1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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 17, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1751 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps Act, 1976 (Bill 43). Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 1751

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading — 1751

Oral questions

Gulf Island ferry rates. Ms. Sanford — 1751

Hospitals strike. Mr. Wallace — 1752

Vancouver East by-election campaign. Mr. Gibson — 1752

Free ferry service for Sunshine Coast and Powell River. Mr. Lockstead — 1753

Cancellation of Special Needs Programme. Mr. Levi — 1753

Washington Trident submarine base. Mr. Skelly — 1753

Abortion practices inquiry. Mr. Wallace — 1753

Prince Rupert Can-Cel meeting. Mr. Lea — 1754

Extended-care increases. Mrs. Wallace — 1754

Statements

Details of meeting with U.S. state governors. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1755

Mr. King — 1755

Status of Haney Correctional Centre. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1756

Mr. Macdonald — 1756

Mr. Gibson — 1756

Mr. Wallace — 1756

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1756

Mr. Cocke — 1760

Mr. Gibson — 1764

Mr. Macdonald — 1767

Mr. Wallace — 1768

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1768

Mr. Macdonald — 1770

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1771

Mr. Lea — 1771

Mr. Wallace — 1773

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1776

Mr. Cocke — 1779

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1780

Mr. Cocke — 1781

Mr. Wallace — 1781

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1782

Mr. Gibson — 1783

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1785

Mr. Wallace — 1785

MONDAY, MAY 17, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today we have a small group of senior secondary students

from the great city of Revelstoke, along with their teacher, Mr. Mark

Bowden. I would like at this time to thank the member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) for his assistance in gaining them seating in the

gallery, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): We have with us in the gallery this

afternoon, from that great constituency of Omineca, 41 students from

Fraser Lake Secondary School. With them is their able teacher and his

good wife, Mr. and Mrs. Ponsford, and I ask the House to make them

welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): At 3 o'clock this afternoon

there'll be a group of students from Cumberland Junior Secondary

School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Bob Riley, who will be coming

in to watch the House in session. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming them at this time.

Introduction of bills.

RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF

SPRING TRAPS ACT, 1976

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 43, Restriction of the Use of Spring

Traps Act, 1976, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE

INCOME FOR NEED ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presents a message from His Honour the Administrator:

a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Phillips files the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Fund annual report.

Oral questions.

GULF ISLAND FERRY RATES

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Highways. Inter-island ferries are now free for the

residents of the southern Gulf Islands, and I would like to ask the

minister if he has any intention of applying the same consideration to

the ferries in the northern gulf — that is, Hornby, Cortes, Alert Bay

and Sointula.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, all the ferries under the highways system in the north Gulf Islands are under study at the present time.

MS. SANFORD: Supplemental. I'm asking whether or not this

particular issue is under consideration as well, in view of the fact

that the southern Gulf Island ferries are now free for inter-island

travel.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I believe the hon. minister

indicated that the ferries that come under the jurisdiction of his

department are under study at the present time, and that would be an

answer to your question.

MS. SANFORD: I was just wondering if this was part of the study.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Supplementary, to the Minister

of Highways. When the Departmental Act brought in the Department of

Transportation and Communications all salt-water ferries were taken

under the jurisdiction of Transport and Communications: I would like to

ask the minister whether he is aware of that and whether the study he

referred to is going on in his department or the Department of

Transport and Communications.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, the study is going on in conjunction with the Department of Transport and Communications and the Department of Highways.

MR. LEA: Further supplemental. Is the minister aware that

those ferries are not under his jurisdiction, but under the Minister of

Transport and Communications?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the minister indicated that the study was being completed.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask if he is aware of that. It's a supplemental. It's a jurisdictional question between those two departments.

[ Page 1752 ]

HOSPITALS STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in view of the

escalating nature of the hospital strike and the fact that hospitals

can only maintain the present service for a limited period of time

without danger to patients requiring admission, and since the deputy

minister reported — failure at the weekend to bring both sides

together, could the Minister of Labour tell the House what further

steps he is now taking in an attempt to bring the serious labour

dispute to a halt?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I could

answer the question better if I could accept the accuracy of the

member's pre-statement. The fact of the matter is that I was advised

this morning that the essential services are being maintained. Members

of the medical profession have commented on the high level of medical

care that is available in the hospitals presently under strike, and my

department is in hourly touch with those hospitals to ensure that the

essential services are being maintained. So far as the meetings between

the parties are concerned, that is a matter of continuing effort on the

part of the Department of Labour to ensure that the principals of this

dispute, namely the representatives of the employers and the employees,

get back to discussions for the purpose of producing a settlement at

the earliest possible moment.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, we may differ on the

statements made prior to question period, but the fact of the matter is

that it's extremely difficult to assess what's happening to people

outside of the hospital, and I included that in my

preamble to my

question. I acknowledge that the minister can't measure that, but that

leads to my supplemental question: with the escalating nature of the

strike and the use of more and more labour relations staff to designate

essential services, is the minister able to assure the House, with more

hospitals on strike and more and more monitoring required, that in fact

the Labour Relations Board can continue to provide skilled staff in

adequate numbers to carry out this amount of monitoring where a new

hospital or an additional hospital goes on strike each day?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I am advised

that adequate personnel are available in the Department of Labour, and

through the Labour Relations Board, to carry out this very onerous

responsibility. This is one of the matters which is giving us concern.

If we are unable to discharge that responsibility, it will be taken

into account in determining what action this government should take in

the circumstances.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of the minister's answer and the

fact that no new meetings are assured between the two parties — in

other words, there does appear to be an impasse or a real failure to

bring the sides together — and since there is this difficulty in

assessing the risk of life and health to people who other wise would be

admitted to the hospitals, has the minister reached the point of making

any recommendation to cabinet that

section 73(7)(

a) of the Labour Code

be invoked to provide a 21-day cooling off period?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me to speculate on a matter which might be government policy.

VANCOUVER EAST BY-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to ask the Premier if he agrees with suggestions by his candidate

in Vancouver East last Thursday that a government backbencher could do

more for the riding because he's on the right side. I want to ask if

he'll repudiate this kind of political blackmail of the voters of

Vancouver East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It's an improper question that's seeking information about something that is not government policy.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this candidate is the

Premier's candidate, and he made the statement: "A government

backbencher can do more for this riding."

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Political bluster.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Don't be so protective.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let me bring to the attention of

the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano that the question he poses

is not one seeking information concerning, first of all, the

responsibility of the hon. Premier to this House, or information

concerning something that affects or is involved with any member of

this House. Therefore I have told you the question is improper, and

quite properly so.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps I could rephrase it, then, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the member wishes to rephrase the question as one that is in

[ Page 1753 ]

keeping with the rules of question period, do so.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier if he

will assure the House that Vancouver East will be equally well treated

no matter who is elected.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano's first and second questions....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first question is out of order. The second one, perhaps, is in order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government will recognize the abilities

of all members of this House in the way they can represent their

constituencies. I must add and give an aside that I've assessed the

qualifications of the candidates in Vancouver East and, in my view, the

candidate that made that statement could do a better job in this House.

FREE FERRY SERVICE FOR

SUNSHINE COAST AND POWELL RIVER

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that two constituencies

now represented by government members, the hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams), will be receiving commuter rates and free ferry service, is

the minister now prepared to apply the same consideration to residents

of theSunshine Coast and Powell River regional areas?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, broadly speaking, all ferry rates, regardless of whether

they're called commuter rates or otherwise, have been doubled. The

Sunshine Coast does not differ in any respect from the others.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't think that answer's quite correct, but

I will ask: can the minister explain why in one breath he argues that

huge increases are necessary because of rising costs, and then in the

next breath he tells B.C. taxpayers that they must subsidize ferry

service 100 per cent for constituents of two government ministers by

providing unprecedented free service on salt-water ferries?

AN HON. MEMBER: Free service?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): It's between islands — free service between islands.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, no area is being subsidized unduly as compared to another with the new ferry rate structure.

CANCELLATION OF

SPECIAL NEEDS PROGRAMME

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Human

Resources: having announced the cancellation of the Special Needs

Programme that provided up to $500 for families with special emergency

needs, such as the need to purchase furniture by people who were burned

out or have leaking roofs, what arrangement does the minister's

department have for meeting the needs of people in the future?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, the suspension is only temporary until we have an opportunity

to review the programme. In the meantime, should there be a hardship

application, it will be dealt with through the regional director.

MR. LEA: The policy never changes — political rhetoric. You're beautiful!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

WASHINGTON TRIDENT SUBMARINE BASE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my question is

directed to the Premier. I understand the Premier will be meeting with

Governor Dan Evans of Washington state on June 1. In view of the

spreading concern in British Columbia over the location of a

first-strike nuclear submarine base in Bangor, Washington, and the

possible use of coastal waters by those nuclear submarines, I wonder if

the Premier is including discussion of that Trident submarine base on

his agenda.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member for Alberni: Governor Dan

Evans will be attending this House and will once again have an

opportunity to address the members. All matters relevant to British

Columbia-Washington relations, including that topic, will be explored.

ABORTION PRACTICES INQUIRY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health with

regard to the minister's commitment to carry out an inquiry into

abortion practices in British Columbia: could I ask the minister if he

has appointed a chairman of that inquiry? Will the chairman be choosing

the members of the committee, or does the minister intend that he will

appoint all the members to that inquiry?

[ Page 1754 ]

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to

the member for Oak Bay: it is an in-department committee which will be

looking into the brief that was presented to my department from the

Pro-Life Society. There will not be an independent committee set up

outside the department, and I never said there would be.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I misunderstood what

was intended and I accept the minister's statement. But could the

minister assure the House then that the scope of the investigation will

include an in-depth review of all hospitals carrying out abortions in

the province, and will not just refer to the Vancouver General Hospital?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member: it will not

just refer to one hospital in the province. We'll have to be very

careful that we make sure we are within our own jurisdiction. We can't

step on federal jurisdiction. Those areas over which we have control

and jurisdiction will be province-wide, and it will be an

interdepartmental review.

MR. WALLACE: A very quick final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Can I take it then that the minister either has been or will be in

touch with the federal authorities seeking their assistance and

cooperation in this study?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, if it becomes necessary, Mr. Speaker, yes.

