in '72 was that it would be cheaper, more

economical, there would be no rip-offs because there would be

no competition — this, that and the other, and many other

points that I haven't got time to cover.

But what do we see in action? We see in fact that this

government is spending taxpayers' money for its own political

advantage. This particular ad that I chose has got nothing to

do with conveying information to anybody, other than giving

yourself a rather pathetic pat on the back because you think

you've done a good job.

And what is a good job? We've got millions of dollars put

out on claims centres that can't be built in time. We've got

computer systems that can't be implemented in time. The basic

premise, in fact, of forging ahead with a deadline, as was

done, was wrong. What is the consequence of barging ahead

before it could possibly be done efficiently and economically

and under the deadline?

In fact, on this aspect of it, I wonder if the Minister

would answer some of the questions that I raised in the budget

speech — such figures as the fact that you have about 60

personnel — outside personnel, not people employed within the

department as such — working on behalf of IBM and Woods Gordon

Company. I quoted a figure of $250,000 a month. The Minister

pooh-poohed that, but he didn't come out and tell the House

what the real figure was.

We know that he had to get an interim computer system simply because of the

unreasonable haste and pressure that was being asked by the government. And

then we have all this farce of computerization and the computer costs — which

the Minister hasn't told us what they were in starting up. He pooh-poohed questions

from the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) when he asked for

a breakdown.

I understand the IBM personnel are not unionized, which is

an interesting contradiction of this government's stated

policy.

I understand the miniaturized calculating units which are

being used — again it's a question of the government going

first class — cost $500 when you can get a much cheaper unit at

a fraction of the cost with reasonable efficiency.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The miniaturized calculating units, which I

believe were bought at $500 a unit. Once again, I'm happy if

I'm wrong to be told I'm wrong, but just give me your figure,

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

What is the Johnston Management Company Limited? Where did

they surface from? I'm told that they came on the scene fairly

recently and are overseeing the whole of the construction

programme for ICBC. Who is Johnston Management Limited?

I needn't just be tedious and repetitious, but I do feel

that the question asked about Mr. Adams and his…not only the reason he was fired, but if this is an open

responsible government spending $70,000 worth of severance

money, or whatever the figure was, I think the people of the

province are entitled to know why, and what the sum of money

was.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I answered that. It was a question on the

order paper.

MR. WALLACE: How much? $70,000?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I forget. The answer is on the order

paper.

MR. WALLACE: On this general theme that I happen to feel

that the spending of money has been reckless, excessive and

irresponsible, this Minister has often said: "Do your homework.

Don't come here and lay charges that you can't support." Well,

I would like to lay a charge right now, and I hope the Minister

is listening carefully because I think I've done my homework

and I think I've got the figures.

It relates to the installation of carpeting on the 33rd

floor of the Royal Centre. It was my information that Harding

Telemark acrilan carpet was laid at $5.60 per square yard, with

a cost of $63,000, and that the carpet was cemented to the

floor. Now the interesting thing is that somewhere along the

line, Mr. Chairman, somebody somehow wasn't quite satisfied

that that was good enough for government offices in a building

leased for a limited number of years. While I must commend

the

[ Page 3529 ]

department for knowing where to get really good carpet — they went to Scotland this time — they got 220 square yards of

Templeton's Glen Donnel twist at $21 a square yard.

MR. PHILLIPS: How much?

MR. WALLACE: It was $21 a square yard.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're kidding.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not kidding, Mr. Member. But then just

to sort of make use of the carpet, they put a large part of it

down on top of the carpet that was already cemented to the

floor. So we've got two layers of carpet. We've got underfelt

at $5.60 a square yard, and we've got Templeton's Glen Donnel

twist at $21 a square yard.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the first time I've heard of anybody

putting a rug under the rug.

MR. WALLACE: Now that just happens to- be a specific one,

because I don't like to have the Minister suggest that we just

make broad, blunderbuss charges without backing them up. I

would just like the Minister to tell us who gave the authority

to lay one layer of carpet on top of another layer of

carpet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did they sweep the rug under the rug?

MR. WALLACE: The other inefficiency and irresponsibility is

that I understand that a great deal of this carpeting is

sitting in storage at very considerable cost to store it.

Somewhere in the order of $80,000 of carpet is sitting in

Johnson Terminals in Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whew!

MR. WALLACE: Of course, that carpeting is just sitting there

and costing the taxpayers money to be stored. I wonder if

perhaps the Minister could tell us how much carpet is in

storage, not yet used, and what it is costing the taxpayers to

store that carpet.

