1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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, MAY 25, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 10

[ Page 12715 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Boone: Today I rise to introduce some people here in the gallery who are

no strangers to Victoria or to most people in the province of B.C. -- and in Canada, in

fact: Bruce and Crystal Dunahee, and Bruce's mother Barbara Dunahee. Of course, they

became known to all of us several years ago with the loss of their son Michael. They're

here today to share with us in the proclamation of National Missing Children's Day. So

would the House please make these individuals welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today we're joined by members of the board of

governors of the British Columbia Institute of Technology, who have been meeting with

members from both sides of the House. They are Arun Garg, the chair; Peter So, the

vice-chair; Ken Spencer; Julia Blockberger; and Shannon Cooper. Also with them are Brian

Gillespie, the president of BCIT, and David Bernard, the director of marketing and public

affairs. Obviously BCIT performs a very valuable service for the people of British

Columbia. I'd like to have the House join me in making these members of the board and

present administration very welcome today.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I'd like to introduce three guests who,

I believe, you had lunch with today. They are constituents of yours: Kathy Quan-Yolden,

Darrell Yolden and Fred Jock. Would members please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. I. Waddell: Today is the beginning of the B.C. Festival of the Arts here in

Victoria. I'd like to introduce members of the board who are here: the president, Paul

Winn; Eileen Hoeter, the secretary; Margaret Stacey; Andrea Spence; Armeda Spada

McDougall; Barry Kelsey; Kathy Pick, the vice-president; Gary Semeniuk; John Lazarus; Sue

Popesku; and Gabrielle Levin, the executive director. Would the House please welcome these

hard-working directors for a successful B.C. Festival of the Arts.

The Speaker: Any further introductions? I recognize the Minister of Small

Business, Tourism and Culture again.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, sadly, I rise to bring to the attention of the

Legislature the untimely death of a B.C. music producer, Bruce Fairbairn. He died last

week at the age of 49. Bruce Fairbairn was a Vancouver producer responsible for building

and rebuilding the careers of some of the world's major rock acts. The records he produced

sold more than 60 million units. He produced for Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, INXS, the

Cranberries, AC/DC, Kiss, Lover Boy and many other groups I could mention. Perhaps we have

underrated this man. He was a very serious, worldwide-acclaimed British Columbia producer,

and we're going to miss him in the arts community in B.C.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for bringing that to our attention.

Introduction of Bills

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 66, the Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act, 1999. This bill makes amendments to a number of statutes to streamline

rules, approve administrative efficiency, eliminate unnecessary provisions and correct

errors arising from the 1996 statutes revision.

The acts amended by this bill include the Court of Appeal Act, Court Order Enforcement

Act, Creditor Assistance Act, Estate Administration Act, Evidence Act,

Interpretation Act,

Land Title Act, Libel and Slander Act, Limitation Act, Motion Picture Act, Motor Vehicle

Act, Multilevel Marketing Regulation Act, Municipal Act, Police Act, Refugee Settlement

Act, Trustee Act, Wills Act and Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act. Of course, during

second reading, we'll go over the details of that. I move that the bill be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 66 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.

LABOUR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. D. Lovick presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that Bill 65, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: This bill makes three amendments to the Workers Compensation Act

to enhance the fairness of the compensation system, for both workers and employers, and to

protect the health and safety of workers.

First, authority is provided for the Workers Compensation Board to increase the amount

paid for funeral expenses when the tragedy of a workplace fatality occurs. Second, a new

framework is established for the employer classification system, so that a system that is

fairer and more equitable in calculating employer assessment rates can be implemented in

early 2000. Third, the act is amended to codify the board's existing authority to develop

workplace safety regulations by adopting other provincial standards and legislation. This

parallels the authority provided last year with respect to national and international

standards and the new occupational health and safety legislation.

[ Page 12716 ]

This bill also introduces, or includes, changes to the Employment Standards Act that

allow the director of employment standards to recover wages from a talent agency if the

talent agency does not pay those wages to the actor. This amendment will provide greater

protection for performers working in B.C.

Finally, this bill also introduces minor streamlining amendments to three provincial

labour statutes. First, the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act is amended to remove the

requirement for contractors and subcontractors to provide statutory declarations to the

tendering agency on a fair-wage project. Second, a legislative oversight is corrected in

the Hairdressers Act to provide certainty that hairdressers may cut hair as a primary

function of their trade. The Hairdressers Act is also updated to clarify the current

practices of the cosmetology profession and to enhance the administration . . .

The Speaker: The minister will recognize that his two minutes are up.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . of the profession in British Columbia.

As well, finally, the obsolete Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act is

repealed.

The Speaker: I think you have a motion for us.

Hon. D. Lovick: I do. I move that the bill be referred to this House for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 65 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.

[1415]

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. C. Evans presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. C. Evans: I move that the bill introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Evans: This bill amends the provincial interest sections of the

Agricultural Land Commission Act. The provincial interest sections of the act established

the process by which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may remove a matter from the

Agricultural Land Commission and decide the matter itself. That process is a recognition

that there may be very rare cases where a matter involves interests that are important to

the province as a whole and that those interests are broader than what the commission is

capable of addressing within its specific mandate of protecting agricultural land.

These amendments clearly define the circumstances under which the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will consider referring a matter from the commission to the

provincial interest inquiry; expand the requirements that must be followed throughout that

inquiry process to ensure that it is open, accountable and fair; ensure that the public

has access to good information in a timely manner so that people can meaningfully

participate in the inquiry; and establish the values that must be applied by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council when deciding on a matter, with agricultural values always

having the highest priority.

These amendments will improve the ability of the public to meaningfully participate in

an inquiry and will improve the quality and quantity of information available to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Most importantly, these amendments will confirm that

agricultural values are the first priority for any considerations under these sections of

the act about the use of the province's scarce and valuable agricultural lands.

Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. FERRIES DEBT LOAD

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries. When the

minister assumed responsibility for the ferry mess, he told us all that the corporation

was a financial wreck. He told us that he was going to get the debt under control. Today I

have a confidential B.C. Ferries document dated April 1999 -- that's after this year's

budget, hon. Speaker -- which shows that B.C. Ferries will need another $600 million of

debt to offset new capital and operating deficits between now and the year 2004. My

question to the minister is: why didn't he tell B.C. taxpayers that they were going to

need another $600 million in debt just to keep the fleet afloat?

[1420]

Hon. G. Wilson: I hate to pop the Leader of the Opposition's balloon, but that's

not a confidential set of figures. Clearly what the B.C. Ferry Corporation has been saying

all along is that there is a very high debt load that we need to manage now on both the

capital side and the operating side.

There is a new financial strategy being put in place, with a new board. They are doing

due diligence. In fact, they're meeting within a couple of weeks to formalize a new

capital plan. When that's done, it will be made public for everybody to see. There's

nothing to hide. This corporation will be brought into a sound fiscal management regime.

If that's not good enough for the official opposition, I think it certainly will be good

enough for the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I read today's news release from the minister with regard to the

second fast Ferrari being launched. Nowhere in that news release is there any comment with

regard to the costs of this. There's not one word, not one peep about the additional debt

that is going to be required just to

[ Page 12717 ]

keep B.C. Ferries going as a corporation. The fact of the matter is that this is an

additional $600 million in debt. My question to the hon. Minister Responsible for B.C.

Ferries is: how does he believe that adding an additional $600 million in debt is going to

make B.C. Ferries any less broke than it was when he assumed responsibility?

Hon. G. Wilson: The Leader of the Official Opposition ought to know that if

there has been a long period of time with no capital construction program, if we have a

situation where ships are aging, if we have a situation where we now need to invest in

putting in place sound capital construction programs to provide service for people in

coastal British Columbia . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . then we need to do it. Now, if the Leader of

the Official Opposition . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . instead of standing up and being negative,

negative, negative, is prepared to stand up and work with British Columbians to put a

capital construction program in place . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . he will see that the B.C. Ferry Corporation

will provide sound transportation for people who live in coastal communities and, through

that, help build sound economies on the coast of British Columbia . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . rather than have this negative batch shut the

province down, close the door and have everybody leave.

Interjections.

The Speaker: House, come to order.

D. Symons: It sounds something like a leadership race going on over there.

But anyway, you know, this Ferries document shows, on a page that's titled

"Scorecard Today," the corporation's plans for increasing tariffs up to the year

2004. The tariff increase will total almost $42 million over the next five years, an

increase of more than 14 percent. Can the minister explain to ferry users why they'll be

forced to pay for this government's fiscal mismanagement of the Ferry Corporation?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: What I can explain to the people of British Columbia is how

hopelessly incompetent those members opposite are. They're referring to a document that

has no relevance to the current tariff structure. They're referring to a document that

does not reflect the fact that this government has committed to no tariff increase until

April of the year 2000, and then there will be a tariff rationalization that'll be fair to

all people.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: That member should get out of Richmond and the Leader of the

Official Opposition should get out of Shaughnessy and travel the coastal communities and

see how B.C. Ferries is now an integral part of the building of their economy.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond Centre.

[1425]

D. Symons: The reality is, I think, that it's the minister who's out of touch with

what's going on in the province of British Columbia. We found out that the minister is

indeed planning to increase the debt of the Ferry Corporation by over $600 million over

the next five years. With the fiscal mess that that corporation is in, how can the

minister possibly expect that ferry users will not be forced to shoulder this burden? How

is that going to happen? What happened prior to 1995 and . . . ? In 1995 this

government held back on ferry increases for a year until after the election, and I suspect

they're planning that again. How are you going to end up paying for all the debt you've

run up in the Ferry Corporation?

Hon. G. Wilson: I know that the Liberals want us to jack up ferry rates. I know

they want us to increase ferry rates. I know that they want us to burden the people in the

tourism sector.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: I know that they have no compassion whatsoever for people who

live in ferry-dependent communities. That's their strategy. If this member opposite had

been paying attention and keeping up to speed, he would know that the information he's

using is two and a half to three months old. We are putting together a tariff

rationalization that will be fair to British Columbians. It will not require them to

shoulder the burden, because we are going to put the B.C. Ferry Corporation on a sound

fiscal footing. The member should know that. I've invited him to work with me.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Wilson: Instead, he has preferred . . .

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . to sit back and demand that the people have to

pay more, rather than work with us to make it right.

[ Page 12718 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, this document says April '99. That was last month, hon.

Speaker -- last month. When the new minister of ferries -- the newest New Democrat, the

only one who's signed an NDP card in a year -- became the Minister Responsible for B.C.

Ferries, he said he didn't want B.C. Ferries to go on "a major borrowing spree."

