1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5179 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman's report on Garibaldi land. Mr. Howard –– 5179

Use of government video facilities. Mr. Levi –– 5179

Mr. Leggatt –– 5179

Ms. Sanford –– 5179

Ms. Brown –– 5179

Mr. Lauk –– 5180

Mr. Nicolson –– 5180

Mr. King –– 5180

Pharmacare claim delay. Ms. Brown –– 5180

Sale of Crown land to Happy Valley Timber. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 5180

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 5181

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5181

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Hall

Mr. Lea

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

Ministerial Statement

Survey of Motorists.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5203

Appendix –– 5203

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in

the gallery today is a group of students from the Ballenas Secondary

School in Parksville, with their teacher Mr. Price. I would ask the

House to make them welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker,

in the precincts today are members of the Fort St. John city council,

who are visiting Victoria for conferences with some of the ministers. I

would like the House to welcome Mayor Brian Palmer, aldermen Ella

Fraser, Dave Bodnar, Wayne Gretzinger, John Herron, Ben Klassen and

Jack Temple, city administrator Roy Blackwood, and the wives of two of

the aldermen, Mrs. Bodnar and Mrs. Gretzinger.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome here today Mr. Pat Wiley, a resident of Williams Lake in the riding of Cariboo.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT ON GARIBALDI LAND

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to address a question to the Attorney-General, in his capacity

both as Attorney-General and as Deputy House Leader, and ask him what

procedures the government contemplates following to ensure that there's

a full examination of special report 1 of the ombudsman relating to the

Garibaldi case and to allow for the necessary corrective action to be

taken, as he suggests.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, copies of the report which Your Honour tabled in the House

last night were made available to the ministries just this morning. It

is being examined, and the appropriate course of action to be taken

will be considered following completion of that examination.

USE OF GOVERNMENT VIDEO FACILITIES

MR. LEVI:

I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Under vote 173 for

1980-81 this House voted funds to be applied to a video studio for the

production of films for staff training purposes; that was clearly

stated. It is now reported that the famous Douglas Heal, also known as

Dougie Glitter, is expending funds purely to improve the image of

Socred politicians at taxpayers' expense. Has the new

comptroller-general approved this expenditure under

section 23 of the

Financial Control Act?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The hon.

member would know that with the variety of very large number of

individual votes which are dealt with it would only be appropriate that

I take that specific question as notice and determine from the

comptroller-general what approval has or has not been given.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to ask the same minister a question along

the same lines. This expenditure of funds by Mr. Doug "Polanski" Heal

is clearly in breach of

section 23 of the Financial Control Act, and may in

fact breach other sections of that act. Has the Minister of Finance decided

to launch an investigation into this expenditure of funds?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would think that having taken as notice the question from the hon.

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would indicate I would make

inquiries. I have given that undertaking to the House today.

MR. LEGGATT: Could the minister confirm that the next taped vignette to come from there will be called "Grace of the D'Urbervilles?"

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister

confirm that the hiring of two Hollywood professionals is in part to

ensure that the Minister of Human Resources does not show up on camera

with frizzy hair?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member refers

to the contracting for the services. I believe, of Mr. Sedawie and

Gayle Sedawie. Could I ask her whether that's what she is referring to?

MS. SANFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the two Hollywood professionals whom the minister mentioned.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think that the member should be made aware that these so-called

Hollywood professionals are Canadian citizens and long-time residents

of Vancouver. Presuming that the opposition members shave every day, as

the government members do, I think we can assume that the contracting

of people of this calibre, if it is in the interests of improving the

quality of training films and government information....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that these persons are highly

qualified, the best in the nation who can be obtained to advise and

train senior staff and anyone interested in improving their ability to

present filmed information.

Now there's been a lot of

discussion about the film production centre in the Health building.

That film production centre has been there for some four or five years,

producing training and other explanatory film not only for the Ministry

of Health but also for a number of other ministries. I think it

behooves all parties to accept the fact that in the interests of

providing a better quality type of communication, and to communicate

effectively. particularly in terms of government information, training

films and explanatory films, we have an objective here to improve both

in the electronic media as well as in the printed media.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question to the same minister. I'm wondering what steps this

highly qualified, very capable new information service team has taken

to prevent the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy'

s) frizzy hair from getting widespread exposure.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, as someone who has spent a number of hundreds of years acquiring my own frizzy hair,

[ Page 5180 ]

I'm

really disappointed that the minister did not respond to that last

question. However I was intrigued by his response that these Hollywood

professionals were going to be dealing primarily with communication. I

would like to ask him what steps these two Hollywood professionals will

take to prevent the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) from going off the deep end.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think you've indicated that we would not be required to answer facetious questions of that nature.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the question wasn't facetious. The answer was just obvious: frontal lobotomy is the only way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Move to the question, please.

MR. LAUK:

He knows I'm only kidding. I have a question to the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Were the positions given to Mr. and Ms. Sedawie,

better known as Norman and Gayle, posted with the Public Service

Commission or were they just advertised in Variety magazine?

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question to the Minister of Labour. It's

reported that Cecil B. DeHeal has signed a contract with ACTRA. Can the

Minister of Labour confirm that the contract entered into with Rich

Little to do imitations of the Premier at interprovincial first

ministers' conferences is in accord with the new B.C. Employment

Standards Act?

MR. KING: My question is to the

Minister of Health. Now that the video studio formerly under the

Ministry of Health has been transferred to a Hollywood set, can the

minister advise the House as to who will be producing the much-needed

staff training films formerly produced by the government for Health

staff?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer, I'm sure, is

quite obvious: those people who have the technical expertise and who

are engaged in producing such films.

MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, from the minister's response, I take it, then, that the

government of the province of British Columbia now feels it is

necessary to hire Hollywood film-makers to do government business not

only to try to drape the Social Credit political corpse with tinsel but

also to get involved in providing mundane educational films for the

Ministry of Health and other ministries, which traditionally have

provided the proper programs for the public in this province. I ask the

minister how he can possibly justify gouging the taxpayers of this

province to come up with the frivolous amount of $14,000 to pay for

imports from Hollywood to try to resuscitate the Social Credit corpse

in this province. It's strictly a political ploy. How do you justify

that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A large number of videotapes

and films have been produced at that centre, many of which have been

referred to as training films, and they've been seen in various parts

of the province and have had wide distribution. They've been produced

by people who have been hired, in some instances by contract, to

produce particular films or videotapes. I can assure the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan, if he's concerned, that I understand there will not

be a disaster film entitled "The NDP Years," so don't worry about it.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I think the taxpayers of this province will make their own

determination regarding the disaster years in British Columbia, given

the opportunity. The polls released yesterday indicated where the

disaster is. My question is: can the minister assure the House that the

facilities normally and formerly operated under the Ministry of Health

will be available for those staff training films, and will not be

pushed aside to try and improve the image of the Premier and his

cabinet colleagues in this province? That's the primary purpose put

forward for hiring these Hollywood people for $14,000 of the taxpayers'

money. I want the minister's assurance that staff training films are

going to receive priority, rather than whether or not the Premier needs

a shave or whether or not the Minister of Human Resources' hair is

properly done to give her the best possible exposure on television. I

say this is a shocking misuse of the taxpayers' money in this province.

MR. LAUK:

We notice that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) isn't here,

Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should ask a question of the Premier. Is the

Minister of Tourism on a tour? When can we expect her to attend to the

service of the House?

PHARMACARE CLAIM DELAY

MS. BROWN:

My question really has to do with the Minister of Human Resources, but

I would imagine she is busy with the Sedawies, so I will ask the

Premier. Many people are expressing frustration in the delay of the

processing of the Pharmacare claims. On March 31, 1981, the Pharmacare

office advised that they were working on claims received on February 1.

On April 14 the office advised that they were now working on claims

received February 1. On April 22 the office advised that they were now

working on claims received the week of February 17. Can the Premier

advise the House as to what measures are being taken to alleviate the

delays in processing Pharmacare claims?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't answer the question on behalf of the minister, so I'll be pleased to take the question as notice.

SALE OF CROWN LAND

TO HAPPY VALLEY TIMBER

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd like to

respond to a question which was raised yesterday by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). He asked a question related to

suggested negotiations on behalf of the Attorney-General's department

with Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the sale of Crown land in Metchosin

on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated. The

question asked whether there were negotiations taking place on behalf

of the Attorney-General's department for this property.

The

answer to the question specifically is that the B.C. Buildings

Corporation is, in fact, not negotiating for the sale of any Crown land

or, in particular, this property. They have expressed an interest in

the property in question. They were informed that only if the property

were to become surplus and

[ Page 5181 ]

therefore available would the property be put up for public tender. There would be no other arrangement entertained.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 35.... Is this the time?

MR. SPEAKER: This is the time for standing order 35.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's the right place, but the wrong face, Mr. Minister.

Under

standing order 35, I wish to move that the assembly adjourn for the

purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance:

namely, the impact of the recently announced provincial mill rate for

school purposes and increased taxation on homeowners.

Yesterday

I raised a similar question under this standing order. I felt that the

Speaker's ruling as to whether or not the motion supported by the

statement was in order dealt with matters that I did not intend to

indicate were substantive.

My intention is to bring this

matter to the House because of: (1) the urgency involved; and (2) its

widespread impact on homeowners. The issue is not the administrative

act of the minister per se, which I know is not the subject matter of a

motion under standing order 35; it is the substantive impact and the

threatened action of school trustees, which, incidentally, only in an

ancillary way have something to do with his administrative act. It is

excluded from standing order 35 on the basis of administrative acts

under statutory provision simply because that has been decided by a

statute and there is nothing that he can do one way or the other.

However, the amount of the levy and its impact and the threatened

action by the trustees is the issue that I wish Mr. Speaker to take

into consideration, and whether or not this is a proper cause to have

the House adjourn to debate this important issue.

The other

point that I wish to make is that there is no information — and I know

the Speaker is not technically entitled to this information — with

respect to when the minister's estimates will come up. If we had an

indication that it was before the end of the month, that would be

another thing.

The last point is that if there could be some

agreement between both sides to have a limited time for this debate,

I'm sure that the opposition would be glad to agree to it. To have an

hour or so when the minister can make his point and this side can make

our point is a very reasonable approach, to me, and the public would be

very well served. If the minister has been misunderstood, I'd like to

hear about it. Certainly the opposition has its role to play in this

debate.

If the debate is resolved in this chamber in some way, school trustees may not take the precipitous action threatened.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the matter raised is similar to the matter raised

yesterday. I might add that I have sympathy for the hon. member's

feeling of urgency in the matter. Undoubtedly he is convinced that it

is an urgent matter and he could so convince the House. This is not

what the Speaker has to decide. The Speaker has to decide whether or

not that order of business which has already been given priority and

precedence by a former action of the House shall be suspended so that

this important matter can be debated.

The opinion of the

Chair was given yesterday. The House spoke, although in an indirect

fashion, in answer to that question when the ruling was put to the

House that an opinion was not subject to appeal. The House, indeed, did

support the position of the Chair. Therefore I rule that the matter is

similar to the one put forward yesterday, and I further rule that the

same decision as yesterday applies today.

