1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7889 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 7889

Limitation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 48). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 7889

Ferry Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

section 1 –– 7889

Mr. Lockstead

section 2 –– 7890

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading –– 7891

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 5: ministers office (continued) –– 7891

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lockstead

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today we have a group of

students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary. They are visiting the

House today with their teachers, and I hope the House will join me in

welcoming them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA)

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Limitation Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

FERRY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I won't take up too much of the committee's time. Yesterday, during the

course of second reading, I think all of the points as to why we voted

against the bill were made by my colleagues in the opposition.

There

is one point on

section 1 that I wish to ask the minister about. It

refers to the explanatory note. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, it

is as follows: "The amendment will permit the guarantee of lease

payments in addition to the guarantee of securities referred to in

section 18(l)." This means that the Ferry Corporation may have to

borrow moneys to make payments on the leases that were entered into in

or about 1977, when the government and the corporation sold some of the

vessels to eastern financial firms on a leaseback arrangement over an

18-year period, as I recall. The reason for this was that the

government could have cash right now for the sale of these vessels. The

vessels, which cost approximately $46 million apiece to construct, will

over an 18-year period cost the people of this province $96 million per

vessel under this leaseback arrangement, in our view.

I know

the minister of the day put forward the argument that this was a good

financial transaction, and I'm sure I'm going to hear the same thing

from the minister in a minute or two. The fact is that the leaseback

arrangement is ultimately going to put us in a position where we will

have paid for those vessels twice, under this

section which allows for

paying back or guaranteeing those lease fees.

In the

minister's view, will it be necessary — in view of the government's

reduced subsidy this year to the B.C. Ferry Corporation — for the

corporation to borrow money on the money markets of the world which we

will have to pay high interest rates on? Will the corporation have to

borrow money to make lease payments on those ferries?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, to the member for Mackenzie, I think we've had this

debate in the Legislature before regarding vessels that were leased; I

believe it was in 1977. The more I look at that arrangement the better

it looks as the money markets change. I believe the rate they have on

that is a little less than 11 percent. That certainly looks attractive

in today's money market. I might say that in the subsidy payment this

year of $47 million, it's my understanding that part of that subsidy

pays the lease payments.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. FRASER:

I don't know just how much of the $47 million, and I don't know whether

the government has to borrow any money to pay the subsidy, but I'm sure

they don't. That's the anticipation. As for any future borrowings by

the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it would be up to the board of directors to

recommend to the government any future borrowings, and it could be a

possibility that they would recommend that. Whether the government

would accept that I don't know. I refer not to the original leased

vessels, but to the vessels under construction now, or under

modification, which are not out of the shipyard yet. For instance,

there's one coming out, I believe, this month, and one came out

[ Page 7890 ]

recently.

There is a fair amount of money there. Whether the B.C. Ferry

Corporation will be able to fund that out of the current cash flow I

don't know. Therefore they would have to analyze and see if they had to

ask the government to go to longer-term financing in the case of

leasing or whatever.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'll be very brief. I think we made our point, in terms of the

financial arrangements, under

section 1, but I did want to place this

on the record because it deals directly with the subsidy paid by the

government to the Ferry Corporation to allow it to operate.

The

main point, and it's one the minister is very much aware of, is that

the operations of those ferries serving the coast of British Columbia

will have to be expanded. We'll cover this under estimates so I won't

get into it here, but there are parts of British Columbia where the

operations will have to be expanded. Portions of British Columbia which

currently are not being served. Under the current subsidy arrangement

there is no way that that corporation, in spite of what I consider to

be reasonable good management at the present time.... The problem lies

not with management but with the government. With the reduced

subsidies, there is no way that corporation can expand or increase its

service to the coast, to the people of British Columbia who live there.

As I said before, some areas of this coast have no water

transportation, freight or passenger at the present time, under any

arrangement — private, through the corporation or through Highways.

One

other matter, just so it's on record. There is no doubt in my mind,

particularly in view of the minister's answer a few minutes ago, that

the corporation will have to borrow money on the open money markets of

the world, and one way or another, through increased fares or increased

subsidies, whichever way it happens, the bottom line is that the people

of this province will have to pay the high interest rates on the

borrowings that the B.C. Ferry Corporation enters into in the future.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's observations, but as I observed

earlier, government policy was to lease the vessels back in 1977 to

provide funds, and the rate today is very attractive on those leases —

around 11 percent. That is all total cost; the funds were derived and

reinvested, I imagine, so it reduces the cost to government and the

Ferry Corporation to some degree.

Regarding the expansion of

the fleet, I think it can take place, but I point out to you that we

have expanded the fleet quite maturely in the last four years. I

believe around $150 million for docks and new vessels has been spent.

We have also expanded service in other ways, such as a larger capacity

on all the runs, particularly from Port Hardy. There's a new terminal,

plus twice the capacity of the vessel on that route, the Queen of the North .

We built a new dock of our own at Prince Rupert because we got into

difficulty in sharing with the good landlord we had. We expanded to the

Queen Charlotte Islands, where they've never had service since

Northland Navigation pulled out of the Pacific coast in, I believe,

1976. We will deal with expansion as it comes.

Yesterday I

said — and I repeat this — that as far as capital is concerned the

government feels they should use the credit line of $250 million

they're provided with by the Legislature only if and when necessary.

That's the way we would get expanded service in the future. So I don't

think it's as bleak as you point out, Mr. Member. I'm sure we'll

continue to upgrade this fine service for the public of British

Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't want to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, and I won't. I just want to correct the minister on two items.

The

minister did say yesterday during the course of the vote and as a

response in second reading that this side of the House was voting

against the B.C. Ferry Corporation and, in effect, the people working

for that corporation. That is not correct. I want it on the record that

what we were opposing was the method of financing, the reduction in

subsidies. The minister was talking about increased capacity. I wasn't

going to discuss this under this section, but the minister did raise

the topic. The fact is that we have reduced service on most parts of

the coast this summer. I know the minister raised this topic, and we'll

get into details on this matter during estimates. Just so it's on the

record, the fact is that we have reduced service this summer to

Vancouver Island and parts of the coast. We will pay the price this

summer for that reduced service.