Two weeks ago in this House we boosted the debt at the B.C. Ferry Corporation by $375

million. Why, two weeks ago, didn't the Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries stand up in

this House and tell us that within two short years he intends to blow the top off of that

debt cap and add another $400 million to the debt load?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Wilson: The reason I won't stand up and say that is that we don't intend

to do that. And if the member . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Wilson: Oh, the member waves a piece of paper that was written

internally in April, released . . . . It deals with . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, the reason that the Liberal opposition hang their

hat on such flimsy material is because they're not prepared to face up to the fact that

the B.C. Ferry Corporation has turned a major corner. We have a new board. That board is

working diligently to put in place a new capital plan. And if that member would . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . come out of Little Mountain and travel on some

of the ferries once in a while -- spend some time in the rural communities instead of

urban Vancouver -- he would . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . realize how unacceptable it is for the

Liberals to suggest that we should boost ferry fares.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: I admit guilt. I based my argument on the flimsy basis of

one-month-old B.C. Ferries treasury group documents. How outrageous of me to do that. I

mean, if you can't do that, what can you do? The Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries

says that he has a plan to put the B.C. Ferry Corporation on a firm financial footing. And

now we realize from his documents -- those aged, one-month-old ferry documents -- that in

fact he's planning a spending spree of his own of about $600 million. Can the Minister

Responsible for B.C. Ferries tell us when he was going to tell British Columbians the

truth and when B.C. Ferries is finally going to come clean with the people of British

Columbia, who are paying hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for this

mismanagement by him and his colleagues?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, British Columbians have learned something about the

Liberal opposition today. They want to increase ferry fares for coastal communities. They

want to shut down capital construction. They don't want to build any new ships. They don't

want to get involved in capital repair programs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. G. Wilson: And they are not prepared to work with this government in making

sure that we put this corporation on a sound fiscal footing. That's what the Liberals

would do: increase fares, do no further ferry construction and simply carry the weight of

the ferries on the backs of ferry-dependent communities. And I say shame on those Liberals

over there.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

G. Plant: After the budget was brought down in March, the then newly launched

Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries stated that the provincial government was going to

commit secure funding to help put the Ferry Corporation back on its feet. However, this

antique, yellowing, leaked document shows that even with an increased provincial subsidy,

the net operating loss of B.C. Ferries will only get worse. So my question for the

minister is this: will he tell us how much longer he intends to pretend that he is

actually doing something to put the Ferry Corporation on a sound financial footing when in

fact he is driving it deeper into debt?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: The amount of capital debt that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is

carrying was public information months ago. The Liberals are now trying to allude to the

fact that the B.C. Ferry Corporation carries a large debt and is going to have to go on a

capital construction program. That is not new news; we knew that. And the fact that the

Liberals are only now waking up to it tells us that they've been asleep at the switch. To

have a sound program, to have a sound corporation, we need to construct some new ferries.

Those ferries will be built in British Columbia with British Columbia workers, and they

will supply British Columbia communities with sound transportation at an affordable price.

[ Page 12719 ]

That's the plan. If the Liberals oppose that, they would simply shut down the

shipbuilding industry, increase the fares and kill the economy in coastal communities. I

say shame on those members.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Actually, if the minister had been listening to my question, he would

have heard that I was asking about operating costs, not capital construction. But that may

be a distinction which is now lost on the minister, having taken his lessons in NDP

economic management. The operating costs of the B.C. Ferry Corporation are today a

financial disaster, and this document predicts that they will continue to be. In fact,

before you add in the contributions from government and fare increases, the operating loss

to the corporation will rise from $95 million last year to more than $235 million by the

year 2004.

The Minister for B.C. Ferries was going to fix this program. Instead, he's become the

star pupil in the NDP financial mismanagement school. Will he explain how a massive

increase in operating expenditures and losses equates with sound financial management?

Hon. G. Wilson: I would think the very first thing you would do is be able to

read a balance sheet in a ledger, which that member clearly doesn't understand.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. Members will come to order. The

minister will reply. The question was heard in some silence, and I expect the answer to be

heard also.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm alerted by the members opposite that they intend to start

Ferries estimates tomorrow. Perhaps they should have a briefing from the Ferries staff so

they can at least read the information that's in front of them.

[1435]

The member wants to know how we're going to rationalize operating costs. We're going to

do that by making sure that we have a rationalized service in the Gulf Islands; that's

underway. Working with coastal communities -- that's underway. Working with the people who

will depend upon the ferries to make sure that tariff rationalization is fair and

equitable through the system -- that is underway. Making sure that the midcoast ferry that

services Bella Bella, Bella Coola and Klemtu is protected so that those economies can be

secure -- that is underway. Making sure that North Island and Prince Rupert are adequately

and properly served -- that is underway.

If those members opposite had their way, they would shut it all down. They would jack

up the fares. They would stop capital construction. And we would have crisis in coastal

communities.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY

Hon. L. Boone: I rise today to make a ministerial statement. It is with great hope

and considerable sadness that I stand before you in recognition of National Missing

Children's Day, May 25, 1999. Throughout this day across the province, families and their

communities join together to raise awareness to prevent this kind of unfortunate situation

and to impart hope in finding children who have gone missing.

It's important to understand that there are different scenarios that can result in

missing children -- anything from unresolved custody issues and family abductions to the

most tragic situation when a stranger kidnaps a child. On behalf of the government, I want

to convey our heartfelt sympathies for the suffering and frustration that a family and

their community endure when a child or a young person goes missing. No one, unless they

have experienced this type of loss, can even begin to imagine the pain it causes, no

matter what the final outcome.

In the midst of this sadness, it is also important that we stay hopeful as we remember

these children for the wonderful memories they have given their friends and families. We

must not forget the good times or the joy that they have imparted to many people's lives.

We must maintain our hope for the safe return of missing children everywhere.

I ask all of the members here today and everyone in British Columbia to take

responsibility for the safety and well-being of all children in your lives and in your

communities. For example, the next time you see a photo of a missing child, don't assume

that you can't help. Instead, take a long look at it and memorize the image as best you

can. Your memory of this photo could help in the identification of a missing child one

day. I urge everyone in B.C. to take this action and to do your part.

In addition, you can contact the Child Find office nearest you to learn more about what

you can do to educate the children and families in your life. Over the month of May, Child

Find has offered fingerprinting clinics throughout B.C. to help with the easy

identification of children who have gone missing. This is an extremely valuable service

and one that helps families everywhere in B.C.

Let's all pray for the safe return of our missing children, and please find it in your

heart to share in the responsibility for preventing this in the future.

L. Reid: I wish to make some comments today on the Green Ribbon of Hope

campaign.

"In 1986 the Solicitor General of Canada declared May 25 to be National Missing

Children's Day in Canada. Each May, Child Find hosts the Green Ribbon of Hope campaign.

During the month of May, community members are asked to show their support and concern for

the issue of missing children by prominently wearing a green ribbon. Proceeds generated by

the campaign enable Child Find B.C. to continue its mandate of assisting in the search

process for missing children and the education process of children and adults about child

safety.

"On May 25, the Green Ribbon of Hope is recognized as a symbol to help remember

missing children and to seek their safe return. It is also used as an expression of our

thoughts for missing children and their families and friends. Activities

[ Page 12720 ]

carried out during the month include fingerprinting clinics and various community

fundraisers.

"The concept of the Green Ribbon of Hope was originated by the students and

faculty of Holy Cross Secondary School in St. Catharines, Ontario, following the abduction

and subsequent murder of 15-year-old Kristen French. Her classmates came to Child Find to

ask to develop a legacy for Kristen and all missing children in Canada."

I'll conclude by paying tribute to Jon Taylor, president of Child Find British

Columbia. There is no loss in this life greater than the loss of a child. Jon, you and

your agency do important work, and for that we are grateful.

[1440]

Petitions

Hon. A. Petter: I have a petition from 144 constituents concerning gypsy moth

spraying and the opposition that they have to it.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Visiting us today are 21 grades 6 to 8 students, several adults and

their teacher Miss Heney from the Foothills School of Arts and Sciences in Boise, Idaho.

Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to introduce to the House two friends of mine: Irene

Wright from Saltspring Island and her son Hal Wright from Sandon, B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information

of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In

this chamber, I also call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll

be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(continued)

On vote 39: ministry operations, $24,045,000 (continued).

[1445]

Hon. D. Lovick: We are to discuss the estimates of my ministry and also the

estimates of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Accordingly, I would move the

following motion: "Be it resolved that a sum not exceeding $24,045,000 be granted to

Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour, ministry operations."

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, for anybody who is watching this debate, what I

just said is the equivalent of saying: "ICBC discussions, the sequel." We began

on Thursday last, and we are now picking up where we left off.

I have only one thing I would say before we begin the process of questioning and

comments from my colleagues on the opposite side: namely, that I believe we quoted a

figure of 4 percent, in terms of the administrative cost relative to the total operations

of the corporation. I am advised that I was apparently given a misprint; the figure should

be 6 percent. My apologies to my colleagues and anybody else who might have been

inadvertently misled by that comment. With that, I will simply defer to my colleagues.

K. Krueger: We thank the minister for that clarification.

Over the weekend, the people of this province had the opportunity to ponder the answers

and the questions that were put in the ICBC estimates last Thursday. There are two answers

that I want to give the minister the opportunity to say a little more on, if he'd like to,

in that I think the answers are just so unacceptable to the people of this province. Those

were with regard to the matter of ICBC spending $2 million to locate a group of

top-echelon managers across Burrard Inlet from their head office location, well away from

the employees they manage. One of the minister's answers . . . . For the

public and for the people watching this debate on TV, it should be clear that the minister

receives answers and advice from the people who accompany him. I'm sure that the minister,

upon reflection, wasn't any happier with those answers than I was.

Essentially, the answers said two things. One was that the managers wanted to get away

from the mundane day-to-day activities of the people they manage. The other was that the

managers were, essentially, making this move as a matter of personal sacrifice, because

nobody else wanted to move across the water. Surely those are not acceptable answers.

This afternoon there are community social services workers' pickets up in front of the

Legislature. Many of these people work for minimum wage; many of them have no benefits in

addition to that minimum wage, or the wages they get. Those people have to get to and from

work, many of them in automobiles, and they pay ICBC premiums. Most of the community

social services workers are women. They feel disregarded and not valued at all by

government. They cannot understand the prioritization process by which decisions like this

are made.

It's all the same money to the public; it comes out of the same taxpayers' and

premium-payers' pockets. The people are one and the same. It's very hard for people to

understand how HCL workers get a 5 percent increase on top of their $30 wages. Community

social services workers work for minimum wage. ICBC spends $2 million to move to plush

offices. These things are impossible for people to reconcile. It's just not acceptable to

them to hear those reasons for the expenditure. So we want to give the minister an

opportunity to add to those answers, if he'd like to.

Hon. D. Lovick: You bet; I'm happy to respond. First of all, let me say that I

hope this isn't an indicator of the way the

[ Page 12721 ]

debate is going. I do not take kindly to somebody grossly overstating and

misrepresenting what I said in the Legislature. Contrary to what the member suggests, I

said that the move was made to enable that group of senior people within the corporation

to deal with strategic planning matters. In the course of our discussion, I accepted the

proposition that that indeed meant no longer doing the mundane activities.

