1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2631 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions Plans for Highland district. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Availability of temporary operating permits. Mr. Fraser — 2632

Bacteria count in milkshakes. Mr. Wallace — 2632

Aspeslet mauling case. Hon. Mr. Cocke answers — 2632

Trip to Great Britain for oil refinery talks. Mr. Bennett — 2633

Treasury Board directive. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2633

Ads for B.C. Government News. Mr. Gibson — 2633

Ads for inaugural run of Queen of Surrey . Mr. D.A. Anderson . —

Negotiations with Ottawa on highway programme. Mr. Phillips — 2633

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 76). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Macdonald

— 2634

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77). Second reading. Hon.

Mr. Macdonald — 2636

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 68). Second

reading. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2637

Division on second reading — 2647

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 69). Second reading. Hon. Mr.

Strachan — 2647

Motive-fuel Tax Amendment Act (Bill 32). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Barrett —

Division on second reading — 2650

Coloured Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 33). Second reading. Hon. Mr.

Barrett — 2650

Division on second reading — 2650

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act (Bill 73). Second reading. Hon. Mr.

Barrett — 2650

Division on second reading — 2667

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to draw the attention of the House to two visitors in the gallery today,

friends of mine from Penticton, Mr. and Mrs. Milligan.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House

to welcome a friend of mine from Kelowna who is in town for the

annual convention of the toastmistresses. She is also a

stalwart worker for the Conservative Party, Mrs. Norah

Woodman.

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

in the gallery we have 10 students from the grade 10 class at

St. David's School for Boys in Squamish with Mr. John

Kemchenten, their instructor. I wish the Members would make

them welcome.

MR. N.R. MORRISON: (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House

to welcome the former Member for Dewdney, Mr. George Mussallem,

who is in the gallery today.

Oral questions

PLANS FOR HIGHLAND DISTRICT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Housing,

Mr. Speaker. We've received the first annual report of his

department. I congratulate him for it. He set a new first for

government Ministers; he has managed to have seven pictures of

himself in 48 pages, which I am sure other Ministers will be

emulating.

But my question deals with the Highland district. On page

22, dealing with the capital regional district, it talks about

the acquisition of land. Yet the planner for the area for the

regional board simply has no idea what the government's plans

are. I wonder whether the Minister can now inform the House

and, of course, the people who live there whether the original

programmes to have this area developed for 30,000 people will

be proceeded with.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I think the Member

knows that this was assembled with the request, consent and, in fact, through

the capital regional board. The aims were for long-term land banking. We have

had studies which have taken place. We've also had studies into sewage servicing

for the entire Colwood-Langford-Highland area. The original intention was for

5- to 10-year land banking. It would have been desirable, in view of the current

need for serviced land, if that time could be stepped up, but it appears that

it will have to be in the long range because it appears that with the present

technology available to us we will have to build the sewer line to the project

in stages through the area to be serviced first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary to that question, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister has talked about these plans and studies,

and apparently the planning and the studying has been done but

has not yet been released. Indeed, the regional planner said:

"But your guess is as good as ours as to what plans there are

for the Highlands." Would the Minister please indicate when he

intends to table the plans for the area so that the residents

who are there now, as well as others who have concern for the

capital regional of British Columbia, can at least have some

idea of what was recommended?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a speech or a question?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: He asked when I would table the study. I

will do that in due course.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask, if it's going to be tabled

in due course, whether the planners for the area will receive

advance copies prior to tabling in due course? It seems absurd

to have a tremendous amount of money spent on planning and to

have these studies done, and yet have the regional board

planner unaware of what these studies say.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I'd ask the Members to put

their microphones up, because if they intend to ask a question

they won't have to keep jumping up and down if I see the

microphone up, but put it down when you are finished. See if

you can work that without all that exercise.

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

supplementary on the same subject to the Minister of Housing.

Has a planning study, commissioned by the province, by the

Minister's department, in fact been completed? In the statement

by the regional planner there is reference to a study which he

has not yet seen. Is it complete?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a preliminary feasibility

study has been completed.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary to the Minister: Is it this plan

which has not yet been submitted to the regional district or to

the planning staff of the regional district? The Minister

indicates that is the case.

[ Page 2632 ]

AVAILABILITY OF

TEMPORARY OPERATING PERMITS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The other day I asked the

Minister of Transport and Communications about the availability

of temporary operating permits which are causing a lot of

difficulty in the province. Today I would like to ask if it is

correct that temporary operating permits can be obtained from a

travel agency in Mackenzie and from the village clerk in

McBride.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : I will have to take that as notice. I have no

knowledge that any agency has the authority to issue such

permits. What did you say — Mackenzie and where else?

MR. FRASER: Mackenzie and McBride.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And from the travel agency?

MR. FRASER: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A commercial travel agency?

MR. FRASER: Right.

BACTERIA COUNT IN MILKSHAKES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Health with regard to the findings by the Consumers

Association of Canada, which from the bacterial testing of

chocolate milkshakes sold at fast-food outlets in Vancouver

discovered that 23 out of 60 samples greatly exceeded the

maximum coliform count. With the upcoming summer season and the

tourist influx, I wonder if the Minister has initiated any

immediate testing by his laboratories to find out if these

results are accurate.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): I don't believe that

it's necessary to rediscover the wheel. We feel that the

results were accurate. Incidentally, I would like you to look

at the addresses. I was very pleased when I read the paper

myself and found that the Member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain's (Mr. Cummings') establishment, which happens to be

the one on Main Street, had no coliform count. I think that

should be noted.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He must have known

they were coming.

HON. MR. COCKE: Just for the record, and for the Member for South Peace

River, I didn't even know they were going. So that's the kind of remark I think

is quite unnecessary and uncalled for.

We, naturally, are quite concerned about the question of

food, restaurants and so on. We are trying, with the staff that

we have, to cover as much ground as we possibly can. We will be

following up on this work, but I must suggest to you that we do

have a great deal of difficulty in the whole area of inspection

when you consider the number of establishments there are in the

province and the number of inspections that must be made in

order to keep them up to standards. We hope that people

themselves will protect their own industry from this kind of

stigma by seeing to it that they do apply the cleanliness

aspect.

ASPESLET MAULING CASE

Mr. Speaker, I was asked the other day by the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) about a request from the Royal

Canadian Humane Association with respect to Malcolm Aspeslet.

He was mauled by a grizzly bear in October, 1971, and as the

Member for Langley indicated, Mr. Aspeslet lost his scalp. The

matter has been discussed with my departmental officials, and

we most certainly view the tragedy with a great deal of

sympathy. If the treatment proposed proves to be medically

acceptable — that's the proviso — then arrangements will be

made to meet part or all of the costs involved in view of the

financial and emotional burden already borne by Mr. Malcolm

Aspeslet and his wife.

Our director of the bureau's special health services is

presently investigating the details of the plastic surgeon and

others involved, the feasibility of the surgical procedures,

proposed costs, et cetera. Such assistance as seems justified

will therefore be undertaken from our alternative-care vote as

soon as we possibly can.

Incidentally, it might be very much more than was suggested

by the Member for Langley, but we feel that it's certainly the

kind of thing we should be doing.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate that we don't want to reinvent the

wheel, but if the wheel has a puncture maybe we should fix it.

I'm suggesting that when the medical officer of Health from

Vancouver says that his efforts have been hampered by

inadequate laboratory facilities, and the health inspector, Mr.

Hutton, says there has been no testing of dairy products at the

retail level because the provincial laboratory facilities

formerly used have been denied Vancouver since January 1, I

have to suggest to the Minister that the rather simple answer

isn't adequate with the summer season and the risk of outbreaks

of food infection. What is the plan to provide the laboratories

and the facilities and the personnel? I

[ Page 2633 ]

notice that the budget for laboratories is up by 50 per

cent, but it doesn't seem to be enough.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, naturally the laboratory

situation in the province is totally inadequate, and that's one

of the reasons why we're planning a large provincial laboratory

in conjunction with B.C. Medical Centre.

There are alternatives, of course. Yes, there are

alternatives. One of the alternatives is being discussed at the

present time by giving some crash assistance to the B.C.

laboratory. But I must suggest to you that this is an area

where we have been thin. When there are outbreaks, as we have

had viral outbreaks this year — and you as a doctor know that —

then you move priority from priority to priority. We have some

of our bacteriologists backing up the virology aspects of the

lab. The lab people have to be reinforced — no question about

it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): If for some reason the

proposal that was made by Mr. Aspeslet proves not to be

medically acceptable, will the department on its own search out

some measure of relief for Mr. Aspeslet that will be medically

acceptable?

Secondly, will the department be approaching Ottawa to

perhaps share in some of the costs, since it did happen in a

national park?

HON. MR. COCKE : Well, I would have to take that, Mr.

Speaker, as notice. It is a technical question. I rather think

that there's a strong possibility that it will be medically

feasible.

As far as Ottawa is concerned, we'll write a letter.

TRIP TO GREAT BRITAIN

FOR OIL REFINERY TALKS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Attorney-General in the absence of the Premier, in regard

to the proposed oil refinery and the trip to Britain in June to

discuss it. I wonder if the Attorney-General as a director of

the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and responsible for energy will be

accompanying the Premier on the trip.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: (Mike not on.) ...not impossible, Mr.

Member.

MR. BENNETT: Well, just a supplementary, then. As this trip

seems to be very clearly defined, can the Attorney-General

advise whether the planned talks on the refinery with the Prime

Minister of Great Britain include financing of the project?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd rather let the Premier answer these

questions, but again that's not impossible.

TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVE

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon.

Provincial Secretary in his capacity as a member of Treasury

Board. Does the directive from Treasury Board with regard to

expenditures to be reduced 10 per cent and no hiring of

additional staff or acquiring additional space apply to all

departments of government?

HON. E, HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'll take that question

as notice, if I may.

ADS FOR B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question for

the Hon. Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

aware of full-page ads in the TV Guide for people to

write in for that government propaganda rag, B.C. Government

News ? What other ads are going on, how much do they cost

and how does he justify this brainwashing of the public with

their own money?

HON. MR. HALL: I suggest to the Member that he place the

question on the order paper and I'll answer it then.

ADS FOR INAUGURAL RUN

OF Queen of Surrey

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the

question of advertising. May I ask the Minister of Transport

and Communications how much the full-page ads inviting people

to the inaugural run on the Queen of Surrey cost and why they

were put in view of the fact that the ship came into service in

August of 1974 and in view of the fact the only real change

that we know of since that time is that the department of

ferries has been good enough to get rid of the fleas on board

the vessel?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Really, this is not a supplementary and

I must ask the Minister to refrain from answering. I don't

think that we should ask questions that are not supplementaries

on that basis because it's not fair to the Members who haven't

had a question.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTTAWA

ON HIGHWAY PROGRAMME

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to

the Hon. Minister of Highways. I'd like to ask him how he's

getting along with Ottawa these

[ Page 2634 ]

days. More specifically, with regard to the DREE programme

that was signed last year for upgrading the Alaska Highway, for

upgrading the John Hart Highway and for upgrading Highway 16

from Prince George to Prince Rupert: is the agreement being

carried on this summer? Is the money forthcoming from Ottawa to

carry on the work?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Negotiations are still

being carried on with Ottawa. But, if you recall, the agreement

that was signed by the Province of British Columbia and the

federal government was a one-year agreement, which is expiring.

We're on that second-, third- or fourth-year check.

MR. PHILLIPS: What happened?

HON. MR. LEA: It's expired: that's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. There was a

one-year agreement in there, but it did allude to a continuing

programme. Could the Minister advise what state the talks are

at? Is an agreement expected to be reached imminently? The,

building season is on us. I am concerned that that programme

might not be carried on for the betterment of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. LEA: We are going ahead with the programme. We are

still negotiating on how much of the money is going to be

picked up from Ottawa. The programme is going ahead. The fact

of the matter is that the negotiations have not been going on

with Ottawa quite as well after the federal election as they

were before.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid not.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day

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

leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I had informed the opposition

that we would be going to the Minister of Finance, but as he

has been delayed this afternoon, of which I was not aware at

the time I gave you that information, we will now proceed to the

Attorney-General's bills and second reading of Bill 76. 1

regret that we had to change the order. We will go onto Finance

this afternoon when the Premier returns.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have

the pleasure to introduce to the House Bill 76, the Legal

Professions Amendment Act, 1975, which has received careful

attention from the barristers and solicitors of the province.

It makes no substantial difference whatsoever in the

substantive law of the land, with the exception that it allows

the Law Society of British Columbia to own property and to

otherwise acquire land, not including expropriation. Otherwise

the bill consolidates things such as the sections on call and

admission; it improves some of the nomenclature in the Act, and

is not otherwise, as far as I can see, a matter of

substance.

I must say, as I survey my own profession, other professions, other

groups in the country of Canada and the Province of British Columbia, I

have not lost my interest in what I might call the principle of

representation. It seems to me that too often professions, managements

and industrial disputes are settled in the absence of the people who

often are most directly affected. I would hope that, as I have

requested in the past, the legal profession wouldn't be the one to take

the last step in this important matter and that they would consider in

the course of the next year whether there ought not to be sitting on

the benches of the Law Society of British Columbia somebody who might

be considered to be an ombudsman for the public, for the public

interest, whose duty it would be to represent that interest which is

unheard, really, in disciplinary hearings, in questions of call and

admission and settlement, possibly of fees, and things of that kind

which are of importance to the public.

I don't believe the law belongs solely to the lawyers or the

judges; I believe it belongs to the community. As I say, that

principle, which I call the principle of representation, has

tremendous application in other sections of our economy.

Increasingly, groups are not talking with each other and not

considering that amidst their rights there is a responsibility

to safeguard the rights of those with whom they have dealings.

I am not making any criticisms of anything, but I think we have

to talk more between groups and I think we have to watch out

for the other fellow's interests when we are considering the

interests of a particular group.

But that isn't in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I have been

entirely out of order in referring to the principle of

representation, although it is something quite on

[ Page

2635 ]

my mind. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I trust I can

stay as far within the bill as the Hon. Attorney-General in

introducing it. I am delighted to hear that he has not lost

interest in his former profession. We sometimes feel he may

have lost interest in his present profession when he brings

forward bills he hasn't read.

As far as the ombudsman for the public interest is

concerned, we heartily agree with the statement of the

Attorney-General. We cannot understand why this is not done by

way of statute so there is an ombudsman for the public interest

and a man who could look into problems between lawyer and

client.

One of the great surprises, I think, for all Members of this

House is that as soon as they get into politics, they receive a

reasonably large number of letters from people who have had

disputes with lawyers who have overcharged them, in their view,

or else charged them for doing no work, or, in the case of the

most recent one, a lawyer who charged for doing work which

turned out, because he had been so lazy in doing it, to be past

the six-month limitation. He was charging for work done which,

thanks to his own incompetence, could not possibly lead to a

resolution of the problem of the client.

There are many problems between lawyer and client. An

ombudsman for the public interest, as indicated by the

Attorney-General, would be very useful.

Certainly the Attorney-General knows of the letters I have

sent to him requesting assistance for people who have had

disputes with their lawyers. They've gone to the benchers, the

benchers have come back with a vague or unsatisfactory reply

and the Attorney-General's department has, in turn, done

likewise, because it's left up to the benchers...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're self-governing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...to handle matters of that nature.

This problem that he's put his finger on is one that I agree

exists. I am only surprised that the Attorney-General of the

province would put his finger on it, talk about it and then

indicate that this bill — and no other bill — has anything to

do with it in terms of rectifying it.

Law belongs to the community, the Attorney-General said, and I agree. I ask

him to look once more into the case of expropriation where a man without means,

without money, cannot go to any arbitration proceedings, because he must pay

his share. I refer, of course, to the case of a man with a dispute over some

$450, who found it would cost him a minimum of $2,500 to take it to arbitration

in addition to his own legal fees, and therefore he eventually wound up in jail,

as the ultimate result of his problems. I refer, of course, to the Baumgartner

case, a petition of which I presented to the House on this matter and questions

I raised with the Attorney-General.

No Attorney-General can get up in this House and make

statements that "law belongs to the community," or "law

belongs to individual citizens," where we have a system

which makes it impossible for a man to take a case of

expropriation to arbitration unless he has money. That is a

system which is basically one for the rich, basically one for

the privileged, and one that I think this Attorney-General

should look into most closely with a view to ending, because

our present system is perfectly iniquitous in this regard —

worse, perhaps, because it deals with injustice dealing with

public bodies, injustice in relation to governments, who have

the power to expropriate.

Mr. Speaker, you're being most indulgent. I'll simply say

that there are 30,000 potential bodies, or people or

organizations that can expropriate in the Province of British

Columbia, and it's time we settled the problem of expropriation

in a reasonable, proper manner.

I admit that this bill does nothing to do that. I regret it,

and I will join with the Attorney-General in saying that it

should be passed. But there are many areas under the

Attorney-General's general jurisdiction which are not being

dealt with, and I find it difficult to accept the

Attorney-General introducing bills by statements which are out

of order, about other problems in the general area of law, and

then doing nothing to rectify those other problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

We've been quite out of order so far in the debate in that you

could mention everything in the world that hasn't been

mentioned in the bill, and you're certainly out of order.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm just wondering, Mr. Speaker,

whether your amiability will continue to just one more speaker

or whether we're returning to order in this House.

I simply want to make the comment that any opening up of the

professions to scrutiny is good. I feel that the Attorney-General's

statement that a member of the public could and should be involved in

the supervision of the functioning of the lawyers in our society is an

excellent one. We've heard a great deal in previous debates about our

concern over marketing boards, for example. The consumer — the person

who goes into the marketplace to purchase — surely should have a say in

the marketing boards who set the price, one way or another. Similarly,

in law, it would seem to me that while we're not talking so much about

costs and prices, we are talking about the

[ Page 2636 ]

very important element of good faith and adherence to the

rules by which a lawyer practises law or a doctor practises

medicine.

It's my understanding that this example has been started, in

a modified way, by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who

have a non-voting representative from, I think, UBC or from one

of the medical institutions, who sits on the council of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons. I think this is a good step

forward, and I'm sure that if the professions are as honourable

as I believe them to be, they have nothing to fear from opening

up the business of their councils and their highest levels of

authority to some public visibility.

I understand that in Ontario the College of Physicians and

Surgeons in that province has taken some first step towards

having public access to the affairs of these bodies. I hope,

particularly since I often get the impression that lawyers are

unfairly branded because of the activities of a few of their

membership — and this happens in the medical profession also —

if the profession as a whole is doing its job properly and if

the disciplinary bodies are functioning adequately, I see no

reason that we should have any fears as professionals to

letting the public, with reason, see how our affairs are

conducted, as long as the individual specific elements of cases

that come before these bodies should not be highly publicized.

For that reason I think this bill has a great deal of

merit.

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

I will try to keep in order. I also support the out-of-order

remarks of the Hon. Attorney-General; I don't believe the legal

profession has anything to hide. In fact, if he were to

encourage the legal profession to request the change he makes,

I think it would go a long way to curing some of the criticisms

that are often improperly levelled against the profession. I

must, however, in saying that, take the strongest exception to

the remarks just made a few moments ago by the Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). There isn't any profession in

the Province of British Columbia which is more carefully

scrutinized than the legal profession. As a matter of fact,

with respect to the matter of costs, which are so often the

subject of criticism, the government itself maintains a number

of court officers, part of whose function is to deal

specifically with that problem. In addition, the law society

exercises a disciplinary function with the most serious

consequences resulting in suspensions and disbarment of members

who don't conduct themselves in accordance with very rigid

standards which have been established by the profession over a

number of years.

For that reason, I think that if the public could get a membership in the law

society among the benchers, then there would be someone who could see what is

going on and report as a member of the public that

everything is well with that profession.

Coming back to order, Mr. Speaker, there is a

section

dealing with retired members. I was just wondering if the two

distinguished members of the bar opposite fall into that

category.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about you?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General in the out-of-order

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I

agree with what was said by the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound. There are strong disciplinary rules and

the public interest is represented, but it's important that

justice not only be done but seem to be done, and be done.

The kind of principle I'm talking about.... If somebody

shows leadership, I think it will spread out into the field,

say, even of industrial relations where, I think, many

labour-management disputes are like wars. They are far too

important to be left to the two parties concerned, because

there is another party with vital interests totally unheard in

that kind of a situation as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I now move

second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 76, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a new

method of procedure in that we will have more than one statute

law amendment Act. In this bill we have gathered together the

ones of particular concern, but not the exclusive concern, of

the Attorney-General's department. I think that's quite

preferable to having one massive one. Even at that you'll find

that there's a great variation in the subject matters within

this bill. For that reason, in moving second reading I suggest

to the Hon. Members that perhaps the best thing would be to

have discussion of sections as they arise in committee.

I move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we agree with his suggestion that the

detail be discussed in

[ Page 2637 ]

committee. But I would like to comment most favourably

on the proposal of the Attorney-General to break up the omnibus bills that

we normally have at the end of each session whereby we deal with a whole series

of bills at the same time. He has decided to break them up so that they're at

least brought together in terms of departmental responsibility. We heartily

approve of that proposal. It was urged upon him last year; I'm delighted to

see that he's accepted the suggestion that we do this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The question on the motion.

Motion approved.

Bill 77, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975, read

a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

INSURANCE CORP. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : A very simple amendment, Mr. Speaker. As I

announced in the House some time ago, the corporation acquired

a body shop. The present legislation does not allow the

corporation to acquire shares in any other operation. This

amendment allows the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia to

acquire corporate shares in any other operation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in general principle, we

oppose the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia taking great

strides into new business ventures outside the area of

insurance. We actually oppose the kind of scope it has within

the area of insurance. But here we are dealing with a

technicality, according to the Minister, simply to make it

possible to acquire shares as opposed to simply acquire the

assets of a company, which seems to make logical sense.

Naturally we disapprove of the bill in principle because we

disapprove of the acquisition of shares or the companies

concerned. I trust that the opposition will be seen in that

light.

The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia should not become

simply another umbrella organization of government under which

are swept many, many differing corporations or differing

business enterprises. I trust that the Minister will take these

new powers and act with considerable restraint. He will take

them over our objections, but I personally believe that, even

if he has them, he should treat them most gingerly.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be quite as

charitable as the Liberal leader in approving of the principle

of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We disapprove of it.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I am sorry. The Liberal leader mentions

that he disapproves of it. I misunderstood him, and I withdraw

my earlier statement then.

If there is one area of activity by this government that has

caused the opposition parties in the province and in this

chamber more concern than any other, it is the increasing

intervention by government through Crown corporations, by the

formation of Crown corporations and otherwise, into the private

sector of the economy on unequal terms with the private

sector.

This bill just further waves the red flag to the opposition

parties that here is the government, on one pretext of

acquiring shares in perhaps a body shop — or, as the bill says,

another insurer or agent or adjuster — giving itself perhaps

somewhat limited power as of now, but just one more step by

which, in this case, a Crown corporation is moving in to the

private sector, namely autobody repair work.

Although the Minister has stated on many occasions that the

purpose is research — and I certainly commend the Minister for

the recent publicity regarding the experimental or research

burning of vehicles — I understand that there's a real

possibility that fraud on a large scale has been exercised

through claims against ICBC for vehicles burning when the

actual cause of the fire is under some doubt. So this kind of

research I'm all in favour of, but we have to ask whether or

not this kind of legislation could just be one step towards a

much greater takeover by the government of the whole autobody

repair business. After all, you have taken over car insurance

in a blanket fashion — completely. I don't think we can be

accused of being paranoid on this side of the House when we see

a step like this giving you power to acquire shares, either

with this bill or with some simple amendment at a later date,

or in the hands of another government or another cabinet. It

could result in the autobody repair business finishing up very

much under the complete and total control of government.

I don't know how often this side of the House has to express

its concern that we don't feel that this ever-increasing

intervention of government into the private sector is a healthy

thing for the economy and many of the private sectors of the

economy in British Columbia.

The Minister, in introducing the principle of this bill,

made it sound very simple and nothing that we need worry about — just a matter of buying a few shares. He said it doesn't mean

buying the assets of a

[ Page 2638 ]

company, just buying a few shares. But if you buy 100 per

cent of the shares, I would have to ask the question: whether

you have the assets of the company or not, buying the shares

and having control of how the company is operated and who gets

hired and who gets fired...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You misunderstood me.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister says I misunderstood his

introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right now we have to buy the assets....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's shares instead of just assets.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps the Minister can clarify his original

statement when he winds up debate on this bill.

The essential element of our opposition to this bill rests

on the fact that we see too much government intervention into

the private sector of the economy, without any real benefit

accruing from it. The Minister is very proud of ICBC and the

low premium rates, but he knows very well that if the private

sector operates at a $34 million deficit, they go broke and

they go into receivership and the whole world knows it. They

just don't have some other bag of money to put their hand in

and take out $34 million.

If this kind of bill is intended to work the same kind of

financial boondoggle with the body shops as has been produced....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Don't groan; it's a fact. It is a financial

boondoggle. It's run at a loss of $34 million in the first

year, and here the corporation wants to be buying shares in the

autobody shop business, always on the pretext that the

government can do better what the private companies can do.

Maybe the implication is left that the private companies charge

too much. But then wasn't that what we heard about insurance

premiums in the first instance? These terrible insurance

companies — their premiums were too high! Well, if that was

true, Mr. Speaker, the ICBC premiums are too low and it's the

taxpayer who is paying the deficit, whether he is in a car or

out of a car, owns one, drives one or what-have-you.

We just don't seem, from our side of the House, to be able to get this message

across. These Members from the government side, who moan and groan and wake

up every now and again to interject, seem to try to tell us that the $34 million

deficit isn't really a deficit. They've never yet told us, however many times

we've asked, just exactly whether that is coming out of gasoline revenue or

not. The Premier said in Friday's debate: "Well, not yet." If it's not yet,

when will it be? When will the public know just exactly how ICBC covers the

deficit?

Here we have the corporation, Mr. Speaker, asking for

legislation to take another step forward — or backward, as we

see it — in wishing to become more involved in the acquisition

of shares in the various categories defined in the bill but

particularly related to the repair of damaged vehicles. In

similar types of legislation we have also complained about the

fact that when the government moves in, as it does with Plateau

Mills and a few other examples, it sets up a Crown corporation

which does not pay federal income tax. Now this is a thoroughly

unfair method of competition.

Then, I suppose, the argument will be that the autobody

repair shops weren't doing an efficient job at the prices they

were charging when they have overhead expenses which will not

be incurred by the government-run operation.

MR. R. T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Do you mean the government

would be more efficient?

MR. WALLACE: Here we have the same kind of stupid

interjection again, Mr. Speaker. They come to the conclusion

that under these circumstances the government would be a more

efficient operation. If their overhead expenses are less, I

would expect them to do a more efficient operation. But do you

believe that the government should move into some of these

areas, Mr. Speaker, and compete unfairly with the private

sector? If the government moved into the ice cream business and

didn't pay income tax, I can think of one Member in this House

who would be pretty unhappy, whether he had his coliform count

in order or not. His ledger might not show a very happy

picture.

I feel that if the government wishes to have access to research and information

as to repair of damaged vehicles, there are many other avenues that the government

could quite efficiently pursue to get the desired information and experience

without having, once again, to move the typical socialist route of acquisition.

It's the only way this government seems to think it can ever make progress in

the field of research. It can't provide initiatives for other people privately

to do the research; it always has to be by some government intervention which

acquires or takes over or buys out some company, sets up a Crown corporation

and then competes on unequal conditions with the private sector. I feel that

this kind of legislation is unnecessary. For the very strong reasons, as we

see them, we will certainly oppose this bill.

[ Page

2639 ]

MR. CUMMINGS: I rise to support this little bill because it

gives the corporation the right of an ordinary citizen. Is that

wrong?

MR. WALLACE: Government isn't an ordinary citizen.

MR. CUMMINGS: Sure it is. But this insurance corporation

needs this right to be able to ascertain the true costs of

repairs. Every company has this right to acquire shares, but

the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) feels there is

something sinister here. Sometimes I think the Conservatives

are too scared of the dark, because they sure can see lots of

bogeymen.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Yes. I don't know, I think they believe in the

mushroom theory.

This bill is so elemental that basically this corporation

needs to have the right that every average citizen has. Thank

you.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The principle of Bill 68

clearly is to provide for the insurance corporation under the

auspices and powers of the government to move into control and

ownership of the automobile repair business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it say that?

MR. SCHROEDER: Whether it moves into it gradually or

altogether is entirely up to the discretion of the corporation.

But nonetheless, this bill provides for that kind of a

takeover.

Immediately there is a difference of opinion, a difference

of philosophy that is much wider than the space between this

side over here and the government, physically, in that we

strenuously oppose this entire concept. Setting that argument

aside, there is a very natural question that comes: why does

this Minister, through this corporation, wish to take over this

and yet another aspect of industry in the province? In his

press release — that is, in the press release that came from

the insurance corporation itself, dated April 29 — it spells

out very clearly in the first two lines why the government

wishes to take over this business under the delusion that

repair costs can be controlled by virtue of moving this

industry under the control of the government.

I have just two or three, perhaps five, reasons I wish to

cite today that would refute the reasons given by this

government as to why they should take over the autobody repair

business.

Cost control is not reason enough for this government to move into the repair

business. Has the Minister considered these areas in which the cost will increase

when the government takes over? In a first instance, in management alone the

costs will increase. Mr. Speaker, the majority of automobile body repair shops

in the province today are privately owned, and operated by the owner. This owner

operation does not have a fixed fee as a salary for that owner-operator. As

the fellow down there selling the ice cream knows, the only time there is a

salary for the owner-operator is if there is anything left in the kitty after

expenses are paid. If there is ample work, there is ample compensation, The

truth is, if there is minimal work, there is minimal compensation. Mr. Speaker,

in a month in which there is no work at all, there is no compensation for management

because management happens to be the owner in the small owner-operated body

shop.

When the government moves into this kind of an operation,

wishes to take the controlling interest in any given shop,

which it has already done in the instance of the Beacon Body

Shop, the first thing that has to be done is that they have to

hire a manager for the operation. This manager comes in at a

fixed salary. He has a fixed fee. It makes no difference

whether they pound out any fenders in that shop for that month

or not; this is a fixed fee. As a result, unless they can

guarantee more bent fenders and a bigger clientele, then there

is no way that, even in the management area alone, the

government could ensure that the cost of management would be

lower under this plan than it is under the present plan.

The second instance is the cost of labour. The insurance

corporation itself has already proven one thing — that the

people who are involved in the corporation are already

receiving greater compensation than comparable positions in the

private industry. I will just give you an example. The little

ladies who handle the telephones and who are the receptionists

in insurance corporation offices in connection with the motor

vehicles branch now receive anywhere from 25 per cent to 50 per

cent larger salaries for their services than do the girls who

are serving in the outlets of the private insurance agents. I

talked with an agent from my area just a little over two weeks

ago. He said that it is almost impossible for him to find a

girl to handle his work in his office, because he pays about

$650 per month, when they can walk across the street to the

motor vehicles branch and pick up a job of a similar nature and

get close to $900 per month.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Oh, come off it.

MR. SCHROEDER: That's what the man said. He said to me that

it is strange he would be able to find help at all. If this is

the instance, and I have no reason not to believe the

gentleman, then even cost of labour under the

government-sponsored plan would and could be in excess of what

it is now.

[ Page 2640 ]

Now let's go into the shop. Most privately owned and

owner-operated shops are two-, three-, four- and five-man

shops. Most of them are unorganized shops. I am not saying that

is good or bad; all I am saying is that under government

sponsorship of these shops, we would immediately proceed to

organized labour; we would immediately proceed to a first

contract. As in the instance of the insurance corporation

itself, we would be going for what the Minister has cited as a

demand for increases of 61 per cent. These are the Minister's

own figures: increased demands of 61 per cent in one

settlement.

This means that labour costs under government sponsorship

would be in excess of costs now. Does that sound like cost

control to you, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)?

Does that sound like cost control? We've already lost in the

management area. Indications from the ICBC itself and its

one-year track record will clearly tell you that the costs of

labour can be expected to increase.

Then there are other costs which the Minister clearly has

not considered, or else he wouldn't have come out with a bland

statement that says: "The automobile body repair cost control

is the motivating factor in bringing Bill 68." How about

inventory investment? Has the Minister considered that in any

repair shop it's not just a matter of cash flow as it is in the

insurance corporation? There is a matter of investment in

inventory. If you're going to put new fenders on the cars as

they are being damaged, then you must have new fenders in

stock. Since you can't tell, Mr. Speaker, which car it is

that's going to be run into the telephone pole next week,

you've got to have various kinds, types and sizes of fenders.

Therefore you have an immense inventory investment. I'm

wondering whether the Minister has considered the cost of this.

How does he presume to control the costs of inventory?

Then there's another area: the cost of providing courtesy

transportation, which, by the way, is an area that our

insurance corporation has not done too well with.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They've done better than the private

corporations.

MR. SCHROEDER: Not so. Let me cite for you an example of an individual

who had loaned his automobile. The car was in a wreck and was taken to the repair

shop. The length of time for repairs was 53 days. The man lives in Huntingdon,

British Columbia, which is out in my constituency, and must drive some distance

to his work. He needed a courtesy car. He went to the place where the repairs

were being done and they said: "We do not have a courtesy car for you." He went

to the claims centre to find out whether or not it was possible for him to have

a courtesy automobile. They did not specify where he was to get a courtesy automobile.

Therefore he went to places like Host Rent-A-Car who said to him: "Is this a

courtesy car through ICBC?" He said: "Yes." They were not interested in doing

business with him. It's amazing.

Eventually he went to the lady who was responsible for the

wreck of his automobile, used her automobile as a courtesy car,

went to Host rentals to see what kind of a price should be

charged for it, presented ICBC with a bill, and ICBC turned

down the bill.

The Minister tries to tell us that they are doing far better

than under private industry for a courtesy automobile. There's

just one example; I'm sure that Members on this side of the

House could cite additional instances of exactly the same

thing.

The argument is beside the point. The question is: if the

motivation is for autobody repair cost control, is this an area

that the Minister has considered, Mr. Speaker, in cost

control?

Then another area that we hear very, very little about is

that.... For instance, in the purchase of the Beacon Body Shop

the purchase price was in excess of $400,000 — is that right or

is that wrong?

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: In excess of $400,000 which represent either

direct tax dollars or tax dollars through the insurance

corporation — $400,000 of public funds used for the purchase of

Beacon Body Shop. Has the Minister even begun to consider what

the cost of investment is? Will the cost of taxpayers' dollars

invested in Beacon Body Shop be used in the computation of

the cost of repairs or will they not?

These are some of the areas in which we have some very

serious questions. We really wonder whether the motivation for

getting into the autobody repair is really cost control. ICBC's

track record seems to tell us otherwise. I'd like the Minister

to tell us point blank, very plainly, how he intends to control

the cost of repairs through Bill 68. I'll be interested and

will be listening very attentively.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that there are others

over on the other side who want to say a few words. But I think

probably I'd like to interpose something in between them and

the Minister who will close debate.

I have to smile at the takeover syndrome that seems to be

espoused over there. A body shop became available to ICBC — and

there will probably be two or three others, hopefully. Nothing

to do with takeover — they became available and were sold to

ICBC for a fair price. No public funds — a matter of business

with ICBC.

I think that group over there understands quite well that if

we don't have some say of setting a

[ Page 2641 ]

criterion, a means of determining costs, then we will

continue our present debate with the autobody shops. What that

Member over there really said was we condone the autobody shops

for being organized themselves, but many of them do not have

organized people working for them. They're quite well organized

on the question of $20 an hour, or whatever it happens to be

this particular week. We don't know whether that amount is the

amount that should be spent in an autobody shop without having

some kind of guide, and we feel the best way to establish that

is to have an autobody shop that relates directly to ICBC as a

subsidiary.

MR. SCHROEDER: And costs go up to $24 an hour.

HON. MR. COCKE: If that were the case, naturally ICBC would

be paying that price.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That would certainly be the suggestion that

we would be looking at very, very carefully.

But all of the strawman arguments that Member raised, such

as "you'll have to hire a manager" — we can get a manager; it's

a big autobody shop.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Went broke, too.

HON. MR. COCKE: They didn't go broke. Mr. Speaker, outside,

that would probably be an actionable statement, yet those kinds

of statements keep cropping up continually from the other side

of the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: They would have to carry an inventory. Isn't

that something new? At the same time, that Member spoke about

little autobody shops with two or three people. How big an

inventory can they or do they carry? Therefore if they can

carry an inventory, any viable bodyshop can carry an inventory.

Further to that, it's just common business practice to buy

parts as needed.

It does give ICBC an ability to assess a situation that

we're very concerned about because we've gone in very short

order from an area of reasonable costs, let's say, to a very

high-cost time in autobody repair. We just feel that we must be

involved in order to know what's happening.

Mr. Speaker, this government has given a good — account of themselves on this

whole question of being very careful. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) diametrically

opposes any invasion of industry. That's not shared, really, by the people from

the Social Credit Party. It didn't take that government very long, after promising

not to, to take over the B.C. Electric, call it B.C. Hydro, and give a very

bad account of itself, really, the way they did it. So the whole question is

whose ox is being gored, I presume.

The Member for Oak Bay says, "No, it'll never happen under a

Conservative," yet I notice Peter the Red, the Premier

of Alberta, took no time at all in taking over Pacific Western

Airlines.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): They had to do it to save you

fellows from doing it.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's the kind of thinking you get from

that group over there. He had to do it because we might have

done it otherwise. What rot! But what does one expect?

MR. WALLACE: They didn't ask my permission, I'll tell you

that.

HON. MR. COCKE: I understand the good doctor's position.

(Laughter.) He and I agree on one or two things, particularly

in health care, but I'll tell you right now that we certainly

disagree on leaving the people open to a situation where they

can be paying out funds that they needn't. We feel that this is

one way of providing a service, and seeing to it that we're

able to have some kind of a guideline to go by.

MR. FRASER: I certainly enjoyed that speech by the Minister

of Defence over there. A bunch of gobbledegook if I ever heard

it.

This bill before us is nothing more than a takeover of all

the body shops in this province. This is just the start of it,

and I'd like to name it the "rubber hammer bill." It puts them

in the rubber hammer business.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Rubber hammers and iron fists — that's all it

is.

In this province the great majority of body shops are owned

and operated by individual citizens and, in a lot of cases,

family business. I'm certainly not supporting this bill in any

shape or form to see the last of the few small business

families squeezed out of business by this method.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the government cannot

operate body shops as well and as efficiently as the individual

body shop operator — whether it's a small corporate company or

an individual company — because they will have to go and hire

people to operate these body shops, and they'll have more

executives on the staff then they'll have body people.

[ Page 2642 ]

The first qualification to be an executive and a boss of a

Crown corporation under this government, in the case of body

ships, is you don't have to know anything about body shops, but

you have to be an NDP card holder. That's their prime

qualification. So, for that reason, it certainly is not going

to be an efficient operation.

Something else, Mr. Speaker. There are more businesses going

to be put out of business by this bill than meets the eye, and

I want to refer to the parts business. The parts business in an

automotive agency is one of the few left that they can make a

profit on. They make very little money on a new car or used

car, but there is no new car dealer that will deny the fact

that they do make a decent and reasonable markup on the parts

section. I have reason to believe, Mr. Speaker, that ICBC — and

I would like to hear the Minister put it on record when he

winds up this debate.... Are you going to buy the parts in

these body shops from Henry Ford direct, General Motors direct,

Chrysler direct, and bypass the dealer in the area? I have

reason to believe that's their full intention. If this is the

case, there'll not only be body shops affected, going out of

business, but there'll be new car agencies all over this

province going out of business. That's another reason why I'm

very much opposed to this bill. It's just the thin end of the

wedge.

We already have a $36 million loss in ICBC, Mr. Speaker, and

that is only a trickle of what we're going to have. This year

we'll have a minimum of $100 million. Because this Minister

will be in charge of the body shops, we have nicknamed him "the

born loser" or "the leader of the loss leaders," and I

certainly am not going to vote for this bill also for that

reason.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Well, now we

find that Moscow Mutual wants to go into another business.

We've seen other departments of this government buy the shares

in corporations. Dunhill is one which easily comes to the minds

of Members of this House, and we all know what a fiasco that

has been for the people of British Columbia.

Now we're told that the government, because of their need to

assess accurately the costs that are involved in repairs, have

to buy themselves a body shop. Well, I suppose that the cost of

repairs will vary regionally throughout the province, so the

acquisition of one body shop is not going to be good enough.

The government is going to have to have its own body shop in

every area and every region of the province in order to get any

proper assessment of what the costs may be.

Mr. Speaker, if the government has to have a body shop in order to assess the

costs of automobile repairs, what in heaven's name do they do at that claims

centre? Those thickly carpeted mausoleums that they call claims centres, developed

at the cost of millions and millions of dollars to the people of British Columbia:

what do they do? And what do they do in other provinces where this is a matter

of concern? What will they do anyway? They can't acquire one body shop in each

region and do all the repairs. And if they prove that they can do it more cheaply,

which I gravely doubt, then what are they going to do with the other body shops

that function in the same area? Are we then going to find that the government

is going to refuse to allow ICBC to pay the cost of repairs? Is it going to

be like they're treating the doctors — we'll give him so much money to repair

a car and if it costs any more than that, then the automobile owner is going

to pay the excess? Is that going to be the result of ICBC's operation?

It very clearly looks, Mr. Speaker, as if what the

government is embarking upon here is a major takeover of all of

the automotive repair facilities in the Province of British

Columbia. If it isn't done this way, then there's no way in

which the scheme of providing a gauge or a standard of

measurement can possible work. It's going to destroy the

competitiveness that exists, and the competitiveness that

exists today is supposedly assured by the operation of the

claims centres that ICBC presently has as part of its own

organization.

I think the Minister is going to be at some difficulty to

explain to the Members of this House how he can justify the

acquisition of shares or business or property of autobody shops

in order to bring about the simple result that the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) suggested, merely as a guide.

It just doesn't wash, Mr. Speaker; it just doesn't wash. You

can provide all the guides you want, but it is like buying all

the Kresge stores and allowing Woolworth's to continue to

operate. That doesn't provide you with any guide unless you

have free competition.

But when you control the insurance corporation, when you

control the claims centres and when you control half of the

body shops, then the end is spelled clearly for the other half

of the body shops. You are going to wipe out private

entrepreneurs who today are offering a service to the people of

British Columbia such as the government will never be able to

offer.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Moscow Mutual concept is crumbling

around the government. They're pumping the moneys out of

general revenue into ICBC to prop it up, and this action is

only going to require additional injections of revenue.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, before the

Minister closes the debate I would like him to answer a few

questions for us, if he would.

One of the Members earlier asked him what their intention is

about buying parts direct from the

[ Page 2643 ]

factory. I'd like to have that answered. I would also like

to know: do they intend to go into the auto-wrecking business?

Do they intend to acquire shares in companies which are now

doing auto-wrecking and the used parts supply business? Does

this also give him the intention of going into the auto-towing

business? Will they be buying auto wreckers and going into

their own towing?

Will ICBC insurance adjusters be instructed to refer a

majority of the repairs to the shops in which you acquire

shares? Will there be some means of assuring those independent

operators who have not sold out to ICBC that they will receive

their fair share of the work available?

Will these businesses eventually sell insurance for ICBC?

Will you open offices in these businesses that you acquire

shares in for the sale of insurance? Will these companies

employ insurance adjusters in the outlying areas or will the

customer simply bring his car in and the car will be worked on

without any adjuster looking at it or without any estimate?

The policy of this government seems to be to start into

those sorts of things, to tell people to go ahead and do

things. The Princess Marguerite is a prime example. It is sent

over to a repair area; no estimate is given as to what it is

going to cost to fix it. They just say: "Go ahead and do it,

and send us the bill." We still don't know how much it is going

to cost for that. Maybe the press had found out, but nobody

else seems to know.

The autobody business is a very interesting and exciting

business, but it is not a business that ICBC should be involved

in, You are certainly going to get into a conflict of interest.

You already have it now with some of your adjusters, as you

know. If you buy companies throughout the whole province....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know.

MR. MORRISON: All right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've made an allegation. Now, back it

up.

MR. MORRISON: Do you really want me to?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you say there is a conflict of

interest with adjusters, you back it up.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I'll say that you are likely to get into

a conflict of interest when you acquire....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ah! Don't make an accusation unless you

back it up. I've told you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He made an accusation and I want him to

back it up, right here, right now.

MR. MORRISON: Your turn will come.

HON. MR, STRACHAN: Don't make statements like that unless

you can back them up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Members please...?

MR. MORRISON: And I will continue to say that you are going

to have a problem when you acquire shares in companies and you

will have a conflict of interest. Will you go into that kind of

business with your eyes open, knowing exactly what you are

doing to the competitive business in this market?

There is one other thing I would like to know. So far, we

have only talked about insurance and autobody businesses, but

the bill allows you to buy shares in insurance agents,

adjusters and motor-vehicle repairmen, It is very broad; it

doesn't say just the autobody business.

Do you intend to get into the mechanical repair business?

Are you going to be rebuilding transmissions? Are you going to

go into the engine repair work? Are you going to go into

frame-straightening business? Are you going to get into the

used parts business? Are you going to get into the used car

business? Are you going to sell your wrecks and repair them in

your own shops and eventually sell them on the market? How far

do you intend to go? What is your policy? Why is such a simple

little bill phrased like this? You try and confuse the public

with what your eventual goal is, and your eventual goal is to

have it all.

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

Speaker, to reinforce the arguments presented by a number of

people on the opposition side, I believe the ICBC fiasco

represents the classic problem of socialism interposing itself

into enterprise. Here we have a corporation just over a year

old. It's having its first strike. It's losing probably in

excess of $250,000 a day. The employees are asking for 60 per

cent wage increases. The public, which always had reliable

service in the insurance industry before, now within one year

of the government interposing itself is without those

services.

Ever since the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia came into

being, the Minister and the government have been in a running

battle, harassing the people who are actually doing the work,

those who are repairing the automobiles. The ones who push the

paper were protected by the government. It didn't matter how

much money they lost. But when it came

[ Page 2644 ]

down to the people who actually had to do the work of

repairing the cars, they were immediately in disfavour with the

socialist government.

You are against people who work. You are against those who

try and compete and bring prices down for the public. You are

against anyone who makes a profit. All you want to do is to run

everything yourself and lose money for the public. Everything

you touch, Mr. Minister, has been a disaster. You took over the

ferries, and the cost of running them doubled and service to

the public declined. You took over the insurance industry and,

while the cost to the public directly has not gone up very

much, indirectly, through the enormous amount of subsidies that

must be pumped into that insurance corporation, the costs to

them have gone up.

Who would say that service today is as good as it was? There

is a strike, something that would have been unthinkable when

the insurance industry of British Columbia was in private

business. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, if there were a strike among

autobody repair shops, the ones that went out on strike would

be out of business today, because it is competitive and the

people have to work hard in order to stay in business. You are

trying to destroy that. I can tell you that the first thing

that would happen if you were to take over the industry is that

the work would go down and the costs would go up and the

service to the public would virtually disappear.

We've got to come to our senses in British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What party are you going to

join?

MR. McGEER: Well, you wait and see. Boy, is he frightened!

Is he frightened! Every single day.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Maybe we will tell you one of these days, Mr.

Premier, and you can get a night's sleep. I've never seen

anybody as frightened in my life, not even in the old days when

Davie Fulton was threatening the former Premier. But just

relax. If you started to run the province properly, you

wouldn't have so much to worry about. But if you depend on that

man and what he is trying to do to the autobody industry, you

are not going to last very long; nor will he, because there is

still a place in British Columbia for people who are willing to

work. There is still a place for profit. There is still a place

for service to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have listened to this brief debate.

MR. McGEER: Be general.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It reminded me very much of many debates

that have taken place in this House in the past two and a half

years. I refer you especially to the debate that took place in

second reading and committee stage of the bill to set up the

Department of Transport and Communications. I never in all my

life heard such wild, irresponsible, completely false,

unfounded tommyrot in my life. I challenge any Member on that

side of the House to go back and read what they said when I

brought in that bill setting up this department.

They would throw up, because they knew when they were making

those statements that they were phony statements, they were

fraudulent statements, they weren't true, they didn't mean them....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! I wonder if the Hon.

Member would withdraw the words "phony" and "fraudulent"

please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Phony? Fraudulent?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think they are parliamentary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, they were joking. I'll withdraw the

words. I'll withdraw the words. They were joking. They didn't

really mean it. They knew they didn't mean it. They were just

trying to put up a smokescreen. That was all it was, Mr.

Speaker.

I've heard exactly the same thing here. Exactly. Remember

what they said? I challenge you to go back and read it and find

out what has happened since. Okay, let us go back to the exact

statements. If we were to take over the body shop business....

At no time have I ever indicated in any way, shape or form that

it was our intention to take over the body shop business in the

Province of British Columbia. They know it. They have heard me

say it time and again from day one.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You said no subsidy,

too.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what they were

saying. Now I suggest you ask them to listen to what I have to

say.

MR. PHILLIPS: The only reason you listened is

[ Page 2645 ]

because you don't have any comeback.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't want me to make the comeback. I

am simply asking for the privilege and the right that I have in

this House. I listened to your nonsense; I ask you to listen to

the truth. I said right from the beginning that it was the

intention of ICBC to have hired body shops around this province

to check the repair costs in different parts of this

province.

I listened to them talk about "competitive". Where is the

competition when I am faced by the Automotive Retailers

Association for a demand that we pay exactly the same price to

every body shop. Where's the competition? It's not competitive

when I'm faced with a flat demand on behalf of all the body

shops that we pay exactly the same price for every little piece

of business to every body shop. That's not competition! So

because there's no competition and because I am faced with a

flat-rate situation I suggest to you that I must have something

with which to compare their flat-rate demand. That's what I am

asking you for, and that's what this is about. So don't talk to

me about competition when the ARA say that they want this for

every body shop no matter where they are in the province. I

want a yardstick to measure.

AN HON. MEMBER: They offered you their formula.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) made a comparison....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Each side is entitled to free

speech within the rules, but it doesn't mean making new

speeches from your seats.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey made

a comparison about enormous subsidies. There hasn't been one

penny come from the provincial Treasury to ICBC up to this

point. He said keep on pouring enormous subsidies in. Not one

penny — and he knows it. He knows it but he still makes these

statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one cent of subsidy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think it's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that

their policy is to destroy ICBC. That's what they want to do.

They make it very clear. The Member asked me a number of

questions....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do we intend to go into the auto-wrecking

business? Do we intend to go into auto towing? Let me tell you

something. I had the first chance at buying Buster's and I

turned it down. Yes, I turned it down and ICBC turned it down.

We don't want to go into that business.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will work be allocated to other shops? Of

course work will be allocated to other shops. I've already

explained it to you and you don't want to listen, you don't

want to accept the truth. I want pilot plans. I want pilot

plans because I'm faced with a flat demand for a flat rate —

for everything, a minimum of $25.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you going to buy your parts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That will depend on whether or not they

are made available to us by the present dealers. But if the

present dealers take a position that they are not going to sell

them to the government-operated plants, we will have to go

where we can get them.

I'm not going to give you any flat statement now that I am

not going to buy parts from Ford or General Motors. If some

local dealer refuses to sell them, as they might do — as they

might do — then I am going to go where I can get the parts.

A major takeover of all major body shops in B.C. — I have

already indicated that that's nonsense. The Member for Cariboo

(Mr. Fraser) said the same thing. That's nonsense. Squeeze out

the small businessman? I want to tell you that this government

has done more to help small business to survive in British

Columbia than any government in the history of the province or

any government anywhere in Canada. We are the only protection

that the small businessman has against the great national

corporations and the multinational corporations.

MR. FRASER: Horse feathers!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me see what else was said. The Member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) talked about the time taken to

repair a car — 53 days. I don't know whose fault that was or

what happened at that body shop that it took 53 days to repair

a car. But I tell you that our supplying of courtesy vehicles

equals or surpasses that which ever existed in the days of the

private insurance companies.

You asked questions about Beacon Body Shop and

[ Page 2646 ]

inventories — I guess you weren't in the House and you

probably didn't read Hansard . But in answer to a

question I pointed out the cost factors involved in the

acquisition of Beacon Body Shop, and as I recollect the figure,

I said there was $41,000 worth of parts and equipment involved

in that total sum of money. We are fully aware of that. You

probably weren't in the House or didn't read

Hansard .

Again, you said why did I want to take over part of the auto

business. I have explained that. It was to give us a

yardstick.

You talk about greater salaries for the girls answering in

the motor vehicle branch, well, I don't know what they pay but,

certainly, I believe in paying a fair wage for a fair day's

work, and if some agent is not paying what is generally

accepted as a fair wage for a fair day's work, then I don't

know.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member asked me to act with

restraint. Certainly I will act with restraint. But, you know,

I listened to the general thrust of this debate, and it will

probably carry through into the next one and, as the Premier

said, they'd like to destroy ICBC. They would love to destroy

ICBC.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suggest you read that

article that was

in The Toronto Star on May 17, 1975, and listen to these

excerpts from it. I know you don't like it but it says here.... Oh, yes, I'll read it to them...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, don't read it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...just to get it onto the record. This

is The Toronto Star , May 17, 1975:

"Erin Mamones became the first person to make a claim on

British Columbia's government auto insurance plan when another

car rammed the back of her Volvo on Lion's Gate Bridge in

Vancouver.

"'Within an hour an adjuster was looking at my car. Not bad

service at all,' she said. 'In Toronto it would have taken a

lot longer.' Just how long would depend on what private

insurance company Erin Mamones dealt with."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's free enterprise.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It continues:

"Some insurance agents in Toronto say it would take two or

three days. One says his firm is happy if it can handle a claim

a day."

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's freedom to wait.

"A feature of the first government auto insurance plans in

the west admired by many spokesmen for the private insurance

industry in Ontario is the speed with which the government

plans process claims.

"Morris Odette, who processes claims for the Toronto office

of a large insurance broker says: 'It's not unreasonable for a

driver to wait two or three days for a visit from an insurance

company adjuster.'"

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's free enterprise.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It goes on:

"Brian Boyle, a divisional claim superintendent with the

State Farm Co, which has operated drive-in claims centres in

Ontario for about two years, says: 'If we can process a claim

on the same day it makes us very happy.' Boyle, who has visited

government centres in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, says: 'This is

the direction the private companies must go."'

I'd suggest you read that article.

In your attempts to destroy, belittle, undermine, berate, do

away with and embarrass ICBC...

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...to put it in focus for you, I would

like to read to the House — and I'd ask you to keep this in

mind in a later debate on another bill — excerpts from a speech

made to the convention of the Insurance Agents Association of

British Columbia. This is the president's annual report, May 5,

1975, signed by Mr. John F. Hamilton, president. I would like

to read you some excerpts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he an agent?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He was the president of the agents'

association. He sold me the first policy that was ever sold by

the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does he say something nice?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, just let me read it to you. I want

it on the record. And keep this in mind! May 5, 1975.

"Autoplan is eventually going to have a measure of success,

with or without agents." Then he goes on to say: "I have said

publicly and to the members of this association that

[ Page 2647 ]

Autoplan is good for the general public. There is no

question in my mind that the system is good for the agents.

There is no one in this room..."

— and there they were,400 or 500 agents from all over the

province —

"...who can truthfully say that he would prefer to go back to

the old method of merchandising auto insurance."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, shame! A cop-out to free

enterprise.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It continues:

"If there is someone who doubts, then I say that lie is not

prepared to make the changes in his old way of doing business

that are necessary to survive today."

MR. CHABOT: They want to stay alive. A plea for mercy,

that's all. They want to live.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then he asks the question — listen to the

question.

"Who wants the assigned risk plan? Who wants the hassle of

trying to place motorcycle insurance for the son of an

important client? Does anyone want to return to the problems of

going to Lloyds to place excess liability of half a million for

someone with a bad driving record, or have to fly to Toronto to

get a market for a fleet of long-haul trucks.

"And what about claims service? Do you remember the phone

calls on nights and weekends, and the direct involvement with

adjusters who couldn't care less about your problems of trying

to hold on to your account?"

Then he asks the agents:

"How many serious claims problems have arisen in your office

in the last year? Then there was a difficult problem of

collection of auto premiums. Remember the bounced cheques, the

bad debts, flat cancellations and those three-month high

premium policies? These things are all in the past.

"If you think the next field is greener, move next door to

Alberta. You will find an old friend, the insurance exchange

and that beautiful practice of three clean risks for every grey

risk, or two homeowners insurance policies for every three auto

policies that any company would accept."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's free enterprise.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who wants to go back to those problems?

Who needs that problem?

The public is basically happy with Autoplan. The growing

pains in the claims department are being sorted out and the

public is getting fast and fair treatment, and that's what

they're looking for.

This little amendment and the succeeding amendments are to

ensure the continuation of the operation of the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia and Autoplan to satisfy those involved in

the industry of servicing the people, and to satisfy the people

that they've got the best automobile insurance system in the

whole wide world.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 68, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment

Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 69.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, Bill 69 has a variety of items involved

in the particular bill. Some of them are a clarification of the existing wording

and are self-explanatory. Others are occasioned.... There's a

section with

reference to hit-and-run drivers and the compensation available to the victim

of a hit-and-run driver so far as his vehicle is concerned.

[ Page

2648 ]

Some of you may not know or may have forgotten that prior to

the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia being set up, any

person who was a victim of a hit-and-run driver and had his

automobile damaged in any way, shape or form had absolutely no

recourse of any kind. The Traffic Victims' Indemnity Fund did

not — I repeat, did not — pay any compensation for damage to

the vehicle.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's my understanding.

MR. MORRISON: That's not so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're a special category, my friend.

You're a special category and always have been.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This simply allows that anything over the

deductible in a hit-and-run case will be accepted by the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia for the repair of the

automobile.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, if you have $50 deductible, then

anything above the $50 deductible or $100 — whatever you happen

to have — will be compensated for.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you have $50 deductible, then anything

over $50 will be paid by ICBC.

Another

section clarifies the receipt of moneys in the case

of a minor.

There was another

section that arose out of the bill that passed the House

last year with regard to the Traffic Victims' Indemnity Fund and the responsibility

accepted by ICBC. You'll recollect the debate that took place at that time.

I made it very clear as to why I was reluctant to accept the amendment put forward

by my legal friends across the way. I said at the time that it would allow the

private insurance companies, whom they represent and protect and love from now

to all eternity, to get out from what was their real responsibility. Sure enough,

the advice that came to me after we had taken that amendment was that the private

insurance companies were trying to get out of what was their absolute, unquestionable

responsibility. This amendment is simply to restore to ICBC and to the private

insurance industry the fact that they were responsible for accidents reported

on time that happened before November 10 or, I think it was, 1973.

Some of the other items, I think, we're best to examine in

committee. I move second reading.

MR. SCHROEDER: It is a bill that has 13 different sections,

perhaps eight or nine different principles involved. There are

a few questions regarding the damages in excess of $240 under

basic coverage, which would be best debated in committee.

Also, the question that will come then — and perhaps the

answer could be prepared in the meantime — is in

section 8. I

know I am not supposed to refer to sections, Mr. Speaker, but

it is the only way you can handle this thing in second

reading.

There is an amendment which provides that registration of

vehicles shall not be cancelled just because insurance premiums

are not paid, and I understand that this will affect,

basically, large fleets, et cetera. But nonetheless it is going

to go against the basic premise which was established by the

Minister some time back: where there was no licence there would

be no insurance, and where there was no insurance there would

be no licence. I think the Minister will need to explain that

in the closing of this debate. Certainly the question will come

up in committee.

The other

section is

section 10, under which it doesn't look

like there is going to be provision made for agents who are

presently private agents to negotiate the amount of commission.

This

section clearly provides that their commissions can be

established by the corporation, and there will be some

questions on that particular

section also in committee.

Other than that, it is a very difficult bill to handle in

second reading.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if the Minister, when he closes

debate, could give a little explanation about the

section —

which allows for installment payments of insurance. There is no

specification in there as to whether interest would be charged

or not. If so, what interest might it be and how far might the

term of arrears be before the insurance is cancelled? In other

words, if someone does buy his insurance on term and doesn't

meet the term...if he would elaborate on that I would

appreciate it.

I notice there is one other

section which says that the

corporation has the right to settle on a disputed claim. It

doesn't give the client any recourse to the courts. I think it

section 9(b)(1) or something like that. Whatever the

corporation ultimately decides doesn't allow the client any

further recourse. I wonder if I am correct on that and if the

Minister would remark.

[ Page 2649 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Starting at the last question, the

purpose of the

section the Member just asked about, making

payments to disputed claims, is to state explicitly that the

corporation is authorized to make ex gratia payments.

Where there is some doubt in law as to whether we have the

right to recognize the case, it has opened it up so that we can

make ex gratia payments where there is doubt as to

whether legally the corporation is responsible. It is to open

it up and make it easier for us to do natural justice

rather than the letter of the law. That's the intent of that

particular section.

The compensation of agents. There is such a variety of types

of vehicles in the Province of British Columbia and it is

impossible to get them all involved in a straight category

which would allow us in the case of a particularly odd type of

vehicle to say: "Well, that commission should be so and so." We

have no recognition in the present list of commissions that

covers that particular type of vehicle.

As you know, in this province we have a greater variety of

vehicles than, I think, anywhere else in the world, and this is

simply to allow us to set a commission for some of these

unusual vehicles.

MR. SCHROEDER: Commission to the agent?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The agent who writes the insurance

for that particularly unusual type of vehicle.

MR. WALLACE: That's not negotiable?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, certainly we'll sit down and talk

to the agent when he sends it in. Usually these are one-to-one

things, where it says this type of vehicle does this, does

something else, what the premiums are, this sort of thing.

These are usually one-to-one things.

The reason for the maintenance of the registration. This is

a request of the motor vehicle branch. While the licence might

be cancelled and the insurance might be cancelled, we don't

want to have to remove that registration number from the motor

vehicle records. That's a straight item to maintain the records

of the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, if you cancel the licence you can

cancel the premium, but we don't want to cancel the

registration as listed on the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. That's right. It

allows us to keep that vehicle registration number listed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The matter relating to the premiums

is to allow the corporation, if authorized by the regulation of

the company, to participate in installment plans for the basic

premium. That's what that is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and it simply gives us the legal

background to do it by regulation if the company decides that

someday that's the way we should go.

I think that answers all the questions, Mr. Speaker, and I

move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 32, Motive-fuel Use

Tax Amendment Act, under the Minister of Finance.

MOTIVE-FUEL USE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this a companion bill to the

earlier debate on motive-fuel use tax in line with the 2-cent

increase in gasoline and coloured gasoline taxes. This bill

increases the levy on diesel fuel from 17 to 19 cents effective

February 28. British Columbia diesel fuel tax, at 19 cents a

gallon, will still be below the average provincial rate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, just simply to place on record our

opposition to this bill for the same reasons that we opposed

the companion bill.

MR. MORRISON: Again, Mr. Speaker, we will be opposing this

for the same reason as we opposed the earlier bill. We will be

voting no again.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill 32 be read a second

time.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 2650 ]

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Bill 32, Motive-fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, the second

reading of Bill 33.

COLOURED GASOLINE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a continuing companion bill

and coloured gasoline tax Act in line with the general tax

increase of 2 cents a gallon, this bill increases the rate of

coloured gas from 3 to 5 cents a gallon effective February 28.

Provisions remain in the Act for the exemption from tax on

coloured gasoline used by family farmers for their farm trucks

and by the family fishermen for their commercial fish boats.

It's a companion bill, Mr. Speaker, and I move second

reading.

MR. MORRISON: Again, we will be voting no on this for the

same reasons as the previous two bills.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to hear the Minister explain who

qualifies for exemption under the coloured gas. One specific

question: does a corporate farm company qualify and do they

have to be a Canadian citizen as an individual or a corporate

company?

MR. WALLACE: The continuing companion legislation will continue to have

our opposition for the reasons we believe that the bill is inflationary and

unnecessary with the present budget presented to us in this House. We will oppose

Bill 33 as we opposed the former bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the

debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In answer to two questions: just

individuals and not corporations; and there is no citizenship

requirement. I now move second reading of Bill 33.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 33, Coloured Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1975, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 73.

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL

AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the

government's policy to reduce school taxes from homes and farms

over a five-year period. Anybody who doesn't want this, just

send the money back.

MR. PHILLIPS: How can you say that with a straight face?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we'll see how you vote on it. Hon.

Members will recall that last year the programme was started by

providing that 20 per cent

[ Page 2651 ]

of any school taxes paid by homeowners and farmers after the

reduction of the provincial homeowner grant would be paid to a

maximum of $40. This year the amount is doubled so that 40 per

cent of any school tax in excess of the homeowner grant will be

paid where the maximum amount payable to any home or any farm

under this Act is now $80.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Yes, there

probably will be considerable debate on Bill 73, which I think

deserves the title: "The False-Start Bill." As you will recall,

Mr. Speaker, at about the end of February we had Bill 26, late

lamented, which was finally pulled out after the Minister of

Finance introduced this bill, No. 73. It was observed at that

time that certainly Bill 26 could not possibly accomplish what

the government could and would want to do in a very difficult

situation.

I am not surprised that the Minister of Finance made a very

brief statement in moving second reading of this particular

piece of legislation which is before us for second reading this

afternoon, not surprised at all, in view of the headlines and

statements which are available to all of us from all around

British Columbia with regard to school costs in this province

in the year 1975. It's a little short of a disaster in many

instances.

If you care to call out a riding, I think I could find a headline to match.

"Sidney Taxes Up 17 Mills," That's The Sidney

Review .

"School Tax Amendments Will Hit Cumberland." That's from the

Nanaimo Daily Free Press .

"Ordinary Joe Hit Hard." This is The Victorian just a

few weeks ago. "School taxes in greater Victoria are up and the

man hit hardest is the small property owner, the ordinary Joe,

with a small house assessed at $6,500." Ordinary Joe — does he

own a house?

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier,

Minister of Finance, there's some chance that if this pattern

continues, he may lose his house as the result of increased

property taxes. We had better worry about Joe.

The 1975 taxes for the Village of Ashcroft, showing a

comparison between the 1974 and 1975 levies — this is the

Ashcroft-Cache Creek newspaper: "The general school increase

and debt" — but most of it is school purposes — "up 14.939

mills, not including the assessment authority, not including

regional district levies."

Perhaps we should read a few more just in order that the Premier and Minister

of Finance will come to appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the

fact that we have a broken promise in front of us in this

bill — a broken promise as far as this government is

concerned.

"School Taxation Up $1 Million." This is the Comox

District Free Press , again at the end of April of this

year.

The Kamloops News — I believe headlines such as this,

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson), the one-time Member for Kamloops: "School Tax

Increase Will Hit 25 Per Cent."

From The Sunshine Coast News : "Sechelt Mill Rate To

Rise By 25 Per Cent."

The White Rock and Surrey Sun : "School Taxes To

Increase By 14 Mills."

''The average Surrey-White Rock homeowner will pay an extra $60 for school taxes for 1975.

That grim news was revealed Monday night when Surrey school

board passed its 1975 budget, which projects expenditures by

the board of about S44 million, a 29.5 per cent increase over

last year."

The Nechako Chronicle : "School District 56, Highest

Mill Rate in History."

"The taxpayers of school district 56 are facing their highest mill rate in history this year. The

rate has been set at 49.12 mills, a raise of 9.3 mills over

1974."

This is The News-Advertiser serving the

Peachland–Lakeview Heights–Westbank area in the Okanagan

Valley, and it indicates that school taxes are less than

previously estimated, but nonetheless are up significantly in

1975 over 1974.

Here's an editorial from The Daily Colonist , Tuesday,

April 15, headed "Mounting Mills." It deal with the situation

which will face a number of people in greater Victoria in the

current taxing year.

This is another newspaper in Surrey: "Surrey Tax Hike

Hammers Homes."

The Columbian in New Westminster — the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is not in his seat at the moment: "Huge

Assessment Hikes Horrify Mayor." That deals at length with

school increases as well as other increases which are being

faced.

This one is Campbell River. "For Local Area School Costs,

Budget Increases $1.3 Million." This is a story by Ron Percival

of that newspaper.

"The cost of educating School District 72 students climbed

by $1.3 million in the past 12 months. The mill rate required to raise the

money climbed by 4.25 to a level of 36.42 mills. The dollar increase is approximately

20 per cent."

Well, I hope that when the property owners, and ultimately

the tenants, as we've discussed before, in various communities

in British Columbia this year, open that envelope, that

to-be-feared envelope, in the next week or two or three, they

will not this year

[ Page 2652 ]

take out their wrath and their anger and their frustration

on members of school boards, chairmen and trustees and mayors

and aldermen, because the responsibility for the increase in

1975 lies with the two Ministers who are in the House during

this debate, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly).

We mark them failure — miserable failure — in terms of

assisting the local property taxpayer in 1975. It is a

disgraceful situation with the kind of increases I've cited

from the newspaper headlines in these last few minutes; and

perhaps we could go through a few more examples.

This as a result of our research on a selection of

communities, selected only in terms of size and their location

in various parts of British Columbia to give us some kind of a

feeling with respect to the very small communities, up to the

large cities, indeed up to the size of the City of

Vancouver.

Significantly, in many instances, the bulk of the increase

in dollars which will have to be paid in 1975 is not found on

the general or municipal side of the tax bill; rather it is to

be found on the school side — another indication, Mr. Member, of

how the money which should have been generated from the

provincial Treasury to local governments, to school boards, to

school districts has not been forthcoming. It was bad enough

last year. It was bad enough the year before. It's been bad in

previous years, but I don't think anyone in their wildest

dreams imagined it to be as serious as it has turned out to be

this year.

Again, I plead with those people who are going to want to

open this envelope when they're sitting down, not to take it

out on school boards, not to take it out on their school board

chairmen and trustees or their administrative staff who are

trying to do their best in an almost impossible situation.

Mr. Member from Dawson Creek — here's one. This is the kind

of information that we were seeking. The City of Dawson Creek

general purposes mill rate for last year was 42, and it's gone

up by 4 to 46 for this year. Schools has gone from 28.3 to

33.3. We have, with some other additions, including the

assessment authority, which I realize is not covered at all by

this particular bill — an increase from 71.79 mills in 1974 to

82.24 mills for 1975.

Hazelton. Schools up 4.8 mills, general up 8. A mill there

raises $511,000.

We put a series of questions to these communities, asking

for information regarding their general and debt rate, their

school rate, regional district, hospital district and, finally,

if these figures are taking account the natural gas revenues.

We also asked about the ceiling, which has been the subject of

questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the absence

of legislation to cover that.

Taylor. Schools up 7.4 mills for 1975 over last year; hospital up 0.37 — one-third

of a mill. No other increases.

Clinton. Schools up, as I indicated earlier, 9.09 — this is

information directly from the municipal office. The mill there

raises $1,700 — a very small community. We can see that the

natural gas revenue-sharing assistance notwithstanding, the

school rates....

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: We don't like it? Mr. Speaker, through you to

the Premier and Minister of Finance, it's not a question of

liking it or disliking it; it's vanished into thin air. Its

effect, overall, as far as we have been able to determine, is

about 2 mills. It covers about 2 mills. No, when you're dying

of thirst, you're not going to send back half a glass of

water.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Try all the interjections you want, Mr. Premier.

The fact is that on average over all of the province, this $20

million, which was so highly touted — assistance to the

municipalities, revenue-sharing — accounts for about 2 mills.

What do you say to a school district, to a municipal council or

to a property owner who receives an increase of 9, 10, 12 or 14

mills? He's going to say: "Two mills for natural gas doesn't

really make that much difference."

Alert Bay. Schools up 10 mills; the regional district levy

up 2.34; hospitals up very, very little.

Masset. A small community, schools up 7.78 mills.

Now we know one of the reasons why the Premier did not go to

the people of British Columbia in the spring of 1975: someone

reminded him that property tax notices would be in the mail

just about the time he was on the hustings. That's a pretty

good reason, isn't it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now you're going to get it.

MR. CURTIS: Oh, I'm frightened, Mr. Premier! Shaking!

Just about the time that the Premier would be out moving

around the province trying to tell us how efficient and

effective the NDP has been, the people would be opening those

little envelopes and finding out some of the most shocking

financial news they could possibly imagine in the year

Cache Creek. As I indicated before, schools up 9.09.

Fort St. James. School mill rate up almost 10 mills

—9.94.

That council, if we could dwell on that for just a moment,

having received the information from the school district —

"Look, this is the amount of money we require translated into

mills" — this municipality

[ Page

2653 ]

cut its general mill rate.

I think that's one of the tragedies of the 1975 situation.

Frequently as municipalities receive the school levy and find

out in mills translated into dollars precisely what kind of

costs they are facing as far as the school operating year is

concerned, they have to cut back on municipal and general

purposes, and so capital projects are put aside, postponed or

abandoned by the municipality, or maintenance programmes are

cut back or reduced. In the case in greater Victoria, in one of

many efforts to reduce municipal costs in this shocker of a

year, 1975, garbage collection is reduced from weekly to every

two weeks, or in the case of the municipality of Oak Bay, to

every three weeks. Next year it may have to be every four

weeks.

I'm trying to get across, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

two Members who are most responsible in the cabinet benches,

the seriousness of the situation.

Fort St. James. As I indicated, schools are up 9.94 and the

council, in a desperate effort to try and help a little,

dropped their mill rate by 7.65.

Lillooet. I indicated earlier, schools are up 5.94.

Pitt Meadows. We could only get an estimate, but it appears

that the school mill rate would be up by 5.23 per cent;

hospital up a fraction of a mill, about 0.28 per cent; regional

district up not very much.

Hope. This one is fairly mild: schools up 2.14; general

purposes mill rate down 3. Again, another indication of a

municipality trying desperately to assist its school

district.

It has lead to friction between municipalities and school

districts. Even in my own constituency there was a very serious

dispute. After the Town of Sidney received the levy from School

District 63, it felt that it would have to attempt to halt a

new Sidney school and to cut a major road and sewer programme

from the municipal budget. One alderman is quoted as saying:

"It's a luxury we cannot afford." Imagine, when you reach a

situation where you identify a school, a road and a sewer as

luxuries that local government cannot afford.

Nelson. Schools up 5.7 per cent. The Minister for that area

is not in the House. I said 5.7 per cent. I am sorry. It's 5.7

mills, forgive me. General up 4 mills; hospital up a fraction.

But they had to take $ 100,000 in the City of Nelson from

surplus, which should be put aside for capital projects or for

some once-in-a-lifetime project that the community might

undertake. They had to take $100,000 from their surplus account

to try and offset the impact of these increased taxes.

Terrace. School mill rate up by 5; the municipality's rate

up by half of that, 2.5. Hospital levy is relatively stable

there, the debt levy is down slightly, and the regional

district is up very slightly.

Kitimat. He's not here either. Schools up 6.270 mills.

What I am trying to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, is that

no matter where you look around the Province of British

Columbia, in a variety of communities the story is the same. In

municipality after municipality, in school district after

school district, it is up, up, up.

Oak Bay. Schools up 6.14 mills.

Langley district. Mr. Member, I know your people are upset

about this.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Well, you'd be surprised. Schools up in Langley

district municipality by 8.48 mills; general and debt up 6.25;

regional district up by less than 0.1 of a mill; and so

on.

Prince George perhaps is not a good example, to be fair,

because of the enlarged boundaries in the community this year

after the amalgamation vote, and a different percentage of

taxation. Nonetheless, they are looking at a school rate

increase of 6.5 mills and a general increase of 3.5 mills.

New Westminster. As I indicated before, up 6.5 mills.

Coquitlam. Should we quote Coquitlam, Mr. Member? Do you

think so, Mr. Speaker? Coquitlam. Well, let's see. Schools up

7.37 mills, 1975, over last year. Regional district is up a

fraction. General levy is up only 1 mill. Again, I would

suspect, without knowing for sure, another example of a

municipal council in budget session feverishly striving to hold

the line and put aside those things which should be done this

year, or perhaps should have been done last year or the year

before, because of the impact of the mill rate increases.

I wonder if they appealed to their Member. Oh, he'll tell us

in a rousing speech to close second reading debate; the Premier

will give us a real whizbanger, I would think, Nevertheless, I

stand by the figures I am giving the House this afternoon in

terms of the increase in school tax rates again, because of the

inaction of this government and the rather useless impact of

the natural gas revenue-sharing.

Richmond. Is he here? No, he's not here. Okay. Schools up 6

mills in the large township of Richmond.

Burnaby. Schools up 6 mills. I don't remember increases of

this magnitude in the past.

Surrey. Wow, let's tell them about Surrey, Mr. Speaker. He's

here. School mill rates up 13.89 mills — almost 14 mills

increase. Regional and hospital charges are up, but not

substantially.

Well, the property owners of Surrey are going to be very,

very happy when they see what the lack of activity by this

government means when reflected in their dollar bill, the tax

notice which arrives on their front doorstep in a short

while.

The district of Saanich — two school districts for

[ Page 2654 ]

this municipality. It is one of the larger municipalities in

British Columbia, as the Members will know. For School District

61, which is the greater Victoria school district, the

information I have is that it has gone from 35.22 mills in 1974

to 41.36 in 1975 for school purposes.

In School District 63, which is the peninsula school

district and covers the northern half of Saanich and then the

balance of the peninsula, the increase is a whopping 31.55 up

to 42.95 for school purposes alone. Mr. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), how do you like that one? The

Municipality of Saanich's budget document for this year, page

after page after page, is an indication of a municipal

council's feverish and sometimes successful attempt to cut back

on what should be done, again, to offset the impact of the

increase in school costs which will be passed along to the

property owners.

Oh, this has a very fine sound.

I referred to Bill 26 before, Mr. Member, but, of course,

Bill 26 was found to be lacking and incorrect and it was

pulled. But Bill 73, the one we are debating now, is the School

Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act. I think it should be called

the sock-it-to-'em bill, because that is what is happening.

That is what's happening.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are others who want to speak on

this bill. I have given you some outline of the significance of

the increases. We have a government in power in British

Columbia which obviously attracted many votes in 1972 by

assuring the people of this province that it would remove

school costs from property. Through mismanagement, it is

doing precisely the opposite. The figures are here to show it.

The figures are here to show it and you know it. Great clown

act, Mr. Premier, but it is not going to work. It is not going

to work.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought you were a Tory on this.

MR. CURTIS: I would like to quote one columnist who is

certainly, I think, objective. We have never felt that this

particular person is pro-opposition parties, and I think all

sides of the House will agree. Barbara McClintock, in the

Vancouver Province , April 24 of this year, said it all,

Mr. Speaker: "NDP Trying to Con People on the Lowering of

School Tax." That is a headline you are going to have to live

with, Mr. Premier. You are trying to con people on the lowering

of school tax in British Columbia in this taxation year.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

this bill is fraudulently titled. It is titled, incredibly

enough, School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act. Maybe it is a misprint, as the Hon.

Member says. Mr. Speaker, a school tax removal Act, at a

minimum, would remove a bit of the school tax. I think that is

a reasonable presumption. This Act doesn't do that. It is in

the policy of that party which forms the government opposite in

this House that over five years they will remove school taxes

from the average British Columbia home. That was a nice theory.

That was going to be implemented last year — the first 20 per

cent was supposed to come off last year, the second 20 per cent

this year.

Mr. Speaker, the increase in this grant this year is less

than the average increase in school taxes in the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. That is falling behind. I have

just got rough figures, but the rough figures I have would

indicate that the average school tax in greater Vancouver is

going to go up something in excess of $50 or $55. That is $15

more than the maximum they can get out of this grant, so they

are falling behind.

Mr. Member, you should know that the average mill rate is a

shade over 7 mills in the Province of British Columbia. The

school taxes are going up. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, in

the school districts that have been trying harder, the taxes

are going up a lot more than that.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is sitting

there and I want to make an appeal to her. I don't know if she

realizes how the school districts that have been trying harder

are getting hurt by the policies of this government.

My own school district, district 44, North Vancouver, is in

the forefront of the large school districts in this province

and they are doing their best to comply with the policies of

the Department of Education, particularly with respect to

lowering the pupil-teacher ratio. They have the lowest ratio of

any large school district in this province. Last year they

hired over 100 new teachers for that objective and the

supplementary grant they received this year didn't even keep up

with that obligation. They have fulfilled every condition that

the Minister mentioned in her speech up in Prince George for

assistance to the school districts. They held the line on

non-essential programmes. They didn't build any new facilities

or new programmes except the absolutely essential ones to keep

up the educational standard and they lowered the pupil-teacher

ratio. And what happens? In North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, our

school board has had to raise the mill rate by 14 mills to

maintain our educational standard. That is a pretty sad figure

for the taxpayers of North Vancouver to deal with.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How high is their assessment?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier asks, Mr. Speaker, how high the

assessment is in North Vancouver. I am glad

[ Page 2655 ]

he asked that. If he hadn't asked that he might have been

led into the argument that the homes in North Vancouver are so

terribly expensive that it's no wonder their taxes go up so

much. I don't think he would have used that argument, but just

to make sure I'll quote those figures. I have here a

publication by the Greater Vancouver Regional District which is

called: "The Dollar Burden of Growth" and is the impact of 1973

municipal taxation. Since the assessments are frozen these are

good figures for these purposes.

Now the average assessment in district 44 — and I am

averaging out between the city and district in North Vancouver — my quick-by-eye estimate would tell me is a shade over

$9,000. The average assessment for the GVRD is around $7,500,

so our assessment is maybe 20 per cent over on the average

home.

But our mill rate increase, because of the attempt of our

school board to give good education to the children of district

44 and comply with the pupil-teacher ratio policies of this

government, is up by 14 mills. It's up by double the provincial

average. When you apply that to our assessment, that's a tax

increase in district 44 on the average of $120 per residential

homeowner. As you know well, Mr. Speaker, tenants are not

exempted from this kind of thing because they pay those same

school taxes through their landlords.

I say that's not good enough. When the so-called school tax

removal programme not only doesn't keep up but covers less than

one-third of the increase in any school district of this

province, and when the Minister of Education, who said in

Prince George that she would give assistance to any district

that found its taxes badly out of line with the rest of the

province, hasn't come through with more of a supplementary

grant than she has, then I say that is a disastrous policy and

an unfair policy to the citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier offered the other day — it was

Friday — to let me move a financial amendment. Let me ask him:

will he let me move a financial amendment on this bill? It

should be a lot higher than $40 to be fair. It should at least

keep up with the average tax rise in this province. It

shouldn't slide backwards and still be called a school tax

removal Act. It's very unfair and it's another example of how

this government chooses to draw the spending authority all into

its own hands, to starve the local spending authorities, to

dole them out a little bit of resource money here and

there.

Twenty million dollars. What's $20 million? Well, under 1

per cent of the budget from the resource revenues; less than

one-third of what Manitoba, a much poorer province, just gave

their local municipalities. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is in the

same, shameful tradition. It's something that, unfortunately,

this House is going to have to approve.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier kind of laughs and says: "You're

going to have to vote for it." Of course we have to vote for

it. But I'll tell you something: if you, as the Premier of this

province, will ask His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to put

his initials on a bill that will double or triple this, then

that's what I will vote for and not this shamefully low amount

that you have here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'll vote against it?

MR. GIBSON: I am going to vote for this bill, and I an going

to say that it's not enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You want it both ways.

MR. GIBSON: I don't want it both ways.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You call it shameful and you are going to

vote for it. You have to be a Liberal to do things like

that.

MR. GIBSON: No, all you have to do is to be able to read.

All you have to be able to do is read the promises of the New

Democratic Party.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Boy, oh boy!

MR. GIBSON: Their promises were to remove school taxes from

property, and I agree with that. Th