The second last point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is: could the Minister

tell me when the appropriate forms for bidding are sent to suppliers? Is it

or is it not a fact that a supplier is asked to give details of union or the

absence of union agreements in the supplier's business concern? It is my understanding

that suppliers are asked to tell whether their employees are unionized or not.

If this is the case, I would like to ask the Minister whether he doesn't consider

this a contravention of the Public Works Fair Employment Act, which quite clearly

relates only to the construction industry. I don't think that somebody supplying

carpets could be considered to be part of the construction industry.

I have been criticizing the government, but the interesting

thing about this, Mr. Chairman, is that the party who supplied

some of this carpeting and who's given me the information wrote

a rude letter to the Minister what to do with some of his

questions. And the company still got the contract. I can only

say, if this is the case, Mr. Minister, that you deserve credit

for accepting criticism and still giving the contract to the

lowest bidder.

The fact is that I would like an answer regarding this

question of whether or not a supplier is asked about whether or

not his employees are unionized or not, because this particular

man doesn't have a union employment shop. He pays all his

workers as much or higher than they would have on the going

rates. Maybe the Minister would care to answer some of

these.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The item with regard to the Public

Works Fair Employment Act doesn't apply to material

suppliers at all.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm not sure that we did. And while

the man may have written me a rude letter, if he's the low

bidder and can supply the material, that's fine with me. As

I've indicated time and time again, what we're after and what

we're trying to do is to get the best possible job and the best

possible price. The fact that people have been rude to me

doesn't mean that they're not going to do anything for me. I

don't carry grudges.

MR. WALLACE: What about carpet on carpet?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I understand that's true in a

section. And it was cheaper to put the carpet on top of the

other than it was to lift it. I think it was laid in that

particular section, I don't know, perhaps in error.

MR. WALLACE: Why did you need the second lot of carpet in

the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got a satisfactory answer to

that one. I haven't, you know, as to why it was done, or why it

had to be done.

MR. WALLACE: But you'll look into it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I certainly will. I agree. Now you asked

me…. The answer to the Adams question is…. I had it here

somewhere. Anyway,

[ Page 3530 ]

the full amount is in there somewhere, Mr. Member. Why did

he resign? I said at the time and I'm not going to elaborate on

it: differences of opinion was why he resigned. I'm not going

to elaborate on that.

Johnson and Associates are no longer with ICBC. They were in

at the very beginning in the location of claim sites and so on.

They are no longer doing anything for the corporation.

The miniaturized computers: that will be a tender call,

requiring a certain quality. You can criticize us for getting a

quality product when you can get something else. But we usually

find, and it's a general feeling, that for anything that's

being supplied to a large number of people, if you get a fairly

good quality item, it does stand up. They are on a tender

basis, with the lowest tender being accepted.

Interim computer system was one we set up ourselves. There

were 60 people with IBM. It's now down to 10; they're winding

down their work. It's now down to 10 people.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When an Hon. Member puts a

question from his seat I would ask the Hon. Minister to refrain

from….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I will try and get that figure for

you before we're finished.

Advertising: okay, we can…. That particular ad was a

House ad — no question of that. But the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) did not say exactly what was reported there,

according to the information I have.

Then you asked about refunds. We are still looking at what's

going to happen next year. No decisions have been made as to

what's going to happen next year in any area.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I

appreciate most of the answers, but I think the Minister has

been less than fair in trying to answer the very most important

question of all — which is: surely the government must have some

policy regarding the follow-up first year to the refund

programme. Because the refund programme in itself is a very

desperate attempt by the government to come somewhere close to

keeping its election promise that people would pay less.

Now you're struggling very hard to make sure they don't pay

any more next year. The Minister knows very well that either

the 10 per cent annual inflation has to go on top of the base

rate plus the refund…. Or if this government was really

keeping faith with the people and the kind of promises that

were made, then surely next year any increase for those people

who had a refund should be on the base figure after the refund,

not the base figure plus the refund.

This point cannot be hammered home often enough or clearly

enough for the benefit of the people who are paying car

insurance. The Minister is looking very sober and he knows that

I'm right at the heart of this whole thing.

The government sought and got elected by many people because

of both an ideological promise that the private industry was

ripping off the consumer and the government could do a better

job — and secondly, that it would be financially cheaper for

the citizens in this province who drive automobiles.

I say that they failed to meet the first goal. But at least

in attempting to make some partial follow-through on their

commitment, they carried out the refund programme. But if that

refund is just going to be very carefully and coolly — and

hopefully not noticed — let slip into the great limbo of the

past record of this government — that in 1975 it will be:

"Well, chaps, we'll just go back to where we were and we'll

forget about the people who had refunds and we'll add the 10

per cent to the base rate plus the refund."