[1450]

Perhaps the member would like to look up the meaning of "mundane." He'll

discover that it isn't necessarily a derogatory or pejorative term. It means the

day-to-day ongoing activities, which junior echelons of management normally do. You don't

need your senior executive doing that. Rather, the decision of the corporation was that

the senior executive would carry on with those more strategic, longer-term things.

Second, the matter of the sacrifice. I told the story in jest. I said that there was

indeed a committee struck in the corporation to see who would be willing or what

departments would be willing to move across the water. Apparently nobody was willing to do

so. I did not say that the executive was in any way making a grand sacrifice by moving.

They simply decided they would, in that nobody else apparently wished to do so.

I also must respond, albeit briefly, Mr. Chairman, to give the member notice that if he

thinks he's going to use these estimates as a platform to set himself up as some kind of

great defender of poor people and the underprivileged in this society, he ain't going to

do so with silence from me. Those are the people across the way who have spoken against

minimum-wage increases. Those are the people who have spoken against occupational health

and safety improvements. Those are the people who are advocating downsizing government and

reducing services to people, especially poor people. Those are the people who have also

advocated tax breaks for the wealthiest and most powerful in this society. So spare me,

please, members opposite wrapping themselves in the blanket of caring about the little

folks and suggesting that nobody else does.

The Chair: The Chair would remind members about the standard rules in regard to

relevancy. I hope we can carry on in a relevant tone.

K. Krueger: For the record, we don't regard them as "little folks."

They also shouldn't be poor folks; they do valuable work. I refer the minister to pages 48

and 49 of the Blues , where he said exactly what I quoted. In any event, my

colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour further personally checked out some of

the minister's answers, and I will turn the debate over to him now.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister -- and I wasn't quite sure if we did

discuss it: are you carrying any catastrophe insurance? Is ICBC putting any moneys aside

for catastrophe insurance?

Hon. D. Lovick: I wasn't sure exactly what catastrophe insurance meant, so I

wanted to get that before I answered the simple question. The short answer to the question

is yes, the corporation does that. I understand they are paying a premium at the moment of

$5 million per year for a five-year . . . . That's to be continued for a

five-year period, apparently. I think it's referred to in the annual report.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could tell me where in the financial

statements that $5 million is put aside for . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: The amount isn't specifically stated because it comes into

effect, apparently, for 1999. But there is a statement talking about that particular

obligation on the part of the corporation which appears on page 29, at the bottom.

D. Jarvis: In the financial statements under claims paid, that figure has

remained pretty static across the last few years. I am just wondering . . . .

Seeing that it wasn't but a year and a half ago when a previous minister stood up and said

that ICBC was headed for large, large increases because it was falling apart and that we

needed a no-fault system and all the rest of it, I was wondering if he could tell me if

this $2.135 billion that's down there has been overstated.

[1455]

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no, it is not overstated.

D. Jarvis: What about the prior years' adjustments on it? It wasn't too long ago

-- in fact, in '95 -- that it was at minus $30 million. Then it went up to $104 million in

'96 and $163 million last year. Now it's up to $219 million. I'm wondering if he would

explain that to me.

Hon. D. Lovick: The explanation, I am advised, is essentially what we talked

about last time. Namely, it has to do with the six-point plan and the costs attendant on

that and the various other safety initiatives.

D. Jarvis: With respect to the administration aspect, it appears that

approximately $75 million of motor vehicle costs has been moved from the government to

ICBC. And it says that in '98 it was down to about $41 million. Are there any moneys to be

laid off in '99? ICBC, I assume, is going to absorb all the government's costs of $75

million and transfer them to the premium costs.

Hon. D. Lovick: The merger is, I think, something that has to be looked at in a

broader context, if I can put it that way. We're talking about the single window, the

single opportunity. Indeed, in my opening comments, I think I said something about what

the merger does. If the member's question is: will ICBC get back the shortfall of

approximately $10 million . . . ? If that's his specific question, the answer

is: in all probability, no.

D. Jarvis: I notice that the total number of claims is down at least around

10,000. I was wondering what the minister would attribute that to, on the premise that in

most recession periods -- which we have been going through, and we're still probably in it

-- people don't drive as fast; they drive more carefully and all the rest of it.

Traditionally, right across North America, claims are down. There's no question of that.

In the United States, their claims are down. I think it's about four quarters in a row

now that their premiums have been dropping. Ontario's down about 12 percent, from what

I've read. I was just wondering to what he attributes the fact that ICBC claims are all

down.

Hon. D. Lovick: I wouldn't make the huge leap in logic. I think it is probably

asking too much to suggest absolute

[ Page 12722 ]

causality between the various safety initiatives and the reduction in claims. I would,

however, suggest that it certainly has a contribution to make. Indeed, based on the

numbers that I have seen and the analysis that's been done by the corporation, the

suggestion would be that yes, indeed, our safety initiatives have made a very significant

difference. I'm not for a moment, however, suggesting . . . . I don't think

it's intellectually honest to suggest that it's clear causality. There are other factors,

as well -- among them, certainly, the recessionary environment that the member talks

about.

[1500]

D. Jarvis: Bodily injury claims are down lower. It wasn't too long ago that we were

told it was necessary to bring in no-fault, because they were completely out of control. I

see they're now lower. I was wondering if the minister could tell me what he attributes

that to. I'm hearing of cases where, on the settlement end of it, ICBC is now becoming --

although they're trying to be friendlier -- a harder company to deal with. We're seeing

claims now referred to juries rather than judges, ostensibly because the settlements

theoretically have been getting lower. Now, we know those will change around, because

sooner or later jury trials will raise settlements up. If the minister could tell us how

he justifies the fact that they are lower . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: I would like to remind the member that when the no-fault debate

was going on, it was considered by many at the time that no-fault was indeed the remedy to

prevent that apparently upward spiral in bodily injury claims. What happened was that the

counterpoint, the alternative to a no-fault system, was indeed that high-profile set of

safety initiatives -- among them, most importantly of course, the six-point plan. That is

the essential answer to the question.

D. Jarvis: On the settlement of bodily injury claims, has there been any

significant happening with regards to mediation of settlements?

Hon. D. Lovick: The corporation, I understand, has apparently established an

alternate dispute resolution mechanism, which is of course in keeping with the change in

our provincial statute.

As you know, every jurisdiction anywhere in the world has recognized for some time that

courts are extremely expensive and that frequently, by using alternate mechanisms --

mediation of various kinds, shapes and sizes -- one can save a huge amount of money. And

indeed, the participants seem to be as well, or perhaps even better, served.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister advise us if there's been any change in the

philosophy of ICBC with respect to bodily injury claims? I am receiving letters and

reading articles in the paper where it's basically: deny, deny, deny and force people into

the courts rather than into mediation. I can quote some specifics, but I don't think this

is the right place to do it. I wonder if he could give me some opinion as to what ICBC's

intention is. They are driving the bodily injury claims down, as evidenced by the

information that we have. Also, their attitude appears to have changed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the corporation's mandate is to be what it always has

been, and that is fair. Certainly to suggest that there is some kind of plot whereby

people say, "Let's see if we can screw the last dollar out of individuals who are

already suffering some kind of psychological as well as physical injury," is

absolutely not acceptable and would certainly not be embraced as a policy by the

corporation.

D. Jarvis: Well, I can appreciate that's not what the minister would do if he

was in absolute control of ICBC. But it is . . . . I have a file here. Deep

down -- and this is only about three months old . . . . These are letters --

we're not allowed props -- from people that have got problems. I can quote cases where

ICBC has denied indemnity to them, they've gone through mediation, and then they've had to

go to court. They haven't been able to get along with the insurance adjuster, he has

denied their claim, and they've gone, either through mediation . . . . Or

they've denied it completely, and they get all the way up to the point where they go to

court. The week before that, ICBC comes in and does a settlement before they go to court.

And that is not how you just described it -- as a friendly company looking after the

people out there.

[1505]

In insurance companies, whether it's in the private world or the monopoly that we have

here with ICBC, the trend is to get those dollars down and to make money. And that's what

happens. I'll go into that aspect better, but if you could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: The first point I want to make is that the member, on two or

three occasions now, has referred to this big file. I've talked to the officials here with

me, and they said they've had some conversations with the member but certainly not about a

big file such as he has. If he has those kinds of concerns, I would certainly recommend

that he take them to the corporation. He can give them to me if he wants, and use me as

the intermediary to make sure the corporation gets to look at them.

I would just note, for the member's benefit, that the customer satisfaction surveys

that have been done in recent years by the corporation show that the corporation is indeed

perceived to be treating people more fairly and better. Therefore the rate of satisfaction

is significantly higher than it was X years ago. That doesn't, of course, mean that

everybody will be satisfied. As I said to the member before -- I believe it was on

Thursday -- whether we like it or not, we live in a society that is becoming increasingly

adversarial and increasingly litigious.

If you have legal firms advertising on television and radio on a regular basis, saying:

"Don't trust those guys. Come and see us before you sign anything, before you do

anything, because we'll get you more money . . . . " And if as a society

we all buy into that mind-set, and people go in with a problem in front of the corporation .

. . . They have perhaps been led to believe that they are going to get a huge

amount of money, and then a cold dose of reality hits them that they're not going to get

as much as they had perhaps thought, and they are unhappy. Who can blame them?

I would suggest that there are probably very few people in the history of the insurance

business who have suffered serious injury, whether physically or in dollar terms to

vehicles, who are absolutely and entirely thrilled with the experience -- contrary to the

mythology that the same kind of argument that goes on about people deliberately hurting

themselves to get a payoff from Workers Compensation . . . is ludicrous. By the

same token, I suspect, nobody that drives a

[ Page 12723 ]

vehicle wants to get the car pranged up or wants to get hurt. At the end of the day, in

all likelihood the person will be a lot less well off after the accident experience than

before.

The corporation's job is to treat people as fairly and compassionately as they can. To

suggest that they aren't doing so causes me some concern. My meetings thus far with the

corporation lead me to believe that we are talking about some pretty dedicated people who

are indeed trying to do the best job they can. If they aren't, then clearly I share the

member's concern, and we should do something about that.

D. Jarvis: I don't think we should stand up here and have a fight over incidents

which are large and small, all over the place. I mean, I can quote you the Neville West

case that we're going to bring up later on today. These things are ostensibly giving ICBC

a bad name throughout this province.

Where is ICBC's friendly attitude when all of a sudden, if you're involved in an

accident and you're, say, 100 percent down to 1 percent responsible, you have . . . ?

They come out with the crash responsibility charge. It's an announcement that just came

out, because ICBC evidently needed money. Now there's a . . . . It's not in

the policy. There's no policy. We don't have a policy with ICBC. Yet if I go out and have

an accident now . . . . I'm a four-star driver or whatever they call it.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: RoadStar, that's it. And touch wood -- very hard -- I haven't had a

claim with ICBC for probably 30 years.

[1510]

An Hon. Member: He's going to have an accident tonight.