MR. D'ARCY: This

section is really the guts of this bill. It makes a fatuous statement

here in the explanatory notes when it says it makes the calculation of

the annual highway equivalent subsidy more flexible. Mr. Chairman, when

this government wants to make something more flexible, it means only

one thing: less money than there used to be and higher taxes for the

individual user in British Columbia. In fact, this bill should not be

called the Ferry Amendment Act, 1982; it should be called the Ferry

Rate Increase and Reduced Service Social Credit Act, 1982.

this very day, June 1, service on the Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen route

has been reduced by three sailings. I don't want any specious argument

from the minister that there is increased capacity on the existing

boats, because that's not correct. There have been nine of what I shall

call mega-ferry sailings a day on that run for the past several months,

and three truck ferry sailings. As of today — as we get into the summer

season — there are still nine mega-ferry sailings, but there are no

longer any truck ferry sailings. The amount of service has been

effectively reduced by three sailings a day. That capacity is going to

have to be absorbed by the existing ferries on the routes. In addition,

there is no longer a 6:15 a.m. sailing from Swartz Bay or 6:30 sailing

from Tsawwassen. This is a particular inconvenience to business and

commercial travellers who need those early sailings to do their

business across the water.

To give another example, between

6:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. — a period of two and a half hours — as of

yesterday there were four sailings from Swartz Bay. Between 7:00 a.m.

and 9:00 a.m. this morning there were only two sailings. We are getting

into the summer season. It is as a direct result of this government's

policy that this is taking place. This bill is a reflection of this

government's policy. I mention only one route, but as my colleague from

Mackenzie has indicated, this is endemic throughout the entire system.

There

is only one reason that this bill and this

section is even before the

House. That is that the minister in charge of these matters in 1976

made a mistake because they established by statute a specified formula

for setting up an annual

[ Page

7891 ]

ferry subsidy. If they hadn't made that mistake, they wouldn't need

this bill. They could have had these rate increases the way they've done

all the other rate increases over the past few months — in the secrecy of the

cabinet chambers. They could do with a stroke of a pen, an order-in-council,

what they are doing by bringing a bill before the Legislature to allow them

the flexibility to reduce the provincial ferry subsidy by an amount in excess

of $20 million. This $20 million, which they call flexibility in this section,

can only be made up by increased ferry fares to the travelling public throughout

the entire B.C. ferry system. I thought it absolutely strange yesterday — literally

off-the-wall crazy — that government members could say that anybody who opposes

this bill is against the ferry system. I talked to a number of ferry employees

yesterday morning. They all said that the government was nuts and that the new

schedule was crazy. Anybody who is not against this bill is against the ferry

system. It is that party over there who is against the ferry system, and that

is why we're voting against it.

HON. MR. FRASER:

That was a fine speech from the member for Rossland-Trail. I have a

suspicion that it was all politics. That is a terrible thing to happen

in this Legislature — the thing the Leader of the Opposition is always

scolding us for. I wouldn't get involved in that in any way, but I want

to correct some of the statements he made.

The facts of life

are that we have increased capacity in the water in 1982 because of the

foresight of the Ferry Corporation in building new vessels and

stretching and lifting the vessels we have. Yes, there might be a

cutback in the runs, but overall there is an increased capacity. They

are changing schedules today, June 1; that is correct. What you didn't

mention is that the

schedule will change again on June 24 for the

summer schedule. You might properly criticize that maybe that should

have gone in on June 1, but it changes again on June 24 to try to

grapple with the wish of the users of the system.

I might say that what we are also trying to achieve.... I

don't know if the socialists would do it this way or not, but we don't

want to run empty boats. That is what could well happen with what

you're suggesting. We're trying to save some public money, and save the

day that we might have to increase rates. I said yesterday that when

that might happen, if necessary.... We have taken it away from the

tourist season; it will not be dealt with until the fall. We have

increased capacity there. The doubletalk from the socialists over

there....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: You are against B.C. Ferries. You voted against B.C. Ferries yesterday. That's on the record. That's a fact of life.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Just to remind you, hon. members, we are in committee

and we must first pass

section 2. Before we pass

section 2, we will

vote.

I also remind hon. members that this is not the appropriate

section to be discussing

the ferry-sailings schedule. We must be relevant to the

section before us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I promise the Chair that I will not exceed the scope that the minister has had under this section.

are on record as voting against this bill. I want to point out very

clearly to the minister and the government benches that this side did

not vote against the workers or the people in the B.C. Ferry

Corporation. What we're voting against here is the government's ability

now, when this bill passes....

It will, with that

heavy-handed majority they have over there. They pass whatever they

want. They haven't even read the bills, but they pass them — and the

sections of this act. What we're voting against is this continuous

increase in the powers of the government to allow these borrowings in

cabinet secrecy. without bringing these matters to the Legislature.

That's what we're voting against in this

section — just so the minister

understands,

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have a few

brief comments, through the Chair. The attempt by the minister not to

be political, but to force closure on this House through that motion

will not go by unnoticed. Let the House have recorded in Hansard

that absent from the House were the Social Credit cabinet ministers who

should be fighting for increased ferry service. That's why the attempt

to move the motion — when they weren't here in this House. You were

just protecting other cabinet ministers — the members from Oak Bay and

Saanich. We know what's going on. That's why we're voting against this

bill. It's an attempt at closure that we will not contemplate.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $164, 608.

MRS. DAILLY:

Just as the House adjourned last night, I had posed three questions to

the minister. I believe he was just getting up to answer when the

former minister in charge, the member for Point Grey, felt it necessary

to get up and do his usual speech that we've heard about a hundred

times in this House. Perhaps we can get back to some rational

discussion from the minister in charge. That's not likely, but we'll

try in hope. Did the minister make note of a couple of those questions?

I'd like to hear the answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First

of all, there is an annual management survey done by the management of

ICBC to identify problems of service and to review the image of the

corporation. In this particular year that management survey was done by

the Delphi people.

[ Page 7892 ]

The

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) mentioned somebody who wished to

go in and pay next year's insurance because he was going to be away for

several months. I would assume the ICBC agent could not accept payment

for next year's insurance because the rates had not yet been set; they

would therefore not be in a position to write a contract for the next

year. A person going away for that length of time could, I'm sure, at

the appropriate time communicate with the agent, have a policy

developed and the amount of premium determined, and then pay it by mail.

The

member mentioned concerns about moral judgments and fire insurance on

homes. I can only say to you that insurance premiums are based on risk.

You mentioned the use of marijuana. You mentioned, I believe, the

attempt by people involved in prostitution to get home insurance. The

determination would be by the Insurance Corporation with regard to risk

in the event of fire and not on matters of moral judgment.

MRS. DAILLY:

The question I asked the minister regarding the political survey done

by ICBC was not answered. I didn't ask who did it; the question was:

what terms of reference were given to the survey firm by ICBC? No

answer was given to that question. I wonder if the minister could

answer that.