MR. LAUK: I

would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you put to the House a request for

unanimous leave that the rules be suspended and that one hour be set

aside to debate this resolution. I have a feeling that the government

side may agree to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is

now asking for a completely different proposition. Under standing order

35 it is first determined whether or not the matter meets the criteria

to be put forward to the House, and leave is asked in that fashion. If

the member wishes to bypass the opinion of the Chair and simply ask for

a suspension of the rules and for the matter to be considered at a

certain hour, leave can certainly be asked. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD:

I ask that the government members who said no stand up and be counted

so that the public will know that they denied this opportunity to

debate the subject. Are you man enough to stand up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a legitimate point of order.

Introduction of Bills

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

8 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.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $160,971.

MR. LEVI:

This morning, in answer to some questions I put to him, the Minister of

Agriculture and Food came up with one answer which perhaps he might

elucidate for me when I sit down. We talked about the cost of food

being imported at $1.18 per dollar, because of the exchange rate, and

the minister replied: "I'm glad that the member brought up the question

of the expanded mandate, because quite often during estimates and other

times I'm addressed as the Minis-

[ Page 5182 ]

ter of Agriculture, when I'm really the Minister of Agriculture and Food." Well, I recognize him as such.

We go on to this. He said:

The member is correct that we have to pay approximately $1.18 Canadian for

imported products because the value of our dollar is approximately 83 cents.

That gives a competitive advantage to the B.C. food product. It means that

the price of that imported product is now...higher than what we charge,

and it gives us the opportunity to compete and displace some of that imported

product.

think that's a very interesting theory, except that 65 percent of the

food we bring in is at the higher rate. We are not producing anywhere

near the amounts.... I suggest the only thing it might tend to do is

give the opportunity for the local grower to increase the price, but it

does not necessarily mean that it makes it competitive with the cost of

the product that's coming in.

The minister might be able to

tell us what information he has about this. Has he done some kind of

study that shows that in some way we've turned a disadvantage to an

advantage?

I raised the general question of food with the

minister. All through his estimates he only started to talk about it

when I raised the question. I'm still convinced, even though he is the

Minister of Agriculture and Food, that he really is still acting as

though he's the Minister of Agriculture. Food is really not a

significant part of his agenda. I would have thought, considering there

is this new dimension to his portfolio, that he would have had

something to say right at the beginning. It's probably the most serious

question the Minister of Agriculture can deal with in terms of the

general consumer. I'm talking about not just the problems of farmers,

but rather the problems of general consumers. I'd like the minister to

tell us what kind of discussions he has with his colleagues in respect

to the new aspect of his portfolio.

I'll give him an

example. It's generally estimated that 12 percent of all the energy

used in Canada is used by the food industry, in terms of both what the

farms do in direct relation to the production of food and what the

retailers are doing. Every time we have an increase in energy, whether

it's B.C. Hydro rates or the cost of gasoline, there is a significant

impact on the cost of food. The minister has a colleague in the

cabinet, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), who twice since he's held that portfolio has been

responsible for allowing the passing on of increases in B.C. Hydro

rates. This, in effect, has an impact on the cost of food. The

projections made by the retail food people back east are that we can

look forward to a horrendous 15 percent increase in food prices in

1981-82.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI. Oh, we have a

xenophobic Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

That's an interesting one. He's made some rather disparaging remark

about the east.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I didn't.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you did. I just heard you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I said: "Back-east statistics."

MR. LEVI: Oh, back-east statistics. My God!

want to suggest this to the minister: if he's going to take this aspect

of his portfolio seriously, there are many things that his colleagues

do as members of cabinet and decisions the cabinet makes that have an

effect on food prices — particularly the energy question; that is an

important one. Every time the cabinet is discussing the advisability of

passing on another Hydro increase, one would expect or hope that the

minister would have some input into that whole question, like: "Wait a

minute, Mr. Minister of Energy; this will be the third increase that

you're asking for, and this does have an effect on the whole question

of energy." That, of course, relates to whether in fact the Minister of

Energy can answer by saying: "Well, we can try some other mechanisms of

conservation so that we don't necessarily have to increase." But that's

part of the portfolio that the minister now has and that he has not

been that concerned about, to my knowledge.

I asked the

minister this morning — and I'd like him to be more specific than he

was, because all he really talked about was the price of imported food

versus what the local growers can charge — what kind of strategy he has

worked out in terms of addressing the problem of people, particularly

young people, who want to go into farming. I noticed from Agri-facts,

which is put out by his ministry, that he says that there were some

20,600 farms in 1979 in British Columbia and in 1980 in a preliminary

estimate there were 20,800, an increase of some 5 percent. Perhaps the

minister can tell us what participation his ministry had in expanding

the number of farms in the province. What programs do they have to make

this 5 percent increase possible, or is this something that is entirely

left to the entrepreneur to do? What percentage of that increase of 200

farms — which is still an estimate — was brought about by the

government enabling young farmers, who have great difficulty in

collecting the desired amount of capital that they need, to go into the

investment? In 1977 there were 19,800 farms, and to 1980 there was an

increase of 1,000 farms,

The question is: how does this

affect the whole business of the production of food? Of course, we may

not necessarily be dealing with farms that are producing food. They may

be in the grain area; they may be in the business of raising hogs or

beef. But because his ministry is becoming involved in the whole area

of food, and he hasn't been very forthcoming in the kind of information

that we need to have from him....

This is an important part

of his portfolio. What have they got in the way of programs? At the

moment we don't have the annual report; we can't look at what they have

in mind, what they've done over the past year. I appreciate that one

year is not a great deal of time, but at least it's the kind of time

that you can make use of in developing this strategy. Two years ago the

minister spoke quite a bit about a food strategy; we've not heard from

him since.

Aside from the questions that he answered this

morning, I would appreciate it if the minister would give us more

information on specifically what his ministry is doing in the

encouragement of the production of food by farmers, to the extent that

he is reducing the imbalance which at the moment is of the order of 60

percent coming in from the outside and 40 percent being home-grown. If

the minister addresses those questions, then we'll get some

appreciation of just how seriously he is taking this new aspect of his

portfolio. I would like to sit down now and see if we can get an answer

from him when he's finished talking to the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem).

[ Page 5183 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a good member.

MR. LEVI:

He's a good member, but I'd be a lot happier if he was sitting over

there, so that I could get the attention of the minister. It's very

difficult to get any attention from the minister; he's only got one

good ear and he's giving it to the member for Dewdney. Ah, there is the

minister looking now. Just to repeat, can the minister tell us...? He's

probably getting the information from him. Do you think that's what's

happening? It's very difficult to talk to that minister without him

listening.

Well, I'll ask once more and then I'll sit down.

Can we get from the minister some specific ideas of what the strategy

is in respect to the food part of his ministry? What have they been

doing for the past year to put into motion those programs that are

going to make it better for the consumer of food in this province in

terms of getting more home-grown foods and not having to rely on the

very expensive imports that in the main come from the United States?

MR. COCKE:

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the minister seems to be caught

dumbfounded. The first

part isn't strange, but the last part of my

statement is. I suggest that the most important thing we have to look

at in the future is just what we're going to do for food in this

province. I was talking yesterday a bit about Delta, Richmond and other

areas that I was quite familiar with when I was quite a bit younger.

Like the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I

go back a relatively long way, to when there was a lot of food being

grown up there. There are other parts of the province which have

provided tremendous amounts of food. We've seen this vertical

integration and major food chains and outfits at all levels going from

the land right to the retail outlets, an opting away from B.C.-grown

foods and an opting instead for what might be more convenient American

sources for them.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The minister in his very facetious way suggests avocados. I'll turn it

around to tomatoes. Tomatoes were in great supply in this province at

one time. I can remember at least five canneries in the Ashcroft

area....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Best potatoes in the world — netted gems.

MR. COCKE: It's too bad that that senior member of the government can't restrain himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-five, that's his I.Q.

MR. COCKE: On a wet day, Give him a little sunshine and he goes up to 63.

Mr.

Chairman, I believe it's a very serious situation that we have been

unable, somehow or other, to contain the erosion of our food industry.

Oh, yes, the minister can say we're now producing 45 or 46 or whatever

percent of our foodstuffs. I have recently gone into some major food

chains and some smaller food outlets looking for British Columbia

canned tomatoes. I defy you to find them. The closest we can find to

here is Ontario.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Aylmer was bought out lock, stock and barrel. The minister is so far behind the times.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've still got a couple of cans in my house.

MR. COCKE: Good. They're old-fashioned cans.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "They're in his air-raid shelter," the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) says. There's no question about that.

Mr.

Chairman, in terms of the product that I'm talking about now, the

Canadian canners we see are in Ontario. For the most part, however, the

canners are across the border.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The member from Peace River is giving some advice. He had better find

some good advice, because, as far as I'm concerned, the kind of advice

we have needed for years.... Don't forget, we have had 34 or 35 years

of this government, with a very brief interval, when there has been no

protection afforded that particular industry. If you want to, you can

go to the interior. You can find some tomatoes that you can pick up at

a food stand. Later in the year you can buy our fresh, home-grown

tomatoes. The canning industry is gone. That is the backup for that

kind of food industry.

Last summer — we all had a very brief

summer, as you recall — I did have an opportunity, when I flew up to

see my spouse in the Okanagan, where she at least had three weeks'

holiday.... I recall going down to Oliver to a major tree-fruit

orchard. I saw boxes and boxes of apples, not consigned back to the

ground like those the minister was talking about this morning where

they were to be ploughed in and used for fertilizer....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, unfortunately the only place that he could send them was to the dump.

They

looked great. They looked better than the apples you see on the trees.

What was wrong with them? Possibly they had a little thumb-nail mark on

them or a small bruise. I'm not talking about windfalls. I'm talking

about slightly damaged fruit. I do know that we use some of that fruit

for juice. I do believe that the government could give a lot more

support to enlarging that enterprise. I don't think that we should see

the colossal waste that we do see. Along with that colossal waste we

are seeing more and more orchardists and farmers going out of business.

There has to be a great deal more thought and concern about the future,

as I've suggested. It's just a matter of time till we're in a position

where we can't import because other jurisdictions will be saying to us:

"A lot of our agricultural land has been eroded and now we only have

enough for ourselves." I think it's very important.

Today

we're paying a mighty fine price for dried apricots. I think we're

paying a fair price for imported canned apricots, yet we used to have a

fairly large apricot industry.

Interjections.

[ Page 5184 ]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm listening to the member for Peace River out of my

left ear. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is quite right.

That rascal has been doing this ever since I stood up. I know that he

needs a lot of help from the new stage managers from Hollywood, but I

hoped that he would go now and get the help while he's still surviving.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At least there's help for me, friends. There's none for you.

MR. COCKE:

There's no hope for a lot of people in this province if we don't get

some government. I don't see that we're getting government now. I

particularly don't see that we're getting government now when important

questions like the questions that were posed by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) went unanswered.