D. Jarvis: Well, maybe so. Someone said I might have an accident, but I doubt

it. If I get into a small accident now, I'm going to be charged $250 for it. It's a bodily

injury and property damage deductible that's been added on. Most of the people out there,

regardless of all the advertising that ICBC does, aren't aware of it until they come into

an accident, because they don't expect to have a bodily injury and property damage

deductible on their policy. Now, that is not what you'd call a loving, friendly company.

Hon. D. Lovick: I guess one should avoid the temptation to compare mythologies

in terms of one's own driving record. Look, I had a pilot's licence before I had a

driver's licence, and in the first 25 years that I drove, I never had any trouble. And I'm

sorry to say it, but now that I've approached the ranks of what I call junior-senior --

age 55 . . . . A few years ago I had an accident, and in that accident it was

nobody's fault but mine. I was careless; I was simply careless. And other people -- the

public, if you want to put it in those terms -- have said for some time that people who

drive carelessly, who are the cause of accidents, should bear some of the responsibility.

That was the basis of the particular program that the member's referring to. It wasn't

a surprise to anybody. It was advertised; it was talked about at great length. The

essential argument was: here's what we propose to do, largely in response to the public

demand. The public's saying: "Wait a minute; surely we could bring down our rates if

we said to those people who have in fact caused problems, who have in fact been less than

astute and not as careful as they should have been, that they will bear some costs."

They will get some kind of punishment for what they have done -- an extra deterrent, if

you will.

I think that the public certainly has seemed to be quite supportive of the program. As

I say, it wasn't a surprise to anybody, as far as I can recall.

D. Jarvis: Well, I just can't understand how you can say that the public is

supporting you, because there is great distress out there in the public with regard to

ICBC. If you think that ICBC is the epitome of the great, friendly, responsible corporate

citizen of this province, call an election on that one item, and I'll tell you . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, that's ostensibly the way -- what you're trying to infer, I

think.

Between the claim adjusters and the philosophy of the company -- and maybe all

companies are like this; I'm not too sure . . . . Their actions are

insensitive and inconsistent with the problems that these people are having out there. As

I said, it's causing great distress throughout this province.

I want to talk about the aspect that the minister was mentioning -- that they could

bring the rates down. Well, I look at the cost of different things that have gone on over

the past . . . . The cost of the motor vehicle branch to ICBC -- $75 million.

Traffic safety this year was about $95-odd million. Premium tax -- tax on the premiums --

to the province was $101 million; PST, $25 million; PST on the legal costs that were never

there before, $35 million. You're now up to over $300 million that's now being borne by

the motorists in this province that wasn't there before this government came into effect.

And I'll tell you, it is not a good situation out there. The people out there are saying:

"We want a change."

Perhaps a change may not be good for them on the . . . . But this

government has transferred a lot of these excessive costs that belonged to line ministries

such as Highways, the Attorney General's office and all the rest of it, and they've put

them on the backs of the motorists in this province. That is basically not what a caring

insurance company is made out to be.

[1515]

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think there was a question there, but I'd just advise the

member that the premium tax has always been there -- it's just differently named, I guess.

We're talking four years of a rate freeze. I think that's providing pretty good service.

The member's quite right that there are some additional costs that can be identified, but

there are some huge benefits that have also occurred as a result of ICBC's operation. I'm

struggling a little bit, though. As I said on Thursday, when I listen to the member's line

of questioning, it sounds to me as if he's suggesting that we should scrap the corporation

and be done with it,

whereas the principal critic on the other side seems, rather, to be

saying no, ICBC is necessary and desirable, albeit it could use some improvement. So

again, I don't mean to be contentious or provocative, but I would think it would be good

if they could get their lines straight.

D. Jarvis: I'm afraid the minister has it wrong in the sense that I didn't say

we should scrap the whole corporation. I said

[ Page 12724 ]

that we should look at reorganizing the whole organization and also maybe bring in some

competition in order that this government monopoly that we have here, ICBC, could be run a

little bit better.

That just brings me to a point . . . . I'm going off on a tangent, Mr.

Chairman, but I'll say this. The minister told me on Wednesday, I guess it was . . .

An Hon. Member: Thursday.

D. Jarvis: . . . or Thursday that these new corporation offices that

the executives are being forced to move over to . . . . He more or less

insinuated that I was demeaning the executives and all the rest of it and that they

weren't having plush offices with showers in them and all the rest of it. I just want you

to notice one thing: you should never question the opposition, because you've been in

opposition for years and years, and you know that we don't go out and say things that are

too far out on a limb.

So I got off the helijet on Friday morning, and I walked up to the offices, took the

elevator up there, walked in the door, signed my name in there, because they've got a

security guard, and I said: "Take me to the showers." They did; they took me to

where the showers are. So I just want the minister to know that when he said there are no

showers there . . . . There are showers in that new corporate office.

Hon. D. Lovick: In the bathroom there could be a shower. That's a little

different from personalized ensuite plumbing.

D. Jarvis: Anyways, Mr. Chairman, back to the subject we're on.

I was just wondering if he could tell me the . . . . As I said before, a

couple of times today, all ICBC and the government were saying was that we were going to

have huge losses appearing before us by the year 2000 unless we brought in no-fault. The

KPMG report indicated this, as well -- that we were going to have huge losses if we didn't

bring in no-fault. That cost us about half a million dollars. Then there was another half

a million dollars on the Allen report, predicting that we'd have about a $385 million loss

by the year 2000 or thereabouts.

KPMG -- are they doing any other studies for you at this point that would come up with

some frivolous statements along that line, to suggest that we're in immediate trouble and

that there's a possibility that this corporation may again be considering bringing in

no-fault in the near future?

Hon. D. Lovick: First, to the specific question, there is no discussion going on

at present. How can I be categorical as much as one can about no-fault? No-fault is not on

anybody's horizon, to my knowledge.

The KPMG report, I understand, was based on the fact that in 1995 the rise in claims

cost was about 14 percent. What KPMG did, appropriately enough, was to look forward and

say: "My gosh, if this is indeed the trend line, then we will have a problem."

That's what they did. The reality, of course, as we now know, is that it has fallen

significantly in actual fact.

[1520]

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could possibly tell me about the great

potential of a Surrey mall. There was a question . . . . I'll ask two

questions that are quick. One is: what percentage of ICBC's portfolio is in real estate?

The second one is that I heard that they originally signed a contract for around $53

million for . . . . Then their due diligence showed afterwards that it was

only worth about $30-35 million. They subsequently renegotiated it and came down to around

$45 million for the Surrey Place mall, and then the Surrey Place mall deal . . . .

After they looked into it further, they found out that it was not a good purchase.

When I said that we had two questions . . . . There are three questions.

First of all, what percentage do they have in real estate? Secondly, what was the cost of

Bing, Thom, the architects who were doing the studies on that? What was the total cost of

the project that has now been dismissed? Or has the project been dismissed?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm glad the member raised the question about the overall

investment strategy of the corporation. He will perhaps recall that one of the debates

about ICBC, when the corporation was first established in '74, had to do with the reality

of people's insurance dollars in British Columbia going out of the province -- in many

cases, out of the country. One of the most powerful arguments used to establish a public

insurance corporation was that we could keep the money in the province, being used by the

province. That argument is still alive and well today.

One of the arguments that has been used latterly, though, is that ICBC's investment

portfolio -- as you know, it has to march to a very rigorous beat and standard -- was

perhaps not focusing as many investment dollars in British Columbia as ought to be the

case. Therefore, guided by some very particular and rigorous policies, the corporation has

recently been looking at spending more of its total investment capital portfolio here in

British Columbia. Like every other insurance corporation in the world, as I understand it,

that means some investment in real estate.

Broadly, though, let me simply give you the breakdown on 1998 investment income,

starting with the total amount returned on that investment -- all right? -- which was some

$412 million. If I give you the breakdown, you'll see the various ways . . . and

roughly the proportions invested in each of these areas. Some $19 million was accounted

for in money markets; $274 million in bonds, the preponderant majority of the investment

portfolio; $5 million in common shares; and $2 million in real estate and other. Let's see

if those figures total. Yes. In liquidated assets: negative $1 million in common shares

and some $113 million amortized in bonds. So in terms of a total portfolio, you can see

that real estate is a relatively small portion thereof. Real estate effectively amounts to

about 0.2 percent of the total.

I think the member's other question, he will . . . .

D. Jarvis: I wonder if you can tell me, with respect to the Surrey mall, what

ICBC actually did spend on it? Is it being reconsidered? I've heard a rumour to that

effect. Of the total cost to them, what were the Bing and Thom architecture costs?

[1525]

Hon. D. Lovick: The Surrey Place mall . . . . Let me give a larger

answer to the question to see if I can touch a number of bases that I'm sure will be

raised by this.

Negotiations are ongoing. As the member, I think, knows full well, the plan by the

provincial government . . . . This has

[ Page 12725 ]

all been made very public, so I'm not telling tales out of school. The provincial

government has been talking about creating Tech B.C. Tech B.C. is a new kind of

university-technical school to be located, ideally, in the Surrey Centre or Surrey-Whalley

area. It's one of those exciting places that has less in the way of physical facilities

than being essentially a place where all kinds of people gather. They will gather for

exchanging ideas, creative thoughts, etc., and they will be connected, ideally, to other

industrial and high-tech companies and so forth. There aren't too many models like it, but

there are things like the Silicon Valley. The University of California, I think, has

something similar.

Anyway, the idea is that government is obviously going to invest a certain amount of

money in creating this thing called Tech B.C., and the possibility for synergy and for

creative cooperation and partnerships with some others is there. Therefore ICBC said that,

as part of its investment portfolio, it could perhaps purchase the land on which Tech B.C.

would be built, in partnership with some others -- I think B.C. Tel, a couple of private

sector high-tech firms and so forth -- to create, in fact, a complex bigger and more

exciting than one could ever have by simply building one small project, separate and

distinctly, at a time.

The original option on the property, I understand, lapsed. The corporation was never in

for quite as much money as some of the newspaper stories suggested, though it obviously

cost them some money for the option. The member referred to a figure of $50-some-odd

million as opposed to $35 million. All of the figures that I have seen have been the

result of particular formal appraisals and, you know, the legitimate assessed value of the

land. And what we're talking about, certainly, in terms of what the corporation was

proposing to spend, is not in any way out of line with what its assessed value is.

Indeed, at the end of the day, there's a very high-profile, blue-ribbon team of people

working on this thing -- mostly people who are distinguished in the private sector. For

example, I believe the property manager for Concord Pacific is part of a team to ensure

that if the corporation invests in this thing and tries to make Tech B.C. go, it's going

to do so protecting its own stakeholders -- in this case ICBC and the people who pay

premiums to ICBC.

It has the possibility, frankly, of rejuvenating and regrowing downtown Surrey. As some

of you in this chamber may know, it is now projected that within the next 20 years it

could become the largest city in British Columbia. That's the kind of pressure we're

dealing with. The possibility, then, of making a good chunk of that growth a coordinated,

exciting, creative thing like a new university in the downtown, surrounded by other

high-tech developments, and using that as an ICBC headquarters for that region -- which

has to be built in any event -- is an exciting prospect.