I still cannot accept the answer on the kind of

judgments made by ICBC on who is a risk. Speaking on behalf of people

who don't get fire insurance from ICBC, I am simply taking it from a

human rights point of view. I'm trying to point out to the minister

that to date he has not explained to me, any more than could the board

of directors, why someone who has been charged with but not convicted

of a marijuana offence should be refused. You say it's done on the

basis of risk. I wonder if you could explain to the House why that

person would be more at risk than somebody who smokes cigarettes

constantly. I'm not here to judge the rights and wrongs of prostitution

or the smoking of marijuana, but I am here to uphold the human rights,

the civil rights, of any citizen in our province. I'm very concerned

that neither you, as the minister in charge of ICBC, nor the board of

directors have assured us that they have any right to use moral

judgments in assigning risk.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll

deal just briefly with those two items. In general, the terms of

reference of that management survey, which is done on an annual basis,

is to analyze the image of the corporation in the public eye, the

efficiency of service, and whether or not the policies offered by the

Insurance Corporation are those required or desired by the public.

That's the intent of the annual survey. The board of directors would

probably respond in a similar vein, in general terms. We can obtain for

you the specific terms of reference given to the consultants, but in

general that's what they would be. The survey is done each year by

management as part of their management responsibility.

With

regard to marijuana, you're asking a question that I think relates to

individual situations. In insurance principles, the coverage and the

premiums involved are determined by risk. If you have individual cases

where you feel somebody's rights have been abused, I'd be quite happy

to see that individual instance and get you a specific response. I

don't think we should be getting into moral aspects with regard to

insurance. We look at the exposure of risk involved. I can only say to

you that ICBC has in the past provided, and will continue to provide,

insurance throughout the province. I'm sure the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) could advise you that in the past some of the private

insurers did not want insurance in certain parts of the province. ICBC,

upon coming into existence, attempted to ensure that those homeowners

throughout the province who desired fire insurance had the ability to

get it. ICBC is probably far more flexible with their policies than are

private insurers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I want to

change the course of debate completely and get back to what I was

saying when we adjourned last Friday in regard to the minister's

responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture, when I was showing these

most horrible pictures in living colour of predator kills in my

constituency of Omineca and in other neighbouring constituencies in the

north. As I was saying then, thousands of dollars in losses are being

incurred by individuals in the ranching industry because of predation.

I want to talk a little about that this morning, and I want to ask the

minister some questions in regard to what his ministry intends to do to

convince the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the people

in the fish and wildlife branch of the very grave problem.

Regardless

of what certain wildlife biologists say in this province there is a

very real problem and it's growing by leaps and bounds. I don't want to

talk about the wildlife side of that problem, because I'll be talking

at length about that subject during the estimates of the Minister of

Environment. This morning I want only to talk about the ranchers' side

of that problem and the very definite losses they're having because of

wolf predation. Mr. Chairman, I give two examples: a rancher in my

constituency who in the last year has lost 71 head of cattle to wolves,

and another rancher in the constituency of Skeena. It's too bad that

the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) isn't here this morning to agree

with me and to take his place and make his stand known in regard to the

predator problem.

MR. SKELLY: He's here.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, send him in so that he can talk on the subject, Mr. Member. I

have documented evidence here that a rancher in the Kispiox Valley in

his constituency has lost $105,000 plus to wolf predation in the last

year.

MR. SKELLY: Why did he go to you?

MR. KEMPF:

He went to me because his member wouldn't do anything about it. He

wouldn't speak about it or support him in this Legislature in regard to

predator control. That's why he went to me, Mr. Member. His MLA isn't

interested in the ranching industry, isn't interested in standing and

supporting those ranchers in his constituency in this chamber.

Mr.

Chairman, I have several letters from ranchers in the Kispiox Valley,

not the least of which was the one I received this morning. It talks

about the Livestock Protection Act,

an act that I believe the minister

whose estimates we're talking about this morning has jurisdiction over.

First I'm going to ask the minister to explain that

section of the

Livestock Protection Act dealing with canines and ask him whether in

fact the definition of "canine" includes wolf. If so, is he going to

make restitution through that act to this rancher in

[ Page 7893 ]

the

Kispiox Valley who lost $105,000 through wolf predation? There have

been losses reported by many ranchers throughout the north-central

interior. It's true that a very small percentage do in fact report

their losses to the ministry concerned, the Ministry of Environment,

because they know full well that in the last 10 or 15 years that has

been an exercise in futility in this province. The very real problem of

wolf predation in this province is not one that can be simply

rectified, because it's a political problem. It's a shame that it is,

Mr. Chairman. Because it is a political problem, those ranchers out

there are reluctant to report all of their losses from wolf predation.

Rather than going through the useless exercise of reporting those

losses — and I think this is the nub of the real problem — they have in

many cases taken the law into their own hands, as I said one year ago

in this chamber in the same debate. Again, I don't subscribe to

breaking the law, but with most of those ranchers out there it's a

question of economic survival.

They know that the

politicians.... I talk about politicians here this morning on both

sides of this floor who don't have the nerve to stand up in here and

state what the real problem is with regard to those kinds of losses

through wolf predation and suggest what this Legislature should be

doing about it. Mr. Chairman, there are thousands of dollars of losses,

and that's not the total of the whole problem. I'll talk about the

wildlife aspect of that problem during another estimate, because the

ranchers are having this problem ignored at another level.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Those

wolves are coming into the corrals and the farmyards of the ranchers of

the northern central part of this province, because they've run out of

wildlife and depleted the ungulate herds to the point they're almost

nonexistent. That's another very real problem in this province, not the

least of which is tourism. There are thousands of dollars of losses.

Mr.

Chairman, thousands of dollars have been spent in an attempt to

band-aid the problem by not facing reality. There has been some feeble

attempt to patch up the problem, but nothing has been done to meet it

head-on. Thousands of dollars have been spent in helicopter hunting.

It's been costly and ineffective.

I talked earlier about

restitution, although I don't believe that we should be into

restitution in any way, shape or form in this province. Rather we

should be applying ourselves to the real problem, and then there

wouldn't be any need for restitution. It's purely band-aid — money down

the drain for further studies, as the instance where $75,000 was spent

on a two-year wolf-control study. We don't have to study the problem;

we've known what it is for many, many years, We used to address this

problem in this province, and we don't anymore. Earlier I spoke of a

rancher who lost 71 head of cattle in the last year, even though

$75,000 of the taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent on this. So that

isn't the answer.

Mr. Chairman, there are people out there

in the ranching industry who I represent and other members of this

chamber represent, and they are hurting badly. They're hurting

financially because of the lack of a proper predator-control program in

the province of British Columbia. They're hurting because of the

unwillingness of politicians to say it the way it is, to meet the

problem head-on and to even admit that there is a problem. I'll tell

you there is a problem. We see it every day in letters to the editor

and in letters that I get from cattlemen's associations all over this

province. There is a very real problem, and there is an

unwillingness.... Because of the lack of intestinal fortitude on behalf

of many politicians in this chamber, that problem persists. Tax money

is being wasted on band-aid programs when we know the answers already.