I think the Minister and the cabinet must have discussed

this point. It's so central to the whole issue of automobile

premiums and whether this government is in fact delivering the

kind of far superior and far cheaper programme which it

promised — and which was a very fundamental reason that it is

now sitting over on that side of the House in power. Right,

you've got it right.

I think, with respect, it is not adequate for the Minister

just to say: "Well, come next year we'll take a look at

that."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, I didn't say that.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry. If that's not quite what you said, I

hope you'll take the opportunity to come up with a more

specific answer.

There's one point I just missed before I sat down. I know

it's a small point but, again, psychologically it really to me

was quite ridiculous, and several people wrote to me about it.

We put on this advertising programme with this…. I'm sorry,

I can't remember the gentleman's name, but I believe he's a TV

star….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, the gentleman's busy telling you the

message while driving his car this way and looking that way.

And if ever there was a disastrous blow to all your efforts,

Mr. Minister, to have people thinking about traffic safety — and the guy is driving along looking at right angles to the

direction he's driving in. I think this just has to…. And I

wonder if….

[ Page 3531 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This point has been made

before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: One of the other Members raised the

question last week and I agreed with his criticism.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I see. No, I agreed with that

criticism.

I would say to the Member that I didn't say we would look at

it next year. I say we're looking at every aspect of the

operation now in preparation for next year. But no conclusions….

MR. WALLACE: Do you accept the fact that you'll have to

consider it that way?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Every aspect is being considered and

looked at, examined, and as we get more experience too in the

operation we'll be able to make a better decision.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it's certainly a pleasure for me

to make a few further comments in this very important

Minister's estimates. I remember saying last year during the

Minister's estimates when he was loaded with all these

fantastically heavy jobs in this cabinet that I wasn't a

farmer, but if I were, I'd never put a racehorse behind a

plough. Because it's just too big a burden.

The Minister has been used to whipping around the province

and running free and wild while in opposition and making

statements. But all of a sudden the Minister now finds himself

harnessed behind the plough. He has to work.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A plough is pulled from the front. It's

not pushed from behind, except a snow plough.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm talking about a plough. I think you

draw the similarity. I couldn't help but think of some of the

statements the Minister has said since he got behind that

plough.

I remember him saying during the ferry strike that he had a

gun held to his head. The pressure was too great. Now the

pressure is too great and he's leaving the Legislature. And

I've hardly even started.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why he's leaving.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why he's leaving.

I don't blame the Minister for leaving because, you know,

when the pressure gets on the Minister doesn't really answer

the questions.

I was amazed when he was trying to answer the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom). I happened to write it down here. He said: "Because the Minister

struck home with the very crux of the problem, the Minister of Transport stood

up and told the Member 'His mind is warped.'" He said, "He's deliberately

trying to create an area of suspicion."

I feel the problems that have been created in the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia have been created by the

government, not by the many, many very capable people whom the

government hired to do the job or who were there in other

branches of government prior to that. I certainly must commend

the Minister for some of the very capable people he has hired

from many places in Canada to put in charge of this

corporation.

I wish the Minister was here because I think this is very,

very important and maybe should be a guide to him in future

operations. If he ever has to go through this again, he should

allow the people he hires adequate time to do the monumental,

mammoth task they have to do.

Looking back on it and going through the Insurance

Corporation offices and looking at all of the work that had to

be done, I really don't know how it was accomplished. But I can

see why, when this job was rushed through, there were going, to

be errors. It couldn't physically be done and be done without

there being errors. I think this is one thing we have to take

into consideration.

What I'm really saying, Mr. Chairman, is that many of the

errors that have occurred in the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia are due to the almost impossible deadlines

which were set by that government in trying to rush in and keep

their election promises.

The second reason that there were errors and confusion in

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is strictly due

to the government meddling with the people they hired to do the

job. I feel, had these people been given a free hand to go

ahead and set up this corporation, there wouldn't be the

problems in the corporation there are today. But this is

typical of the socialist government. They've got to stick their

fingers in where they don't know how to run a business or how

to set it up. They've got to go in and they've got to meddle

with specialists in the field.

I feel the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia would

have been a lot better off had there been some policies laid

down and some guidelines and had they been given time to do the

job. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia today would

be in far better shape than it is. There would be many more

satisfied people in the Province of British Columbia.

As it is now, due to government meddling, due to government

setting deadlines, the Insurance

[ Page 3532 ]

Corporation of British Columbia is not in a healthy state of

affairs. It's going to end up either being a disaster

financially or being heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of

British Columbia.

There are many ways the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia can be subsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia

without the taxpayers of British Columbia having any idea that

they are actually subsidizing this Insurance Corporation. They

can subsidize the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia by

buying insurance for B.C. Hydro without a competitive bid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Buying what?

MR. PHILLIPS: By buying insurance for British Columbia

Hydro, their installations, their buildings, their billions of

dollars worth of assets, you can indirectly subsidize the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I sometimes wonder,

when you were calling the people from ICBC over here and

adjusting rates, if you weren't telling these people: "Well,

don't worry about it. Knock down the rates, try and keep the

people happy; we'll subsidize you through another way."

Because there will be no competitive bids called on any of

the billions of dollars' worth of assets that British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority will be insured, nobody will ever

know. As I said in this Legislature last year and as the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) said this

afternoon, anybody who turns on a light bulb in British

Columbia could be indirectly subsidizing the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. When the rates go up, we will

never know what the increased costs were.

One thing we can be assured: unless the Minister outlines

for us how the rates for B.C. Hydro are going to be set, we

will never know that some of the increased Hydro rates which

consumers in British Columbia will be paying in the very near

future — and mark my word, it will be in the very near future — are not going to be due to the excessively high rates for

insurance with B.C. Hydro will be paying to another government

operation by the name of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

We will never know, if and when the ferry rates go up, whether it's increased

costs of operation or how much of the increased costs of operation will be from

buying insurance on the ferry system from the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia. I ask the Minister if, to keep the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia honest, to ensure the integrity of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, to ensure that the manager of the ferry system is not going to be

raked over the coals for increased costs, he is going to allow independent insurance

companies to give an estimate for the insurance on these ferries and for this

fantastic liability insurance that must be carried. Is he going to be honest

with the taxpayers of British Columbia or is he going to pay the rate the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia asks? Who will ever know whether it is competitive

or not?

This is what I was talking about yesterday afternoon when I

said we need a government practices Act within this Legislature

to make sure that some of the things I am asking for this

afternoon are written in the law to keep competing government

corporations from skinning the taxpayers of this province and

covering up their own inefficiency. The more and more the

government gets its sticky hands into the private industry of

this province and into business, the more and more we need a

government practices Act.

Don't you ever rely, Mr. Chairman, on the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) to ever protect this

government because, if we could rely on that, she would already

have taken the Minister of Communications who is in charge of

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to task or,

indeed, the entire socialist government for misleading

advertising during the election campaign of 1972.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now don't blow your cool, Madam Minister;

don't blow your cool. You would be having the entire socialist

government before the courts of this land for misleading

advertising. You know it as I know it.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there isn't one government

car insured with ICBC this year for $25. Not one! It's all

right, Mr. Chairman, for this great, high-handed, socialist,

dictatorial government to skim over all of these things. But

I'm telling you, we need

an Act in this Legislature to keep

them honest.

There are other ways that the Insurance Corporation can rip

off the taxpayers of — British Columbia. What about the

government operation at Ocean Falls? I would suggest to you

that if the government is going to run Ocean Falls in any type

of a business sense, they're going to have to have insurance.

How are the taxpayers of British Columbia ever going to know

whether the rates they pay to the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia are competitive or not? I ask you, Mr.

Chairman, I ask you.

If we had a law in this province that said, before the

government insures its own operations from its own insurance

company, they had to get several competitive bids and that

these operations had the right to place their insurance with

another company if the bids were within a certain percentage of

premiums away, then and only then would be know that the

taxpayers of B.C. were not subsidizing ICBC.

[ Page 3533 ]

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

Member that the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications

is not responsible for the actions of these other groups. I

would ask you to direct your remarks to the vote before us and

to his responsibility.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks but

I'm merely trying to point out how, under this Minister and

through the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, other

taxpayer-owned operations can subsidize the Insurance

Corporation, therefore putting the onus on the taxpayers of

this province. That certainly comes under this Minister's vote,

Mr. Chairman, because I'm asking that Minister to allow other

government operations to go to other insurance underwriters and

get competitive bids.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister doesn't

agree to this, the taxpayers of this province will never know.

He will be able to stand in this Legislature and show that the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia made a profit

strictly because other government enterprises have paid heavy

insurance rates, and the people will never know.

This is one of the problems with socialism where the

government has its finger in all the operations. No