I am told that they're proceeding very, very prudently. They have spent some money, as

I say, in getting options. The most recent option lapsed; that doesn't mean the project

has lapsed. ICBC is still very interested in pursuing the development. They see the

Whalley area as obviously a significant regional centre. I happen to believe they're

right. Discussions are under way at the moment with regard to building precisely that kind

of synergy I talked about earlier.

What else? The costs . . . . I'm reluctant to be very specific about the

costs -- for example, the cost of the architectural proposal and the drafting and design

work done by Bing, Thom and associates. Obviously there are some costs that have been

incurred while we've been assessing the possibility of this development. But it's a

competitive business proposition, pretty clearly, and therefore we think it's premature to

release any financial information until our participation is in fact determined. Certainly

the moment it's yea or nay, obviously all that information will, of course, become public.

D. Jarvis: The Victoria ICBC building is moving, and I just had a . . . .

From what I understand, they selected Farmer Construction to do the alterations of this

thing. Was that Victoria project put out to tender?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, it was.

[1530]

B. Penner: I have some questions regarding photo radar. I'd like to begin by

attempting to clear up some confusion that I think the minister created last week about

the costs attributable to ICBC for the photo radar program.

At 4:13 in the afternoon on Thursday last week, the minister stated that the

approximate costs to ICBC for photo radar are $3 million. Half an hour later, he stated as

follows: "Regarding the photo radar more specifically, some $2.5 million was spent on

development. The operating cost is $4.5 million, for a $7 million total." When I

compare that to what the minister responsible for ICBC said last year in the Legislature,

the difference is startling. Last year we were told that the cost of operating photo radar

attributable to ICBC was in the range of $10 million. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago

I asked the Attorney General that question here in the Legislature. He stated as follows:

"I'm told by the assistant deputy minister that the cost last year was $9.6 million

and that this year it will be $10.74 million" -- for operating photo radar. I'm

wondering if the minister can attempt today to clear up some of the confusion and the

conflicting information regarding the cost to ICBC for photo radar.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to be charitable, so I'm not going to say anything about

where the confusion might reside -- okay? Let me just point out, for one thing, that we

may not be using the same calendar years, for starters. All right? Secondly, we've made it

very clear what time frame we were referring to. From April to December of '97, total ICBC

operating costs were $9.075 million; in 1998, $7.046 million. I think that's consonant

with what the member was quoting.

B. Penner: Not quite. Perhaps it would help if the minister could provide us

with the detailed cost breakdown for the various components of the photo radar program --

specifically, if we could be given figures for: the policing component for photo radar;

the cost of photo radar equipment maintenance; the cost of ticket-processing operations;

the capital and development costs; the cost of the charging officers -- who, I believe,

are separate from the RCMP officers sitting in the vans themselves; the cost of process

serving; the cost of increased court operations; as well as advertising and promotion

related to the photo radar program.

I know, for example, that there is a significant cost incurred as a result of process

serving -- at least, we should expect that there would be a significant cost, because of

the number of photo radar tickets that have to be personally served on individuals in

British Columbia. That comes at a

[ Page 12726 ]

considerable cost -- at least, I think it does. I'd appreciate it if we could get a

breakdown of those figures.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will endeavour to get the member as detailed a breakdown as we

can provide. However, just for his information -- for the nonce -- he might like to know

that in the figure I quoted for 1998 -- $7.046 million . . . . That figure

apparently embraces the cost of process serving. Second, the other caveat I would offer is

that some of those costs are obviously borne by the Ministry of Attorney General and I

therefore can't give him specific detail on those. I will certainly get him all the

information regarding ICBC.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister can tell us when we can look forward to that

information.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm reluctant to commit people around me to doing something

that's going to cause them extra stress and whatever. We'll do so as quickly as we

possibly can. I think we've already given a reasonable breakdown, though clearly not in

quite the detail the member is requesting. I will undertake to get that to him as quickly

as we can -- probably tomorrow morning.

[1535]

B. Penner: One concern I have relates to the cost of process-serving people who

receive photo radar tickets. There have been reports in the news media that people are

receiving photo radar tickets that are as much as two and a half years old. In fact, a

constituent of a colleague of mine, in North Vancouver, was just served a couple of weeks

ago for a ticket from March 1998. I'm familiar with a case in the Supreme Court of Canada

known as Regina v. Askov, which has to do with unreasonable delay. In that case, the

Supreme Court of Canada said that after eight months from the date of the original charge

to the date of trial, the accused person may be entitled to have those charges dismissed

due to unreasonable delay.

Now, the case of Regina v. Askov has been refined somewhat in appeal courts, and it has

also been revisited, I believe, by the Supreme Court of Canada itself. But when you're

talking about more than one year's delay for something as simple as a motor vehicle

infraction -- or in some cases, a two-and-a-half-year delay . . . . It seems

to me that if the argument is made to the court that the charge should be dismissed

because of that delay, the defendant will have a pretty good shot at it.

My concern is the amount of money ICBC ratepayers are paying to process-serving

companies to serve tickets that are probably dead in the water from a legal perspective.

I'd like to get a bit of a handle on how many of these tickets are beyond one year of age,

in terms of when the offence was committed compared to when the tickets are actually

served on individuals. Again, the tickets are really of no legal consequence unless ICBC

can prove personal service of the ticket to the person charged. Merely getting it in the

mail is not sufficient proof that the person actually received the ticket, and unless ICBC

can prove that the person received the ticket and that the time has elapsed in which to

challenge the ticket, then no conviction can be registered against that person's driving

record.

I'd like us to consider how much we're spending to serve tickets that are probably

going to be found void if challenged on the basis of unreasonable delay.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, first, I want to step back just a moment. The member has

legal training, so he knows that we have to be a little bit careful about suggesting that

everything will be thrown out. It's about demonstrating due diligence; it's about a number

of other things beyond simply whether you got the ticket. It is also possible, of course,

that certain people who were about to be served did everything they possibly could to

avoid being served. And if that's the case, then, again, their court case has a lot less

strength.

It is a problem -- there is no question. About 45 percent of tickets that are mailed

are paid for immediately -- people immediately pay the ticket. Others don't, for whatever

reasons. In some cases, it's a matter as simple as not finding an address. After 45 days,

the process and process serving has begun . . . . The ticket cost is an

additional $25, which is payable to ICBC to help offset the processing cost. It's a

significant amount of money; there is no question about that -- and large numbers.

Obviously the corporation is looking at ways to try to improve the process and thereby get

the money, because it's forgone revenue -- which means, of course, larger costs to the

motorist. If there's money that we should be getting that we aren't getting, obviously you

and I are both paying for it.

B. Penner: I want to make it clear that I'm not saying charges are dismissed

automatically because they are of a certain age. Rather, courts have said that if the

charge is more than 12, 14, 16 months of age, then they will look very seriously and

closely at dismissing the particular charge, due to unreasonable delay being an

infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of a trial within a

reasonable period of time.

[1540]

I'd like to go back to another matter of some confusion, and I don't think the minister

can point fingers over here and say that the opposition is the cause of this confusion. On

May 5, 1999, most major media outlets reported that the photo radar program was expanding

and acquiring ten additional photo radar vans. This was in fact based on a statement

contained in a press release from the integrated traffic safety unit, which falls under

the responsibility of the minister in his capacity as the Minister Responsible for ICBC.

Later that week, when I asked the Attorney General about this expansion, he appeared

somewhat uncomfortable and told us that the cost for the additional ten vans would be

$50,000 per year in leasing costs. In addition, there would be an extra seven police

officers that would have to be hired -- at a cost of $80,000 per police officer -- to

operate the additional vans. And that's on top of the existing 83 police officers, at

$80,000 per person, which are currently on the payroll in this capacity.

Towards the end of the debate, the minister had this to say -- and I quote from May 6,

1999: "Obviously the matter proceeded without my knowledge and without the knowledge

of the Minister Responsible for ICBC." Now, if that's true, who's in charge? Who's

running the show? To the person on the street, this has every appearance of a bureaucracy

that's run amok and is in charge of its own decision-making process without accountability

to elected representatives here in the Legislature.

We can chuckle about it perhaps, but I think it does raise a very serious questions.

Who in the bureaucracy is committing taxpayers' money to programs of perhaps questionable

quality, when the elected representatives don't even know about it? Can the minister

explain why neither he nor the

[ Page 12727 ]

Attorney General knew that something within his jurisdiction, a part of ICBC, was going

out and committing taxpayers' money for ten additional photo radar vans?

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I have to wonder whether this is really a good use

of estimates debate time. This was canvassed at great length in the Attorney General's

estimates. He gave a full explanation, I am sure, at that time. We made the point very

clearly -- and the minister clarified this -- that we knew about the program, but it was

the fact of the timing of the thing which rather caught us by surprise.

To clarify for the member, it was the ITCU, the integrated traffic camera unit, that

issued the press release. That is in effect the police. The police don't give me their

press releases; therefore I was not anticipating the press release. But beyond that, the

Attorney's comments in the Legislature, I believe, have answered all the questions. And I

don't, frankly, know why we're going over this ground again, especially when what the

member is referring to are costs that are borne by a ministry other than my own.

B. Penner: The minister's lack of interest in this topic is of great concern,

because the issue is: who is responsible? If the bureaucracy is out there committing

taxpayers' money to projects of dubious quality, I think it's the job of elected

representatives to know about it. In fact, let me just tell you, hon. Chair, what the

Attorney General said. I'll repeat the quote -- actually, I'll provide a more complete

quote. And here it is: "But it was my understanding that it was stopped, pursuant to

some discussions that I had last year. Obviously the matter proceeded without my knowledge

and without the knowledge of the Minister Responsible for ICBC."

Who's in charge of the henhouse? Is the fox running the henhouse -- committing

taxpayers' money to million-dollar programs? And the ministers responsible say that they

don't know and don't want to debate it here. I think it's a matter of great concern. I

didn't plan to spend this much time on the topic.

Hon. D. Lovick: This isn't about who's guarding the henhouse; it's about

somebody else over there pretending to be Chicken Little and telling us that the sky is

falling. Look, there is not a problem here. This is not difficult.

ICBC is an investor in road safety. That's what we do. That's one of the things we're

very much involved in, and we work in cooperation with the police. Speed cameras are one

of ICBC's investments. The enforcement activity -- the policing activity -- belongs

entirely to the police, as it should. ICBC doesn't talk about law enforcement, nor does

the Minister Responsible for ICBC. Neither of us does that. That's the Attorney General's

responsibility.