We need only go out into the field and ask the people who really know.

Ask the ranchers, trappers and guide outfitters. They'll tell us. We

don't have to reinvent the wheel. They'll tell us what the problems

are. We don't have to spend $75,000 on studies. We only need the guts

to really face the problem.

The member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) smiles. I understand that the wolves are heading in his

direction. I guess the problem will really culminate when we see the

wolves on the steps of the parliament buildings. Then some of the

politicians in here will realize that they are a fact of life. In fact,

the people of this province — the ranchers, guide outfitters, hunters,

trappers and people in the tourist industry — all have a problem in

regard to wolf predation in this province. Maybe then they'll

understand.

I want to know from the minister this morning

what he has done, in representing the agricultural industry in this

province, to convince the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and

other politicians on this side of the floor what has to be done in

regard to wolf predation, and that there is a real wolf predation

problem in the agricultural community he represents.

I will read a news item which appeared in the Interior News , a weekly paper published in Smithers, dated February 10, 1982. This news item alludes to the fact that nothing can be done:

"There is nothing that can be legally done to rid ranching

areas in the Kispiox Valley and the Topley area of cattle-killing wolves, says

the district agriculturalist, Graham Johnson. Johnson said the fish and wildlife

branch has done everything legally possible to solve the wolf problem plaguing

the Kispiox Kattle Co. and the George Gibbs ranch in Topley. The Kispiox Kattle

Co. and George Gibbs claim they have lost 76 and 71 animals respectively to

wolves."

I was talking about that earlier. There is something that can be done. Again,

I say that we don't have to reinvent the wheel; we just have to have a little

intestinal fortitude.

There

is a very real program that can be entered into, but it's not going to

happen unless everyone in this chamber, representing people who have

problems, will get up and say so and not fear the little old ladies

living up on the third floor in West Vancouver who have never seen a

wolf in their lives and write big, long letters to the editor talking

about Farley Mowat, the love of the wolves and the whole ball of wax,

not understanding what the real problem is. There is something that can

be done. I call upon the minister on whose estimates we're speaking now

to urge the Minister of Environment and his colleagues in cabinet to

stop this useless waste that's going on out there because we haven't

got nerve enough to enter into a proper predator control program in

this province. We used to have it.

I’m not talking

about wiping out the wolf population in the province of British

Columbia, because you can't do that, because the wolf is smart. Nobody

would want to do it anyway. All we're talking about here is control.

All we want to do is control that wolf. Before man came along MotherNature looked after that control, The wolf would be on the

[ Page 7894 ]

increase,

and as it increased the ungulate herds and wildlife of the province

would decrease because of predation. But then, all of a sudden, man

came on the scene with domestic herds of cattle, sheep and what have

you. That's why the rancher is having this problem, because the

ungulate herds are depleted. That's a problem as well, and I'll talk

about that at length in the proper form. Man came on the scene and

provided the wolf with food when the ungulate herds were depleted. So

now the wolf needs only to move into the pastures and farmyards. The

wolf population continues to increase, and so we have the problem with

the ranchers. My question is: what are you going to do to convince the

Minister of Environment that we need a proper predator-control program?

closing, I want to say that dog control is under the minister's

jurisdiction. We have a very strange situation in the province of

British Columbia. If there were a pack of dogs out there attacking

domestic herds or wildlife, we would have a hue and cry from the

public, saying: "We've got to do something about those dogs." The

minister would do something, because he has dog control in the province

of British Columbia under his control.

MRS. WALLACE: He doesn't have it anymore.

MR. KEMPF:

Well, if dogs were a problem they'd be taken care of, but not wolves. I

call upon the Minister of Agriculture this morning to stand and tell

this chamber that he is going to seriously support a proper

predator-control program in the province of British Columbia, to

protect the people he represents — the ranchers of this province — from

the terrible predation problem they have.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Just to deal with the member for Omineca's comments — which he has

raised in this House for the past several years — there is no question

that the ranchers in the farm community are suffering from predation by

the wolf population in this province. On the predator management

committee, under the Ministry of Environment, we have Ministry of

Agriculture staff. I recognize that does not answer your problem, but

it does indicate that we are attempting, through that committee, to

work with the Ministry of Environment to deal with the issue.

regard to the Livestock Protection Act, you will notice that under the

definitions in that act dogs are defined as the canine species.

Therefore they are the ones that are identified — domestic dogs that

are at large and not under the control of their owners — and that is

why we have that program, which is administered by regional districts.

I might add that the dog licensing by them is what provides the funds

to compensate the farmer for loss of domestic animals.

You

made the comment that you are not in favour of a restitution or

compensation program. You don't think that is the answer. You feel it

should be better management. I don't disagree with you. I feel that if

there is a problem with the management of wildlife — in this particular

case, wolves — then that problem should be addressed and the population

should be managed. I guess the issue really is who determines what is

fair management of a species of animal. The members of the fish and

wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment, as I understand it,

feel strongly that they have a proper management program. As you well

know, their argument on many occasions has been to say that the

activity of man — the farm or ranch operation — is encroaching further

and further into areas that used to be the wolf's domain. As a result

there is conflict. I can't accept that answer and I know you won't

accept that answer. We have to address the question with better

management. I know you will be canvassing these questions under the

Ministry of Environment's estimates where, as you can appreciate, they

probably could be addressed more properly than here. From the rancher's

point of view and from the Ministry of Agriculture's point of view,

first, there is a problem, and second, my ministry's staff are working

with the Ministry of Environment in giving our input to how we can see

the problem being addressed. We will continue to do so. Hopefully we

will achieve a program that will meet with your satisfaction and, of

course, the satisfaction of the ranchers involved. That is about all I

can say on that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: I just want

to comment very briefly on the minister's comment in regard to the

program now being carried out by the fish and wildlife branch. I can

assure you, Mr. Minister, that in the area I represent — it is

administered there out of the fish and wildlife office in Smithers — it

is not being done properly in any way, shape or form.

I would like to read into the record this morning a couple of paragraphs from a letter which appeared, again, in the Interior News

of March 24, 1982. This is a letter from a former predator-control

officer with the fish and wildlife branch in the province of British

Columbia, when we had a proper program.

feel that the present poison program is totally inadequate. Much of the

information sought in the costly studies undertaken could have been

gleaned from local residents — ranchers, prospectors, trappers, guides

and some of the older wildlife officers. Too many times it is assumed

these people 'don't know anything about it' because they don't have a

piece of paper to show they do. That piece of paper is fine, but

without the practical experience in the field, that piece of paper is

only good enough to accommodate that cow Al was talking about."

He's referring here to a previous letter in a paper he had written that I was talking about.