I think

that history should be a teacher, but we find that it is not a teacher.

We continue to make the same mistakes. It's time, I believe, that the

government sides in with the orchardists and farmers and really puts

together a program that will help them survive. Is there anything

wrong, for example, with us either getting some great free enterpriser

to begin again in the canning industry in this province or, failing

that, with supporting a co-op in that same thing? I suggest that it's

very important that those kinds of industries are given the support

they need in order that our agricultural industry may survive.

I'd

like to hear from the minister some of his plans, proposals and some of

the suggestions that they're going to be making, not only to the

agricultural industry but to the food industry in this province.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd like to go back over some of the questions that were raised by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who is not in the chamber right

now. Just to correct his figures, he mentioned 65 percent importation

or product not produced in British Columbia. His arithmetic is wrong.

There's 45 percent produced in British Columbia and 55 percent

basically comes in from outside of British Columbia. We must recognize

that we can't produce all of the product that is consumed in British

Columbia — for no other reason, in some cases, than weather. You can't

produce the sugar, bananas or oranges, etc., so we'll never make 100

percent. But our goal is 65 percent self-sufficiency, and I think the

statistics that I've read out today and on previous occasions indicate

that we are meeting the growth of population in British Columbia and at

the same time slowly increasing our percentage of total product

originating from British Columbia in the marketplace.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

member for New Westminster and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

asked what we were doing in the food sector and what our plans are and

what we have accomplished. I think the member for New Westminster

mentioned "the colossal waste." Well, Mr. Member, I think you're going

to have to do a better identification job than "the colossal waste"

that you mentioned. Then you go on to say that in the Oliver area there

are apples being dumped in the dump. I suggest that I would have to be

given some evidence to prove that statement, because to my knowledge,

Mr. Member, the tree-fruit industry in this province take a waste

product — in many cases they're cull apples — and put them through a

processing plant called Sun-Rype. All apples that don't reach the fresh

market go to the processing sector of the tree-fruit industry and have

done an excellent job in providing good quality apple juice and

processed food in this province.

MR. COCKE: You don't even know what's going on in your own constituency.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I should say that the member for New Westminster is one

of my constituents. He has his little summer home up there and goes up

and visits my riding periodically. If he has evidence that there is a

tremendous amount of wastage and dumping going on, I'm sure I'd

appreciate hearing about it. Maybe I or my ministry can be of

assistance in giving advice to those farmers who run those orchards up

there that they should use the vehicle that they have.

MR. COCKE: You just heard, and you said it's not true.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Name names. I'd appreciate your naming names, Mr. Member.

Let

me give you a rundown beyond the farmgate activity, Mr. Chairman, just

to give the members opposite some idea of the amount of effort that has

gone into the value-added sector of our food production in this

province. Westvale Foods has received assistance through our programs

for further processing. Sun Dew Foods produces natural fruit juices and

also what we affectionately call "fruit leathers," which is a natural

product that has certainly made tremendous inroads in sales, not just

in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada and the world. There

is the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association through our ARDSA

program on their UHT milk. For the benefit of those people who don't

understand what UHT is, it's the ultra-high temperature milk. It's your

milk that has a long shelf life without refrigeration. We've assisted

in that, and that's a big plus in the milk industry in this province.

We've assisted the B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op, J&L Meats, Polar

Meats, the McLean and Fitzpatrick packing house in the Okanagan,

Lawrence Meats up in Dawson Creek, Majuba Foods in the Fraser Valley,

Colonial Farms, the South Okanagan dairy industry cooperative, St.

James Industries, Fraser Valley Frosted Foods and Semiahmoo Bay

Shellfish Ltd.

We've moved into the cottage wineries, and

we've given assistance to Vinitera and Claremont Wines Ltd. in the

Okanagan Valley. There has been a tremendous expansion into a new

sector of our agriculture or food production system in this province.

It creates jobs by taking a raw product — the grapes — from the

Okanagan Valley and turning them into good quality wine. It's a benefit

to the producer, to the wineries and to the tourist industry in the

province, because we're getting identified in the Okanagan in a

somewhat similar manner to the identification in California of the Napa

Valley.

Western Protein Foods, Victoria Farm Meat Services,

Corral Foods, Sun-Rype Products — the one I mentioned earlier where we

gave assistance in putting in new equipment, etc., in that facility to

further process foods — the Fraser Valley Mushroom Growers Co-op,

Rogers Wholesome Foods, Cloverdale Lettuce, Europac Seafoods, Harmony

Seafoods, Okanagan Dried Fruits.... All these are

[ Page

5185 ]

value-added

food industries that have been assisted by my ministry and its programs

to make agriculture a far stronger, more viable industry, which

contributes to the economic well-being of this province and generates

revenue and income for those people involved. It's a tremendous record.

just wanted to take a moment to list a number of them, which I obtained

very quickly so that I could respond to the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, who, of course, isn't here at the present

time, and to the member for New Westminster, who also is not here at

this time. They made their remarks and they left. But for the

edification of the members in the House at the present time, you can

see the activity in the value-added or food-processing sector in this

province which has taken place over the past several years.

MRS. WALLACE:

That was a very interesting list that the minister read from. One would

almost think that it had all happened since he became the Minister of

Agriculture and Food. A lot of those have been going on for a long

time, Mr. Minister, before you ever had Food added to your portfolio.

It seems to me that the Food is certainly in name only. There's very

little difference. The budget makes no provision. There's a little bit

more in marketing, but there's no real emphasis on food. I guess what

that minister is thinking about in terms of food is a little narrower

in its concept than what the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was

talking about or what those of us on this side of the House tend to

think of as being a responsibility for food. It goes just a little

further than that.

There is nothing in the estimates or in

anything the minister has said that would indicate that he and his

ministry are prepared to go any further than a little bit of assistance

to processing, which was done all the time under the Ministry of

Agriculture, and a little more marketing. I'm not knocking it, but it's

certainly not the whole concept of what a Food ministry should be all

about. Food is a basic essential, just as air and water are basic

essentials. When a minister of the Crown is charged with the

responsibility for food, it has connotations of making sure that food

is available to people at a price they can afford, or that their

incomes are such that they can afford a healthful diet. That's the kind

of concept that we on this side of the House have relative to food.

It's certainly not a concept evidenced on that side of the House.

The

last time I was on my feet I indicated that I wanted to talk about

staffing. The minister will recall that I had asked some questions on

the order paper some time ago, which he was good enough to respond to.

He told me that at the time of the freeze on hiring he had certain

vacancies, and he listed them. If you add them all up, there were some

38 vacancies. He said, "At the time of the hiring freeze, I had a total

of 38 vacant positions," and then he lists them.

The second part of my question was: how many vacancies did he have at the time

the freeze was lifted? The answer to that is very interesting: "It should

be noted that the vacancy levels at the time the freeze was lifted are similar,

as Treasury Board agreed to lift the freeze for the ministry very quickly. In

fact, verbal approval was received approximately one week after the imposition

of the freeze." That freeze was lifted, I was told, because the ministry

was in the throes of reorganization and needed to continue to hire people to

fulfill roles established in the reorganized form. We know that was true. There

were a lot of facilities sitting around this province that were vacant or half-vacant

because of regionalization, and there was nobody in those particular spots.

So the freeze was lifted within one week. That was a way back a year or more.

third question relates to how many vacancies the minister had at the

latest available date, which was March 31. He said: "At the present

time the ministry has 38 vacancies." It's exactly the same number

before the freeze and after the freeze. There's no attempt to staff up,

even though the freeze was lifted. It's obvious he told the Minister of

Finance that he wouldn't spend any money. There's some difference in

personnel. It’s interesting to note that a lot of the office-type

positions are filled, yet the positions of technicians, agrologists,

agricultural workers and officers are still vacant.

I asked

a question earlier this session about the Abbotsford lab and the

problem with vets getting selenium testing results. The minister told

us about the backlog of work and the response that had come out through

the efforts of his ministry relative to the selenium situation. I know

there's a backlog there, and I know the reason for it, but he told me

he'd hired a temporary assistant and hoped to clear it up. Yet when I

look at this list I see that vacant at the present time is one

laboratory technician 2 at Abbotsford and one laboratory scientist 3 at

Abbotsford. Then he tells me he's going to try and cure it with

temporary help. It takes time to train a temporary assistant. That

assistant will probably only be there until August and then will have

to go. That training will be lost. He's really not resolving the

problem that's facing the farmers of this province where cattle are

dying and vets are waiting to get returns from samples they send in.

His solution, with vacancies in that lab for a lab technician and a lab

scientist, is to hire a temporary assistant. That, to me, doesn't

represent good faith. It represents good faith to the Minister of

Finance, whom he has told he will not spend money.

MR. HALL: He knuckled under.

MRS. WALLACE: Knuckled under. That's right, Mr. Member from Surrey. He's knuckled under.

While

I'm speaking of the Minister of Finance, there's a question.... The

minister will never know how many times I was just about to ask him

this question in question period when the bell rang. It has to do with

the Bobcat situation, the little farm tractor, and the list that is so

outdated. I know the minister has been working on that, but really that

list needs to be updated. It's a disaster as it is. The member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) has indicated the problems with

that list. It is a real disaster. It needs a minister with a bit of

clout to go to the Minister of Finance and say: "Look, this has to be

changed." The farmers in the province have indicated that they have a

direction they would like to go, and certainly it seems to me that it's

very logical. I have suggested that if the Minister of Finance is

prepared to issue tax exemption numbers to farmers — and he certainly

is prepared to do that — that tax exemption number should be an ample

identification that that equipment is being purchased by a bona fide

farmer.

I just don't think we can be too choosy in how we do

this thing. There is no way you can say you can only make that

exemption apply to articles that can only be used in farming, because

there is really nothing that only applies to a bona fide farm. For

example, in the case of the Bobcat, I gather the reason it has not been

accepted is that it can be used for construction, and it doesn't

qualify in the terms as outlined on the list. A farm tractor can be

used in construction. I know for a fact that at one point in our family

history my husband

[ Page 5186 ]

had

a part-time job working on the construction of a pipeline, and he used

the farm tractor. He rented it out to that construction company.

There's

just no way you're going to resolve that situation by making those

specifics. If you're going to give exemptions to farmers for sales tax

purposes, then don't treat them all as chiselers. Give them the benefit

of being forthright, upcoming citizens, and if they have a sales tax

exemption number, then for goodness' sake let them go in and get that

piece of equipment. On the Bobcat thing it's a disgraceful situation

where we have the tax people going out to the dealers and trying to

collect five years' retroactive tax payments. This is the government

that is supposed to support small industry. They're going out to the

dealers and telling them they have to go and collect that back tax from

farmers that have purchased those pieces of equipment.

It's

simply not good enough, and I hope the minister will take some action

and deal with the Minister of Finance to ensure that that particular

Bobcat situation is corrected. I understand there's a moratorium on the

situation right now, but when that moratorium is lifted I would like to

see the thing cleared up, and also that the list is updated so there

won't be the kind of hassles we've been having with the sales tax

exemption.