[1545]

ICBC's interest is strictly in reducing the numbers of injuries and the numbers of

deaths and accidents and the property damage on our roads. In 1997, claims savings were

$30 million, and in 1998 there were similar results. The member continues to make

reference to the fact that this program is of questionable worth. I suggest that it isn't

of questionable worth. Speed kills. It's just that simple. If you can do something to grow

a culture where people drive a little bit more carefully, respectfully and safely, then we

can save lives, and we can save people from horrible injuries and inconveniences. At the

end of the day, we can also save money, which I'm sure all of us are interested in doing.

I hope I have clarified for the member . . . . If he wants to pursue this

matter, perhaps he'd like to talk outside the chamber to the Attorney General or to me.

B. Penner: ICBC is responsible for paying the operating costs of photo radar.

That falls within this minister's jurisdiction. He should take some interest in what his

minions are committing taxpayers' dollars to.

As for the reliability or the performance of the photo radar program, he should talk to

the Attorney General about what the Attorney General's view is. The Attorney General is

not as convinced as the Minister Responsible for ICBC of the capacity of photo radar to

slow down traffic. Let me quote from the Province newspaper of May 11, 1999. The

Attorney General said: "I am not sure an expansion of the program will help with the

objectives of reducing crashes, reducing injuries and reducing fatalities." That's

hardly a ringing endorsement of the photo radar program that has been a dismal failure in

British Columbia.

Don't take my word for it; listen to Transport Canada. Two weeks ago Transport Canada,

an independent agency, reported that British Columbia was the only province in Canada

where traffic fatalities went up last year. In Ontario, where they scrapped photo radar,

fatalities were down over 17 percent. In Alberta they were down over 11 percent. For the

first nine months of 1998, fatalities on our roads in British Columbia were up by 5.4

percent -- to 313 people killed in traffic-related accidents between January and September

of 1998. That is not strong evidence suggesting that photo radar is improving safety on

our roads. Maybe it is, but those statistics don't seem to indicate it.

My question was fairly simple. Who is responsible for committing taxpayers' money to a

dubious program? The Attorney General, a couple of weeks ago, said that he was surprised

when he heard about the expansion of the number of vans and indicated he was freezing the

expansion and would try to get taxpayers off the hook for the extra $50,000 per year in

leasing costs for those ten additional vans. I'm looking for some indication . . . .

Who's going to take responsibility for the bureaucrats committing taxpayers' money to this

program -- $50,000 a year for these ten vans? Are we going to be stuck with that lease?

Maybe the Attorney General can give us an update. Are we going to be successful in getting

out of that commitment for ten additional vans?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I answered the latter, as well as the former, part of

that question exhaustively in my estimates. With respect to the vans, they would be used

by corrections and court services without any extra money being charged to the ministry,

because those vans are needed as replacement or additionally.

In terms of the photo radar, the hon. member is actually making a very misleading

statement, and his conclusion is not appropriate. What I said, and I will clarify again .

. . . Firstly, the previous Minister Responsible for ICBC and the Attorney General

agreed to not proceed with the expansion although the budget had been approved. Obviously

that message didn't go down well enough, so the integrated traffic camera unit proceeded

with the expansion, for which the budget had been allocated and approved. When I found

that out, I froze that expansion. What I said at that time was that photo radar has been

very, very successful, but I was not certain that adding ten more vans to the existing 30

would make a significant difference.

[ Page 12728 ]

[1550]

It's a question of the optimum use of resources. That's what I said, so let's have the

record straight. Photo radar works. It works wonderfully; there is no difficulty with it.

There is the record to show, over the last several years, of declining fatalities,

injuries and crashes, and I believe that the hon. member should look at the entirety of

the comments that I have made on that issue and then proceed to other issues that deal

with this debate here.

B. Penner: The Attorney General's answer raises a few more questions. I have

been looking at the Attorney General's statements in their entirety. He said on May 10 --

I believe it was -- in this House that he wasn't aware of the statistics from Transport

Canada indicating an increase in fatalities in British Columbia last year, when in other

provinces traffic fatalities in fact decreased. That appears to be an uncontradicted fact.

So ICBC and this government are in a bit of a dilemma in trying to justify the photo radar

program on the basis of decreased fatalities. The evidence before us, from an independent

source like Transport Canada, does not support this government's contention that photo

radar is saving lives. The evidence is the opposite.

That's why the official opposition has taken the position that the current photo radar

program is a dismal failure. It's been plagued with problems, not the least of which has

been the commitment to ten additional vans, seven more police officers, hundreds of

thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money -- and no minister wants to take responsibility

for the decision. Some underling made the decision, and when it's exposed here in the

Legislature, then the program's frozen. But we're still not sure just how the decision was

approved, implemented and announced without the minister responsible knowing about it or

being aware of it.

The answer from the Attorney General on the ten additional vans, which taxpayers are

already on the hook for, is that they're going to be put to other uses in corrections and

other government departments. Who's going to pay ICBC for the cost of those ten vans? Or

will ICBC be indirectly subsidizing the operations of other government departments? The

cost for those ten additional vans was $50,000 per year, according to the Attorney

General. So I'd like some clarification about just who's going to be paying for the cost

of those vans.

Hon. D. Lovick: That budget item is not in this ministry. It's not my

responsibility; it's in another ministry. We're discussing here the Ministry of Labour --

my estimates, ICBC. The figure that the member refers to, the budget item, is not in this

ministry or my responsibility.

B. Penner: Here we go again. This government has a hard time being accountable.

When I asked the Attorney General in his estimates about operating costs, I was told:

"That's the responsibility of ICBC. ICBC's responsible for the operational costs of

photo radar." Then I asked this minister about the cost of the ten additional vans at

$50,000 per year. That sounds like an operational cost to me. The minister says:

"It's not within ICBC's responsibility."

I'm genuinely seeking some clarification here. Why is ICBC, if they're responsible for

the operational costs of photo radar, not responsible for the cost of $50,000 for the ten

additional photo radar vans?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member is saying, as he defines operational, that

therefore we should be paying for the vans. Is that . . . ? Nod if that's the

case. Yeah, okay. He's seeking clarification. The clarification I've already given him is

that the cost of those vans was picked up by Attorney General, rather than ICBC. That

information is not new; that's been around for some time.

[1555]

The Chair: Members, the Chair should caution that we are now getting into

repetition of debate.

B. Penner: Hon. Chair, you'll be glad to know that I propose to move to the

topic of red-light-intersection cameras. This was also a matter that I discussed with the

Attorney General a few weeks ago. Again, it's an area of shared responsibility. The

Attorney General makes some decisions and takes the lead, but again the operational

responsibility falls under the jurisdiction of ICBC -- so here we go again. But I'll

attempt to get some clarification about the costs and the status of the proposed

red-light-intersection cameras.

I'll preface my remarks, too, by saying this program seems to have some problems

getting off the ground. In years previous, in debating the Attorney General, we were

assured that he hoped that the program would be up and running by the end of whatever year

we asked the question -- fill in the blank. And we're still not quite there; we're still

at the pilot project stage. Last year the minister responsible for ICBC said that it was

his hope that the program would be operational by the end of 1998. Here we are, just about

halfway through 1999, and the program is not yet operational. I wonder if the minister

responsible for ICBC is in a position to tell us about the current and anticipated

development costs for the red-light-intersection camera system.

Hon. D. Lovick: If I understand the member's question correctly, he is asking

for the costs. I can tell him that we're finalizing negotiations at the moment with the

supplier. We expect, however, that the one-time implementation costs will be close to some

$14 million. Once the program is fully up and running, the ongoing operating costs will be

about $2 million per year.

B. Penner: Is the minister in a position to tell us how much has been spent to

date on getting this program operational and bringing it this far?

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe we have already answered that question. It's been

reported as $2.2 million, I believe.

B. Penner: How many police officers will be required to operate the

red-light-intersection camera system?

[1600]

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't be as specific as I would like -- nor, I'm sure, as the

member opposite would like. I can tell the member that the ultimate objective in this is

to install the minimum of 30 cameras -- ISCs, as they're called -- rotating at 120

high-crash intersections. That system would be in place by the fall of the year 2000.

B. Penner: So the minister is not in a position to tell us how many extra police

will be required to implement that program.

Interjection.

[ Page 12729 ]

B. Penner: And I have a follow-up question to that: how many other employees in

other agencies will be required to implement this program? If we're not going to be using

regular police officers for this program, will we be requiring other enforcement officers,

or other technicians employed by the government in various forms, to operate this system?

I can think of a few things: exchanging the film, inspecting the cameras, moving the

cameras from location to location -- because the minister indicates the cameras will be on

a rotating basis amongst 120 sites throughout the province . . . . Clearly

that's going to require some manpower -- pardon me, some labour. I wonder if the

government has gone so far as to contemplate how many staff people will be required to do

that.

Hon. D. Lovick: We don't have that kind of detail, simply because the program

isn't implemented yet. Obviously we are still negotiating. We don't think that there will

be any police officers involved in doing that. We don't think that's necessary, unless

there are some compelling reasons presented to show otherwise. We're talking, though,

about a budget item of, we anticipate, about $2 million per year, as I said just a moment

ago.

B. Penner: Is the minister in a position to tell us who the contender is to

provide the province with these intersection cameras?

Hon. D. Lovick: The public tender was issued in mid-March. Canadian Public

Technologies Inc. was selected for further equipment evaluation.

B. Penner: That's the agency that the government is now negotiating with to

finalize an agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

B. Penner: Have any research studies been done in terms of the anticipated

number of intersection tickets that will be issued under this program?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry; I'm not sure that I understood the member's question.

Was he talking about a cost projection, or was he talking about something else?

B. Penner: Can the minister tell us how many tickets the government anticipates

will be issued under the intersection camera program?

Hon. D. Lovick: Obviously that will depend entirely on the behaviour of drivers.

I think that for me to speculate beyond that would truly be in the realm of speculation.

B. Penner: I was just checking to see if the government had changed its figures,

because last year the minister responsible for ICBC indicated that they anticipated 30,000

to 50,000 tickets per year. You can do the math. I think a usual ticket for running a red

light is $150 per ticket. If you do some mathematics, I think -- I have it written down

here somewhere -- you get a certain amount of money.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: How much?

B. Penner: About $11 million per year, I believe. I wonder if the minister can

confirm that figure in terms of projected revenue from this new program.

Hon. D. Lovick: I can simply tell the member that that is wildly exaggerated --

no, nothing even in that magnitude.

B. Penner: Could the minister enlighten us? He's obviously got some figures in

front of him. I wonder if he could share those with the House.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think that we're well served in this particular

dimension of debate, because we're all engaging in absolute and pure speculation. I don't

think that I would be responsible in doing that.

B. Penner: It is an important question that I think should be discussed here in

the chamber. This is part of the budget estimates. The question concerns the amount of

revenue that the province can expect to garner from this new program. The government is

asking approval from the Legislative Assembly for funding of this ongoing project. I think

that we are entitled to an answer about how much money will be collected in revenue from

this new program.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, the member is starting to approach high dudgeon

over what is, quite frankly, a rather silly proposition. The proposition is simply that we

will know how many people are going to violate -- are going to run red lights in those

intersections that have cameras. Now, who in heaven's name could possibly, with any

credibility, stand up here and say: "Oh yeah, we know exactly how it's going to

happen in September of next year at each of those intersections; these are the number of

people who are going to run through and therefore will be charged and therefore who we

will get tickets from and therefore who we will get a certain amount of revenue

from"? That is speculation piled upon speculation upon speculation. Surely we

shouldn't be wasting our time engaging in that silliness.