"The results we see today, in comparison with the results obtained in the period 1951 to 1960, bear that out."

He's

talking about the day when he was in charge of a proper program out of

the Fish and Wildlife office in Smithers. But in those days, the

high-priced, fresh-out-of-college wildlife biologists weren't calling

the shots. They were asking the people in the field where the problems

were. They were attacking those problems. Hundreds of wolves were taken

every year in the lakes district and Smithers areas, partially in my

constituency. That doesn't happen anymore. They run uncontrolled. There

is no control of the predator wolf through the Fish and Wildlife office

in Smithers — none whatsoever. All you need to do is ask your district

agriculturalist there, and he'll bear out what I'm saying.

MRS. WALLACE:

We on this side of the House always attempt, in estimates, to deal with

the subjects under the purview of any minister in a topic-by-topic

manner. It makes for orderly debate, and I'm sure it makes it much

easier for the minister involved. It's also for the benefit of those

people who read Hansard ; I'm sure it's much easier to deal with the topics they're interested in reading about. So, for the benefit

[ Page 7895 ]

those people, I'd like to say that the previous interruption occurred

through circumstances beyond the control of the opposition, and I'd

like to return to ICBC.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of

order, that's a clear indication of what some members of this House

consider the predator problem to be. They care not for the

agriculturalists in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: It's a very valid subject, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But it is not a point of order. You'll be allowed, as every other member is, to continue in the committee debate.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm sure we will be dealing with agriculture in due course, when we get

back to the agricultural

section of the minister's responsibilities. We

on this side of the House have been dealing with ICBC for some time and

are going to continue until we finish that debate.

I have

here the ninth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia. The minister will recall that in his estimates there is a

vote — it was a much-contested vote at the time it was put in — for

some $6 million for refunds relative to senior citizens' rebate. I

wonder if he could tell me where that shows up in this report. I would

assume that the payment was made to ICBC. I'm wondering whether or not

it was made, and if so, where it is shown in the report.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

If it has been made — I don't have the detailed financial statements in

front of me — then of course it would go in as revenue to offset the

reduced premiums paid by the senior citizens. If it hadn't been paid,

it would probably show up as an accounts receivable on the financial

statements of the corporation.

MRS. WALLACE: You're telling me then that it would show as a separate item.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If you're looking at the financial statements, it would probably show in other receivables in the year 1981.

MRS. WALLACE: What page is that?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

This would be page 18 and 19. You're looking at $47 million on that

page. It's probably in there. I'm sure you can appreciate that on the

financial statements of the corporation — the balance sheet — they

can't give all the independent detail. They put together a number of

receivables under "other."

MRS. WALLACE: I hate to

tell the minister, but he is wrong again. When I saw that this was not

identified, and being very concerned about that particular amount, I

made inquiries of the Insurance Corporation and found that that $6

million has just been included holus-bolus on page 16 in the

$591,841,000 for vehicle premiums written. I think that is a very

sloppy way to do it. The minister doesn't even know whether it's been

done, and he doesn't know where it is. There was another instance when

the member for Point Grey got up and, after six years, still referred

to a cheque that was written, a deficit. Here this government transfers

$6 million from public funds without even showing the amount, just

burying it in premiums. That is a double standard, in my opinion. It is

just one more example of how that insurance corporation is being run. I

am convinced that there is a deliberate attempt to run that insurance

corporation into the ground.

My file on people who have

problems with ICBC is the largest file — maybe with the exception of

WCB — that I have. I just brought one or two examples that I want to

talk to the minister about today. One of them was a letter written to

the Insurance Corporation from a woman who moved to Lake Cowichan from

North Vancouver and Langley. She had a deficit showing up of some $76 —

an unpaid premium which was not her responsibility. Eventually, because

they would not reissue her insurance, she paid the amount, even though

she felt she didn't owe it. She had no record of any such outstanding

amount. Even after paying it she was still told that that was standing

against her account and she could not receive a new policy until that

was paid. At that point she became very concerned, because this was

February 3, and licences were coming up. She wrote to the Insurance

Corporation.

She has outlined the story. These were her

involvements with ICBC: she had a glass claim to replace her windshield

on Highway 18 in 1980. That is another story. "...then there was action

and settlement of a general damages claim resulting from an accident in

North Vancouver in March of 1980." She gives the claim number. Her

policy carried no liability whatever in that accident. "This matter was

handled by the Langley ICBC claim centre. Then in 1981 it was

transferred to the Duncan centre. It has been suggested to me that

perhaps a concluding report, called a CL90, may not have been processed

at the Langley claim centre, and that this may have somehow resulted in

a claim against my policy." Then she goes on to say:

"Since

1976 there has been in your computer printout a record of $70.26 owing

by me to ICBC. This was also an error, but at one point, because an

Autoplan agent declared he was unable to provide me with my current

coverage for that year unless I did so, I paid the amount. This

information has never reflected that payment, which, as you can see by

the attached photocopy of my receipt was made in February 1, 1979 by

certified cheque. Each year since then, upon renewing my coverage, I've

had to produce this 1979 receipt in order to purchase my insurance. On

occasion I have been denied the option of financing the premium on the

basis of this out-of-date information. As recently as December 1981 I

went to an Autoplan agent to transfer mv coverage to a new vehicle, and

this $70.26 was still outstanding.

"As you requested in your letter of December 23, I have

made numerous attempts to contact your customer service department by telephone

and have not once been able to get past a busy signal. Hopefully this letter

will meet with greater success. Since it is now insurance renewal time we have

very little time to correct this matter before I must again confront an unfortunate

local Autoplan agent who will be required to deal with what will undoubtedly

be a most unwelcome and perplexing situation."

[ Page 7896 ]

She

got no answer to that letter. I eventually contacted the customer

services people in Vancouver, who were quite unaware of it. I don't

know where the letter had been. We got a call back and we eventually

got the thing resolved, but these are the kinds of problems that — just

as the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has indicated — are

causing people to get fed up with ICBC. That is why I think it is a

deliberate attempt by management to discredit the corporation. I can't

read anything else into it.

I have a copy of a letter from a

woman in Duncan. She just received her bank statement with cancelled

cheques. She says: "I wish to register the strongest protest over your

withdrawing the amount of $6.69 in interest charges, due no doubt to

the so-called late payment. Two of the three personally approved

payments from ICBC were in the agreed amount of $73.88 and a third for

$80.57." She goes on to detail the agreement, and then she says: "What

gives your corporation the right to have additional moneys withdrawn

from an account without prior permission?" She then says: "No other

amounts are to be taken from my account without my written permission.