PRINCE RUPERT CAN-CEL MEETING

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests:

some weeks ago I asked him if there was going to be a meeting arranged

between government, the management of Canadian Cellulose and the

workers in the mill at Prince Rupert, and which was promised for

January during the last election campaign. The meeting has not been

held yet. He said he would take the question as notice and get back —

that was some weeks ago. Has the meeting now been arranged? If so, when?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, to

the member for Prince Rupert: that particular meeting has not yet been

arranged. I have in the meantime been meeting with management and

labour representatives of various Crown corporations. I have been at

Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products. I have been to the Can-Cel

Celgar operations and later this afternoon I am going up to Ocean

Falls. I will, as soon as I possibly can, arrange to be making such a

visit to Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: I am fairly sure that there wasn't a campaign

promise mad, for all of those, but there was a definite campaign

promise made to the people of Prince Rupert that that meeting would be

held in January. It would seem to me that the first priority should be

that meeting. I ask you: what is your priority and when will it be held

between the three parties?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister replied to the original question.

EXTENDED-CARE INCREASES

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): To the Minister of

Health: I have raised the question previously, and to him by letter, in

connection with the extended-care increases. I have still to have a

firm answer as to what is to be done about those people who simply

cannot afford the $7. I am getting more and more cases every day. I

wonder if the minister could give me a firm answer as to when he

expects to act on this particular question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I replied to the member as best I could at the present time. The matter is under review.

MR. SPEAKER: That terminates the question period for today. The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, during the question period you ruled

one of my questions out of order. The question was: does the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) understand under whose jurisdiction the

salt-water ferries fall?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a point of order. What is your point of order?

MR. LEA: The point of order is that I would like to know why you ruled it out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Because the question was irregular.

MR. LEA: In what way, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out the reason you ruled it out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are always out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. member would care to refer to Beauchesne ,

4th edition, 1958, included on a number of pages are items which do not

come within the proper limits of questions and have been ruled out of

order or irregular. I refer you to that text.

[ Page 1755 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that help from the Chair.

I would like, though, to ascertain which category you feel that

particular question falls under so that I....

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member would refer to Beauchesne , I am sure that he will see where it will....

MR. LEA: Could you not help me, Mr. Speaker, and in some way...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: ...explain to me why that question was out of order?

It seems to me it was in order and you just ruled it out of order. I

would like some help.

MR. SPEAKER: It's quite irregular and it is contained in Beauchesne if the hon. member would like to refer to it.

MR. LEA: I would like to know why it is irregular, though.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. A point of order by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I draw the Speaker's attention to standing order 9, which states:

"Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and

shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House

without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall

state the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

That, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, means a

specific ruling on each specific case. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker is not

doing his duty in the House, which....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. May I finish my remarks?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The standing orders of this House must be obeyed by

all of us, and I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is

disrespectful to a member of this House to refer him to a general area

of research when a specific question was ruled out of order. Standing

order 9 is applicable to yourself, Sir.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on your point of order, I referred

you to the source — Beauchesne, 4th edition, 1958 — which is applicable

to questions and answers in question period.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tomorrow, Tuesday morning, in the World

Trade Room of Seattle-Tacoma airport I will be meeting with Governor

Bob Straub of Oregon, Governor Jay Hammond of Alaska and Governor Dan

Evans of Washington. This meeting is a follow-up of other meetings and

conversations regarding various problems affecting the Pacific

Northwest. There is no rigid agenda and probably such topics as the

Haines road, tankers on the coast, the Skagit, the Alcan pipeline and

others will be discussed between the various governments.

MR. SKELLY: The Trident?

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the Trident. If anything conclusive comes out of the meeting I will be reporting to the House later in the day.

MR. KING: I want to thank the Premier for his statement, and

certainly commend the government for continuing the kind of dialogue

that was developed under our administration with neighbouring states

south of the 49th parallel. I think this is valuable in terms of

maintaining a dialogue on matters of reciprocal interests to all of

these jurisdictions, and I want to advocate and urge to the Premier

that he place very, very high on his agenda the priority of the Trident

missile base, which is not only a matter of concern to this House, but

a matter of grave concern to all British Columbians and many people

south of the border also. So I look forward to hearing the report back

from the Premier at his convenience as to the kind of reception he

receives from the state governors.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): May I have leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

[ Page 1756 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. members, this deals with the newspaper

report on the weekend concerning the holding of juveniles at the Haney

Correctional Centre. As some of the members will recall, in April of

1974 the corrections branch assumed responsibility for the juvenile

detention home on Yale Street in Vancouver. The facilities there were,

of course, very, very bad. Several proposals were made during the

1974-1975 fiscal year for physical improvement and additional staff,

but for various reasons there was a considerable lack of action.

The matter came to a head in October, 1975, when the boiler at the

Yale Street facility broke down and there was an immediate need to

place the juveniles elsewhere. At that time, the Haney Correctional

Centre was not being used for adults. So a decision was made then to

use it as a juvenile detention facility temporarily until additional

facilities could be found — although, at the same period of time that

that decision was made, Haney was still officially gazetted as an adult

centre. So it was agreed then, in October of last year, that it could

be used for juveniles on the undertaking from the corrections branch

that no adults would be held there — this was the situation — and also

with the formal consent of a family court judge. This was formalized in

a memorandum from His Honour, Judge Lewis, on October 28 of last year.

Now with the, change in government, a decision was made in December

to develop the former Willingdon School for Girls as a juvenile remand

and reception centre, and we indeed hope that that facility will be

available for use within the next few weeks. We came to grips with the

thing as quickly as we could.

On Friday of last week, the supreme court, however, ruled that the

Haney Correctional Centre could not be designated as a juvenile

detention centre while officially gazetted as an adult correctional

centre, and the juvenile persons by the order of the court were not to

be received in that centre without specific court orders. So it became

necessary — as the hon. members will see — that we had to decommission

Haney as an adult centre and make it available for juveniles over a

fairly short period of time. Temporary arrangements were entered into

over the weekend and those proved to be satisfactory.

Steps have been taken today to formally decommission the main

building at the Haney Correctional Centre as an adult correctional

centre. This will allow those buildings to be used and to be authorized

for the purposes of juveniles, so we will be rectifying the record to

that extent.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad

that no adults are being held in Haney correctional and that that

policy has not changed. Plans to close that as an institution for

adults and juveniles are, I hope, proceeding, and I hope it will be —

the old Haney correctional — a major educational institution in the

Fraser Valley in the very near future as the needed resources are

developed for the treatment of a few juveniles.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd

just like to welcome the Attorney-General's interim statement and hope

that he will soon bring forward a comprehensive policy for juvenile

offenders from all points of view — not purely the specific, although

important, issue of detention.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank

the Attorney-General for this initiative of giving us all the facts at

a very early date after a newspaper report. I hope that he will also

take into account the concerns expressed on this side of the House that

not only are these facilities being reorganized and different

arrangements made but that we can minimize the very unacceptable kinds

of detention of juveniles that I've already referred to in this House,

whether they be at Willingdon or Victoria or Haney or anywhere else.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 30: minister's office, $126,940 — continued.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, at

adjournment on Friday there were some questions with respect to ICBC

raised by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), a former director

of the corporation, that had not been answered. I would like to take

just a very brief time this afternoon to complete those answers.

The basic question with ICBC that we have to deal with, Mr.

Chairman, is: how could it have been possible that a corporation could

get itself into such a monumental financial mess in such a short period

of time and, in the end, be left with a situation from which Solomon

himself could not have extricated himself without being hung in effigy?

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I quite agree with that, but we've certainly had no wisdom shed on this by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

[ Page 1757 ]

Gibson), who may not have been hung in effigy but

got roundly booed for his suggestion that premiums should be increased

at all. He was an advocate of an increase in the gasoline tax, and

perhaps we'll say a word or two about that this afternoon.

But, Mr. Chairman, it isn't just the fact that this corporation was

in a monumental financial — mess; the other side of it was that we were

left with a totally unsatisfactory premium-rating system. We did the

best to introduce fairness and equity consistent with fiscal

responsibility. We know we're going to have to introduce a great many

more refinements in the future, but this all derives back to a series

of policies which were instituted not by responsible insurance

officials, not by insurance consultants to the corporation, but by the

political involvement of the NDP, its cabinet members who were

directors of the corporation, the cabinet itself, and the NDP caucus.

I want to remind the members that in March, 1973, when the ICBC

legislation, the Automobile Insurance Act, was introduced to this

House, hon. members were told by Mr. Strachan, the former Minister of

Transport who was the sponsor of those bills, that the premiums were to

be set by regulation. I'm quoting from them: "The premiums to be set by

regulation later will not be subsidized by any tax dollars and will be

based on actuarial principles."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

HON. MR. McGEER: That was at the time these bills were introduced.

The public of British Columbia and the members of the Legislature

who spoke in debate on those bills and voted on them in the House were

given this commitment by the sponsoring minister on behalf of the

government. Mr. Chairman, on that basis the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia, in concert with some consultants, drew up a premium rate

structure designed so that the corporation would break even in its

first year of operation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: In the first year?

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: When did this come up?

Interjections.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Don't talk nonsense. That's months ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Proceed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, those rates were never

published, never made available to the public or made available to

members of this House. Those rates were presented in only one place —

to the caucus of the NDP, and some of the members opposite were present

when those rates were presented. They weren't presented to any

independent actuary; they weren't presented to the House; they weren't

presented to the public. They were presented to a selected group of

representatives who repudiated those rates, backed up by the cabinet of

the day, and which resulted in a repudiation of the promise made by the

former Minister of Transport when he introduced that legislation into

the House.

Why, Mr. Chairman? Well, the reason why is fairly obvious: because

prior to the introduction of Autoplan there were different insurance

premium rates in British Columbia, based on the driving record of the

insurers. People who had a five-year clear record had lower premiums,

as they should have, than those who had four, three, two, one or no

clear record in their driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: Those with five-year clear records on the

average were enjoying premiums, as a reward for care on the road, 54

per cent lower than those with no clear record at all. But what was the

NDP determined to do in introducing new rates? They were determined,

first of all, to wipe out these rewards for responsible driving, but at

the same time not make it appear that anyone would have to pay a higher

rate because of government insurance.

That meant that the rates for everyone had to be reduced, not to

what was actually sound but to agree with the political prejudices of

the New Democratic Party caucus. What was the end result of that, Mr.

Chairman? When you took into consideration the different territories,

the different use classifications and the different driving records of

the people who were seeking insurance, there was a fivefold spread in

the previous rates. The NDP said: "Oh, no. No awards for good driving,

What we must do is give everybody the same." And that meant the lowest

rates.

Even at that, they didn't quite succeed. The candidate for Vancouver

East, who was then the Premier of the province, went on an open-line

show and said that anybody who had to pay more would get a refund. As a

consequence of that, a whole bureau had to be set up at ICBC —

department R. That little open-line show cost the public of British

Columbia $838,000 plus administration costs, which can show you the

penalty that can be paid by carelessness and irresponsibility on the

part of people who are in power. When they make a careless statement,

the public has to pay the bill.

Interjection.