[1605]

B. Penner: I didn't think I would say this, but I believe the minister is

overstating his own ignorance. The government has just completed a pilot project around

British Columbia. I believe that they had six cameras in operation; I stand to be

corrected. A pilot project has been carried on for a considerable period of time around

the province. From that pilot project, the government must have some idea about the

percentage of drivers who are running red lights. Projections can then be made about how

many tickets would be issued, when you multiply that by 30 intersections at 120 different

locations around British Columbia.

Why else do you undertake a pilot project but to determine things like costs and

revenue? I don't think that's asking too much of a pilot project. I don't think it's

asking too much of the minister to share the information that I believe he has right in

front of him. As members of this Legislature being asked to approve the minister's budget,

I think we have the right to an answer.

Hon. D. Lovick: There is no money coming to ICBC from the red-light program.

Let's get that straight first. Secondly, it's

[ Page 12730 ]

worth noting, I think, that the research that I am familiar with and that I have been

told about -- and believe me, I'm not hiding anything from the member, I assure him -- and

what I have read somewhere or other is that the incidence of people going through red

lights is not huge. It's not like speeding; it isn't so common. It's rather that the

significance and the seriousness of running a red light is the issue. When you do that,

the odds are that you're going to kill somebody or you're going to do huge damage to

another vehicle or another person. That's why it's so important. It's the severity of the

incident rather than the frequency of the incident. So that's the key difference that I

think we should note.

B. Penner: Maybe we can try this a different way. Could the minister tell us the

result of the pilot project? What information has been gleaned as a result of the pilot

project that's been carried on in British Columbia, at taxpayers' expense, with

intersection cameras? And I note that any revenue does go to the provincial government,

into general revenue. We can argue about whether ICBC ratepayers -- that is, everyone

who's a motorist -- should be paying for something that they don't get the direct benefit

from because the money goes into general revenue. That's a different issue. But clearly we

are talking about (

a) approval for ICBC's budget from this Legislative Assembly, and (

b) the revenue from that program, the intersection camera program, going into general revenue

of the province of British Columbia. So I think it's a relevant question.

But to get back to the point, what has happened as a result of the pilot project?

Please bring us up to date.

Hon. D. Lovick: The pilot project was intended to test the equipment. That's

what its purpose was. The results of that, which I have been giving, is that they average

some six tickets per day. With all civility and respect to my colleague across the way,

the difficulty is that if we try to extrapolate and say, "Could we project forward in

terms of how many we could likely extrapolate would occur in downtown Vancouver as

compared to, say, the place where the pilot was undertaken . . . ? " We

need to know some other things, though, before we can do any kind of mathematical

projection. For example, when will the cameras be implemented? I mean, if we want to talk

about how much per year, and we're talking about fiscal years and frameworks, we need to

know, obviously, when that's going to happen before I can give you any kind of figure in

terms of what would be a projected revenue for '99, say. We'd need to have the program

already in place, in effect, before we could begin to really answer the kinds of questions

the member is asking.

B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I'm just about concluded with my participation in these

estimates debates. However, I'm left with a question about why it's taken so long to get

on with the intersection camera program. We've been hearing about it now for several

years. Every year, the minister responsible says: "Hopefully, by the end of the year

it'll be up and running." Now we're being told that they're not even hoping for it to

be completed by the end of this year but maybe by the end of the year 2000. Perhaps the

minister can tell us what kind of problems or roadblocks have been encountered along the

way to developing this project, because I am sincerely curious about what the difficulties

have been.

[1610]

I'll also end just with the following comment. I am still perturbed that the ten

additional photo radar vans were acquired without the approval, seemingly, of the

ministers responsible. Now, they may argue that they agreed in principle but just not

about the timing. But I would suggest that even that is a serious issue -- that if they

disagreed about acquiring those vans now or next year or the year after, that's a serious

issue. And I hope that the ministers will go back to their staff and find out just what

went wrong. The Attorney General at the time said that obviously there were some

"crossed wires." I hope that the government will take some steps to uncross the

wires, so that in the future, taxpayers' money isn't committed when it shouldn't be.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his comment. I'm sure that it's well

meant and will be accepted in the same spirit.

The question he poses re -- I think his term was roadblock, and I'm careful of using

that -- the obstacle, if you like, to full implementation of the program . . . .

The primary one is, bluntly put, to get the public and the municipalities on side and in

support of the thing. Those negotiations have been going on for some time, as I'm sure the

member is well aware. If I were in a fey mood, of course, I would ask the member if he

wants to advise this House whether he and his colleagues think that we should simply

legislate it and say that municipalities, whether they like it or not, are going to be

partners in this. But we think that even though it's a slower process and a little more

cumbersome, the negotiation with the municipalities is a better route to produce a system

that will ultimately work better for all of us.

B. Penner: If I take the minister at his word, what he's saying is that the

primary holdup to the program has been resistance from municipal governments. I know that

municipal governments have been hoping for a revenue-sharing agreement with the province,

in terms of the money collected as a result of intersection cameras, before agreeing to

have those cameras located in their communities. However, two weeks ago the Attorney

General said that he would not let a disagreement about revenue-sharing in any way impede

the development of the intersection camera program.

So again we have one minister saying something and another minister apparently saying

something a little bit different. The Attorney General has been clear in the last year

that his position is to move ahead with the cameras and sort out the revenue-sharing

details later. I may not agree with that position, but that -- at least in my mind -- is

what the Attorney General has been saying. He's been pretty consistent on that; I'll give

him that much. But now I hear the Minister Responsible for ICBC saying that the primary

holdup seems to be negotiations with municipalities. I wonder if we can sort that out.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member's question was: what has been the problem

historically? And I reported what has been the problem. I think we have advanced

significantly on that particular front. Indeed, there appears to be a pretty good

understanding and relationship now between those two levels of government. Therefore we

are optimistic and hopeful that this will sort itself out sooner rather than later.

B. Penner: I have no further questions.

D. Symons: Speaking of cameras, I'd like to ask the minister if he's aware of

something called the infrared inspec-

[ Page 12731 ]

tion system, which is a way of judging as trucks pass whether their brakes are working.

Apparently it's a local B.C. firm that developed this system. They approached the

government two years ago and asked the government if they would become involved in

assisting with the program, because they wanted to sell a unit -- at a fairly hefty price,

I must add. It was around $300,000 for a van equipped with all the equipment. But I went

out and took a look at this van in operation, and I thought it was pretty impressive,

actually. You can sit in the van in comfort. They have a little antenna at the top, with a

dish that ends over . . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: My constituent? No, he's not.

Anyway, about two years ago they approached the government. I looked at it, and it was

impressive. As the trucks were moving into a weigh station, they could point out that the

front right brake on this particular truck wasn't operating properly.

[1615]

In one case, I went and asked: "What's that? That's not one of the brake drums,

obviously." And he said: "The differential is obviously not working properly,

because it's overheated."

It tells a lot of things about the exhaust system -- but particularly, though, the

brakes. One of the major issues on our highways with commercial vehicles is the fact that

the brakes of these large trucks are frequently the cause of an accident because they

aren't properly adjusted or indeed are worn out.

It seems that we were offered a system and tended to be lukewarm to that system. So I'm

wondering if the minister might be able to give me a little bit of an update on where you

are now in relationship to something that seems to be really good. It can scan a lot of

trucks as they pass, rather than the current method, which is hit-or-miss. You pull a

truck over and do a full inspection of it -- a manual inspection where somebody goes

around it. But in the time you're doing that, a hundred trucks have gone past that may or

may not have problems on them. This one pinpoints the ones that do have problems. You can

see them without having to use a hit-or-miss process of pulling somebody over and

inspecting the brakes.

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the member's question. It's one of those that I am

familiar with. Indeed, I was sort of anticipating that this would be a question period

question at one point.

The gentleman who's developing the system -- I believe it's called the IRISystem -- is

a man by the name of Fergus Savage. He approached the corporation, as the member correctly

points out, in 1997. They had some discussions. I believe that at that point the

corporation's response was that the cost was apparently prohibitively high. It was perhaps

too expensive for what they got.

They also reported to me -- the corporation, that is -- that this is not the only

supplier, nor is this the only technology of this kind. Indeed, there are other people in

the marketplace doing something very similar . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . if not exactly the same thing. Whether this

particular technology is better and more advanced, I don't know and therefore would be

very reluctant to say so. I also would note that this gentleman who presented this system,

I believe, indeed works for ICBC. So he's clearly connected, if you will, in terms of what

the research and development people are looking at and how things get done.

ICBC -- in, I guess, carrying out something analogous to a precautionary principle --

wants to ensure that this is adequately tested, which is also costly, of course, as the

member intimated a few minutes ago. But what we found out is that this testing is indeed

being done in the United States. The conclusion, then, was: "Well, if they're already

doing it, why don't we simply wait and see the results of their review? That would be

helpful."

I understand, by the way, that the IRISystem doesn't measure brake performance. It

essentially just tells you whether it is or isn't functioning, and that is probably not as

comprehensive a report as one wants if you're looking for measuring road safety,

especially commercial vehicle safety. I see the member for Peace River North, who's been a

trucker, I believe . . . . He knows that stuff well. You want something a

little bit more informative and more comprehensive. As the member for Richmond Centre

knows full well, we have a pretty elaborate system in place at the moment in terms of

brake inspection. Vehicles are pulled over, and they go through a pretty elaborate

routine. We have in fact a comprehensive commercial safety program that is in place now.

So it isn't as if this new technology would be providing us something entirely and

uniquely new. But we're taking it seriously. I'm pleased to note that it has some

possibilities, certainly. I wouldn't, obviously, suggest for a moment that it doesn't have

any hope of going anywhere. But for the reasons I've outlined, it therefore hasn't been

acted on at this point.

D. Symons: Well, having witnessed the system in operation, it does indicate

whether the brakes on the vehicle -- and individually, not just collectively -- are

working. They can point out that some on this vehicle are and some aren't. What the

advantage of this is, of course, is that it can manage to do 100 in an hour or so, just as

the vehicles pass. They can screen them as they pass,

whereas the system that's currently

in place . . . . You've got to pull a vehicle over, and you end up sending men

around it, looking at it. You can do a few in an hour, compared to hundreds in an hour.

This, as a screening device, is fantastic. You can have someone further down the road

pulling them off and then doing the full inspection when you've screened them. So I think

it's very important that the Highways ministry consider this, because the number of

vehicles . . . .

[1620]

The other advantage is that in the present system you have, it takes time to set up the

commercial vehicle testing you're going to do -- these mobile systems you have. In

minutes, you can move this one from one highway to another highway or one testing station

to another location. Within minutes, you can have it set up in a new location.

Once the CB radios get going there, they phone each other and say: "Well, you

know, they're testing your brakes on such-and-such a route. You'd better take a different

route if you feel you might have something that's not going to pass." They do that

for weigh stations now, you know. They say

[ Page 12732 ]

what weigh stations are open or not open. That information goes around in minutes.

Therefore you can end up, with this system, moving it very quickly and avoid the truckers

avoiding going through a test station.

You know, you mentioned the Americans. Actually, when this was sort of, I'll say,

rejected -- it may not have been quite rejected, but it was close to it . . . .

That was a couple of years ago. It's only now that the state of Kentucky . . . .

I have a news release from the state. It's not from the IRIS people; it's from the state

of Kentucky. The Secretary of Transportation, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation and

three other neighbouring states are also involved in this. They did a showpiece sort of

thing back on May 17 -- just last week -- showing how this works:

"Visitors of the I-64 welcome centre near Shelbyville today couldn't believe their

IRIS. They were witness to cutting-edge technology utilized for the first time, right here

in Smallville. The infra-red inspection system or IRISystem, is expected to soon become a

superhero in the highway safety industry. The $270,000 van of steel was purchased by the

Kentucky transportation cabinet's division of vehicle enforcement and the federal highway

administration as a pilot project and is designed to make the inspection of commercial

vehicles super-easy, super-fast and super-efficient. Kentucky is the only state on planet

Earth -- or at least in North America -- to begin using the new technology and will share

the equipment with North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee."

It's just a shame, in a sense, that something that was developed here in British

Columbia has to go to the States to get some interest shown in it. Indeed, I think we will

find -- as these tests will show that the trucks are efficient and they can save lives on

the highways -- that we in British Columbia will be considering it soon, I would hope.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: I'm pleased to welcome 49 French immersion students from my alma mater,

White Rock Elementary School in White Rock, their teachers . . .

Interjection.

G. Hogg: I did graduate from White Rock Elementary School.

. . . Mr. Hollett and Ms. Cyrenne, and a number of parents. They are here

and have toured the building and seen us in action, and I ask that the House would please

extend a bienvenue to them.

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I would also like to say bienvenue

to all those students up there.

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems that everybody in the chamber today is bilingue,

monsieur le pr�sident. Bienvenue � tout le monde. Je . . . . How shall I say

it?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, I wanted to say something . . . . I have to be

careful, because I was going to say: "But I hope the students have a wonderful and

educational experience here." But knowing what often breaks out in this chamber, I'm

reluctant to do that. So I shan't.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, yeah. Exactly. I was thinking of particular members.

I want to thank the member opposite for his comments. I think it's absolutely right and

legitimate that we should indeed be thinking about research and development and trying as

much as we possibly can to encourage those things that are homegrown -- that are B.C.-made

technologies. I'm confident that the corporation may well do that at the end of the day.

What I will do is ensure that the member gets an update on just where this particular

thing stands. As I say, it's been around since 1997. The corporation certainly met with

Mr. Savage about his system and has been monitoring it, and I'll find out if anything

further has developed.

[1625]

However, I just want to say this -- and here is, if you like, the cautionary note: in

the relatively short time that I've had responsibility for this particular portfolio, I've

probably met with half a dozen different people who have ideas for technology, mostly to

do with safety and improving road safety -- most of which, quite frankly, sound absolutely

wonderful. I'm very, very reluctant, then, you know, to stand up in this chamber and say,

yeah, this is absolutely a great one, and then discover that there are some good and

compelling reasons that I don't comprehend as to why one doesn't do it. With that

cautionary note, I would say again to the member . . . . I would thank him for

raising this matter. I think it's a very legitimate point to be brought before this

chamber.

D. Jarvis: I think that questions on photo radar and intersections all fall in

your purview anyway. I was going to ask most of those questions anyway, but seeing that

the member for Chilliwack is the expert . . . . I think his main concern was

the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, the costs being borne by motorists now . . . .

If you took the big picture out of it -- what has been transferred from different

government agencies to ICBC -- $300 million has probably been borne by motorists. We saw

that in photo radar, the cost of $39 million was borne by ICBC, but the $49 million in the

first little while that that brought back went into government coffers.

We are worried that this is not going to be the same sort of cash cow, for government

purposes, that photo radar was with intersections. And that could happen. The figures that

I was given were that the revenue was going to be anywhere from $3 million to $5 million a

year, and the costs hadn't been determined yet. So that was the main concern.

On that same point, I was wondering . . . . Along that line, I wonder if

the minister could tell me . . . . I understand that it was a new program

being put out by ICBC last year and that there were no costs obtained yet. This is an

adjunct to the original question. There's two in one; I'm giving you a break today.

There's nothing cheap about the opposition. Could you give me the costs for drug

impairment recognition that ICBC was paying for with the Vancouver police?

J. Cashore: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Cashore: I'd like the members to join me in welcoming six students and some

volunteers that are visiting from

[ Page 12733 ]

Woodin Elementary School, south of the border in Woodinville, Washington, U.S.A. These

grade 6 students are learning about comparative government and local history. I'm very

glad to see that things are rather subdued in the House at this time. I think that this

should contribute to the impression they receive. Would the members please join me in

making them welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me just make the point that photo radar, from

my perspective and the government's perspective, is not a cash cow. It was never intended

to be a source of revenue. Rather, it was a safety issue entirely. I think at the end of

the day, it's so close to a wash in terms of what it costs to put on versus what you get

back that, to all intents, it's revenue-neutral. There may be some slight deviation but

not enough to suggest for a moment that it's a way to make money, because it certainly

isn't.

Re the drug recognition experts program, I don't have the detail here in terms of the

cost, but I understand that it's quite small. I think it was about $25,000 last year.

D. Jarvis: The minister has really made me think that he's been in government

too long, when you figure that the costs and premiums to . . . . The premium

holders in ICBC paid out $39 million for photo radar, and the government took in close to

$50 million. That's almost $11 million. I think he's been in government too long if he

calls that a wash. That's not a wash. It is a cost borne by the motorists of British

Columbia for their premium dollars. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up.

[1630]

I want to ask another question to the Premier or -- maybe he could be Premier one day

-- to the minister. Could he tell me if there's an unlicensed driver problem in this

province? Now, I couldn't make it out from the financial statements, but I read somewhere

that there are approximately 3.3 million active driver's licence holders in British

Columbia. Well, we've only got a population of 4,000,014, and a great segment of those are

either under 16 . . . . Surely there are not half a million people that .

. . . So I would assume that we've got a problem with unlicensed drivers -- that

there are too many people out there with drivers' licences, or there are extra drivers'

licences out there. It doesn't appear as though the motor vehicle branch has been culling

them over the years the way they should have been.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have any figures to read into the record, but I am

advised that motor vehicles tells us that this is not a significant problem. There is

simply nothing to be concerned about.

I wouldn't dispute for a moment, however, that if you did some random checking, there

would be people that you would discover that didn't have valid licences. But it isn't at

epidemic proportions, nor is it something of a significant order of magnitude, according

to all the reports I've been given.

D. Jarvis: I'm slowly winding down here and getting to sort of loose questions.

But there was one that came to mind. It was the fact that a memo came out a couple of days

ago, on the 20th, to the agents in the province, saying: "As part of our continued

efforts to support optional insurance sales" -- in other words, we're trying to drive

the competition out of British Columbia -- "there is going to be a rate reduction for

comprehensive, fire and theft and collision." I wonder if the minister is prepared to

comment on that. Also, seeing that this is going to be another '99 rate reduction, why

didn't you deduct it from the $47 million, which you did for the other rate reduction for

the year previously?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that it hasn't been announced yet. What the

member is referring to, of course, is the e-mail or whatever that was sent to the brokers

in the business, saying that on June 17 we're looking at doing something, without defining

it too very much. In terms of the details, amounts and so forth, that will only become

evident at the point when the specific announcement is made.

I think what happened is that the corporation perhaps forgot that every

public-policy-making body today lives in the proverbial goldfish bowl. Whatever they say

to anybody will suddenly have a chance of being either on CKNW or BCTV, and that's, alas,

what has happened here. I can't tell the member about the details or anything, but I would

remind him that he might want to look at Hansard for May 20, when he and I had a

brief exchange about the corporation in terms of competition and how it was dealing with

the competition. He could, I think, if he read that over, accuse me perhaps of

foreshadowing the announcement he refers to today.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could tell me . . . . In

Aboriginal Affairs estimates, it came up that heretofore an aboriginal wasn't required to

carry insurance while driving a vehicle on reservations or aboriginal roads. Seeing that

we're going to have about 300 kilometres of roads in the Nisga'a territory, for example .

. . . When I brought that question up, as to . . . . I guess there are

about 300 kilometres -- only 100 being Nisga'a -- on the Nisga'a Highway, which the B.C.

government was paying for. Where are we going on that situation now? Are the aboriginals

-- the Nisga'a, for example -- now going to be responsible for carrying insurance through

ICBC? Or just how is that situation going to . . . ?

[1635]

Hon. D. Lovick: I would first of all point out to the member -- just to put this,

if I might, in a little bit of context, and I think he's aware of this -- that there are

various differences, if you like, governing insurance coverage -- off-road vehicles, for

example, and industrial roads and things of that sort. It's conceivable that in Nisga'a

territory or in others that there may be parts of the territory that are not part of the

normal road structure. In that case, I suppose, some kind of variance or exception could

be . . . .

But generally speaking, it's the case that on all public roads, all Crown roads and all

roads open to the public, for that matter, standard vehicle and driver licensing, vehicle

insurance and commercial transport requirements will continue to obtain. That's certainly

the case in the Nisga'a territory.

D. Jarvis: So I can rest assured that if I drove up there into Nisga'a territory

on the new road that the government's building or if I had permission to go off onto some

of the ancillary roads, in the event of a collision, ICBC would look after it no matter

who's at fault. Especially if I was the innocent party, I wouldn't have to resort to the

uninsured motorists' fund or something like that. They are covered by ICBC.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct.

[ Page 12734 ]

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could give me some kind of discussion or

breakdown on the decentralization -- this new regionalization -- that ICBC is putting

forward.

Hon. D. Lovick: The basic driving force behind the regionalization initiative of

the corporation, essentially, is to put responsibility for claims and for road safety and

all of the ongoing programs, if you will, that the corporation is responsible for, as well

as the simple matter of insurance, under the control of a regional office, directed then

by a regional vice-president. That's the intention. The head office then would take on

responsibility rather for the larger, more strategic initiatives in terms of the future

development of the corporation.

D. Jarvis: Is this going to result in a . . . ? There's a danger of

a bigger bureaucracy with less efficiency. This is what does happen, as you know, having

been in government most of your life.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, the latter part of your life, anyways; let's put it that way.

An Hon. Member: A good part.

D. Jarvis: A good part of your life. You know how inefficient you have beco