Those kinds of programs are necessary as long as

the farmer doesn't have a viable return. What the farmer would really

like is to have a viable return from the marketplace or from farm

income assurance, and then we wouldn't have to bother with all the

bureaucratic costs and controls of these other kinds of programs. But

as long as the farm income assurance is whittled back and cut back so

it isn't a viable return, that's the kind of problem you're going to

run into. It's more costly to the taxpayer and certainly more of a

hazard and a hassle for the farmer.

The interest rebate is

another one. We've had the 8 percent, 9 percent and 2 percent below

prime. Apparently this year it's going to 1 percent below prime. When I

look at the budget, I'm wondering why there's the money in there that

appears to be sufficient to cover 2 percent below. Where could we go

next year? Is it going to be held at 2 percent? Is the minister going

to go back to 2 percent this year or to 1 percent? What's it going to

be next year? Can't he come up with a fixed figure? I think the farmers

are being most generous in accepting the 2 percent. Certainly if I were

still an active farmer involved in farm group activities, I would be

pressuring the government for a fixed rate. How can I plan ahead if I

don't know what my rate of interest is going to be? Farming is a high

capital investment business. Without knowing what my costs are going to

be, I can't plan ahead. I can't set the price to get it out of the

marketplace. I have to take what I can get. To just sit at 2 percent

below prime is not really fair or equitable.

I had a young

broiler grower come to see me in my office here in Victoria. He and his

brother went into business some three or four years ago. They took out

farm financing at 11 percent at that point in time. They're getting the

interest rebate. They got it last year to 9 percent and at 21 percent

below prime this year. Do you know what they're actually paying now,

Mr. Chairman? It's a floating interest rate. They're paying 21 percent.

Those two brothers are going out of business because they simply cannot

meet those capital commitments when the interest rates are running that

wild. I don't think that's an exorbitant interest rate compared to what

rates have been and what they are. They've dropped back a little now.

It was about a week or so ago that he was in to see me. Those kinds of

high interest rates are facing the farm community. They can't get it

out of the marketplace. The minister is not prepared to give it to them

out of farm income assurance or out of the interest rebate program.

It's not just or fair. It's not going to do anything for the

agricultural community.

I asked the minister earlier about

the limits on farm income assurance. Unless I didn't listen carefully

enough, I didn't hear him answer that one. He talked a bit about the

man-and-wife situation. I'm particularly concerned about the limits for

the apple producers this year, because of the terrific discrepancy

between their cost and their return from the marketplace. It means that

if the federal rebate doesn't come through, nearly 100 percent of the

apple growers in the Okanagan Valley are going to have returns coming

to them from farm income assurance in excess of the limits. If the

federal rebate of the 2 cents does come through to the maximum of $750

or whatever it is, that number is going to be about 50 percent of the

growers who are going to be affected by the dollar limits on the apple

farm income assurance program this year. I would like some assurance

from the minister today in this Legislature that he is prepared to

review that dollar limit and make that program more accessible to more

growers there. They simply are not going to be able to meet their

indebtedness if that doesn't happen.

I was concerned about

the minister's lack of response to my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

relative to the swans. In relation to that, he did mention a little bit

about the problems with the wildlife around the province. I'm

concerned, as I'm sure the minister is — I'm sure he's aware that the

Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union are concerned

— about the wildlife damage, particularly in the Kootenays. I'm

wondering what programs, if any, he has underway relative to that

particular problem.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, today in the precincts are 54 people from West Heights

Elementary School in Mission under the leadership of their teachers,

Mr. Rob Plowright, Mr. David Krueger and Shirley Hamilton. They are

very bright and able students. I was very impressed with their manner

and deportment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the

member for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mrs. Wallace'

s) concern about, I

believe, 32 vacant positions, she is undoubtedly aware that there are

approximately 550 employees in my ministry. So 32 employees works out

to about 6 percent. That's the normal turnover. In most cases we

advertise when we have a vacancy, usually within a week. As you well

know, we have to review the applications and interview candidates.

Sometimes we're successful the first time around and sometimes we're

not. I suggest to you that that number of vacancies at any one point in

time is normal in any business operation that has a total staff of 550.

We don't delay or hold back, Madam Member. We want to have those

positions filled as quickly as possible to serve the agricultural

community.

Regarding the Bobcat issue, the list is being reviewed by my ministry and also by the Federation of Agriculture with

[ Page

5187 ]

regard to exemption from sales tax for those pieces

of equipment and machinery that are used exclusively for agricultural

production. Once that review is complete, we will be sitting down and

making our case to the Ministry of Finance. Hopefully we will be able

to get a new list which is more up-to-date and modern, and which gives

relief to the farmer.

Regarding interest rebates, in 1979

the interest reimbursement program was determined to be an ongoing

program of this ministry, in spite of all the efforts by the opposition

to try and confuse the people in the agricultural community by saying

all through the 1979 election campaign and thereafter that we were

going to cut it off and weren't going to continue it. What we said at

that particular time was that we would live up to our commitment of a 9

percent level of interest reimbursement for the year 1979. But because

interest rates moved up very rapidly to 12 percent, 13 percent, 14

percent and 15 percent, the gap between the 9 percent figure and the

average interest paid was becoming substantial. We had to recognize the

credibility of these programs. It isn't just the agricultural community

that will be looking at these programs. There are other sectors of our

economy — in small business, in manufacturing and in commerce — which

would raise the question: "Why does one sector of our economy get

relief of that substantial amount, as opposed to me, as a businessman

or a manufacturer, not getting anything?"

We determined that

we would have to place our interest reimbursement so that the

percentage would float with the prime rate. Instead of doing it in one

fell swoop, we advised the Federation of Agriculture that it would be 2

percent below prime for the year 1980, and then 1 percent thereafter as

an ongoing program. That was all determined in 1979. That, I believe,

will afford a program that has credibility and that can stand the

attacks of the economists and other sectors of the economy who may say:

"Why agriculture? Why not us as well?" So that is the policy. The

program is ongoing and continuing, and the interest rate will be 1

percent below prime. There has been a considerable amount of lobbying

done in the past few months, saying that the Agriculture ministry would

like to maintain it at 2 percent below prime. I'm just saying that the

present policy, Madam Member, is 1 percent below prime, and I think

it's a fairly realistic program that gives relief of a net 3 percent on

average between the interest rate paid by the borrower and the

reimbursement. I can defend that in other sectors of our economy, but

if that gap were to go to 6, 7 or 8 percent, I think we would have a

tremendous draw on our budget and we would have to cut back on other

services that are important, or we could be criticized by other sectors

of the economy. So I think the program is one of the best in the

country, Madam Member, and it is a realistic program.

With

regard to limits on apple producers, the limit is as follows. You have

a $20,000 figure for income assurance for the apple producer. Once he

hits that $20,000 figure, he gets 70 percent coverage from then on up

to a maximum poundage of 1,262,500 pounds. The federal limit is only

750,000 pounds, as the member well knows, so provincially we certainly

have a better program than the federal government has provided for the

tree-fruit industry.

This year we have a bumper crop,

not just in British Columbia but in the rest of Canada and the United

States. At the same time, it is a crop that will be sold in the

marketplace. Granted the price will be less, but when you're capturing

all your fixed costs, the only extra cost really in that bumper crop —

30 percent over last year, I believe — deals with picking; basically

that's all. You'll pay the same taxes on the orchard as you would pay

if you had no crop at all; if that tree has 30 percent more crop on it,

you would do the same amount of irrigating, spraying and pruning in the

spring; you would do all those things, and yet your only costs involved

really are some of the costs plus the major one of picking. So there is

going to be a fair return in the agricultural community this year in

the tree-fruit industry.

Yes, the price per pound is going

to be lower, they do have some difficulty, and we will be meeting our

commitment in paying a contribution to the orchardists in this

province; we are making an interim payment of 2 cents a pound to them.

As the member knows, in January this year I announced that I would

consider that, and those cheques will be going out to the grower within

the next few weeks to help him with his operating costs in 1981 prior

to getting his final payout from the pools for his 1980 crop. So I

think, Madam Member, if you look at the programs.... The agricultural

industry knows that the farm income assurance program is the best

agricultural program to assist farmers anywhere in Canada. It does have

some limitations in some minds, but overall I think the agricultural

community knows that they have ample protection in this province when

they compare it with what is available elsewhere.

The last

item, Mr. Chairman, deals with the member's concern over wildlife. A

question was raised about Creston and the problem there. I can only

tell the member that I agree that there is a problem with the wildlife

in the Kootenay area. I believe the elk are the major problem there.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Environment and

the Ministry of Forests are attempting to work together to see if they

can come up with an answer to this most difficult problem, because

again we're right back to that wildlife agricultural conflict. Because

of the access from the hills, you might say, the wildlife can come down

on the orchard or on the farm and partake of the crops grown there.

This has happened in the past years and will happen for many years to

come. It's not a simple matter of putting up a three-strand fence,

because elk are pretty good jumpers; they can get into a farmer's field

very quickly. So it has to be a cooperative effort by those ministries.

and hopefully we can at least maintain a herd that doesn't too

seriously affect our agricultural community in that area.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has indicated to me that

we on this side have just about come to the end of our general

discussion on the vote of the minister's office. In order to achieve

some tidiness in debate, I want to start discussing ICBC, and therefore

I'm going to switch the subject. That is just so that the House knows

and to make a passing reference to the fact that if the minister wants

to send a note out, if he wants to have the staff in, he should bring

them in, or if he's going to handle the estimate himself....

Almost

a year ago we were last in this position of debating the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. Under the minister's vote has been the

director placed upon the board of that corporation by the cabinet; we

went through a number of issues with him and debated the relationships

of the corporation, the involvement of the minister in close

relationship with other industries related to and supporting the

corporation. We dealt with the current issues of driver training; we

dealt with the sudden departure of the president of the corporation,

Mr. Sherrell, and we dealt with stage one of the five-

[ Page 5188 ]

year

FAIR program, and the announcement that came out just a year ago that

it could cost, for instance, $360 for a $110 accident; my fears of an

increase in hit-and-run, the worry of the minister's own special

investigation unit of ICBC of the massive increases already recorded in

certain areas of the province in hit-and-run, and then my personal

concern over the lowering, the plummeting — I didn't perhaps use that

word then, although I certainly felt it, but I didn't want to add to it

— of staff morale at ICBC. The remarks that I quoted to the minister

were from the corporation's newsletters and the staff newsletters that

were available to those of us who were on the mailing list.

notice the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) coming in and counting the House. It's the first time he's

been in. I don't know whether counting the House is part of a

university training or not. I've known there's not been a quorum here

for quite some time, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It

having been brought to the attention of the committee, I will sound the

division bells to see if there are members in the precincts and begin

taking down the names of members who are present in accordance with our

standing orders.

We've reached the amount that's necessary

for a quorum, and so I will once again ask the hon. second member for

Surrey to continue on vote 10.

MR. HALL: The thought

I was just sharing with the minister, in quiet dialogue almost, was

that the morale of the staff at ICBC last year was indeed in poor

fettle. Certainly events since then have indicated the truth of that

statement. We also discussed at that time the rate-increase predictions

that were being made, and indeed events have also transpired to suggest

that the 10 percent we were talking about a year ago was nowhere near

enough to meet the demands on the corporation's purse. The answers we

were given in debate last year were general and certainly didn't meet

the worries that I tried to convey.

Now we've got a quorum, perhaps we could have silence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That's right and a point well taken, hon. member. Hon. members, it is

nice to see you back in committee, but I wonder if we would not

interrupt the second member for Surrey, who has the floor.

MR. HALL:

I know that the members opposite don't think much of the corporation,

but.... There were a couple of bursts of applause over there that

indicate the truth of that remark. That will go down in Hansard .

The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) obviously doesn't think much of

the corporation. I hope that that gets picked up by the good people who

work for the corporation in his riding.

Mr. Chairman, the

responses we got were not too satisfactory, and I have a couple of

particulars. One was the answers we got from the minister regarding the

cutback in subsidy to the driver-training program. The general attitude

of the minister regarding that was that everything was really okay with

the corporation. Yet in the eight or nine months that have passed since

the debate of the estimates, we've seen the corporation engage in a

wholesale strike and disruption of service. I have sympathy for the

minister, particularly....

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

I do. I mean this absolutely sincerely. I've got sympathy for the

minister. When any minister who is responsible for a Crown corporation

is involved in a disruption of service because of a strike, it's a

terrible position for a minister to be in. I know that, because

negotiations could be going on this afternoon for all I know. Also, the

minister has a responsibility to assist in the running of that

corporation, and has a bad enough job to do without having someone like

me yapping at his heels. I know that. Nevertheless, examination of the

corporation has to continue and questions must be answered.

I'm

going to do my level best, without interfering in any way, particularly

in terms of the packages that may be on both sides of the table, to try

to do the kind of job that I've been sent here to do. I certainly think

that we could start in good faith today by, first of all, saying that

our predictions about the rate increases that were going to be required

for 1981 have come to pass. Indeed, the corporation announced in

November or December of last year the general averages of their

increases, which we all know turned out in almost every particular to

be higher. I never know where these average rates come from, because

the average rates of increase always seem to be higher when the piece

of paper comes to the door. In fact, we've now got the unenviable

record of having the highest rates in the five western most Canadian

provinces. If we take the rates for a 30-year-old married male driver

going to work driving any one of the following cars — a Chevrolet

Impala, Pontiac, Datsun, Oldsmobile, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet pickup or a

Chevrolet pickup (light farm) — with a five year accident-free record,

a $300,000 third-party liability — which could even be $335,000 in

Saskatchewan — with accident benefits, $100 collision deductible and

$50 comprehensive deductible — which would be as a low as $25 in

Manitoba — we find that the Vancouver rates are higher than any of the

other four western provinces. They're higher than Calgary,

Saskatchewan, Winnipeg; indeed, they're higher than Toronto. Those

figures were provided to me by the Saskatchewan people.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, well.

MR. HALL: The minister says: "Oh, well." Are you suggesting they can't tell the truth?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you sure that's accurate?

MR. HALL: They're not accurate — is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I didn't say that.

MR. HALL:

The minister says they're not accurate. I'll send the page over to the

minister if he wants, and at some suitable moment he can say those

aren't accurate.

In the comparison Saskatchewan and Manitoba

still have public order insurance plans. They also have an equalized

rate for the young, single driver, and their rates remain lower for

such young drivers.

The much-vaunted FAIR program and all

the hullabaloo we saw in November of last year still has not produced

the kinds of figures the corporation said it would. The 38 percent hike

looked much more like a 58 percent hike. I'm sure the

[ Page 5189 ]

battle

of newspaper clippings that the minister and I can involve ourselves in

will show that. All sorts of increases were seen. In fact those

increases, along with all the other increases that the government

opposite has seen fit to pass upon the long-suffering resident of

British Columbia in this last six months, are probably a root cause of

some of the results we've seen in both the polls and the fortunes that

have come our way in the last couple of days.

If I may just

skid lightly past that, the annual report indicated that not only were

the estimates wrong, but the $50 million which was supposed to be in

reserve to pay for the costs of the FAIR program this year had gone

down the tube last year. In actual fact the entire $61.6 million rate

stabilization reserve has gone. The corporation was bailed out last

year by the complete utilization of that stabilization reserve fund and

the balance charged against previous figures. In fact, if it hadn't

been for those unearned funds, through having a higher premium than was

necessary two years ago, which had already been allocated by the

president, Mr. Sherrell, when he first announced the FAIR program,

because he know the FAIR program was going to cost money.... He

earmarked $50 million for the 1981 stage, which is the most expensive

stage of the introduction of the FAIR program; unfortunately, there's

no money there from the rate stabilization fund to meet the FAIR

program this year. You're going to have to get it out of current

revenue. So that money's gone. So much for the good husbandry and

prudence the minister likes to talk about. So much for the board that

under a previous minister in 1976 and subsequent years saw fit to

increase the premiums the way they have done.

In November,

when we were faced with a 38 percent increase on the average in

automobile insurance premiums, we were surprised, I think, to see that

our actual increases were more than 38 percent. Then when we saw the

most recent annual report that had seen all of those rate stabilization

moneys used up, I think we were entitled to feel upset and critical

about it. Foremost among those hit first of all were, of course, the

senior citizens. Already stung by the loss of the 25 percent senior

citizen discount. Most of them saw hikes of up to 70 percent. We know

that remedial measures have been taken. We know that in this group of

estimates there is a sum of money to deal with that.

During these estimates two years ago I suggested to the minister that he phase

in the effects of the FAIR program for senior citizens, just as they phased

in the territorial equalization. The minister responded that perhaps that was

a good idea, and he would take it up with the board. He thought perhaps that

could be done. I suggest to him that he never gave it another thought after

he went out through that door; never really thought about phasing in the increase.

In my travels I have found that most senior citizens don't want a free ride;

most senior citizens don't want subsidies. Most senior citizens want to

be treated fairly. Being treated fairly would mean, in my view, to process these

increases over a period of time, and at the same time deal with hardship and

handicap discounts — the whole range of other things — not to do it in the stumble-footed

way it was done, when this minister had his senior executive, Mr. Holmes, face

a barrage of questions from the television personality, Mr. Webster, all one

morning, sticking to his guns, sticking to company policy, sticking to ICBC

laid-down schedules, sticking to the minister's own words, "FAIR is

fair." Then, the very next day, there was the double shuffle by this government,

stripping away whatever credibility poor Mr. Holmes had left following the two-and-a-half-hour

grilling by the television personality, Mr. Webster.

Not

content with that — I must say this — this minister came out of the

press conference flushed with either victory or annoyance — I don't

know which. Then he lambasted the ex-member for Kamloops and took a

gratuitous verbal poke at him by saying: "We never heard from him. We

never had any submissions from the member for Kamloops in cabinet

regarding help for senior citizens." As an observer and a participant

in the political process, all I can say is that I've seen people get

upset with each other, but I've never before seen those kinds of

gratuitous left and right jabs coming out of press conferences. But to

give Mr. Mair his due, he got his own back. As soon as he departed

these hallowed halls for the hotlines, he described the Minister of

Agriculture in agricultural terms. I'm not too sure that I can use

those terms in this House. He described the minister as something that

might be served up on December 25 as an entrée — stuffed.

sometimes wonder why ministers get themselves into that kind of

position when, prior to the event, they've had the benefit of advice

during estimates in the House; but they don't seem to want to listen.

Even now the minister responsible for this huge corporation isn't even

in his seat listening. He'll probably keep on making mistakes. If you

don't listen to the member for Surrey, if you don't listen to the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and if you don't listen to the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), you'll continue to make

mistakes. I've already illustrated some of them.

I said last

year that I was very fearful of what was going to be one of the results

of the FAIR program — the hit and run. That's the loophole people can

run through in this FAIR program, and it's going to increase. I wanted

to know what the minister was doing about it, and he made no response

at all.

In January 1981, six months after I predicted these

massive increases, I told the minister that his own unit was concerned

about it and that they had seen huge percentage increases in some areas

of the province. We got a report that in Vancouver alone hit-and-run

offences had increased by 24 percent. The reason I'm using percentages

again.... I'm coupling them with the Vancouver region, so now we’re

talking about numbers. Sometimes when you talk about a 100 percent

increase in this particular thing, you might be talking about a small

community along the Fraser River while we're not talking about any real

numbers. We might be talking about an increase from 3 percent to 6

percent, which may only be the result of something unfortunate over one

weekend. God knows, that can be unfortunate, especially if you're

involved. Indeed we could be involved in one of these things the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is spending his time looking up —

these phenomenal things of house parties and people getting carried

away with liquor and assembling in one place could lead to something

like that. That could lead to an increase of 100 percent from 3 percent

to 6 percent in one small community. We're talking about Vancouver now.

For instance, these figures here went from 779 to 968, an increase of

24 percent. It’s a very real increase.

Mr. Chairman, what

I'm saying and predicting is that this figure is going to get worse. I

want to know what ICBC is doing about it and what this minister is

doing about it. What message is he taking from this Legislature to the

board?

The other question that I'd like to have the minister deal with is the intriguing mystery of where the 210,000 missing

[ Page 5190 ]

motorists

went to on March 3, 1981. Thirteen percent of all the motor vehicles in

the province were not reregistered, relicensed or reinsured. On

February 28, 1981, the headline said: "The Missing Motorists." If you

can deal in public relations terms and employ people to help you,

surely I'm allowed some poetic licence in my speech, Mr. Minister.

You've got all that help over there to make you look good. Perhaps

you're being disturbed. I don't know. It was a conservative estimate.

Thirteen percent of the motor vehicles of the province were in effect

banished overnight in terms of ICBC. In terms of the money that ICBC

wants, if you take an average premium of $312, you get $65 million that

may not be coming to ICBC. Has the computer at ICBC indicated what's

going on? Has the sophisticated system at ICBC indicated that people,

for instance, aren't relicensing recreational vehicles until it's time

to go on holiday? What is the answer to that mystery — that almost

detective story — about the number of people whose insurance expired on

February 28 coming up 210,000 short?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now

I want to deal with the corporation itself, if I may. As I deal with it

I just want to say how disappointed I am that one of the minister's

colleagues has not seen fit to help him. It's Mr. Heinrich. He looked

at his chair. He knew exactly what I was going to say. As I said to the

minister, "One of your colleagues didn't help you," he looked right at

the Minister of Labour's chair. Now doesn't that tell a story? It shows

you how right we are on this side and how we can indicate exactly not

only what's going on in the minister's mind, but the little battles in

cabinet.

I want to say how really disappointed I am that the

Minister of Labour wouldn't take his own advice and get involved and

assist this poor Minister of Agriculture, who must be really fed up

with having to traipse over to the corner of Georgia and Burrard and

get up those 33 floors or whatever it is and get those same answers

from his hired guns in his labour relations. I'll come to that in a

minute. I think that the minister is going to be supervising or

presiding — if I can use that word — over a corporation that's going to

have an even worse morale problem when this long strike is over. The

sooner the Minister of Labour gets involved in the assistance of the

Minister of Agriculture the better. In my view, he should listen to his

own words and assist.

It was on June 5, 1980, that

bargaining commenced at the corporation. From June 5 to September 10

there were 17 different sets of negotiation meetings on 55 proposals:

26 were agreed to and 13 were withdrawn. Of the 28 corporate proposals,

15 were agreed to and 5 were withdrawn. By September 29, 1980, a 92.5

percent strike vote had been obtained. From October 20 to October 31,

following six meetings with the mediator, two corporation proposals

were agreed to and one corporation proposal was withdrawn. By November

6, 1980, the union commenced strike action with an overtime ban — job

action, as it is commonly called. On December 7, 1980, letters started

to go to the Minister of Labour seeking industrial inquiry commission

assistance to the corporation. Then the next month saw a general

deterioration in the situation until, by December 3, everything had

broken down: night letters were not responded to and letters of reply

from the Minister of Labour did not help. Then we saw, in effect, 2,250

people in the units, 1,350 people in the head office and 950 people in

outside claims, all poised ready to take the kind of action that, as

we've seen, was unfortunately taken.

I don't want to deal

with the merits or whether the officers were good or bad. All I'm

saying is that that's the long history of six months of negotiations.

The latest we've heard about in our own newspapers and from our own

contacts with people in the corporation, both on the management side

and in the union side.... One thing I do want to say before my time is

exhausted on this first round is that one of the reasons that I

honestly feel not only this corporation but many corporations — perhaps

I should say this is a general rule rather than be specific about it,

because I did the same in my own profession as a labour-management

consultant.... I really don't like to see, especially in Crown

corporations, the use of hired people in labour negotiations.

really want to say to the minister with all the sincerity I can command

that I think the corporation has made a mistake. Now he may say:

"What's the mistake, if you have a strike, with an employee heading

labour management and labour relations?" But I do want to say that I

honestly feel there is something about certain negotiations going on

where all of those people involved on both sides have been party to the

negotiations, have been party to the hammering out of the contract and

who have a vested interested in making sure the contract works. It's my

view that people from outside who are brought in do not have that

vested interest. I've seen it in the mining industry, I've seen it in

the Yukon and I've seen it in other provinces. It's my experience that

it's the wrong way to go, particularly in the sensitive area of Crown

corporations. I would like to ask if indeed my information is correct

that the corporation has been using that kind of labour-management

negotiations during the course of the strike. I'll take my seat, as my

time is expired on this first round of questions.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, briefly in response to some of the questions that were

raised, the member mentioned that we have now the highest rates in the

western provinces. He stated some statistics that he got from

Saskatchewan — he went out and solicited them. I can quote him some

statistics now that I didn't go out and solicit or get from a

government that is of the same party as the member. These were

published in the Calgary Herald on January 26, 1981, and dealt with Calgary and Edmonton automobile insurance rates. Let me give you the information:

For

a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice driven to work, 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year,

driver aged 25 to 65, five years accident free, $500,000 third-party

liability, standard accident benefits, collision with $100 deductible,

comprehensive, the rates — and it deals with a number of private

insurers — range from $288 as a low to $415 as a high.

For

ICBC insurance coverage, three years accident free — not five — in

Vancouver the rate is $263. The three-year accident-free rate in

Victoria, because there still is that territorial differential, is

$290. So with those new rates that we've had to bring into place, Mr.

Chairman, I just want the record to show that we're not the lowest, but

we're not the highest. We have said ever since we became government in

1975 that ICBC will pay its own way, that premiums will pay for claims

and that the taxpayer of the province will not subsidize the driving

public, as that party would do if they were in power. Those people who

drive pay premiums, and they pay for the claims that they experience.

The non-driving taxpayer of this province shouldn't have to subsidize

ICBC.

[ Page 5191 ]

Secondly,

as you know, when we took over in 1975, ICBC was faced with a deficit —

not just an operating loss but a deficit — of approximately $181

million. That's a substantial legacy that that previous administration

left for this government to deal with. We did deal with it. ICBC is run

as a corporation. It pays its own way. It's realistic in setting its

rates. It does not have to look to government for a subsidy.

think they have done a reasonably good job. Yes, in 1981 we had to face

an average 38 percent increase in premiums, but we had reserves like

any insurance company has, built up to protect us against a disastrous

year. The loss that was experienced last year was covered by reserves

as opposed to having to have a deficit situation develop in the

corporation.

With regard to statements that Mr. Holmes made

that FAIR is fair, and company policy was that senior citizens could

not get the discount, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) knows

full well that when the Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act

came into being it basically said that all drivers would be treated as

equal. It said that all good drivers would pay a premium and all bad

drivers would pay a premium plus a driver accident premium. That

automatically negated any company policy with regard to the FAIR

program and providing a 25 percent senior citizen discount. It would

have to be a social program instituted by government, no different than

the homeowner grant for seniors that we give to homeowners at the

present time. That legislation was brought into the House, and the

funding for it is in my budget this year. The senior citizens have

maintained their preferred state, you might say, with the 25 percent

discount, but as a government program as opposed to a program or

discount that would be subsidized by other motorists in this province.

With

regard to comments about the 210,000 missing motorists at the end of

February in the editorial

article that the member read, he'd be

interested in knowing that that is the lowest outstanding figure of

non-renewables in the history of ICBC. When he was director of ICBC the

number of missing motorists, if you want to call them that, at the

cutoff at the end of February was substantial. They were ones that

either had not renewed on the exact date or had renewed but the

submissions hadn't been made to the corporation, etc. It's not missing

motorists; it's just that some of those people don't renew prior to

February 28 or some renew on the last day, at the last minute. Those

motorists aren't missing or lost, Mr. Member; they're there. It's

normal to have a reduction in the numbers as of the first day of the

current year with regard to automobiles covered, as opposed to the

total coverage throughout the year. Within a few weeks you'll find

those missing motorists aren't missing. In most cases their documents

are in transit, or they've renewed their insurance after the closing

date.

I'm not sure about the comment that the member made.

He said that I turned and looked to my colleague who wasn't here. He

said Mr. Hyndman, I believe, although he didn't mention the minister's

name; then he went to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). I'm

not sure whether it's Heinrich or Hyndman, but for the record you were

meaning the Minister of Labour, as I understand it.

Yes,

management and labour negotiations are difficult. The member himself

has mentioned that these discussions started in June 1980. The contract

expired in October 1980, so there was good faith on both sides to try

to reach a decision prior to the expiry of the contract in October

1980. They went through the October deadline and proceeded on. Finally

the discussions broke down, and of course Mr. Trotter took the

employees out on strike.

During the last meeting they had —

I believe it was on March 26 — the management negotiating committee

said to Mr. Trotter that they were prepared to put an offer on the

table, but they wanted Mr. Trotter's assurance that at least the

employees would be able to vote on that offer. Mr. Trotter refused for

the members to vote. He denied them that privilege. He made the

determination that he was going to take them out on strike, which he

has done. I think that's unfortunate. I think that there are many ICBC

employees out there who are quite satisfied with the offer that was

effective October 1, 1980, and would like to work but can't because of

the decisions made by one man on the negotiating team. However, I hope

that at some point in time ICBC will get back to the negotiating table

with the management and labour people and come up with an offer that is

acceptable to both sides, so we can get that corporation back to a high

efficiency rate.

One last comment. He asked why I'm not

involved, or why the Minister of Labour is not involved. Well, my only

response to him is that there is a board, senior management, a labour

union, a labour negotiating committee and a management negotiating

committee, and that's where the discussions and debate in the

bargaining system should take place, not with political interference

and the minister responsible stepping in and getting involved in

negotiations. There's one member in this House who knows full well how

that can backfire on you, and that's the member who just sat down, the

second member for Surrey. I can remember in 1975 when he got

politically involved with the employees of Panco Poultry and started to

tell them what was going to happen to them if the Social Credit Party

was elected. He knows what happened, because they threw him out of

office. I just say that the negotiations will take place in the normal

system, and that's between management and labour, not with political

interference.

MR. HALL: I started off my remarks by

saying I was going to be very careful how I dealt with the question of

the strike. I thought I saw some indication from the minister that he

understood and appreciated that. Obviously I was sadly mistaken, and

again it's been my misfortune to take an indication from a Social

Credit cabinet minister that he understood, that he had any sensitivity

whatsoever. For that member to have just suggested that the

continuation of this strike is due to one person shows he knows nothing

at all about labour negotiations, never did and never will do. He's

trying to suggest to this House — and through this House, through the

media, to the public of British Columbia — that there's one person and

one union responsible for the labour disruption at the corporation.

That is a falsehood. I can say no more than that. It shows a complete

lack of understanding about the structure of the trade union and what's

going on at lCBC. That's point one.

Point two. He says he

will not get involved. The point I was making is that the Minister of

Labour of this province called upon the Minister of Labour of Canada to

get involved in a dispute that had not gone on as long as this dispute

has gone on. That's the point I was making. All I was saying to this

member, who appears to understand nothing, was that they'd better take

unto themselves the advice they give others. That's what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if it's good

[ Page 5192 ]

enough

to call upon Gerald Regan to get involved in a dispute then it's good

enough for the member for Kamloops to get involved in a dispute. I

didn't get involved in a labour dispute.

Interjections.

MR. HALL: I beg your pardon. The member for Prince George North, Mr. Heinrich, the Minister of Labour.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

I said Heinrich. You can't hear, that's your problem. If you'd sit in

your own chair you'd do a lot better. You all look alike anyway. Your

eyes are all close together, and you can look down the neck of a bottle

using both eyes. That's how narrow-minded you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get personal.

MR. HALL: You notice that when I say that I smile.

All

I'm doing is indicating some annoyance with a minister of the Crown,

who's a director and board member of a corporation that's presently

involved in a very serious dispute, suggesting it's the work of one

person. Really that is beyond belief.

May I go on to say

that in his answers he is also comparing apples and oranges again. He

says that the number of licences renewed at the end of the month was

the lowest ever. So what am I complaining about? He's comparing

different years. His administration was the one that changed the whole

ball game. They now have a continuing year. It's not just February 28

for renewal. That administration brought in a year that does not have

February 28 as the only renewal deadline. One would expect it to be

less than normal. But the fact of the matter is one would not expect it

to be 210,000 motorists if we have a year of continuing renewals.

you drive around, you see different months on the stickers. Do you

notice that, Mr. Minister? Do you notice when you're tailgating behind

cars that they've got different colours on the back? Do you notice

they've got different months on the back? Do you notice anything, Mr.

Minister?

Let me read the minister a letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Driving schools.

MR. HALL: I'll come to driving schools in a minute.

Let

me read the minister a letter regarding rates. This is from Mr. Rolf W.

Loth, 1056 Naramata Road, Penticton, British Columbia — not a member of

the Surrey constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a New Democrat.

MR. HALL: I don't know if he's a New Democrat. I have no idea. It doesn't say.