[ Page 1758 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Member, I'll table the exact amount, because the records of how much was returned are available.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): But how do you get there? That's the problem.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, people wrote in and said: "I paid last

year." We said: "Well, if you paid last year, we'll give you your money

back" — $838,000 of it. That'a a measure of the carelessness and

irresponsibility of the people who were in charge of this mammoth

operation.

The consequences of this political interference on the part of the

New Democratic Party caucus resulted in a rate structure which was not

actually sound. It was no longer to break even, and by the time the

notices went out as to what the first premiums would be for Autoplan, a

budget had been presented to the then board of directors, including the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Transport (Mr.

Strachan) and the former Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall), estimating

that the corporation in its first year would lose $27.7 million. That,

Mr. Chairman, was before the doors of Autoplan ever opened. The rates

were not actually sound, they were fiddled with, in secret, by the

members of the New Democratic Party caucus, and that's why ICBC, in its

first year of operation, got off to that disastrous start.

AN HON. MEMBER: Behind closed doors?

HON. MR. McGEER: All behind the closed caucus doors and the closed cabinet doors.

The member, Mr. Chairman, said something about the rates paid to the

insurance agents. I have to remind him again of his own record as a

director. On September 27, 1973, a resolution was passed by the board

of directors, of which he was a member, saying that the commission

rates going to insurance agents in 1974 should be 8 per cent for basic

coverage and 10 per cent for extension, in 1975 it should be 7 per cent

for basic coverage and 10 per cent for extension, and in 1976, 5 per

cent for basic coverage and 10 per cent for extension. Mr. Chairman,

what happened at the very next board of directors meeting? At the next

board of directors meeting they increased the commission to be paid to

agents from 8 per cent to 9 per cent and held the extension at 10 per

cent.

Mr. Chairman, who held the commission of the insurance agents to the

level of that original proposal? Not the NDP, Mr. Chairman, but Social

Credit. When we went to the insurance agents, we got the commission

down to the very level that they had proposed in their original

resolution, something that they were unable to do themselves. Yet who

criticizes us? The very man who couldn't follow up his own plan

criticizes us for following it up. Mr. Chairman, we're going to examine

the whole structure again next year, and we've told the insurance

agents. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we don't take very kindly to

criticism coming from that member when he couldn't stand by his own

resolution and criticizes us for doing so.

MR. GIBSON: Tell us about the absolute amounts of commission payable.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll be happy to tell you in dollars, as soon as we know that.

MR. GIBSON: You don't know?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, we don't know yet. We inherited their

system for processing the data. I told you only on Friday that we

didn't know exactly how many cars were registered in British Columbia.

But I'm going to give you some statistics today about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, may I just interrupt you long

enough to say that the debate can only continue on an orderly basis as

long as we only have one person on his feet and speaking at a time. If

he is interrupted from across the floor and he is enticed into

answering questions directly across the floor, then our debate is

disorderly. I would encourage hon. members on both sides of the House

not to interrupt the minister as he speaks. Please proceed.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm just reviewing for you the

difficulties that ICBC got into in its operation in the first year,

because of the fiscal irresponsibility not of the corporation itself,

but of the board of directors, of the caucus and, we suspect as well —

and it's just a speculation — of one of the executive assistants,

In the first speech I gave on the problems created for the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia you heard me tell of Plan Z. Plan Z and its

partial implementation led to the second $147 million loss experienced

by ICBC. Again, it represented political interference on the part of

the NDP cabinet. We still don't know who is the author and we don't

know why it was called Plan Z. All we know is that suddenly this plan

appeared which said there should be flat rating of all insurance.

Again, there was no attention paid to territory, to use class, to

driving record or to fiscal responsibility. Just set the premiums low

so that everybody will think they are getting automobile insurance free

and let the gasoline tax and the motor vehicle tax pay the difference.

In this case, officials of the corporation denied that built into

Plan Z was the necessity for massive transfers from the treasury of

British Columbia to

[ Page 1759 ]

ICBC. The former president of the corporation

denied as late as August, 1974, that he had any evidence that there

would be losses in that corporation. Yet in January of the previous

year he had had evidence that there would be a $27 million loss.

Mr. Chairman, this flat-rate scheme that required the massive

transfers of gasoline and motor vehicle tax not only in the second year

but in the first year was nowhere covered in the budgets presented to

this assembly, which would have made these subsidies public knowledge

and which would have allowed the people of British Columbia to realize

the extent to which their bashed fenders were being subsidized by

general taxes. It is all very well to come and talk about the massive

increases in ICBC premiums and how unfair it is, but the consequence of

those policies and of NDP interference has been that people without

cars, who can't afford them through their general taxes, are

subsidizing those bashed fenders. There are limited amounts of money

that we have available for schools and hospitals and other human

programmes that now have to be subsidized out of general taxes because

of those losses in automobiles.

It was politically irresponsible, economically irresponsible and

socially irresponsible. It resulted as a direct consequence of

political interference which had as its only motivation votes and not

responsibility.

The member opposite, Mr. Chairman, talked about investments and that

marvelous policy they had of taking all the money they collected in

premiums and investing it in British Columbia corporations. Mr.

Chairman, you cannot invest money that you don't have. Far from

collecting vast investments from premium income in British Columbia, at

the end of last year we were actually paying bank interest for money we

had to borrow.

MR. GIBSON: How come you can write cheques you don't have if you can't invest money you don't have?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member is the expert on rubber cheques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: Did a cheque ever bounce? No, because the

president of ICBC was a responsible person and he didn't cash that

cheque, Mr. Chairman, until the Legislature had passed the

authorization for it.

MR. GIBSON: You mean he knew it was rubber!

HON. MR. McGEER: That's fiscal responsibility.

MR. GIBSON: You mean you knew it was rubber all along and you didn't tell us.

HON. MR. McGEER: The premise, Mr. Chairman, upon which that

cheque had been written was that the government as a whole would be

totally responsible fiscally, but that only applied to the government

side in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to dwell further on the sorry past of

ICBC. I'd like, if I may, to dwell for a few minutes of the bright

future, because there are some optimistic indicators from the early

experience of this year.

Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) got up on

Friday and castigated us for the policies that we had introduced which

did that dreadful thing of suggesting that motorists should pay their

own way and that the automobile should not be subsidized. In the view

of the New Democratic Party, that's a very sinful position to take. The

implication was that because of this irresponsible action we took that

automobiles should not be subsidized there had been a massive movement

of vehicles off the road.

I explained to the hon. member that we don't really know, because of

the system that they had introduced, exactly how many vehicles there

are on the road. But that didn't constrain The Vancouver Sun

from writing an editorial saying there were 200,000 less automobiles on

the road. They are not bothered by that sort of thing any more than the

NDP is bothered.

But what we do have....

MR. GIBSON: What if they're right and you're wrong?

HON. MR. McGEER: What?

MR. GIBSON: The numbers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just listen to the statistics that I'm going to tell you. Listen, please.

We do have, Mr. Chairman, statistics on the number of gallons of

gasoline sold in British Columbia, which is an indication of the amount

of driving that's going on. March, 1974, 54.5 million gallons sold;

March, 1975, 54.4 million gallons sold — I don't know why there were

fewer gallons sold in 1975 than 1974 — March, 1976, 58.6 million

gallons sold, which is an increase of 7 per cent and which we take as

an indication that the public of British Columbia is still able to

drive.

The encouraging thing, Mr. Chairman, is that while the amount of

driving has increased in British Columbia, the number of accidents is

going down. It means simply this: if you set policies which encourage

individual responsibility, then you get individual responsibility back.

[ Page 1760 ]

Let me give you some accident statistics from the Victoria region as

one: 1973, before Autoplan, 167 accidents; 1974, under Autoplan, 237;

1975, under further subsidy from Autoplan, 246; 1976,167 — a dramatic

drop in the number of accidents. Burnaby: 1973, 364; then with the

subsidies under Autoplan, 517 in 1974 and 514 in 1975; but in 1976 back

to 494 again. Kamloops: 167 accidents in 1973; then 152 and 122; 1976,

153. Prince George, a growth area: in 1973, 86 accidents; 1974, 125;

1975, 164, escalating away up; 1976, back down to 149.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to go through every area in

British Columbia reading the accident statistics that we've been able

to get from the RCMP. But what is emerging, Mr. Chairman, so far is

this: the cars are registered and the people are driving. They are

taking our plea seriously that people should drive carefully for social

as well as economic reasons. The accident statistics are showing fewer

accidents on the road and the claim statistics in our claims centre are

showing a dramatic decline.

It's early, Mr. Chairman, in the insurance year, but if for the

remaining 10 months people continue to drive as safely as they have

been driving so far in this insurance year, if they continue to show

the kind of restraint that is now being demonstrated in the use of

Autoplan as far as claims are concerned, and if we are as effective as

we've tried to be so far in making the corporation more efficient, in

keeping the costs of the corporation, the services it buys from towing

operators and bodyshops and so on, down, then at the end of the year we

will be able to give to all those who have had a safe driving record in

British Columbia a safe-driving dividend.

Mr. Chairman, it won't be anything phony. It won't be based on

cover-up. It won't be based on political considerations. What it will

be based on, Mr. Chairman, is performance. That's the bright side of

what's happening in insurance, and I commend to all the people of

British Columbia to keep it up, because it means money at the end of

the year.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Well, Mr. Chairman, we were

given a fine speech by the Minister of Education, the minister in

charge of ICBC, and it's very interesting that that minister is

admittedly still in charge of ICBC, the representative of the coalition

who on election decided that there would be no political interference

with ICBC — that was their promise. Promises broken, promises broken,

Mr. Chairman. We're a number of months down the line from that

election, but anyway, now that we have his admission that he is

intimately involved with the direction of ICBC, an admission that I

would have given shamefacedly had I been him, let's go over some of the

questions that he answered and some of the claims he made.

He asked, Mr. Chairman, how the corporation could have got itself

into such difficulty in such a short time. Well, Mr. Chairman, that

minister knows better than anyone else how the corporation could get

itself into difficulty.

That minister, Mr. Chairman, has had a great deal of difficulty

himself with that corporation, which is the largest insurance

corporation — general insurance corporation — in Canada. He knows full

well. He's checked the history of the corporation and he knows that

there has been no — and I say no — assistance given from the outgoing

corporations, none given from the private insurance industry. As a

matter of fact, the reason ICBC had to come onstream so quickly was

because they left the province as quickly as they did.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, such.... And the Attorney-General

says: "Oh, oh." Remember Safeco? Remember Allstate, all of those

companies that just pulled the pin and left? As a matter of fact, ICBC

had to take over Fruit Growers Mutual in order to afford people in this

province an opportunity to buy insurance during that very short interim

period. We had the plug pulled on us by the private industries that

this minister represents in this House today. How could we have

difficulty? Well, we had difficulty.

He said we were left with a totally unsatisfactory premium

structure. No doubt about it, absolutely no doubt. There is a law in

this province, and that law states — as a matter of fact, that law in

consistent across the country — that the private insurance must keep up

what is called the green book. It gives all the statistics for all the

past, but, you know, they published the green book for all of Canada

except British Columbia. We had no statistics to go on, and that

minister knows it. It was a rotten shame and if I did nothing else but

castigate the industry for that little omission here I would have, I

think, done a half-decent job and I think it would be.... It's remiss

of the minister not saying that that was part of the problem.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You kicked them out and they took the green book with them.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, the member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) can pontificate from his chair all he likes, but he knows deep

in his heart...because he's been around here long enough to know that

fair play is fair play. Because the fine was so low the industry just

took their five fingers and let us have them in the usual fashion. It

was just unsatisfactory.

This question about the cabinet and caucus making the decisions, I'd

like to contrast that with who made the decision for the Socred rates —

[ Page 1761 ]

and let's not call them anything different than the

coalition or the Socred rates. There it was made in total isolation by

the cabinet. The caucus was screaming its lungs out up there in Omineca

and up in Skeena and up in Okanagan North.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fort George.

MR. COCKE: Fort George. We were hearing news reports that the

caucus members said: "Why weren't we consulted?" They were having

difficulty in their constituency. Yes, we consulted our caucus. Yes,

Mr. Chairman, we are a democratic party. We consulted our caucus as

best we could. We had very little to work with, however, and it was

very unsatisfactory.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No, no. We had very little to work with in giving them an opportunity to view it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Who's the author of Plan Z?

MR. COCKE: Three people. It wasn't Plan Z. Plan Z was the

thing that ICBC drew up in contrast. Whatever this was.... And I heard

on Saturday that you were looking for it, so I thought I'd bring it in.

Three people — — and I'm not going to tell you who they are, but one

from the Department of Finance and two others who have a good knowledge

of the insurance industry. Go looking for them yourself.

HON. MR. McGEER: John Mika?

MR. COCKE: No, John Mika doesn't have that kind of basic

knowledge of insurance, and that minister knows that, any more so than

the minister has himself, although he was a student of it for longer

than the minister. I would suggest today that he would know a great

deal more about it than the minister does.

Mr. Chairman, the members were told in this House — yes, I'll admit

that — by the former president that ICBC would not be subsidized. He

said it would be based on actuarial principles and, unfortunately, it

was very difficult to work out actuarial principles for this kind of

insurance. Anybody knows perfectly well that there are only about three

actuaries in all of Canada that have any kind of real input into any

insurance corporation. They just go on statistics. It's not like life

insurance Mr. Minister,

But, Mr. Chairman, look at that man, that minister, standing up and

pontificating in this House about, somebody that reversed policy. We

reversed policy by vote, and it was a large vote. I wonder how many of

their caucus had an input into their change in their housing

commitment, where there'll be virtually no subsidization of new housing

in the larger urban centres by that government — purely against their

whole policy.

What about their school taxes, Mr. Chairman? School taxes have gone

up despite the fact that their policy was to take school taxes off. So

let's not start talking about somebody who changes policy, because the

policies have changed so often since the coalition has been in this

House that one can't even keep up with their policy changes.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Ferry rates, every kind of rate, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, our original rates were never published.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Of course they weren't published prior to being

made public, nor were the rates of the coalition published. Mr.

Chairman, the coalition rates weren't even satisfactory as far as their

own actuary was concerned. He went on record immediately after those

rates came into being and he said what the minister said a moment ago:

"They are too high." He admitted that they were too high, because he

said that they are going to get a dividend at the end of the year, How

can you give somebody a dividend at the end of the year if you're not

charging him too high rates in the first place? So he admits that the

rates are too high, and that substantiates everything that Byron

Straight, their actuary, said. So hang your head, Mr. Minister. The

rates are repudiated already, and you've done it yourself today in this

House.

Mr. Chairman, he talked of garbled records. Oh, certainly, the old

insurance companies used to tie your driving record to your car, but

cars don't have a bad driving record, Mr. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), through you, Mr. Chairman. Do they? No, it's the person

who has the bad driving record. So we set up a separate thing

altogether so people with bad driving records could be charged through

their personal driving policy.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The record has been kept and you have, Mr.

Chairman, right now those records that have been built up fastidiously

for the last three or four years. But I could tell you that prior to

that we had difficulty finding the driving records that had been

maintained by those astute insurance companies. When they left they

took their files with

[ Page 1762 ]

them, Mr. Chairman. They disappeared over the

mountains into the east. They had been making all their decisions for

the province in New York, in Hartford, Connecticut and London, England.

Mr. Chairman, that's what irks the present coalition, because those

decisions have to be made now at home and that's a shame.

Mr. Chairman, we thought it best to tie the increased rates for bad

driving habits directly to the driver and not to a car. It's

foolishness to attach it to a car.

Mr. Chairman, the refund situation — talk about a careless

statement! I would rather have a careless statement speaking in terms

of people's benefits than a careless statement like that minister made

when he was first made director of the corporation. You remember his

careless statement. He said: "Let them sell their cars." Talk about a

careless statement, Mr. Minister of Education...!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Let them sell their cars" — and then he took off in a 747...

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Idle rich.

MR. COCKE: ...which flapped its wings all the way to Hawaii

where he spent four or five days with his family. Mr. Chairman,

careless statements, yes. Careless statements are made by a lot of

people, but I would opt the first one not for a careless statement, but

the second one, yes.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): You set the record for arrogance.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the commission — oh, don't we raise a good one here?

AN HON. MEMBER: No....

MR. COCKE: Don't we raise a smokescreen that has no peer in

this House? He said they have given the agent.... They've reduced the

agents' commissions down to the level that we set for 1975-76. Yes, Mr.

Chairman, they have. They've reduced the commission on the basic

coverage to 5 per cent. But when you more than double the premiums,

what's the absolute value of this reduction in commissions? You don't

have to be a mathematician like the member for Hawaii to know that you

have increased substantially the commission — as a matter of fact, by

70 per cent. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the member for Hawaii....

MR. KERSTER: On a point of order, I would like to remind the

hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that I am, in fact, the

member for Coquitlam.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Then, Mr. Chairman, listen to this foy a plum.

They take out collision as part of the basic coverage, which would

normally have been 5 per cent commission, and they put it into the

optional coverage, which puts it into the 10 per cent class. Wow, what

a bonanza! Mr. Chairman, it was a bonanza. From that minister a gift

that will be remembered forever.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A bonanza from a banana.

MR. COCKE: It will be remembered forever, Mr. Chairman.

Anybody who wants to sharpen their pencils, all you have to do is work

out your own and then you add that up and multiply it by 1,200,000

policies in this province, and you've got yourself a big bonanza.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that there was an absolute increase —

a major absolute increase. The minister was talking about claims.

Claims are cyclical. We've seen periods of increased claims; we've seen

periods of lower claims. As most of you know, I spent a good many years

in the insurance industry and have just a little bit of information in

that regard. I happened to be one of those doves on the board, I was

only one of the number of people on that board, but I happened to be

one of those doves that felt that the kind of increases that we had

seen were irrational kinds of increases and that there would be a

reduction, and now we're into the other end of the cycle at the present

time.

Mr. Chairman, other than having driven a lot of people into driving

without insurance because they can't afford it, and also having driven

people into not making claims and therefore driving around with cars

that are all bashed up, I don't really think that they've done any

more. That really isn't all that socially gratifying, as far a I'm

concerned. I suggest to you that it's quite the contrary.

Mr. Chairman, the minister went on to say that there was nothing in

our budget for motive fuel tax transfer. Agreed, but you had before you

— those of you who were here in this House — a bill that permitted the

transfer, and that's all we needed.

MR. CHABOT: You can't transfer what you haven't got.

[ Page 1763 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, they gave $181 million to ICBC and

it was a rubber cheque, and he says "you can't transfer what you

haven't got." Well now, that's the biggest joke I've heard.

Mr. Chairman, let's get on with that for just a second. We decided

that it was fiscally better for us not to make that transfer last year.

The whole western world was smarting and you're still smarting. You

can't run your budget now, you're cutting down services, you're getting

out of housing grants, you're getting out of all the areas you promised

to help in, and then you start throwing stones at the other government.

Mr. Chairman, we were interested in providing people services with

that money. It was there to transfer. Why did we have the right to make

that kind of a transfer? We had the foresight to charge a proper

price....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Just a minute, Mr. Member. Think — for once.

Mr. Chairman, we found $200 million of increased revenue for this

province through one area alone, and that was the increased price for

natural gas and the increased royalty for petroleum products — a

bonanza to this province.

Mr. Chairman, I listen to that heckling of a group who sat idly by

and watched coal being taken out of this province for zilch, for

nothing, for 10 cents a ton — enough to buy a pencil. When we came in

we found that a royalty on coal was quite right and it also produced a

revenue.

Mr. Chairman, the minister also talked about investments. His own

investment manager is working now with ICBC. There was an

article on

March 17, 1976, about Jim Fletcher: "More than $1 billion of British

Columbians' money has passed through Jim Fletcher's hands in the past

two years — not literally, of course, but Fletcher as director of

investments for the insurance corporation is responsible for putting

our insurance premiums to work in the short-term money market and in

the bond market to earn as much interest as possible for ICBC." That's

a man working as the investment man for ICBC, and he went on to be

quoted as having said: "Our basic policy is to keep the dollars

invested in B.C. Only a small portion of our funds go east."

Mr. Chairman, that's consistent to what we set up in the first

place, but that's not consistent with the remarks that minister made

recently in this House.

MR. LAUK: The Premier says it all went to eastern banks.

MR. COCKE: What the Premier said yesterday about seat belts I think is consistent with what he said about....

Mr. Chairman, the bright future of ICBC is the bright future which

we predicted from the outset. The only thing that worries me about one

of the minister's remarks is that he said that there a~e, more gallons

of gas sold this year. If that's true, and I'm sure it is, if there are

more gallons of gas sold this year — and the best kinds of figures that

ICBC can come up with is that there are 20,000 cars less insured — that

makes me quiver because that means there are a lot of people out there,

uninsured, buying gas. That could be of considerable....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: How could they be uninsured?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): They're driving cars without insurance.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, they can be uninsured, it strikes

me, by not paying the second premium, and this is what concerns me a

great deal because I understand that they haven't even been asked for

their second premium. Now the minister might check that out, but I've

yet to find someone who has had their second premium taken from their

bank account. I think it should be checked out. Very quietly the other

day ICBC announced that there would be no more of that financing of

premiums; so I suggest to you that the minister has got them into so

much trouble with his policy, his convoluted policy, in this whole

question that they haven't even been able to charge those premiums back.