Should subsequent problems arise I'm prepared to take the matter as

high as possible." That letter was dated February 23; I received it

March 3. On April 5, after some lengthy dealings with ICBC, I wrote to

the woman again and she replied April 10 to say that the interest

payment had been reinstated in her bank account. Those are the kinds of

things that are happening.

In August last year I applied for

insurance for our recreational vehicle. I paid the insurance and went

on holidays. When I came back from holidays there was a note to contact

my agent. I contacted him, and they asked me to come around and see

them as there was an error in my insurance. I went around and they went

through the policy again, and when they finished they said I owed them

an additional $5. I paid the $5, as I thought this was fair game. In

January I received a letter from ICBC, and I was quite surprised. It

says: "Autoplan premium overpayment refund. Enclosed is a cheque

resulting from an overpayment on your Autoplan premium. This refund

represents the difference between the premium amount calculated when

you renewed your insurance and the amount which actually should have

been paid."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Was it an independent agent?

MRS. WALLACE: No, it was a government agent.

Included

with it was a cheque, and the cheque was for $5.15 — the five dollars I

had been told I had overpaid, and the 15 cents was an inconvenience

payment included. The amount of paperwork involved in that on behalf of

the agent, myself and ICBC, in issuing this cheque, is utterly

ridiculous. Surely we can get our stories straight better than that.

Surely ICBC can do a better job of serving the public. I don't know

what the problem is, but I suspect the problem is with the direction

that company is receiving from this minister.

While I'm on

my feet, I just want to deal very briefly with a subject that I have

raised many times in this House, and that's the situation with the Lake

Cowichan road. In the first instances ICBC covered glass and paint

damage that occurred as a result of flying gravel on that road, with

one deductible, and then when the cost was perceived to be fairly high

they came up with the decision that glass was one accident and paint

damage — front, back, left side and right side — were all separate

accidents with a deductible. That meant that as far as paint went you

might as well just have your vehicle painted, because the cost was less

than the four or five deductibles.

This is an intolerable

situation, and it is now apparently going to court in another

jurisdiction between another minister, the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and the company who did the paving.

When that decision is reached, as to who is responsible for the

condition of that road, be it the paving company, Highways or both, any

restitution that's made is only going to be made on the basis of the

ICBC claims that were actually filed for paint damage. The glass is

covered, at least for most people but if they signed a release in order

to get their windshield repaired, it meant that you signed a release as

far as your paint damage was concerned.

I'm pointing out to

the minister that there were a great many people who didn't actually

file a claim, because they held back on that; or, if they did file, the

company was released from the paint damage repair. When a settlement is

reached between the paving company and Highways, and payments are

forthcoming, it is not going to reflect the real costs to the people

who drove there, because of this strange policy of ICBC's that every

bit of paint damage was four or five different deductibles and glass

was a separate deductible.

I have proof positive — and I

have filed it in this House — that in the initial stages it was

considered as one accident, and then the policy changed. I think that

is a very unfair way to treat the people who have to drive that road

because of their work.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First, I

guess it shows you the frustration of a minister when a person comes

into this House and says: "Where is the $6 million discount given to

senior citizens?" The minister says: "To the best of my ability —

because I don't have the detailed financial statements or the auditors'

working papers in front of me — it's either a receivable or it's in the

revenues of the particular year." Then, after responding in that way,

to find members getting up, feeling quite satisfied that they have

caught a minister out of step, so to speak.... As a result, they answer

their own question and say: "Well, we phoned the Insurance Corporation,

and they told us exactly where it is." And it's where this minister

said it should be: either in revenues or as a receivable. Since they

received it, it showed in the revenues, under the heading "Premiums

Received." Therefore I find it somewhat humorous, to say the least,

that a member would stand up and ask a question to which they already

have the answer.

To repeat what the Minister of Science

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) mentioned yesterday, this corporation is not run as a

deficit. It's not subsidized by the taxpayer, but is run on sound

actuarial principles whereby we determine the anticipated cost for

claims in the coming year, and we set the premiums accordingly. Where

there are increases in premiums it's not because of ICBC but because of

the driving record of the people of this province. We have to pick up

that claim and those damages — and they're substantial, Madam Member:

you're looking at $600 million a year in claims paid. But at least we

say that the user will pay — the driving public will pay premiums — and

the taxpayer who does not drive doesn't have to subsidize the driving

public.

In regard to our surveys, we do those in an attempt

to find out what the public wants and to find out where we fail. Where

our image is not up to par we attempt to correct that.

[ Page 7897 ]

Mr.

Chairman, there are a number of evidences, I think, that can be quoted,

and I'd like to touch just on a few, because members opposite like to

read the horror stories: those issues that weren't solved to the

satisfaction of the driving public in a particular case. Well, there

are some good stories, and I'd like to refer to a few.

First

of all, I'd like to refer to a survey done, not by ICBC but in a report

released by the Ontario department of insurance, which showed that

premium rates in that province were significantly higher than those

paid by B.C. motorists. It was a national survey, and it indicated

that, for example, if you compare premiums, you'll find that ICBC in

Vancouver charged $448 for comparable coverage and if you look at

Montreal the prices ranged from $935 to $1,061 or in Toronto from $640

to $793.

I know the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) will

be making copious notes to tell me you can't compare Toronto, Vancouver

and Montreal in one fell swoop. Well, let's look at the smaller

communities: ICBC in Victoria, similar coverage, $368; Halifax,

premiums ranged from $368 to $672 through other insurance companies;

Ottawa, from $622 to $816 for similar coverage; Edmonton, from $499 to

$790. So I think we've got not a perfect story but a good story to tell

in the management that has been carried out on ICBC since 1975, because

before that it was a horror story. You can't make political promises

that say: "We're going to give you $25 insurance in trying to buy a

boat." The public didn't accept that in 1975 and they turned you out,

because they recognized that insurance is based on sound actuarial

principles, that those people who drive cars should pay the premium and

it shouldn't be subsidized by other taxpayers.

I can quote

some pretty interesting positive letters on services rendered by ICBC.

I'd like to quote a few in response to the Agriculture critic, who

spends more time talking about ICBC than she does talking about the

farmers in this province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) spoke up

more for the farmers of this province than that Agriculture critic

across the room.

Let me quote some positive responses. One

is from Dr. Judith Hornung, MD, to a member of the Insurance

Corporation staff: "I just want to say thank you very much for your

help with solving my seemingly insoluble problems with my truck. I was

grateful for the kind and courteous treatment I received from you and

all the staff at ICBC." Another is from Mr. Bill Cosgrave to the

president of the corporation.

"Today I had a

most enjoyable encounter with your company. I was in a hostile mood as

I dialed ICBC to express my anger and frustration at the relentless

increases in vehicle insurance. I was so disarmed by the courteous,

informative and helpful manner in which I was handled that my beef has

been transformed into a bouquet.