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

It's a letter that didn't even come to me. It went to a number of

people. I'll tell you what: it went to you. I wonder if you answered

it. I'll bet you did. I'm still waiting for some copies of answers to

people I've asked you for as well. We'll get to that one of these days.

"Dear Mr. Hewitt:

"I have just compared my 1980 registration insurance statements

with the new 1981 issues and found the following: my 1971 Renault premium increase

over 1980 is 71.3 percent."

much for the 31 percent that the minister claimed in his news release.

The licence fee increased 72 percent. His 1979 diesel Volkswagen Rabbit

premium increased 66.9 percent over 1980. The licence fee increased 70

percent.

He's expecting one of his own constituents to

believe his press release that rates went up 38 percent in 1981. He's

got a letter from his own constituent, who has never had an accident,

never had a claim and takes pride in driving cars that are in good safe

condition, as well as being among the best in conserving fuel.

"The

only explanation I can give for the above increases, " says Mr. Loth to

the Hon. James Hewitt, "is that someone at the top of ICBC must have

gone insane." I don't need to add any further comment.

Going

back to the dispute, the one thing that I am worried about, other than

the worries I've already expressed to the minister, is the determined

attempts by some of the people at ICBC to involve the agents, the body

shops and the towing companies in strike-breaking. There's been

consistent and persistent pressure on body shops and towing operators

to do work that is normally done by members of the corporation. I

consider that to be wrong, I don't think anybody working for a Crown

corporation in a management capacity should indulge in that kind of

behaviour. I would hope that the minister would see to it that it stops.

Turning

now to the corporation specifically, I would like to ask the minister a

couple of corporation questions. Could he tell me if the dial-a-claim

proposal being entertained in New Westminster is going ahead with one

single telephone number and if any moneys have been spent on this

central registry office for the dial-a-claim system? If that is the

case, could he give us some indication how far along that particular

new proposal, which has been tried before, has gone? Secondly, is the

corporation undertaking a centralized bodily injury office where all

bodily injury claims will be dealt with, so that they won't be dealt

with in the field anymore? Those are two questions regarding the actual

operation of the corporation.

I've undertaken to ask you a

specific question regarding the glass medic product from somebody in

Kelowna, Mr. Minister. I wonder if you have knowledge of that product

and a Canadian company using as many Canadian products as possible,

dealing with some rather remarkable results in the windshield-repair

industry, and a voluminous file on not getting very far with the

corporation. If not during estimates then at some later date, could you

come up with some answers as far as the g!ass medic franchise and the

particular holder of the franchise, Klemar Industries Ltd. of Kelowna,

are concerned? They are having a great deal of difficulty getting

recognized as having a product. I made a commitment to that corporation

to raise it with you.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to go

back to what I described last year as being a miscarriage of fairness

and, in a way, of justice. That is the decision by the corporation to

discontinue assisting driver educators in the province. I think we are

now the only province that doesn't have some scheme whereby people are

recognized for helping people to learn to drive, even though it's a

commercial venture.

[ Page 5193 ]

Last

year during the discussion on estimates we were told that the

corporation had made that decision, but there was still lots of time

and there were meetings going on. We were given the understanding that

it was being looked at; not to worry; the minister was looking into it;

perhaps something would turn up. Well, as usual, we waited, and like

David Copperfield we were disappointed that nothing turned up. In fact,

the decision to cancel the incentive grants to students who completed

an approved driver-education course went into effect on January 1,

1981, and that incentive grant to students is no more. It was a very

unpopular decision. I think it was an unwise decision, based on dubious

statistics. The statistics provided by the Canadian Driver Safety

Education Association and by private corporations involved in the field

have never been refuted by ICBC. We must now ask what the effect is

going to be. I would like the minister to tell us why we're the only

province and why we're one of the few insurance companies — since we're

discussing ICBC — that doesn't have that kind of student reward. Time

and time again it can be demonstrated that driver education is an

attractive and effective counter-accident measure.

I've

discussed this with members of the House, and I think I've even

discussed it with you, Mr. Chairman. There are all sorts of measures

taken by our police forces and by the corporation to try to reduce the

toll of traffic accidents and traffic deaths. One of the best ways of

doing this is to have better drivers. One of the best ways to do that

is to learn to drive properly in the first place. I don't understand

why we put any impediment in the way of doing that or why we don't make

some kind of incentive system available, either by having a cash grant

or a reduction in premium or some advantage in a discount. I don't

understand the thinking behind it. In my view, there's no way that

anything can be proven to be more beneficial than good driver

education, particularly since it's been proven in other jurisdictions

that it actually helps. We have a terrible record. We have to start

somewhere.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I notice

there has been a change of Chairmen while I'm in the middle of these

remarks. You, Mr. Chairman, come from an area which had a fantastic

program at one time — I don't know whether the program is still going

on — by which you took some very draconian measures to try to reduce

the carnage on the highway. It was an excellent program. We should be

attempting some of these things. What do we do instead? We see this

bottom-line business for the sake of $500,000. For the sake of one

little cassette showing the Premier or the Attorney-General on

television making a speech, or for the sake of one little 15-minute

film showing the Minister of Agriculture pontificating about turkeys,

we could have an incentive grant for students to learn how to drive

properly. If we did away with Hollywood North, we could have money for

people to learn to drive properly. If we stop shaving the Premier

$20,000 a time to get rid of the 5 o'clock shadow, we'd have good

drivers.

Mr. Chairman, why does the minister contradict such

sources as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the

U.S. Department of Transportation by not recognizing the value of

driver education? If indeed it is the nondiscriminatory nature of FAIR

insurance, then let us return to a more commonsense and popular system

of reward where reward is due. I just don't understand what prompts the

corporation or the minister to do this kind of thing to our young

people. If ever there was a....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Now the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). who's been involved in motor cars all his life one way or another....

Interjection.

MR. HALL:

I'm just saying to the members, Mr. Member for Dewdney, that you have

had all this correspondence yourself, that your caucus has had this

correspondence and you've had visits from the people involved. If you

choose to close your caucus door to people bringing information to you,

that's not my responsibility. My responsibility is to make sure that

young people get an even break.

I represent a riding, Mr.

Chairman, which is the most dangerous place in the world to drive. I

think there are more accidents in Surrey than anywhere else in B.C. One

of the most dangerous places in B.C. is the corner of 104th and King

George Highway, where there are two sets of traffic lights, one to turn

you left or right as the case may be.

In my view we don't

need radar traps on four-lane highways at half past 11 at night; we

need driver education. We need people to be shown the results of their

bad driving. One of the most signal things I remember was taking my own

son — before he drove — to a municipal vehicle wrecker's yard in Surrey

and showing him acres of cars, each one representing an accident. Many

of our young people believe that when they get in the car and get that

satisfying clunk when the door closes, they are safe. You can show them

cars that spring apart, cars that have exploded as though there is a

bomb on the inside. You can show them the carnage, the trouble, the

trial and tribulation and the havoc that is caused. You can get into

all sorts of things, but I don't see any evidence that this negative

thinking on the part of this corporation and this minister by closing

down one program.... All we do is to put stuff on the TV, but there

is no evidence that it works.

During the Attorney-General's

estimates people will be talking about the Batmobile and the number of

occurrences and so on, At the moment, in terms of saving lives, I'm not

too sure we wouldn't better be turning some of those Batmobiles into

ambulances.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I

don't know; I don't have the figures. But I know that we've got to

start somewhere, and that's the wrong way to go — for a paltry $500,000.

Mr.

Chairman, if that's the best the corporation can do, if those are the

best answers the minister can give, if we're seeing this trail of

increased premiums, of "couldn't care less," of "let the private

people back in again" that we've seen from this government since 1976,

it's a sad day for the corporation. I don't like attacking the

corporation: it doesn't give me any pleasure whatsoever, because I was

there when it was born. I had a great pride in that corporation and I

hate to see it badly led, badly administered and going down like this.

As long as I'm in this House I shall stand up and try to protect it

from the stupidity of decisions like that and from a decreasing level

of morale by people who won't pay attention. That's what I have to say

about ICBC on this very sad day, because

[ Page 5194 ]

unfortunately

the presence of that strike makes me very reticent to get into some of

the details I'd like to get into. I'm not going to into a knock-down,

drag-out fight with the minister, intemperate and foolish though he was

in making that statement about Mr. Trotter. I will not be drawn into

that kind of across-the-floor debate. I just regret that he said it; it

shows that one member of the board of directors for sure doesn't know

the first thing about labour relations.

MR. COCKE: I

note that the minister is tremendously interested in this debate on one

of his responsibilities. He spends most of his time talking to one of

his equally well-informed colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I would

like to lead off by suggesting that Goebbels once said that if you tell

a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Whenever that government is

faced with any kind of criticism whatsoever, the first thing they do is

jump up and talk about that fantastic $181 million deficit.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's true. What's wrong with that?

MR. COCKE: They even have the old Whip agreeing that it's true, because he believes it to be true.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to reiterate it once more for the edification of a

person who wasn't even in the House at the time. Almost at the advent

of ICBC — and I happened to be on the board of ICBC — it was

recommended that there be a rate evaluation in terms of the whole

province, and it was suggested that there be a rate equalization

program initiated to help people in Prince George and other areas of

the province where the accident rate was high who, through no fault of

their own, are faced with snow, bad roads, etc. That rate equalization

implemented recently by this new government — not new, but old and

hoary — was originated by us and implemented again by this new

government in an entirely different way. We passed legislation in this

province permitting 10 cents a gallon to be taken from the gas tax.

That bill was passed, it became law and was proclaimed, and there was

$200 million owing to ICBC at the time we lost government. Two years,

$200 million. So if you want to talk about deficits or this or that,

you can suggest there was a surplus of $19 million. It was not needed

by ICBC at the time. There was a cash flow such that ICBC, when given

the one subsidy of $181 million they were given by the Socred

government that took over, immediately turned around and loaned it back

to the government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought you at least understood book-keeping.

MR. COCKE:

There is a member, Mr. Chairman, that knows all about book-keeping. He

used to be a manager of a credit union, and I understand he had a loan

allowance of $2,000. He couldn't allow any more than that without going

to the board of directors, so obviously his math isn't all that great

either. But in any event it's on the record; it's never going to be

believed by those who have told it so often, but in any event that's

the case.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's believed by the auditor-general.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food would

not interrupt the member who's speaking. If the member could refrain

from personal allusions then the committee would be well served and

debate could proceed.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. The minister got up again a short while ago and reiterated

what they said when they took government — that ICBC would never be

subsidized. Well, I wonder what we found when the senior citizens in

this province decided to raise Cain to the extent that even that

counselling service and their nice little brochure that goes out

patting everybody on the head and saying what good fellows the

government are couldn't convince them that they shouldn't be angry. So

what did the government do? They were subsidized, not out of gas tax or

anything related to the automobile, but out of general revenue. Their

rates were brought down 25 percent. I'm not in opposition to that; what

I'm in opposition to is the line we've been fed that we will never

subsidize. Then the minister gets up after having done it — this

subsidization is even in his vote — and he says: "We'll never

subsidize." I don't mind them subsidizing, I don't mind the gas tax, I

don't mind this and I don't mind that, but I do mind them getting up

and trying to kid the troops. That's what bothers me: this facade we

have, this ridiculous government. No wonder they need to go down to

Hollywood to hire people to come up here and try to dress up their

image. Even that won't do.

I suggest to you that it's

scandalous that we have to listen to the suggestions the minister has

made so far in answer to the member for Surrey's (Mr. Hall'

s) legitimate questions. I would like him to get up in this House and

answer the last question the member put again. That is: why did they

end the program of a reduced rate for young people who'd had driving

training? The minister can suggest that statistically it didn't seem to

be warranted. In its practical application I have seen the difference.

We instituted that proposition, and I suggest to you that despite the

fact that we've had high claims rates in this province it would have

been worse had it not been for that driver training program. I have

gone around and checked with driver training schools, and what do they

say? They say that they are down anywhere from 25 to 50 percent in the

number of students they have compared to comparable months a year ago

or before the program ended.

I think that it's absolutely

ridiculous. Our biggest problem is the fact that there are too many

people not driving defensively. When they take that driver training, at

least they have some modicum of knowledge of how to drive defensively.

We're turning out people now who get behind the wheel of a car with

inadequate training. One way or the other, either through making it

attractive or making it almost imperative, we should not send people on

the road driving that lethal weapon called a car without adequate

knowledge of what they're doing.

The minister gets up, does

a little pontificating and sits down. That's what he always does, of

course. He gets up and blames everything on a government that was in

power for three years and four months, five years and some months ago,

in a province where we've had Socred administration since 1952, except

for that three years and four months. I suggest that it's time that

this whole question was rethought.

I notice in the second to

the last paragraph in the report from the board of directors in the

Insurance Corporation's eighth annual report it says: "Construction of

a new headquarters building for the corporation in the Lonsdale Quay

area in North Vancouver is underway and on schedule. The

[ Page 5195 ]

corporation

expects to complete the move in 1982." It's going to be across the

harbour from where they are now. Mr. Chairman, that headquarters would

have been and should have been completed in 1978. Instead of that,

we've been paying high rent in one of the highest-rent buildings in

Vancouver, renting floor after floor for ICBC headquarters. There are

1,200 people working in that headquarters facility, rented at one of

the highest rents paid in Vancouver. This is all because of a stubborn

government who decided that they wouldn't build where it was originally

planned, who tore up the functional program and the original sketch

plans and went back to the drawing-board. It has taken them five years

and five or six months to come to this place. It's a shocking

performance, again indicating a corporation that has not been given

decent leadership at all. I presume they were paying back what they

considered to be political debts, and on the other hand, they admonish

New Westminster for having had the good sense to vote either CCF or NDP

since 1952.

I also would like to put forward a question, and

I notice that the minister has no one with him to assist him. I noticed

when we were dealing with agriculture, he had two of his officials in

the Agriculture ministry with him. I notice now that we're dealing with

ICBC, he has no one. Heaven knows, he needs the help. I'd like to ask

him a question about the policy with respect to insurance for

motorcycles over 750 cubic centimetres. I recognize that there's a

certain feeling with respect to that size of a motorbike, and should

one ever aspire to a Harley-Davidson and so on.... I received a

letter just the other day from one of my constituents who feels it's

absolutely discriminatory. Here's a person with a safe driving record.

By virtue of the fact that he has a large bike he's confronted with

rates of this magnitude. His basic rate is $307; fire, theft and all

perils is an additional $720, giving him a total premium of $1,027.

In his case he is very fortunate in having a safe driving record which

reduces it $334 to $693 plus his licence plate, bringing it up to well

over $700. I asked him if he asked whether or not he could get the

policy without comprehensive — just theft plus the basic. The basic

isn't all that bad at $307 — a mite high. He was told that he could not

get anything except the total comprehensive; that is $720.

suggested to him that there is the possibility of people stealing

bikes, dismantling them and so on, and that's why his theft is so high

and why they insist on having fire. theft and all perils together. Then

it struck me that I have talked to people who have told me that that

sort of thing also goes on in other areas. Corvettes are particularly

attractive to that type of person. Yet when you consider the disparity

and the difference in the value, it strikes me that these people are

getting hit hard. I really agree on the liability side, the basic rate

side, to sock it to them if they're having accidents, creating problems

for others, damaging other people's persons or property, but I don't

really think that we should be socking it to people to the extent that

I see here unless there's a very, very good reason. Maybe the minister

has some answer to that question.

To very quickly review,

we've had the old myth again, we've listened to it with interest, we

wonder how often it's going to be told and whether or not our

grandchildren will still be listening to that Alice in Wonderland story

about the deficit. We've also listened to the fact that ICBC is not

being subsidized and never will be subsidized; yet the minister is

subsidizing it in his own vote. We haven't had an answer on the driver

training — certainly not one that is acceptable in my view. I don't

except an answer on the headquarters. As far as I was concerned, that

was an inexcusable, expensive mistake, but then they've made so many of

them that taxes have had to go up — taxes that they promised not to

increase again — mainly because this government has just burnbled along

and has now gotten to the point where they're dipping even deeper into

the taxpayers' pockets.

My last question is with respect to

those rates. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) went over

comparable rates in other jurisdictions. I would just like to know why

this particular rate is so extremely high.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I'll deal first with the questions of the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke). because he's in the House. Maybe by the time

I'm finished the second member for Surrey will be back.

want to take a minute to give a little accounting lesson to the member

for New Westminster. He may talk all he wants about the fact that the

money was paid to ICBC and the money came back. He may not want to

recognize that the auditors of ICBC identified the loss that was left

as a legacy by that party when they were responsible for ICBC. Let me

just say that at the end of the 1975 insurance year — the last year

that party was in office — the Autoplan fund had accumulated a deficit

of $178.4 million, comprising a $34.2 million deficit in 1974 and

$144.2 million in 1975. That's a deficit from one year and an operating

loss in 1975. The argument that the member puts up is that we have

these premiums and therefore we weren't broke. He knows as well as I do

that when you collect the premiums for the year 1976 — between January

1, 1976, and February 28, 1976 — you are getting premiums into the

corporation to cover losses due to claims for the fiscal year 1976. He

wants you to believe that you can take those premiums that are paid and

apply them to the previous year's losses. Then what happens when you go

through the year? You have your premiums in place and each month there

are claims. Slowly that $400 million or $500 million in premiums

collected is reduced because of ongoing claims. You have no more

revenue coming in. You have none at all because all premiums were due

by February 28.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I can explain that, Mr. Member. That little fellow from Prince Rupert

wouldn't know how to add two and two if somebody gave him four blocks

to push around.

It's as simple as this. He knows it full

well — he's not that ignorant. He knows full well that if you did not

maintain the funds to cover those claims during the 1976 year and apply

it against the loss, by the ninth or tenth month in your fiscal year

1976 you'd be out of money again. Come the end of the year you'd be

right back into not just the deficit carried over again and again, but

the loss incurred because you didn't recognize the cost of claims and

you didn't adjust your premiums accordingly. He knows that, Mr.

Chairman. We've expressed this to that opposition many times. One issue

they can't avoid and they can't deny is the fact that the

auditors for the corporation identified the losses and the deficit

that the auditor-general has. They want to act up and make political

comments. We're not that naive on this side of the House; nor is the

public. They know that they ran that corporation into the ground and

that we had to clean up the mess they left in 1976.

[ Page 5196 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

go on to other matters I think should be dealt with here, I'll respond

to the member for New Westminster, because he's in the House. He makes

a comparison that the senior citizen discount and the funds in my

budget subsidize ICBC. That is absolutely ridiculous. The budget figure

I have in my estimates is approximately $6 million to be paid to ICBC

because they have reduced the billings to senior citizens. I could do

it another way. I could have the senior citizens pay the full amount to

ICBC and then I could send out a cheque to all the senior citizens that

are due that driver's discount. That is not subsidy.

MR. COCKE: Why is that not subsidizing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Because it's not subsidizing.

MR. COCKE: What the hell is it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, bring the member to order.

explain it fully to him, ICBC charges any driver who's a good driver,

regardless of age, the same premium. That's what ICBC does. The

government of the province of British Columbia provides a grant to the

driver who is over age 65. If he can work that into a subsidy from

ICBC, he's sillier than I thought he was.

I must say, Mr.

Member, that I cannot answer your question regarding the 750 cc

motorcycle that you talk about. I will assure you that I will

investigate that and respond to your question. Maybe there's an error

in the billing. I can't answer that. I would appreciate, though, if the

member for New Westminster, instead of leaving the hall, might wish to

send me a copy of the billing that the driver of the motorcycle

received so that I could maybe use it to carry out my investigation. It

would make my job a little easier.

Maybe I can proceed to

some of the questions that were raised by the second member for Surrey,

who raised a number of issues here. He asked the question: "Are we

having a bodily injury claims centre?" The corporation is in the

process of establishing four regional centres. The basic reason for

that approach is that bodily injury adjusters do a substantial amount

of travelling and do not need space in the vehicle claims centres which

are primarily designed for cars. So it's a change in corporate strategy

to provide a more efficient service to the driving public where there

are bodily injuries involved.

The windshield repair

industry. I believe he mentioned Klemar Industries. I'm not familiar

with that firm, but we did do some research by a process that was

provided to us at the Autoplan Autobody Shop where we would use this. I

guess you'd call it liquid glass, and it would be able to repair a

windshield rather than having it replaced because it was stone bruised

or had a small chip. We carried out studies for the past two years, and

the results haven't proved to be satisfactory. In some cases the crack

would continue or there would be a distortion of vision in that

particular area, and if it happened to be right in front of the driver

or in his vision it could cause a problem for him.

With

regard to the driver school assistance grant of $50 per student, I want

to take a moment on that because both members have mentioned that it

should have been continued. I stated in this House in previous debate

that statistics and investigation proved that we weren't getting

results for those dollars spent. When we took a study of the claims we

found that there were an equal number of claims charged against drivers

who had participated in a driver school program and those who had not.

There was no difference or reduction in the number of accidents.

we approached the problem by saying: what is a better alternative so we

spend those dollars where we can get better results? And I'm pleased to

say we've come up with a pretty good approach and a good effort to get

the message out there and educate the driving public of all ages. We

have set up a drivers' safety education department whose terms of

reference are based on educating, guiding and involving the citizens of

the province, especially the young people. We are cooperating with the

Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Attorney-General and the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We now have programs put into

place like the road-users safety program. It deals with young people

between kindergarten and grade 7, and gives them audio-visual aids in

regard to automobiles and safety on the roads. Young people of those

age brackets, of course, ride bicycles, etc. We have a seatbelt program

and we're carrying out education programs on that.

We have

produced films which will be shown on local TV at service clubs and

schools and will be shown to every grade 11 and 12 class in every high

school in the province of British Columbia by the end of 1981. It's

fully financed by ICBC, and when I say fully financed by ICBC