So, Mr. Chairman, what kind of shape are we in? What's this great

future we're hearing? We hope there's a bright future for ICBC; we hope

that there's a future for ICBC to carry on exactly what we started it

for, and that is to keep the premiums down. We would like the transfer

of motive-fuel tax because we think it's the fair way to go, but if

this government decides no, that's on their heads. But we want them to

keep those invested dollars in this province.

Mr. Chairman, one last word. The minister takes all the credit for

the drop in accidents. I would like to say that my colleague who sits

beside me, who was the first Minister of Highways in this country who

had the courage to reduce the speed limits in our province, who had the

real courage to stand up and be counted in that regard, had more to do

with the reduction of accidents in this province and the turnaround in

consciousness that takes place when people start thinking in these

terms. That's important, Mr. Chairman — extremely important.

MR. KEMPF: He flew over the roads in helicopters.

[ Page 1764 ]

MR. COCKE: Don't give me the "flew over"! That minister produced for this province, and I'm proud of it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the people do show restraint; I hope at the end

of this year they can get a safe-driving dividend, as it is called. I

wish, however, that they could have been given that dividend at the

very outset, because the actuary said that those rates are uncalled for

— said it publicly and, I think, had a great deal of courage in order

to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions I'd like to ask,

but I won't take too long. I think probably the minister has one or two

words to reflect at this time. Okay? Well, I'll continue for a moment

and I'll ask a couple of questions.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how many ex gratia payments have

been made since December 12, 1975. If that's too tough, then I'll be

glad to put it on the order paper.

HON. MR. McGEER: Put it on the order paper.

MR. COCKE: I'll put it on the order paper, Mr. Minister, okay. I just thought that possibly you might have those records with you.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to know what steps have been taken

to develop the permanent headquarters offices in New Westminster. I'd

like to know how far ahead you are with that. Has this been studied or

discussed with private industry?

One other question I would like the minister to answer is:

forgetting about taking the $181 million out of general revenue and

transferring it — that is, in the form of a debt — why is the $12

million for those under 25, who will be given a rebate if they have a

safe driving record, being given out of government funds as opposed to

ICBC funds? Is not this $12 million a further subsidization of ICBC by

general revenue? Why wasn't it ICBC that gave the $12 million?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, it's not; it's poor little MVD — the motor

vehicle branch over here that we will have to vote when we get to that

minister's vote under our estimates.

Mr. Chairman, another question is: what is ICBC's dollar provision for

commission payments this year? Just a ball-park figure, a round figure, if the

minister can remember. If not, then I can also put that on the order paper.

Just the ball-park figure in your budget for commissions in ICBC's current

fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, one final question: has there been a large increase in your general

insurance premiums? With that, I will wait for some answers.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't really intended to say very much

about ICBC at all, but after the minister's talk I felt impelled to go out

and get my files. For the moment I will simply comment on some of the things

that he said when he stood up in this House earlier on this afternoon.

He was still fighting the last election, Mr. Chairman. I was

surprised. He doesn't understand yet that the sins of the past, of

which there were many...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. GIBSON: ...do not pardon the sins of the present, of

which there are more than a few, Mr. Member, as well. There are a

couple of particular items of policy that the minister articulated that

puzzled me very much, Mr. Chairman. Why is the minister against

territorial equalization in this province? Why does he feel that your

insurance premium should be based on where you happen to live? Why does

the minister feel that? Why did he eliminate the territorial discount?

AN HON. MEMBER: One-timer.

MR. GIBSON: We were moving in British Columbia towards a postage stamp rate in insurance, which was a good thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what you want?

MR. GIBSON: That's what I want, in terms of territories, yes.

That's what I want in terms of territories, not in terms of driving

records. I'll get to that later. Equal risks in different parts of the

province....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Equal risks in different parts of the province should pay the same rate in different parts of the province.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Prejudicial to the north.

MR. GIBSON: Not prejudicial to the north, Mr. Member, and you

know it. That member, Mr. Chairman, knows perfectly well that the

northern territorial discount was eliminated by this government.

MR. LAUK: I'm not sure he does.

MR. GIBSON: Nothing that he may say can expunge that from the record, and the voters in his

[ Page 1765 ]

riding will remember that when the next time comes around.

AN HON. MEMBER: You bet they will.

MR. GIBSON: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that where people live

in this province is largely a matter beyond their control if they

happen to be working people. If they are retired people, they may have

some more control about it. But if they are working people — they have

a job, they have a home and likely a family there — then it's not a

small matter to move, and you're not going to move just to get lower

insurance rates in some other part of the province. We should be

pleased that people are ready to live in the more remote regions of

this province, to do the kinds of things which exploit the resources

which make British Columbia reasonably prosperous, which pay the

salaries of all of us in this House. We should give people prepared to

live in remote regions at least an equal break in terms of insurance.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): What's remote?

MR. KING: Your government's remote — remote from the people.

MR. GIBSON: That was a splendid exchange, Mr. Chairman, which should be put in Hansard :

The Minister of Consumer Services said: "What's remote?" The hon.

Leader of the Opposition said: "Your government's remote — remote from

the people." I think that's a worthwhile exchange; I thank the Minister

of Consumer Services for having initiated it. I hope that he will

afford us further wisdom as this debate progresses.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the principle is clear: the

insurance costs you pay in this province should not be determined by

where you live — that is absolutely wrong.

MR. LAUK: On-the-job training.

MR. GIBSON: It has to be done if you have competition. I am

talking now about the basic primary insurance — the public liability

insurance that everyone has to carry and must have to carry. If you

have competition in that area, naturally you have to have rate

categories depending on territory, because otherwise one group or

another will come in and cream off the particularly profitable area.

But as long as you have a monopoly, which we do this year and which the

government has not yet moved to eliminate and which the minister claims

no policy decision has been made to eliminate, even though companies

are once again being registered with the right to sell insurance in

this province, as long as you're in that situation, your insurance

costs should not depend on where you live.

Secondly, if the minister feels that your insurance should be

conditioned by where you live, why does he also feel that it should be

conditioned by who you are? These are both things that people have no

control over. The fact that somebody happens to be a single male under

25 is something they have no control over. What they have control over

is whether or not they have a good driving record. That should be the

basis — the sole basis — for the determination of rates in that

category.

MR. KING: Discrimination!

MR. KERSTER: How can you assess it without the records?

MR. GIBSON: The member for Coquitlam asked us: "How do you

assess it without the records?" The ICBC, Mr. Member, has been in

business for a few years now. There was definitely a problem there at

the beginning with no records, but those records should be available

now. It's just automatic that there should not be an assessment of that

kind. It should depend on your driving record.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member for

Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) of standing order 17(2)? Perhaps you should

review it now. Please proceed, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Get somebody to read if for him.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: So, Mr. Chairman, there is the second principle

of the minister with which I disagree: people should not pay more

because of who they are; they cannot control that.

What should premiums be based on? They should be based on the

driving record. And to the extent that that record is not available for

a first-time driver, then what you have to do is make it high for that

first year or two, but offer that person a rebate, because after a

couple of years you will have their driving record — a rebate if

there's been a good, safe driving record maintained, a positive

incentive towards cautious driving, even in the first two years of your

driving career. Then, of course, as you get on and lengthier and

lengthier record is established, the discount that can be given is

greater and greater. So there's point No. I which should determine

premiums:

[ Page 1766 ]

driving records.

Point No. 2 that should determine premiums, obviously, is the

damageability of the vehicle you drive. We're talking here about

premiums related to collision, obviously, and this aspect of it. By

damageability one means not only the cost of the vehicle but the repair

costs in particular.

Then the third principle that has to determine it is time spent at

risk — time on the road, the number of miles driven in a year. It just

makes sense.

You know, Mr. Chairman, when you add up all of these ways of

determining premiums it becomes crystal clear — the way out that the

government had in this transitional year, the ways and means that the

government had of cushioning the impact on the ordinary citizen of this

province. I've suggested before and I'll say again in this debate,

because of the various options that were open to them, that government

took the most brutal possible way of redressing the insurance picture

in this province.

I have no quarrel at all with the argument that insurance has to be

put on a paying basis this year. I agree with that. I agree as well

that appropriation of the historic gasoline tax revenue and motor

vehicle licence revenue is not the way to do that, because that is

built into consolidated revenue, and it means you are taking away from

one aspect of expenditure to put it into another. What should be done —

or what should have been done, because it's clear that this government

is not about to do it — is to raise premiums somewhat this year, but

not nearly the 139 per cent average it was actually done, and cover the

balance with an extra gasoline tax. I suggested the exact figure to the

minister. My goodness, I gave him this advice early in January, and had

he taken it, he could have avoided so much grief. He could have been a

hero in this province. He could have become a folk figure, a living

legend in his own time.

MR. LAUK: Marie Antoinette!

MR. GIBSON: Instead, Mr. Chairman, when mothers put their

kids to bed — and we get a little bit to the education field here —

they say: "If you aren't good, the Minister of Education's going to

getcha!" (Laughter.) No, an enlightened mother wouldn't say that, Mr.

Chairman. An enlightened mother wouldn't raise the subject at all,

because some things should not be mentioned to little ears.

But we in this House have to deal with these questions,

unfortunately, and the minister could have taken that advice, because

it would have allowed people to pay for these extra insurance costs

gradually over the year — at the gasoline pumps, as they actually

drove, and at their option. If people just couldn't afford that little

extra bit, then they could have cut their driving that little bit and

it would have been their choice as to how and when they cut their

driving instead of the minister's choice. I believe that there are a

lot of cars off the road, and I don't care what the minister tells us

about the figures; I'll get back to that later.

That would have been the way to do it, Mr. Chairman, and the

minister declined to do it. I think part of the reason for that was

that he thought he was going to increase the popularity of his

government by proving to people how terrible the other government had

been. But you don't make yourself bigger by tearing down others, Mr.

Chairman, I don't believe. I don't think that's the right way to

proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: Now the minister was talking about percentage of

commissions paid. He told us how Social Credit had cleverly gone after

the agents and pulled down their commission percentage. The hon. member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) raised this at the end of his remarks a

moment ago, because the minister was very careful, in taking credit for

his harsh action with the insurance agents, not to tell us the total

dollar commission paid — which in the end is the only question that

counts, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? You can calculate a person's take-home

pay in many kinds of ways, but the important thing is what your

take-home pay is.

If this is a bottom-line government, what's the bottom line on this

particular question? What is the dollar volume of commissions paid this

year as compared to last, compared to the total amount of insurance

risk? If the minister is going to tell me that that figure isn't

available, I just find that unbelievable. It's just incredible. If he

knows how much money is in the bank, Mr. Chairman — and he tells us he

knows how much money is in the bank, because he told me they are very

financially prudent in the ICBC — then he must know what their premium

revenue has been. He must know that. You can't possibly know how much

money you have in the bank unless you know what came in and what went

out.

Now I take it that you have some rough account of what goes out. I

take it that someone makes a note on their shirt sleeve every time a

cheque is issued, at the very minimum, somewhere in the bowels of the

ICBC.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, Mr. Member. Don't be distracted by....

MR. GIBSON: I'm not distracted, Mr. Chairman. I'm puzzled.

The minister is over there saying they pay them in bulk. But don't you

keep a total of the bulk? You must surely. If you know your bank

[ Page 1767 ]

account, you must know what cheques are paid out

and you must know what deposits go in. There's just no question about

that at all, and you simply can't convince me otherwise. So you know

what your revenues have been up until this particular day.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: And you know what cheques have gone out to

agents. You know that. What's the average commission? That's all we

want to know, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Do you know anything?

MR. GIBSON: I'll tell you this. Based on the extraordinarily

higher rates, the dollar volume of the commission is higher for this

year. It's higher for this year, Mr. Minister, isn't it? The minister

thinks it would be. Then why don't you tell us that? Why don't you give

us some estimate? I can't believe that anyone who claims to be as good

a manager as this government, and as this minister in this government,

wouldn't have these very rough, ball-park figures.

You know, I was looking at what he said Friday morning in Hansard .

I wasn't actually here to see it because I was over at Jericho Hill

School, because I was very concerned about what the minister's been

saying about Jericho Hill School. So they were having an open house

Friday morning and I went there to see with my own eyes. I'll be

talking about that later on today when we get back to education. But he

made this remarkable statement that I saw in a diligent reading of Hansard .

He said: "I don't think we know at this stage within 20 per cent the

number of cars registered in British Columbia." Can you believe that,

Mr. Chairman — not to know within 20 per cent how many cars are

registered in British Columbia?

MR. LAUK ; Another unbelievable statement.

MR. GIBSON: From an unbelievable minister.

Doesn't the motor vehicle branch keep a record of moneys received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Even the back bench is shocked.

MR. GIBSON: Surely there's a record of money received, and if

you have a record of money received and you know roughly how much the

registration cost is, then surely you know roughly — maybe not within

one-half of I per cent, maybe not within I per cent, but certainly

within 20 per cent — how many vehicles are operating on the roads of

the province of British Columbia. I suggest that if the government

really wanted that information, they could dig it out and make a pretty

good estimate, and the fact that they're not is that they know it would

be a thoroughgoing embarrassment to them.

The gas-consumption figures the minister gave us do not provide the

answers at all. They don't provide the answers at all. You know, gas

consumption can vary as much as the minister proposed within any given

month, particularly the month of March. It's just purely a matter of

climatic factors how much driving can be done in this province or how

much driving people feel they have to do. That doesn't prove anything.

What will prove something is the registration figures. I say the

minister should have those figures, and I would be very glad if he

would stand up and take a second look, have his accountants take a

second look, and give those figures to us.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I think we'd get along better if the minister would answer questions.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just waiting for....

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you were waiting for the vote to slip

through to get off the subject. The subject's an embarrassment to the

minister. The speeches are distressing to him.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to add two questions. The first is on

ICBC. As the minister knows, collision coverage is no longer

compulsory. Now when that decision was made, did the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) request a report from the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) as to the impact on the courts of the province in

terms of litigation? That's a very important cost factor because, as we

all know, Mr. Justice Wootton in his famous report brought in the

concept of no-fault — penalize people by points or suspensions if you

will, but get the civil litigation about bent fenders and intersections

out of the courts. The NDP government, which made collision insurance

compulsory within limits — I think it was up to the eight-year-old car

— went a long way in eliminating civil litigation in the higher courts

of the province of British Columbia with a great tax saving in the

costs of justice and allowing the courts to grapple with the many other

cases that should be there as these ones should not.

Have you given any consideration to what kind of impact you've had

on the courts? Because before, it was small claims court where you go

in and try to get your deductible. That's a fairly simple procedure, if

you go at all. But when you have no-collision — and increasingly that

will be the case — then you have imposed an additional burden on the

courts. I want to know whether any study was made of that.

[ Page 1768 ]

They can still be settled, but they're very often not settled. They

could have been settled in the old days when this kind of intersection

case was clogging up our courts. Even though the clients settle,

sometimes the lawyers don't. Let me put it this way — you've added a

tremendous burden to the courts, which are already congested. That's

the first point I make.

The second point I want to make is — and I don't think you answered

the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — what about this rebate to

people under 25? Is it based on no claim being made against ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: No blameworthy claim.

MR. MACDONALD: That's very vague. You'll have t o again

discuss this over with the Attorney-General, because I suggest to you

that you've no machinery to give any kind of due process to those to

decide whether their accident was blameworthy or not. Who's going to to

that? Some faceless bureaucrat in ICBC? Or will there be some kind of a

hearing? You've got to give people who are claiming a substantial

rebate in their insurance premiums a fair hearing. You cannot just do

it in a bureaucratic way by the decision of some civil servant in ICBC.

What strikes me is that this government hasn't even given thought to

this kind of question. I'd like the minister to get up and say just

what he means by "blameworthy" and "not blameworthy" — this is my

second question — and who's going to decide that point. Under what form

of fair hearing? I don't say it has to be the courts, but there's got

to be some chance for a person to put his case, even though he is under

25 and heavily disliked by this government — not in a personal way, but

all your governmental policy indicates that you're against youth.

That's my second point.

The third one, you might say, was a problem that we had too, not

like the first two. That is that points accumulate against drivers by

the superintendent of motor vehicles, if there's been a conviction, but

that doesn't tell the whole story by any means. Maybe there was no

conviction. Maybe there was a finding after a civil case that somebody

was civilly negligent. That doesn't count. Maybe the person was

negligent as the dickens out on the highway, but unless there was a

criminal case and a criminal conviction — no points.

So really there are big gaps in the points system. If you want to

approach the thing in a socially useful way, without having

tremendously high premiums, but still having equity and cutting down on

the accident hazard, then you've got to have a proper points system.

Nothing the minister has said has indicated that that kind of machinery

for a fair hearing on what the points should be has been developed by

this government. So that's my third question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get on to education.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm very much willing to cooperate, if you want to answer about ICBC.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I've just got one small question about ICBC.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Only one member can have the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not trying to be awkward; I'm just trying to make things flow reasonably smoothly in the House.

I just wanted to raise the question of the minister's policy, and

whether there's any change in the offing regarding the ICBC dealing

with the handicapped. One of the people in my riding works tremendously

hard at presenting the needs of the handicapped to the government of

the day, and there's one particular instance where this particular

person has only the use of one arm and one leg and, with the technical

description of ICBC, does not qualify for the reduced premium. Because

we've gone on to this issue I'm not as well versed in the details of

the problem as I would otherwise be, but I'm talking about a letter

from Mr. Ron Olfrey, who wrote to the minister in March outlining his

particular position and that of many other handicapped people who are

handicapped but don't necessarily have hand controls on their vehicles.

It would seem to me that ICBC's attitude to the criteria for qualifying

for some reduced premium because of a handicap should be a little more

flexible. Perhaps it would quickly answer the matter, Mr. Chairman, if

the minister would tell us what his reply to Mr. Olfrey's letter was in

that particular respect. This person has a very substantial handicap —

in this case one arm and one leg he cannot use — but his vehicle isn't

actually equipped with only hand controls, and I'm told that he was

disqualified from the reduced premium on that basis. Would the minister

care to comment?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, just to deal quickly with the

questions that have been raised, the headquarters office is something

which is under active study at the present time. I can't really tell

you what the final outcome will be. First of all, we want to

[ Page 1769 ]

gauge what the ultimate size of the corporation is

going to be because that's going to determine how big a permanent

headquarters will be required. I want to assure you that there will be

an insurance corporation so that there will be a need for permanent

headquarters, and having made that decision we want to go through the

economics of the operation.

I realize that there is an important impact that could potentially

take place in New Westminster from having that head office there. I

quite understand that situation and certainly it's under very active

consideration at the present time.

Let me say a word about the general insurance premiums. We're still

losing money on general insurance, and I'm darned if I can understand

why.

MR. COCKE: Because the private insurance companies are dumping all the bad risks on us.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, that may be, but the other side of it

is that if ICBC sets its general insurance premiums too low then the

privates get out. So those are the two sides of the story. I quite

confess I'm no insurance man and I just don't know the answer to that.

With regard to the commissions, the insurance agents are going to

make more money this year — that's perfectly true. I honestly can't

tell you how much, and it comes back to the methods — the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) understands this, but the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is apparently unaware of the way the

thing is handled. When the applications come back the cheque is cleared

immediately so that we know the total amount of money cleared, but you

don't know any more than that. You don't know how much of this is for

basic and how much is for extension. You don't know which agent made

the sale. It's weeks before the data actually gets programmed onto the

permanent computer, so a lot of the material is still sitting in

cardboard boxes on the 17th floor of ICBC, not yet processed. The

disadvantage, of course, is that everybody has renewals at the same

time. I said that there would be legislation coming down and all the

members would have an opportunity to help solve this problem by

spreading the workload over the year. It's going to make it far more

efficient.

We didn't inherit all this, and even if we had wanted to solve the

problem overnight we couldn't have done it because you can't hire 50

more programmers to process the data in half the time. This is a

technical operation. It sounds very simple, but when there are one and

a half million pieces of paper coming in at the same time you just

can't handle them immediately. So that's why we can't present you with

figures.

As a matter of fact, in the past the insurance agents have not been

paid on the basis of summing up the individual policies that they sold.

It's all on the basis of estimates. They've been paid that way in the

past and I would take it this year they would be paid that way again.

The amount of money will be more. It will depend on the amount of

extension versus the amount of basic coverage which is sold. I just

can't give any answer — nobody can. But we'll know it in another couple

of months.

The member talked about territorial equalizations and here I've just

got to differ very sharply with the member, Mr. Chairman, because there

isn't a single jurisdiction where actuarial rates are kept where the

urban rates aren't higher than the rural rates. Really what the

member's asking for is that the rural territories of British Columbia —

the north — pay a surcharge to subsidize the lower mainland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Victoria is far lower.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, but remember you don't have the density of traffic here. It's an isolated place.

So what we did, Mr. Chairman, and what we will continue to do,

despite the proposal of that member, is not to manipulate the rates but

to base the rates on what the drivers themselves determine by their

accident statistics.

It so happens that the most expensive area in British Columbia is in

the lower mainland. It's like the most expensive area in Quebec being

Montreal and the most expensive are in Ontario being Toronto. The

traffic density is higher. There are more accidents and it costs more.

Now we're not going to stick the people in the north with the bills

of the people in Vancouver. The idea of territorial ratings was an

artificiality that was introduced by the NDP, not by us. We're starting

to do it on a perfectly fair basis — namely, what the accident rate is.

In a very real sense the drivers, as groups, set their own rates.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked about the

safe-driving dividends. Why was that a government programme rather than

ICBC programme? ICBC rates were set without any political interference,

without manipulation. They were set on the basis of the statistics of

ICBC itself.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, the cabinet by regulation ratified the

rates. But I want to say, Mr. Member, that the rates that cabinet

ratified were those that were provided on a statistical basis. There

wasn't, say, "let's get this group more" or "let's get that group

less," though there was tremendous pressure, as you can imagine, from

all kinds of groups to get a special deal here, a special deal there.

Those

[ Page 1770 ]

were resisted, and there were a lot of complaints

from the under-25s, as everybody knows, specifically to me, and I was

invited to stick it in my ear and elsewhere.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: This was just the way the numbers came out

and it was the only fair and unbiased way to do it. Had we given the

safe-driving dividend out of the ICBC funds, then it would have been a

rate manipulation which would have required that other rating groups

pay for that dividend. The government agreed that it was improper to

interfere politically, and, therefore, this is a programme that's being

financed on its own. If, as the government calculates, the impact of

this programme is a positive one and ICBC is able to save as a result

of fewer claims being made by the under-25 group, then it won't cost

the treasury anything, because the rates for the under-25s were based

on the assumption that claims would continue to be 63 per 100 vehicles,

or roughly two-and-a-half times the average of the over-25 pleasure

driver.

Now if the under-25s respond as the government anticipates they

will, it won't cost the treasury anything. That will be saved out of

improved driving over the performance of the two years previous to

that. Remember that in the first year of operations the under-25 was

responsible — only 9 per cent of the drivers — for 50 per cent of the

losses of ICBC. Over two years it was less than that; it was about a

quarter of all the losses for this 9 per cent of the drivers.

The total subsidy per car that went into the under-25 group was

about $468 per car. I've given the statistics in the House before, but

it's a very, very substantial subsidy that's been given. Now we've said

the time has come when people in the under-25 group have got to drive

responsibly. If they're going to continue having that kind of a claims

record and accident record, then the rates will have to reflect that.

Now finally, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked about the

handicapped person. They may have a letter back from me, but it would

be along this line: if you can give us a definition, we'll accept it.

When we sought advice on a definition of the handicapped originally

from the Department of Human Resources, we found that the handicapped

person included the alcoholic, the drug addict and the mentally ill. We

felt that these would not be wise criteria on which to base a discount

for driving. That was why it was set in a more restrictive stance to

hand-controlled vehicles.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it could easily be that. If we got a

good definition we'd be quite prepared to broaden it, just so long as

it's something which isn't sort of based on an individual judgment by

somebody who would then be subjected to criticism. If it is something

that can be placed by definition, we'd be more than pleased to do so.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, the courts. I didn't answer the

member about the courts. When the proposal was made that we reduce

compulsory collision, the opinion was offered by some knowledgeable

people that this would gut ICBC. The feeling was that unless you forced

people to buy collision then there would be these continual disputes in

the small claims court and, in effect, the system would break down and

the courts would be bogged down by everybody arguing about who was

responsible for the collision.

We didn't accept that advice, which I think must have come from a

legal mind somewhere, and I'm glad we didn't because it's made it

possible for us to sell insurance without forcing people to buy this

very high-cost aspect of it. It's had, as I've said before, a dramatic

effect on the number of claims that have been made, and, as far as we

can tell, it's involved no unfavourable result as far as the small

claims courts are concerned.

I know the lawyers always get very, very concerned about the rights

of people to sue one another over automobile matters. Indeed, 50 per

cent of all supreme court cases in British Columbia involve automobile

litigation. What we want to do is reduce this further and further. We

think, by the kinds of changes that we're contemplating in the

insurance field, that we're going to substantially reduce the number of

cases going not just to small claims court but to the supreme court. In

so doing, we'll relieve the judges of British Columbia of the heavy

burden of work they now carry.

That will rescue that downtown court house building which was

redesigned at such tremendous expense, but without providing the

additional courtrooms that it was contemplated would be needed. And by

better approaches to automobile insurance, we can relieve the

necessity, we think, for all those extra courtrooms to the benefit of

the motoring public of British Columbia, because it will reduce their

actual cost as well as their hidden costs.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the

minister on the straightforward way he dodges the issues. (Laughter.)

Just let me say on that last comment that the NDP government, through

this plan, reduced very substantially the load of cases in the higher

courts of B.C. You're going in the exact opposite direction now. In

spite of the flowery

[ Page 1771 ]

words, you're encouraging lawyers and litigation and the crowding of our courts — that's the point I made.

The other point that the minister dodged was who decides whether

it's a blame where they claim. In the case of a young person, who's

going to decide that? If it's blameworthy, he doesn't get the money; if

it's not a blameworthy claim, he gets the rebate. Who makes that

decision? Who's going to do it? Is there going to be fair process? To

whom does he appeal? Because if we are forever seeing Big Brother, you

know, and denying people natural justice because they're young,

presumably, and it doesn't matter — some will get it, some will not, by

the decision of the Social Credit government. They may not be the most

important cases in the world; they might involve maybe $75 for this

young Smith who gets the rebate, and $75 for Jones who doesn't. But are

you going to decide that as politicians in a bureaucratic way without

giving these people fair process?

I don't know what

section or claim, except for a political speech,

under which you could give them fair process. You are not doing it, and

that is a denial of justice to a

section of our population — in this

case, the young. You just tell me then, Mr. Minister, who will make

that decision as to whether it is blameworthy or not.

HON. MR. McGEER: The process is no different now, Mr. Member...

MR. MACDONALD: Of course it is.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...than it has always been.

MR. MACDONALD: Who makes the decision?

HON. MR. McGEER: The original assessment is made at the

claims centre. If the people dispute the judgment at the claims centre,

then they are quite free to take either the corporation or the other

individual to small claims court. It has always been this way and it is

absolutely no different. There have been no changes at all in that.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you saying that somebody whose claim was

paid at the beginning of the year — and he doesn't have any controversy

about that, the damage — might have to go to court and kind of

relitigate that old accident to try and show that he is not blameworthy

in it? A court wouldn't listen to that. It would just be for a

declaration: that accident where all the finances have been cleared up

and settled and forgotten about — "but I do want to say to the

government of the Social Credit that I was not blameworthy; therefore I

must try and find a judge who will listen to that kind of a case."

That's my appeal? That is no appeal at all! You are saying, in effect,

that the decision is going to be politically made as to which young

people can get that rebate and which cannot. It will be made by an

official of the government or it will be made by the Social Credit

minister. That is a denial of natural justice.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Member, I find that you are saying very

condemnatory things about the system your government set up, because

there is no alteration at all in the system which is in existence today

over what was in existence a year or two ago.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, this applies with adequate notice. It

was given by your government, Mr. Member, back in October, 1975, that

accident records were being kept and that people who had blameworthy

accidents would be faced with a surcharge. That wasn't any announcement

that was made by our governmento that's what you did yourselves. From

the very beginning all the blame has been kept through the claim

centres; there has been an assignment of blame in every claim.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: But there is appeal to the small debts

court. The fact that people would be faced with a surcharge if they

accepted blame for a claim when they really weren't to blame, in their

view, was something that was given by notice by your government. If you

thought that the method was wrong, the time that you should have

complained and done something about it was when you were in office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before I recognize the next

member, I know that in committee it is very, very difficult to

recognize the Chair with direct questions being asked and direct

answers being given. But please assist me, if you would, in maintaining

order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, there are one or

two points I would like to touch on. I would like to first of all

mention the territorial rate differentials, and suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, that the argument being put forward by the Minister of

Education doesn't hold up to scrutiny. On the one hand, you can't claim

to have concern about the rights of the individuals and that

individuals should be treated as individuals in society and by

government, and at the same time say that you are not going to look at

a person's individual driving record and make some assessment as to

what his insurance rate should be based on — a formula — and, on the

other hand, put forward that because you live in a geographic area you

should be assessed on your

[ Page 1772 ]

insurance premiums an extra amount because you

happen to live within an area where there have been more accidents than

in another geographic area.

I mean, why should an individual who has had no driving accident and

no charges on his licence be charged more than someone living in

Victoria, for instance, who has had driving charges and accidents? It

just doesn't hold up and make any sense at all. It doesn't make any

sense, and it is against the individual right in society to do just

that. So it doesn't make sense. I'd like to point that out, and when

you are starting to talk about the rights of individuals in society, I

can recall sitting on the government benches and having the ministers

who were in opposition at that time liken us to Orwell's 1984. I

suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we now see here Animal Farm, where

once the animals are in they start walking around on their hind legs

and changing slogans and changing philosophy and changing direction in

midstream.

You know, I can't see where this government has any concern at all

for the rights of individuals. They are pure statistics and pure

computers. That's all they are! They make decisions based on computers,

technology, and they have no concern at all about the individuals in

this society. It is evident in every policy that they hand down.

One other matter.... Oh, just before I leave that subject, Mr.

Chairman, getting back to the fact of postage stamp rates in insurance.

You know, I'm not here to argue that there may be people in Vancouver

paying more at this present time than there are people in the north. It

falls back on the argument that I just made, that you shouldn't be

judged by where you live in terms of the rate of insurance that you are

going to pay. There should be one blanket-rate postage stamp rate for

insurance coverage for each individual on the make of car that he may

drive. Then, based on the driving record, you assess whether that

person should pay more for his insurance. But to say you pay more just

because you live in a certain geographic region of the province is

ludicrous, and I don't see how anybody can put that argument forward

without having his tongue in cheek. You know, it's just absolutely

silly.

Getting back now to traffic accidents — either those causing injury

or traffic accidents causing fatalities — I would like, through you,

Mr. Chairman, to ask the Minister of Education, with his responsibility

for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, not to listen to the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) who, shortly after being sworn

into office, said that he felt that most accidents were caused by slow

drivers. He said he was considering maybe raising the speed limit.

I would just ask, even though I know it's within the jurisdiction,

Mr. Chairman, of the Minister of Highways to either change the speed

limits or make recommendations to cabinet to change the speed limits,

that cabinet not listen to the Minister of Highways when he puts

forward that kind of argument, which he did publicly, because I don't

think statistics would back up that kind of statement.

The first year of statistics that we've had since the lowering of

the speed limit in British Columbia are very hopeful statistics to look

at. In 1975 there were 127 fewer fatalities in British Columbia than

the year previous. There were 844 the year previous and 717 in 1975 —

127 fewer. I would recognize that not all of these fatalities, the

decrease, could be attributed to the lowering of the speed limit, but I

would suggest that a great many of them can.

I think the accident statistics and injuries would point that. out

also, because there were 3,696 more injuries. There were more accidents

and more injuries but fewer fatalities, and I would suggest that that

is because the impact of a car striking another car or another

object...that the fatality rate lowered because there wasn't as severe

an accident because of the lowering of the speed limit.

So I would implore that the minister not listen to the Minister of

Highways in that regard, and if there is some suggestion that the

Minister of Highways is going to raise the speed limits in British

Columbia, I would ask that the Minister of Education at least bring

that up in cabinet and try to have it stopped.

But I would like to hear the minister's views once more of why

individuals should be.... Well, it's just like a fine! You know, it's

like a fine for living in a certain geographic area of the province. I

remember, Mr. Chairman, during the last campaign that those people who

backed Social Credit...there were hotliners doing that, talking about

the rights of the individual. Now for this party to form government and

take this kind of action against the individual when the former

government was trying to make it better for the individual and not fine

that person for living in a geographic area — I just don't know how the

minister can explain that kind of rationale if it is one, indeed.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Oak Bay.

MR. KERSTER: The three stooges!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the member for

Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) withdraw the remark that there are three

stooges on this side of the House.

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: I've been asked to withdraw. I

[ Page 1773 ]

would withdraw the word "three." (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, to withdraw, you have to withdraw without any equivocation whatsoever.

MR. KERSTER: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, if the word

"stooges" was taken personally by any particular member on the opposite

side of the House, I will therefore withdraw totally the word "stooges."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

member's courtesy. I want to get on to education, and there are many

questions that need to be asked. But specifically, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to ask the minister about the proposed 240-bed hospital on

the campus of UBC. This issue, in my view, is not getting the overall

public concern and reaction that it deserves.

First of all, the decision was made in a very arbitrary and

high-handed way by the minister, who gave the university 60 days, a

sentence of 60 days, to come up with a commitment. First of all, that

kind of ministerial approach to an issue with such far-reaching

ramifications, I think, does not do his office any honour or dignity.

The attitude was very much a statement to UBC to "take it or leave

it." Worse than that, there was an added threat that if there was no

answer within 60 days, the medical school for which the added beds were

needed would be given to Victoria.

Now, Mr. Chairman, first of all, that attitude, I think, deserves criticism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I want to make one point very plain. I agree

completely that the medical school at UBC should be expanded. The

difficulty that the sons and daughters of native residents of British

Columbia encounter in trying to get a medical education in their home

province has been difficult, and so the whole thrust of my comments is,

yes, we need a larger medical school; no, we do not necessarily need a

250-acute-bed hospital on the campus of UBC.

In case the minister has forgotten, Mr. Chairman, there were

numerous studies in the last several years in Vancouver which show that

Vancouver doesn't need any acute beds to start with. The need, as I've

said repeatedly, till I'm almost blue in the face, is primarily for

lesser levels of care, and not acute beds.

Secondly, we've had the Premier, and just about every other minister

in the cabinet, remind us of the need for financial restraint, and here

we have a rather dictatorial statement by the Minister of Education:

"Yes, we can make $25 million available for an acute-bed hospital on

UBC campus if you come up with the proposals for it within 60 days."

This is without any kind of even acknowledgement, let alone commitment,

that the teaching facilities to the University of British Columbia, use

a number of hospitals in the downtown area, and elsewhere, which

themselves are very much in need of funding for upgrading and

modernization and expansion,

I might interject that I understand that not too long ago Vancouver

General Hospital itself suggested that it needed a minimum of $50

million to keep up with the kind of services that it was expected to

provide in the teaching of medical students.

So the need for acute beds is very much in question. The

advisability of locating the extending teaching facilities on the

campus leaves the inescapable conclusion that the primary motive is to

look after the needs only of teaching the students, and only of the

teachers in the university campus.

Hospitals, Mr. Chairman, are built for people — patients. However

important the teaching of medical students must be, it's very difficult

to understand how, at a time of such severe financial restraint, we

have the minister making what at least on the surface appeared to be a

unilateral decision, in isolation in his own department, that $25

million worth of money would be allocated towards a hospital on the

campus of UBC, built according to very specific criteria in his

department — and a decision on all that within 60 days as to proceeding

with such a plan.

Beyond the points that I've raised, Mr. Chairman, there is the very

central aspect also of the physical location of such a hospital, some

distance from the population centres which the minister presumably

assumes would use the new hospital.

In other words, I think it's very valid to ask whether the minister

can be confident that the patient load — that's an unfortunate choice

of word — the patient population that he would expect to be used as

teaching material in the new hospital...what kind of likely assumption

is there that these patients would take the trouble to travel from the

highly populated areas in Vancouver and the lower mainland out to the

campus at UBC?

It's one of the most difficult places transit-wise to reach at any

time. And here, at a time when we're talking about the great shortage

of funding for all kinds of social services — hospitals, schools,

highways and so on — the minister almost glibly says: "Well, you can

have $25 million if you build a hospital in this location, under these

circumstances, and if you don't take longer than 60 days to tell me how

you're going to do it."

This came across, Mr. Chairman, as just one more of these

lightning-rod, shotgun decisions for which this minister has become

very well renowned. Just a little bit like the deliberate statement

that "if you can't afford car insurance, sell your car." "If you

[ Page 1774 ]

can't get this hospital decision in 60 days we'll

give the medical school to Victoria." That is an incredible kind of

irresponsible attitude in the spending, first of all, of $24 million

worth of money and, secondly, in an issue that cannot be decided in

such an impromptu or hasty manner.

The minister is to be congratulated for pushing the idea of an

enlargement of medical student training in British Columbia, and I

re-emphasize that and I agree with him entirely. But the manner in

which he appears to be pushing it forward and with the issue which

appears to be contingent on this acceptance of a 240-acute-bed hospital

on the UBC campus is leaving many people, not just the doctors, but

many people wondering whether that's the most appropriate way to go

about spending $25 million, which will be matched by another $25

million from the Federal Health Resources Fund. I understand the

commitment has to be made by 1980 but the actual facilities do not have

to be constructed by 1980.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's wrong.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if that's wrong, let the minister correct

it. But I've made some inquiries and researched the federal

legislation, and the basic thrust of that legislation is that the

commitment for the funds has to be made by 1980.

Anyway, that isn't as important as the question of building a $25

million facility, or whatever precise amount of money will be involved

on that particular site, when in point of fact there could be no

assurance that patients whom the university might wish to utilize as

teaching patients will ever take the trouble to go out to that

particular hospital.

Since we're all being made more and more aware of the need for

efficient transportation systems in urban and metropolitan areas, and

since we already have teaching facilities in two or three other

hospitals that desperately need upgrading, and since the minister and

the Premier, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in

particular, have emphasized the overall shortage of funds for any

social purpose, does this seem the most appropriate route to follow?

Although we want to expand the medical school, should we put this kind

of money into an acute-care hospital in that location?

I would hope that just because the university has responded within

the 60 days and given the minister an answer — and I think it's the

worst kind of coercion that was applied — and the minister, being a

hallowed member of the ivory towers at UBC, must know with what fear

academics tremble when governments put the gun to their head in

relation to expanding facilities on their campus.... It would be very

difficult...and the assistant minister's laughing and obviously

enjoying my comments, whether it's for better or worse.

But it's no mystery to this minister, or to many other people in

this chamber or elsewhere across this province, that your threats to a

university can be of the positive or negative nature: "If you don't do

something we won't give you the money you need, and if you do something

we'll provide you with money to enlarge your empire."

There's a lot of people in this province very concerned that this

abrupt announcement by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was

just another empire-building manoeuvre. And there are many people very

knowledgeable about the real hospital needs in this province who are

very concerned that this university hospital could very well become a

white elephant.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Not in the sense that it wouldn't be used at all

— because obviously it would to a greater or lesser degree — but in all

the overall context of the money available and the total need for beds

in this province. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that when

Vancouver is proven to have enough acute beds for many years to come,

and desperately needs other kinds of beds at other levels of care, and

money is short, this minister glibly says that we'll have $25 million

for an acute-care hospital on the UBC campus. It just adds to the

impression that I'm certainly getting from a lot of the decisions

coming out of this government, in relation to hospitals, that there's

far more politics involved in settling the matter to the advantage of

certain groups than there is to looking after the overall, broad,

general hospital needs of the greatest number of people in the

province, rather than settling it, or laying plans that clearly favour

certain minority groups.

I believe the task force has been set up. I wonder just how much

window-dressing that will prove to be, because there is no doubt, if

anybody wants to be fair in looking at the situation, or even being

fair, that with restriction of the total amount of money available for

hospitals, it's inescapable that if $25 million goes into an acute-care

hospital on the UBC campus, it inevitably restricts capital funding

available for other hospitals equally or more urgently needed in other

communities, and also providing other levels of care.

But I gather that the task force has been set up. I understand the

downtown hospitals are desperately hoping that a certain amount of

money will be guaranteed by the government to ensure that the

construction of that hospital on the UBC campus will not hopelessly

impede or restrict the kind of upgrading and modernization that is

required in the acute hospitals already providing teaching for the

students at UBC.

[ Page 1775 ]

The other element that seems to be almost overlooked by the minister

is that about 85 per cent of the teaching at UBC is done by clinical

staff instructors being paid some small honorarium — $100 a year or

some such figure. I wonder to what degree, if any, the minister took

the trouble to consult that solid core of medical instructors who at

UBC, like many medical schools all across the whole country, contribute

their time and effort not for monetary gain, but because they are truly

dedicated and interested in teaching medical students. At the moment, I

understand, there are about 300 such medical practitioners in Vancouver

who provide about 85 per cent of the teaching to the medical students,

and many of them at the downtown hospitals — not out in the ivory tower

at the UBC campus, but in the downtown hospitals.

I wonder if the minister has read some of the more up-to-date advice

being offered by very well-known medical teachers like Dr. Charles H.

Hollenberg, chairman of the department of medicine of the University of

Toronto. Or can the minister not get his thoughts over the mountains to

find out what's going on in other medical centres? Do we want to repeat

the white elephant situation at McMaster University in Hamilton? There

they developed an on-campus site, and it just isn't being used for

providing the kind of cross-section of experience in medical teaching

that should be an integral part of any medical school — the whole

cross-section of patient needs. But, no,

Dr. Hollenberg, for example, makes the point that since medical care

is de-emphasizing in-hospital management and progressively emphasizing

the amb