"I learned that the name of your employee who impressed

me with her knowledgeable responses delivered in a pleasant, polite manner is

Linda Martin in your public information department."

That's the public information department that is often criticized by those

people who say that they can't get through. Here's one lady in that

department who provided a service to an individual, so much so that he felt

he should express his appreciation for her service by letter.

Here's

another bouquet — to the president — from Mr. Terry Bogyo of Delta: "I

had the unfortunate experience of having an accident during your strike

of last summer." I repeat, not quoting from the letter, that that

corporation went through five months of labour dispute last year. I

defy any corporation, whether it be insurance or otherwise, to go

through a five-month labour dispute and come up to scratch within

several months thereafter. The staff, management and board of ICBC, in

my opinion, should be complimented for the all-out effort they went

through to bring that corporation back up to scratch.

To get

back to the letter: "While it took several months to resolve my claim,

I had the pleasure of dealing with a Mrs. Bellamy of your Richmond

office. Throughout our dealings she presented herself in a very

professional and understanding manner." To end the letter, he states:

"While I have few accolades for the Insurance Corporation, this

individual deserves credit for her presentation of your organization.

Similar attitudes and performance by other staff members could go a

long way in improving ICBC's public image."

I have others

here, which I will read from time to time as those members get up and

give me horror stories on individual claims. I've said it before and

I'll say it again: there are 600,000 claims per year opened in ICBC. If

we have 90 percent success, that means we have 6,000 claims that are in

dispute. That means that MLAs, I and other cabinet ministers will get

the reaction from the motoring public who are not satisfied with their

claims. We're bound to get those. As the second member for Surrey said

yesterday, although I don't often agree with him — I may not be quoting

you correctly, Mr. Member — ICBC does create a problem for government

because behind ICBC is the shareholder, and that happens to the

government of British Columbia.

We can do all we can. We can

answer the questions that are asked. We can deal with the ombudsman. We

can do public surveys. We will never be 100 percent perfect. I defy any

corporation or individual in this world to be 100 percent perfect,

because if they were they'd walk on water. I'm saying that that

corporation, management, staff and board does the best in its ability

to achieve the goal of trying to provide reasonable-cost insurance to

the motoring public of this province.

We do an effort in

education to the motoring public of this province, to tell them to

drive safely and drive defensively. "When you drink don't drive. Then

we can provide you with the lowest-cost insurance in the world." We can

tell them that. We can try to educate them to that. We can lead them to

water, but we can't make them drink. If they want to drink alcohol and

drive, they know what the problems are.

We attempt to

educate the young people and the old people. We attempt to educate the

motorist who comes in for his licence. He gets a booklet, and the

booklet tells him more than any other insurance company in the world

would tell him. It even goes so far as to give him an accident report

form that he can fill out, if he keeps it in the glove compartment of

his car, which he probably doesn't. It tells him about hit-and-run. The

second member for Surrey says: "What about hit-and-run?" It's all in

the book. If they'd read the book they might understand what the

corporation services are.

I am just saying that we must

recognize — I will include my colleagues with the members opposite —

that we will not ever solve all the problems of the Insurance

Corporation. But I can tell you that under the administration on this

side of the House we will solve far more than what they solved over

there between 1973 and 1975. We will not subsidize the Insurance

Corporation, nor will we run it into a deficit position, like the one

in which it was almost bankrupt by 1975, as the Minister

[ Page 7898 ]

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said

yesterday — $187 million. They make fun of that comment. The two former

directors over there try to indicate that it was a cheque that was paid

and then paid back. They don't even understand about claims incurred,

claims not settled and liabilities. They talk about the liabilities of

Crown corporations. There are liabilities of that Crown corporation,

behind which stand the premiums paid by drivers. As a result, you have

to provide those funds to meet those claims. Just because you've got

"money in the bank" today.... Had that money not been made available by

the end of the year 1975-76, ICBC would, in effect, have been bankrupt.

The

former directors of that corporation sit over there and make comments

about it. They know full well that that is exactly the case. You can't

fiddle with the books of a corporation like ICBC and say that

everything was rosy because the cash flow on one particular day — a few

days after the insurance renewable premiums came in — was rosy. It

wasn't. They left a total disaster in 1975.

I would be quite

prepared to read some other letters if members opposite want to quote

from NDP horror stories. I think the only research they ever do is to

look at either newspaper columns or a few selected letters and then

sort of quote disaster, doom and gloom, instead of doing some research

and coming in here and asking some questions with regard to the

service, or asking questions related to the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food.

Mr. Chairman, I'm well aware of the concern of the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) about the traffic on the

highway and the damage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

And she's gone from the room, that's right. But was that ICBC's fault?

She attacked ICBC, but she's also aware of how ICBC went a long way in

trying to resolve some of the problems with that particular road. Who

was at fault? It wasn't ICBC. I understand it was the quality of the

road covering which caused the problem of paint damage to cars, etc. As

the member mentioned, that matter is before another court and will be

dealt with there.

I'm quite prepared to debate the issue of

ICBC, but I hope the record will show that under this administration

we've attempted — and succeeded — to run that corporation in a sound

and businesslike manner, and that's 110 percent better than what they

ever did up to 1975.

MS. SANFORD: The minister is

very agitated this morning. He seems to be very much on the defensive

about this corporation. I do hope he will take a deep breath and pay

attention to this particular case that I want to raise. But I feel that

in this one instance a serious injustice has been done to a constituent

of mine, not because of the actions of the corporation but rather

because of the fact that the provision.... I assume this would require

legislative change, which I know I'm not supposed to talk about under

the estimated expenditures of the minister. But we must make some

changes so that the kind of serious injustice that has taken place in

this one particular case will not be repeated.

Mr. Chairman,

I would really like the minister's attention in this particular

instance. I'm not critical of the corporation as such; I'm more

critical of the legislators responsible for various statutes which, in

this case, have been of absolutely no assistance to my constituent. Her

name is Ivy, and she lives north of Courtenay in the Black Creek area.

In 1978 she had a visit from her sister from Britain and her sister's

friend. While out driving north of the Courtenay area on July 15, 1978

they were struck by a person who had no insurance and was under the

influence of alcohol. Ivy, who had lived in the Courtenay area for a

number of years with her common-law husband of ten years, was injured

in the accident; her husband was killed. Her sister was injured to the

extent of being in a coma for several weeks in Vancouver and she now

has the mind of a child, requiring constant care in Britain. Ivy had

broken ribs and has also suffered concussion and other problems.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

All

these years later, Ivy still has not received any payment from ICBC

because that case is still going on. I assume it will be resolved this

fall. But because of the inadequacy of ICBC coverage in instances like

this, and because she was in a common-law relationship, she apparently

stands to gain a maximum of $1,000. This is following the loss of her

husband, who was the sole breadwinner. This is following the serious

injury of her sister which she feels somewhat responsible for, in that

her sister was visiting her in Canada at the time of the accident. The

sister requires constant care in Britain; she requires a kind of

assistance that most people would not need, because she now has the

mind of a child and has no memory whatsoever.

The maximum

amount of money available through ICBC in cases like this is $75,000.

The medical costs alone are probably $300,000. Her sister required

medical treatment at a cost of over $200,000. Because the man who was

driving the car was completely responsible for the accident and had no

insurance on that day, the maximum amount of money available was

$75,000. This woman, who is about 50 years old now, is unable to obtain

employment. She has now used up the assets they had, has had to receive

assistance from Human Resources and has gone through untold anguish

herself through the loss of her husband and the very serious injury to

her sister, as well as her own injuries she has had to suffer. She

stands to receive no financial assistance as a result of this traumatic

experience.

I don't think we have done our duty as

legislators when people can have an experience like this and end up in

the position that my constituent, Ivy, is in. She stands to lose her

home; she has already lost her husband; and her sister will have the

mind of a child for the rest of her life. Yet because of the fact that

we have a maximum of $75,000 available through ICBC for cases like

this, that is the position that my constituent, Ivy, finds herself in.

this particular case, the person who was responsible for the accident

was driving his son's car. The car had been insured for one day only —

the day before the accident. It had been insured to move the vehicle

from Courtenay to Victoria, yet the accident the following day took

place some 15 to 20 miles north of Courtenay — nowhere near where the

car was supposed to have been moved.

One other problem is

that under the Family Compensation Act — a statute that I realize the

minister is not responsible for — this woman has no recourse. Because

she was in a common-law relationship for ten years, she apparently does

not qualify under the definition of "wife" as far as the Family

[ Page 7899 ]

Compensation

Act is concerned. Therefore she has no recourse through the courts to

try to obtain some financial assistance through the person who was

responsible for this accident and who behaved in such an irresponsible

way.

She feels very badly treated by the legislation of this

province, in that she and her husband were very careful about their

driving habits. They never went on the road after they had a drink.

They were fully insured. They took out all the insurance they were

required to take out. They obeyed the traffic laws. They were in the

process of taking her sister, who was here from Britain, and her friend

for a drive in the evening, and in one short space of time the

irresponsible behaviour of this particular man has put her in a

completely untenable position. Yet she does not qualify for any

financial assistance with the huge costs incurred through the medical

expenses of her sister, most of which, of course, had to be paid

directly. She was not covered by British Columbia hospital insurance or

medicare premiums.

Ivy had to make arrangements to have her

sister flown back to Britain, even though she herself was suffering

because of the injuries she had sustained in the accident. She had to

take her sister to Britain and try to make arrangements for permanent

care for her there. The institutes there did not want to have anything

to do with her sister because of the fact that she had been injured in

Canada, and because they felt that there should be some obligation,

through the Insurance Corporation, to ensure that some of her costs

would be met in this 24-hour care she now requires. Eventually Ivy had

to abandon her sister in Britain so that the institute itself would

have to assume that responsibility, because Ivy could give them no

guarantee that there would be any financial assistance for her.

This

kind of thing, I think, points out that we have failed as legislators

to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of money available, when an

accident of this type occurs, so that someone who is completely

innocent, someone who has obeyed the traffic laws, who has taken out

insurance, who does not drink and drive, will not stand to lose her

home and have to rely on Human Resources as her only source of income.

She has lost enough without having the additional problems of trying to

survive on the amount of money available through Human Resources

assistance.

I would like the minister to comment on this

case and to assure me that he will take this to the board meeting and

discuss the problems of my constituent in terms of the overall money

that's available; that he will try to see that the fund is sufficient

so that people like Ivy will not have to suffer and go through what she

has had to go through in the last four years.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the very carefully worded remarks of the

hon. member for Comox (Mrs. Sanford) are indeed a litany of sadness.

I'm sure the minister feels sad, as we all do in this House. However,

there are many cases like this; I have an even worse one in my own

constituency. I do not know what the solution is. If we change the

regulations to suit a single case, I think we would open the floodgates

and we would not be able to control it. However, I do appreciate what

the member for Comox has said. I just want to say that I also have such

a case, and we must be careful in this thing.

I never was an

admirer of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. I always thought they were

problem people. But having come to know them better as the years go on,

I think the problem with ICBC is its gigantic size. Although I do not

agree with it entirely, I must say that the people of ICBC are the most

dedicated business individuals I have ever met, from the president

down. We do have problems with some claim adjusters; we do have

problems here and there. But my experience has been that they have been

most generous, most kind and everyone is listened to. I have a lot of

letters of appreciation for that corporation. However, they do suffer

from size and I believe something should be done to alter this problem.

Bringing new insurance companies into the province I think would be a

help to ICBC. I recognize ICBC is here to stay, but I do believe it is

far too large and almost overwhelms the insurance business of this

province.

I believe one of the major troubles — I said this

during the estimates of the minister last year and the year before, and

I say it again — is the impersonal nature of the claims centres. I

think we must get back to individual contact with the public, with

individual adjusters outside of claims centres. I feel that is an

urgent matter. I referred to them last year as adjustment mausoleums,

where the masses go to be viewed as impersonal individuals coming in

with a claim. Although they are sometimes treated with kindness, they

are also sometimes treated in an offhand manner. That is where the

trouble commences. I urge the minister to take a hard look at the

claims centres. I believe it would be advantageous for the ministry to

change the system of adjustment of automobiles, trucks or personal

claims so that the claimant comes into contact with a peer in his own

town, and adjustments are made on an individual to individual basis.

Modify the gigantic nature of ICBC. If there is any problem with that

corporation, it is its size and the nature of its operation in that

regard.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought the minister might

reply to the remarks made by the member for Dewdney. There must have

been six or seven questions in that little presentation.

have a couple of questions for the minister on ICBC. I have selected a

few letters, correspondence I have received from constituents in regard

to the activities of the corporation. I know we have only a few minutes

so I will try to keep it short. I hope the minister is taking notes. I

will wait until I have the attention of the minister, because this is

really important.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) keeps telling me to hurry up. Could I kindly respond

to that minister that I wish he would hurry up and do something about

the high mortgage rates and the homes that are being repossessed in

this province. Hurry up and do something about that and quit needling

hon. members on the floor of this House.

Back to the

estimates, Mr. Chairman. If I had the undivided attention of the

Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for ICBC, but I don't.... I

therefore move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, until we have the minister's attention.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again,

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to withdraw question number 28 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada