1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3389 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 103). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 3389

Committee of Supply: Department of Transport and

Communications estimates.

On vote 235.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3389

Mr. McGeer — 3389

Mr. Wallace — 3391

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3392

Mr. McGeer — 3394

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3395

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3395

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3396

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3396

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3397

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3398

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3399

Mr. Phillips — 3399

Mrs. Jordan — 3400

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3405

Mrs. Jordan — 3407

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3407

Mr. Curtis — 3408

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3410

Mr. Bennett — 3411

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3412

Mr. Bennett — 3412

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3412

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3413

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3416

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would ask consent to have

motion 11 standing in my name on the order paper withdrawn.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Summary Convictions

Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 103 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. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 235: Minister's office, $100,716

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman,

there were two items I didn't mention in my replies last night. One was the

matter of the cheque which had been issued by mistake. This arose out of an

error made by an agent inputting down the wrong licence number in a cancellation

of a premium, with the result that when that licence number went through the

computer the cheque was issued to the wrong person. Since that happened we are

checking the name as well as the number when it comes out to be sure that there

is this correlation.

Next, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) raised the

case of a man who had 17 points and had never had an accident.

I asked the Member if he had inquired of that man as to why he

received the points. Actually the individual was convicted

October 16, 1971, under

section 236 of the Criminal

Code of Canada, which deals with driving with a blood

alcohol level of over .08 per cent. He was fined $350 and

suspended for one month by the Superintendent of Motor

Vehicles. I have a letter from him dated October 17, 1972, to the inspector of motor vehicles saying

he would never do it again.

However, on July 16, 1973, under

section 234 of the

Criminal Code of Canada — impaired driving — he was

again found guilty and was prohibited by the court from driving

on any highway for one month.

These two offences attracted 10 points each, making a total

of 20 points. Three points have been dropped through the

passing of time, leaving 17 points. Now, you make up your own

mind as to whether or not that individual should have 17 points

and pay a surcharge, or not. In my opinion he should.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman. I want

to ask a few questions and make a few suggestions to the

Minister regarding the ferry system.

But first of all I want to say how pleased we are to see

half of the civil service in here today. They outnumber the

opposition!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Big government!

MR. McGEER: I don't know where Mr. Louden is. We thought we

would have had him so that the civil service advice could be

given the appropriate PR translation before the Minister adds

his own individual flourish to the reply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He's probably in the

galleries.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I don't know if there are any monitors up

there in the galleries today to relay back and forth to the

other offices the information to the Minister and so on.

There are a few things about the ferry system. I don't know

which half dozen of the advisers would be familiar with the

problem there, but certainly we were surprised, Mr. Chairman,

that it was necessary after all the time the government had

been in office to make a move to purchase a foreign ferry.

Quite clearly that's contrary to one of the advantages that we

enjoy in building and operating our own ferry system — namely

the provision of employment in constructing the ferries and the

stimulation of local industry.

I was particularly surprised at this in view of the many

statements the Premier had made when he was in opposition

regarding the desirability of encouraging a merchant marine

fleet for Canada, In the first test of the government there was

an outright failure because of lack of planning. Then, Mr.

Chairman, when it came actually to ordering ferries to be built

in B.C. shipyards, we find that the design contract went to a

Seattle firm under

[ Page 3390 ]

circumstances that were questionable, to say the least.

Now I discover that some of the subcontracts — I'm talking

about engines to the Krupp works and propellers to Sweden — have been arranged for in such a way as again to discriminate

against firms like Hawker-Siddeley-Merley's, who have

operations in Canada and who have given extremely good service

to the ferries in the past, stocked the parts and provided the

technical backup. Now we've gone to Germany, taking more

business away from British Columbia and getting ourselves into

a new sort of venture with the maintenance of these ferries

that may or may not work out well over the next 30 years.

I'd like to ask the Minister these things: Would it have

been possible for the B.C. ferry fleet to plan its own

expansion in an orderly fashion so that it was unnecessary to

buy foreign ferries? The Minister's own statement was that the

growth of the ferry system was constant and predictable over

the years.

Secondly, would it have been possible for the ferry system,

working in conjunction with government and the shipyards, to

develop its own design capabilities so that it was unnecessary

to go on a crash basis to foreign firms for that

engineering'

Thirdly, would it have possible for the ferries to arrange

their contracts for engines, propellers and other maintenance

items with engineering firms that operate in Canada — like

Hawker-Siddeley — and have a record of continuous service in

this country, so that the future will be looked after as well

as the past?

I'd like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister

about how the ferry system might operate a little more

efficiently in this time when line-ups are long and tempers got

short. In my view, the tie-up of the ferry system last summer

at the height of the tourist season was a completely

irresponsible act on the part of the union which negotiates for

those ferries. It gave tourism in British Columbia a black eye.

It wasn't something done against the government; it was

something done against every British Columbian, because there's

a tremendous dependence, particularly on Vancouver Island, for

the success of the tourist season.

The knowledge that the leaders of the ferry union are

inconsiderate enough to jeopardize the livelihood of people

here on Vancouver Island through their arbitrary actions should

surely be a discomforting piece of knowledge for everyone who

depends on the tourist industry in this province. We do have

union leaders who will place their welfare well above that of

the general public. That disappoints me, because it takes away

some of the pride that we enjoy in that ferry fleet.

The Minister said, Mr. Chairman, that even with the ferry system working well

the lineups are going to be long because traffic has exceeded the present capacity.

Perhaps it's time to suggest how to make the equipment work more efficiently.

The airlines operate their craft 24 hours a day. You can't

afford to leave a Boeing 747 sitting on the ground doing

nothing for a third of the time. Perhaps we should think in

terms of operating the ferries, maybe not 24 hours a day, but

20 hours a day in the summertime, so that if people don't want

to wait, they know that they will be able to travel during the

very early morning hours or very late evening hours.

Secondly, the buses take up a tremendous amount of space on

the ferries during the busy summer season. As many as four

buses will travel on each ferry, and by the time you total this

up through a full day's operation, you're really running one

whole ferry trip just for the benefit of buses. Why not — at

least during the summertime when the ferries are crowded — operate the system so that the buses drive to the terminal, the

passengers walk on, the luggage is transported by a little

jitney and the buses pick up the passengers getting off the

ferry on the other side and drive them back to the depot?

This would be a far more efficient use of the bus drivers,

because they would be merely driving from the depot out to the

ferry and back again. There'd lie no wasted time while the bus

driver makes the trip to Vancouver. It would be a more

efficient use of the buses because they wouldn't be deadheading

across on the ferry, and it would certainly make for a great

deal more room on the ferries. In other words, what you would

be doing in all instances is using your equipment much more

effectively — not wasting drivers, not wasting buses, not

wasting space that's at a premium on the ferries.

I know the Minister will discuss the problems of crewing for

the ships. I realize that this is a major problem to the

Minister, but I think the government perhaps might try and

develop a somewhat different policy towards crewing these ships

in the summer. The big time for ferry usage is during the

summer months when there are large numbers of students hunting

for summer jobs. Indeed, now nearly every department of the

government is coming up with funds for special student

incentive programmes. I certainly want to compliment the

government, Mr. Chairman, on that programme. I think it's

absolutely excellent and it's certainly making it possible for

students to work and contribute in the summer, rather than idle

their time away.

What better area, Mr. Chairman, for employment of students

than on the ferries during the summer? The students could

easily run all of the dining room service, could easily run

most of the services on the boats — the kiosks, the cleaning

and so on. Naturally you're going to have to have experienced

crews for the engine room and for the bridge and for

supervision of the students, but by making use of our students

during the summer hours, it should satisfy the crewing problems

and then when the traffic falls

[ Page 3391 ]

off in the winter, the students are going back to school and

you're able to provide permanent jobs for those that would form

the ongoing skeleton crew, With a business that involves tremendous capital costs (as

the ferries do) and is highly seasonal in the nature of its

traffic (as the ferries are), then we must it seems to me, come

up with the kind of flexible devices which allow for the

operation of the ferries and the personnel employed by the

system to expand tremendously during part of the year and then

shrink again when the traffic clears off.

If we get ourselves tangled up in the kinds of union

agreements that make this operation inflexible and, worse than

that, expose the system to jeopardy during periods of high use

in order to extract concessions that will extend into slack

periods, then we're creating nothing but a bureaucratic

monster. I would like to hear the Minister tell us what moves

he might be able to make to reintroduce some of the flexibility

into our ferry system that will eliminate inexcusable

interferences to services to the public and inefficiencies that

dismay those of us who travel on the ferry system on a regular

basis.

Now having made these criticisms about the bureaucratic

system itself, I wouldn't want to leave the impression, Mr.

Chairman, that I personally don't have the greatest admiration

for the ferry crews and the kinds of service they give to the

public in a personal way, for the excellent manner in which the

ships themselves are maintained and run. The crews are

extremely courteous and the ships are clean and obviously

well-managed. I think that a great deal of credit should go to

the workers themselves for the jobs that they are doing. I

certainly have a tremendous admiration for them.

I have less admiration for the system, the management of the

ferries and the direction of the union. That's a separate

question and it's to that aspect that I'm addressing my

remarks. Just let it be said that the people who actually

provide the service deserve our highest compliments.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I thought the Minister would

perhaps respond to these comments about the ferries, but if not

at this point perhaps I'd like to add my comments.

I don't wholly agree with some of the points raised by the

Liberal leader. But I think there's one point that should be

looked at in this House very carefully. I'm sorry the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) isn't here, because she's as

guilty as this Minister of the same kind of insult to this

Legislature.

We sat through the budget debate and we subsequently passed a piece of legislation

allocating money to buy, or to construct, three ferries. And while we were debating

whether it should be $30 million or $35 million or what millions it should be,

this Minister was out the back door dealing with another country to buy another

ferry, built in another country, providing no employment, no jobs, to this province.

Then, when he's challenged in this House, he says:. "Well, it was a crisis situation."

I think that's the most insulting thing that could be said

to the Members of this House, when we know very well that

there's a tremendous demand for passenger transportation across

the waters every summer.

When we are debating in the normal, regular, courteous way

in which this House should function that a certain amount of

money was being approved by this House, and supposedly

considered in a constructive and informed way as to whether or

not $35 million or $32 million or $40 million — or whatever the

figure finished up being — was an adequate amount of money….

Then, lo and behold, two or three weeks later the Minister

stands up in the House and says that he spent another $20

million or $18 million buying another ferry that we didn't hear

anything about in the debate on the budget, or the special fund

or the special allocation.

In the budget the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

mentioned that because this was an extraordinary or an unusual

sum of money it should not be included in the normal estimates

of the Department of Transport and Communications. And this was

a separate allocation of money for this purpose.

I just don't think that this House was told the whole story

any more that it was told the whole story by the Minister of

Education. And I'm sick and tired of sitting in this House

through a budget debate and being told what moneys are supposed

to be needed, what moneys are going to be spent. We debated for

day after day…. In fact, we argue about the length of the

debate. And the whole thing's a farce, because a week or two or

three weeks later the Minister of Education gives the

universities another $5 million, which they much need; and then

the school boards get another S20-odd million.

We debate ferry budgets and the money needed to provide the

ferry system. Then a week or two later another $20 million has

to be spent, for a crisis situation which anyone could

foresee.

I just think that's it's about time that Ministers realize

that we on this side of the House are entitled to a little more

respect than that, when we have to discuss very large sums of

taxpayers' money.

As far as the ferry system itself is concerned, I think that

it is time we did recognize that it is an extension of the

Trans-Canada Highway.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Tell the federal government

that.

MR. WALLACE: You tell the federal government! You're in

office. I'm here to tell you what you should

[ Page 3392 ]

be doing. That's the function of opposition: to point out

what in our belief you're failing to do as government in the

leadership of this province.

I am saying that the function of the ferry system is so

vital to the Island that we are not making our voices heard

loudly enough or clearly enough that, in fact, it is an

extension of the Trans-Canada Highway.

However important tourism is to this province — and indeed it

is — I still feel that it is absolutely shameful that the

residents of Vancouver Island, who simply have to do business

on the mainland through the summer months, have to be subjected

to the long waits and the waste of time and the sheer

exhaustion which is involved in trying to go on a business trip

to Vancouver during the summer months.

I know that this issue has been raised before, and the

attitude of this government is that there shall be no

preference shown to Vancouver Island residents. I just want to

make it very plain that I don't think that that's fair. I think

it's about time that particular policy position was

reviewed.

There are many people on this Island — and it doesn't really

matter to them whether it's June, July, December or November — that have to travel back and forth on the ferries. The fact is

that certainly we have to meet our responsibilities to tourists

in the summer months — I agree with that. I realize that we

have to expand the actual carrying capacity of the fleet. I am

not disputing that at all. Mind you, I'm disputing the way in

which some of the expansion has been carried out.

But as far as a greater respect and sense of responsibility

to the people who live on Vancouver Island is concerned, I

think that that should be a very high priority in the future

planning of the policy of this government in relation to ferry

service.

Another point which relates in the same way but not quite to

so many people is the whole question of trying to provide

better service for the handicapped who travel, on the ferries.

I had some notes…and I think that the tremendous

disadvantage to people travelling who are handicapped has not

been taken into account. If you consider people in wheelchairs

travelling by bus on the ferry, these people are literally

trapped in the bus once they're on the ferry. I don't know of

any particular consideration or facilities which are to be

available to these people in the case of any kind of an

emergency.

The cars are jammed so close together that when handicapped

people get on the ferry, they have great difficulty getting out

of their car. Particularly, again if the person is in a

wheelchair, once they get in a bus or the car and they're on

the ferry deck — the hold of the ferry — it is very difficult

for them to get out.

One of the other points that has been brought to my attention is that the catwalks

are only 16 to 20 inches across, which again is not enough for a wheelchair.

And usually an adult wheelchair measures 24 inches or more.

The whole question of the spring-loaded doors on the

washrooms is just another one of these rather simple things but

a very important obstacle to a handicapped person. The size of

the cubicles, of course, also can be a very real

difficulty.

While I'm not suggesting that you can perhaps change what

already exits on the old ferries, I'd just like to ask a very

simple question on the planning of the two new ferries: could

the Minister tell us, for example, of some of these very basic

points in relation to handicapped travelers and wheelchair

patients and some of these points that I've tried to outline as

being deficient in the existing ferries? Can we be assured that

some consideration will be shown for the handicapped traveler

in the designing of the new ferries?

The only other point I would like to mention at this time is

that I would like the Minister to respond particularly on the

ferry system. Maybe I should keep my comments on automobile

insurance until later.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) asked about provision of facilities for the

handicapped in the design of the new ferries. I can assure him

that we have had correspondence and meetings with the society

that represents these people.

Every consideration will be given to the revision of

facilities in the new ferries to meet their needs.

But I think the Members should know that even in the

existing situation, there is no need for any handicapped person

to have any problem of any kind, It's a standing rule that when

they get to the wicket if they notify the individual there,

they'll be pre-loaded before anyone else is loaded and the car

will be placed in a position close to the elevator. They will

be assisted so they just have to get out of their car and get

into the elevator so they don't get trapped. That's all they

have to do, and that's a standing rule.

You may recollect a letter which I sent to you last October

about pre-loading. You may recollect that was included — that

handicapped people would be pre-loaded. So we're doing the very

best we can in that situation right now.

MR. WALLACE: That should be publicized to let the public

know.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

You raised the point of preference for Vancouver Island

residents because they have to get off the Island. Let me tell

you, I've given this serious consideration, Now what happens

when the Vancouver Island resident is on the mainland and wants

to get back when there are mainland residents who have to get

to the capital of the province? Do the mainland residents then

get preference coming

[ Page 3393 ]

this way?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I would think so.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You would think so. Well, you see how

involved it becomes when you start to differentiate between who

is who in the Province of British Columbia. I take the

attitude, after serious consideration, that we're all taxpayers

in this province and we have equal access to the facilities

that the taxpayers have provided. There are people who must

come to Vancouver Island, just as there are people from

Vancouver Island who must go to the mainland. It's a very

difficult situation. I know that won't satisfy everyone. But

after serious consideration, that's the attitude I take.

With regard to the ferries as part of the Highways

department:, and not making our voices heard in Ottawa

regarding the ferry system, well, I do wish that the Ministers

involved in Ottawa were of the same opinion as you. I was at

the meetings with Mr. Marchand, and just two weeks ago met with

Mr. Stanbury, the Minister of Revenue. We definitely raised the

whole matter of the ferries — assistance for the ferries, the

failure of the federal government to accept its responsibility

and make the same contribution to the ferry system of British

Columbia that they make to ferry systems in Ontario, Quebec and

eastern Canada. I took with me a stack of documents that high

substantiating the position that British Columbia has taken.

Now this is an ongoing fight — the previous administration had

exactly the same difference of opinion.

MR. WALLACE: What excuse did they give, Bob? What did they

say?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's an unbelievable situation. They say

that it's a profit-making operation, you see, therefore they

can't provide any subsidy. Now, if it was a free ferry system,

then they wouldn't tax us. They even make us pay federal sales

tax on bunker oil and all the supplies for the ferries and the

terminals. This is what we are seeing Stanbury about. He said

it was a free ferry system, and he wouldn't pay the tax. Now

you can imagine what would happen if it was a free ferry

system. Every citizen in the province would have the right to

go down and drive his car aboard on a Sunday afternoon, take a

two-hour cruise and go back. The whole system would break down.

That's why we must have a charge.

At one time A examined the possibility of removing all charges because it is

part of the highway system, but you must have a charge as a deterrent, otherwise

everybody would just go for a Sunday drive and take a cruise at the same time.

The whole thing would just collapse because of the number of people. We're having

a little trouble getting through to them now on both issues. But Mr. Marchand,

the present Minister of Transportation…. I think and I hope that the next

federal Minister of Transport is as understanding as he has been, because I

think we're on the way to getting a recognition from him that there must be

help to British Columbia in maintaining an adequate ferry system. But I can

assure you our voice is being heard.

Your comments about Bill 7, which went through the House,

and the $35 million capital — you said it was an insult to the

Legislature, That $35 million is what we're going to require

this year. The ferry hadn't been purchased at that time. We

were looking for a ferry, certainly, but we didn't know that

the ferry would be available. Why go through the whole process

of debating, discussing, when we didn't even know whether we

could find one?

MR. WALLACE: You knew you needed one.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, we knew we needed one. Oh, sure.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it has to be a boat that meets

certain specifications. There were other ships available that

we wouldn't have touched with a 10-foot pole. But that was the

reason it wasn't raised, because we didn't have it at the time.

Once we had it, as quickly as possible I announced it in the

House before I announced it anywhere else.

But there's no doubt about it, we'll be back next year

asking you for more capital to continue with the ferry

development programme.

MR. WALLACE: That's all we're asking; just tell us.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I told you. I told you before I told the

press or anyone else, as soon as it was available. Look, if we

came to this House, and there's a bill here that something may

happen, are we going to debate every "maybe" or "if" in the

House.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, that's a pretty weak answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, no. That's a reasonable answer,

and a reasonable man would accept that answer.

MR. WALLACE: You knew you were going to get a ship; you knew

you were going to be spending another $20 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We did not know.

MR. WALLACE: You did….

[ Page 3394 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Had that ship not been available, there would have

been no ship because there was no other ship available. Recognize that as a

fact. Don't get off on your high horse a you were the only person with any rectitude

in this House.

MR. WALLACE: It's you that's on your high horse because your answers

are so weak, that's why.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. It's not my answer that's weak, it's the

receptivity of the individual. How do you like that? Come on now, display your

knowledge.

MR. WALLACE: I don't understand all these big words; just stick to the

facts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Come on, come on.

Anyway, that was the reason for that. There was no sense to reporting it because

it hadn't happened. It might not have happened.

MR. WALLACE: Use another $40 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

was surprise it was necessary to purchase a foreign ferry. I explained that,

and he said "lack of planning." He may recollect that the first thing we had

to do was examine the planning that had been done when we came into office.

He will recollect that two of his colleagues, in our very first session, were

insisting that the planning that had been done be re-examined or reversed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't shout.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not shouting, I just want to be sure you hear

me. If you want me to shout, then I'll start shouting.

MR. WALLACE: Don't get him started, for goodness sakes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Come on, quiet your remarks and let's get to work.

That was the first thing we had to do, and two of your Liberal colleagues were

demanding that the existing plans be re-examined and reversed. We did re-examine

them and we did change some of the decisions. Then we had to proceed from there

to the planning of what would happen. That's the reason we arrived at the situation,

and it took that length of time — this lead time for the concept and everything

else.

You raised the issue of Hawker-Siddeley. Now I have listened to demands and

questions, from that Liberal group especially, about tenders. Did you call tenders?

Did you call tenders? Did you call tenders Why didn't you call tenders? And

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has harassed us or asked us: did

you call tenders? Then we called tenders and accepted the lowest tender, they

said, "why did you accept the lowest tender?"

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You can tell us. It's a legitimate question, and requires

an answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In this case Hawker-Siddeley are not being driven

out of the province. They supply the engines for a substantial number of existing

ferries. There will be a place, a continuing place for Hawker-Siddeley in the

Province of British Columbia.

If the Member is suggesting that we should not have allowed the propulsion

unit to be part of the call for tender, then let him say so; say that he wants

us to abandon the tender system and say, just tender for the hull, but we will

buy a specific form of engine. If that's what he's suggesting, then let him

say so.

Interjection

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Selective tender. If he wants a selective tendering

system, let him say so. But we asked for tenders on the completed ship. The

report came to us from the shipyard with a tender on the completed ship, including

the engines. The specifications were written and we accepted the tender as it

was supplied to us by the shipyard.

I couldn't see any other way of doing it. There were nine separate submissions

on the propulsion unit, from nine different companies. It was a fairly substantial

order. I forget, it probably runs to $8 or $9 million. And the eight who didn't

get it are all upset because they didn't get it. They're all giving all kinds

of reasons — they want to introduce with the one or that one or somebody else

to try and get it reversed. But these are the recommendations and the tenders

as the came from the shipyard. And that is the way it should be when a tender

is called for and presented.

MR. McGEER: You didn't answer my question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes I have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Read the question as asked.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was your question?

MR. McGEER: You don't even know what the question was about — continuing

service and content.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, Hawker-Siddeley

[ Page 3395 ]

will have their place, and B.C. content.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Canadian service….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How much B.C. content is there in the

Hawker-Siddeley…?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In servicing.

MR. McGEER: At least they maintain service here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, yes, they maintain service. And I

say that that business will still be here for the existing

Hawker-Siddeley interests.

MR. McGEER: Was that part of the tender? That's my

point.

What is the amount you expect to be made for service? The

contract to turn the ferry over to you…. If there's no

service, you're stuck….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. Well, I'm assured that the

service will be available, and that's the way it should be.

Anyway, we called for tenders and we accepted the tender. If we

had gone some special route and given some special preference,

you can imagine what would have been said in this House.

So let's accept the fact that we did the fair, square, to

p-of-the-t able thing to accept the recommendation without any

fooling around.

MR. McGEER: I'd have said "Good for you." That's what I

would have said.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can imagine. "Good for you." It

wouldn't be very good for me.

Airlines operate their craft 24 hours a day and you say

that perhaps we should operate ours 20 hours a day. Well, as a

matter of fact, on route 2 — and you have to remember that it

takes X number of hours to make a return trip on each side of

the run and you have to return to your home port, and that has

to be worked out — as a matter of fact, route No. 2, the summer

schedule, does use that ferry 18 1/2 hours.

MR. McGEER: What's route 2?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's Nanaimo to Horseshoe Bay. That

ferry actually operates 18 1/2…. No, it's more than 18 1/2

hours; it's almost 21 hours.

MR. McGEER: What about Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it doesn't operate that long because

you have a shorter shift, you see. They have a choice of either

extending the ship length…. And let me tell you that the crews are

not anxious to go on those 10-hour shifts or 12-hour shifts.

MR. McGEER: Let summer students do it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But then with summer students — I was

going to come to that — you're faced with the lifeboat

requirements and the lifeboat certificate requirements. You're

faced with that question.

MR. McGEER: What are crash courses for? (Laughter)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You try and get the DOT to accept crash

courses. You can only get your lifeboat certificate by having

spent a number of hours actually on a vessel on the water

operating. That's the only way the DOT you grant a lifeboat

certificate. That's one of the problems we face. But we do

utilize students as travel counselors, and some of them do go

to work in the dining rooms and so on. We do our best to use as

many as we can of the summer students.

Buses — you suggest that the buses unload their passengers

and the passengers walk aboard. We have an arrangement that has

been fairly operative. There is the problem of older people.

The other Member was mentioning older people. The question of

older people walking aboard….

MR. McGEER: Get a jitney to drive them with the baggage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, we'll take a look at that. We'll

take a look at that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask

a few questions of the Minister about the pricing policy for

ICBC. In the Minister's statement regarding motorcycles he made

a number of statements about costs of servicing and costs of

accidents and he sent out a form letter, of which I have a copy

here, to people who have written in on the motorcycle premium

question.

In it he says: "Accidents involving motorcycles carry an

extremely high risk," et cetera, et cetera. He talks of

accidents: "…loss ratio averages and accident benefits

ranging from 230 per cent to 292 per cent." That was in the

years '70 to '72.

I don't know how he arrived at those figures because he

keeps on telling us that the private companies didn't give him

any information. Yet those were the years of private motorcycle

insurance. However, he goes on to say: "Under our system of

[ Page 3396 ]

trying to provide insurance at cost, any favour shown to one

group would have to be paid by another.

That is a direct quote from the Minister's letter.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Candidly, I think it's not a bad quote.

My personal belief is that you're right. You should have in

your ICBC system each group paying the cost of the insurance

that they have. In other words, the loss ratio average on

accident benefits, to use the technical term that you've got in

this letter, should be closely connected with the premium

involved. I think you're right in stating that that should be

the case.

In this letter, Mr. Minister, you go on to say: "It is our

intention to provide insurance at cost." He says: "There have

been anomalies in the past but it will take a year or two to

overcome them and provide fair insurance to everyone at the

cost and claims attributable currently to each group." Those

again are direct quotes from your letter.

My question to you is this, and I've asked you this question

before, once in the House after the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Lea) challenged this approach that you've put forward in

the letter. My question to you is this: are you seriously going

to abide by your written words as sent out to many thousands of

British Columbians of providing insurance at cost — related to

the group that the people are in; related to the area that they

are in; related to the type of vehicle they drive, be it

automobile, motorcycle or whatever type of automobile or truck — or are you going to depart from that?

You've stated that it's your intention. You've stated that

this is a firm thing of policy, and you've put it in writing

and you signed your name to thousands of these letters. But we

still have doubts because of the statements of the Minister of

Highways, among others. I'd like you, Mr. Minister, if you

could — just before I go on to other points I'd like to mention

later in this debate — simply to get up and state what is the

policy. Unless we have some clear policy guidelines, confusion

obviously is going to be fairly substantial in this area. I

wonder whether you could reply.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you mention the motorcycle pricing

policy for ICBC. I think I indicated earlier, as you said, that

we had arrived at our figures largely on data supplied by the

private industry. The figures I'm using in that particular

letter, as I recollect it — I'd have to check this…. But as

I recollect it, they were the figures supplied to me by the

motorcycle dealers association when they were meeting with me.

That's my recollection of where those particular figures came

from — the motorcycle dealers association themselves.

You asked about costs attributable to each group. You ask if

I'm seriously going to provide insurance to each group

territory and so on….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As stated by you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it's certainly my ideal expectation

that we should provide insurance on the basis of the experience

of each group.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has stated that he stands by

his letter, but he's stated it in a very brief and not exactly

convincing way. Are we going to get pricing? Are you really

working towards it or are you saying to me now: "Well, that was

a letter dealing with motorcycles." If your colleague, the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), succeeds in muscling a

little more in the cabinet, is there going to be a change of

policy? Or, indeed, if the Premier decides that he's going to

give back or unveil this tremendous plan to save motorists the

cost of that extra 8.8 cents a gallon, are we going to have a

cut in insurance rates and thus have the whole principle of

relating costs to benefits and to risk tossed out the

window?

I don't know, where we're concerned, because when we ask

questions of the government — and I asked you this question in

the House not so long ago — we don't get clear answers. We have

the Minister of Highways making contradictory statements — also, incidentally, making statements that he thinks the

Minister of Transport and Communications' job should be merged

with Highways.

Nevertheless we have these statements being made. We have

the Premier indicating that there will be some other way of

assisting the motorists. The most logical one from indications

are that this will be by way of subsidies to ICBC insurance

rates. We have the Premier again quoted in mid-January — January 18 of the Sun newspaper, page 17 — challenging the

opposition leaders with respect to insurance.

He said there: "Let me warn every young driver under the age

of 25 who has received a significant reduction that if indeed

this is the case" — in other words, private insurance comes

back — "their rates will go back to the old punitive system."

He goes on to say: "I challenge the leader of the Liberal

Party," et cetera, et cetera. He said: "If the private

companies are allowed to compete, they will cream the best part

of the business and dump the bad risks on the government

scheme, forcing it to increase the rate for younger

drivers."

Well, I just find that a totally contradictory statement to

the Minister's letter as sent out and to the Ministerial

statements from this Minister. It's a curious thing, Mr.

Chairman: here I'm entirely on the side of the Minister of

Transport and Communications. This is not antagonistic

[ Page 3397 ]

questioning. I'm questioning him to try and find out whether

he is able to protect a worthwhile and, I think, correct

principle.

The principle of going into the automobile insurance

industry we question, but once you're in it I think you should

base your rates on costs and on risks depending on

category.

The Minister, I think, has correctly stated that and put it

in writing and has been fair enough on it. But what I fear is

that he's got the Minister of Highways, who does not believe in

that principle, according to reports of his public statements

and we've got the Premier of the province, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), saying that the insurance rates are

not being linked to risk and loss ratio averages on accident

benefits.

He states flatly that the people who are bad risks are being

subsidized at the present time by the good drivers. He says

that's the best part of the business — dump the bad risks on the

government scheme, forcing it to increase the rates for young

drivers who, presumably in this instance, would be the ones who

are bad risks.

Now, I'm asking you these questions in all seriousness

because the principle of a government scheme charging correctly

for the services it provides is an important principle and the

Minister of Transportation and Communications has correctly

identified himself with that principle. However, we have the

Premier, and we have the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

and we have others identifying themselves with a totally

contradictory principle which is, I think, unfortunate.

So my question to the Minister, my second intervention in

this debate, my second set of questions for the Minister comes

up because I didn't think he really did identify himself very

well or definitely with his previous statement and with his

letters which he sent out.

I think, indeed, that it indicated that his policy is pretty

soon going to go down the drain.

I'm frightened about that because I think the last thing we

want to see in B.C. Is the tens and the hundreds of millions of

dollars involved in insurance being simply used to aid one

group against another and this being used, as was suggested by

the Premier on January 18 during an election campaign, being

used strictly to buy votes in one area or another at the

expense of good drivers in other categories.

So I just hope the Minister will get up and indicate to us

whether he's got firm cabinet backing for the statements that

he made himself, for the policy which he is totally identified

with, and which I think is the correct one — I appreciate the

fact that he's identified with it — which is that loss ratio

averages on active benefits should be in a close relationship

with the person or people involved in the category of

insurance.

Now, I would like him to make a categorical statement in

this regard. Whether or not he is winning the battle, or

whether we are soon to see this policy down the drain and the

entire insurance premium question going into the type of

political arena that has been indicated by the Premier during

the North Vancouver-Capilano by-election campaign.

I think that public insurance, as you know, Mr. Minister,

should be competing with private. I'm not against public

insurance, your insurance scheme, providing there is

competition and scope for private companies to compete. But the

only basis that there can be fair competition is, of course,

when the categories are properly defined and when you have

insurance related to cost and you do not have subsidies based

on the government's monopolistic position.

Now I fear that you are losing your battle and that the

policy with which you are identified is going down the

spout.

I would just like you to speak once more on this, because if

you are holding your own, and if you are succeeding in winning

this battle, well, more power to you. You'll get applause from

this part of the opposition. But if you are not, I think people

should know it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In his wind-up remarks the Leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) talked about public insurance

should be competitive with private.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Public should compete with private.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Or private competing with public.

Well, in a recent issue of a trade magazine called The

Canadian Underwriter , in an

article by one of the

professionals, the president of the Canadian Indemnity Company,

in which he examines the situation in the insurance market

today, he talks about the captive companies where huge blocks

of businesses are disappearing into these captive companies,

private companies in today's market. Then he finishes up by

saying, he talks about the price wars that are going on right

now, and he says that his company will not be participating but

they'll be watching from the sidelines, because there is a

crazy price-cutting situation going on now in the private

insurance field.

But he says "you are going to see a lot of the huge U.S.

companies with substantial reductions in their surpluses, and

this is going to make them hurt and make us happier because

perhaps we are not then going to be confronted with stupid

competition that gets us all nowhere except further and further

down the drain."

The president of the Canadian Indemnity

[ Page 3398 ]

Company — this stupid competition that gets them further and

further down the drain. They don't want competition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's not relevant to the point I am

making.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not relevant? You just said public should

be competing with private, and they say stupid competition that

gets them further and further down the drain. Incidentally,

there's an

article by Judge Hamilton here too that I'll quote

to you at some appropriate time.

You talked about the rate service and what I said in that

letter. I want to tell you right now that the rating structure

that has been in the past in British Columbia has not been on a

rational basis that is acceptable to me, nor acceptable to this

government. Because it was the kind of jungle in which the

private industry operated that actually had no relation to the

individual. And if you watched me on the Jack Wasserman

"Hourglass" about six months ago, I said…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I never saw it. I never watch it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …the ideal and the ideal towards which

we must work and towards which I'm going to work is so that no

matter where an individual lives in the Province of British

Columbia, if he's driving the same car, with the same driving

record, he pays the same price. That's the objective and that's

the only fair objective of any insurance corporation. That's

the only way you can be fair — when you rate according to the

individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've made your point.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So if he drives the same car, with the

same driving record, he should pay the same rate.

MR. BENNETT: In all areas of the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Absolutely. I said that months and months

ago, last year, that that was the idea. That's the ideal. That

is rating the individual according to his accident record. And

that's the way. Certainly, I know, that can't happen overnight,

but that certainly has to be the objective of any rational

insurance system.

Their rational system took territories, for instance. If you were living in

the middle of a community in the Fraser Valley, in this territory you paid so

much. In the same town on the other side of the territory you pay so much more.

That's rational? That's rational rating? Not on your life, it isn't. Driving

in the same town, but the line was drawn right down the middle of that community.

Now that kind of thing is nonsense, and that's the sort of

thing that has to be put an end to, and as I say, as far as I

am concerned we work towards a rational rating system for the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's replies were

interesting. He talked about the stupid competition of certain

U.S. companies, probably in the States. But fair enough, price

wars may be stupid. No one argues the point with him. He again

raises the straw man that he attacks, and has to read out

another article, find new people, but that's not the question

raised in the House.

He may well be correct, that there can be changes in

territories and there can be changes in categories to make it

more rational. Who would object to that? Nobody in this House.

Once again it is a phony issue.

But the people in Victoria, in my constituency, who may well

have a clean driving record, exactly the same clean driving

record as a person in Vancouver driving the same car,

nevertheless have less risk of accidents. I'm interested to

hear that our rates are going to have to go up to subsidize

greater risk areas such as Vancouver.

This is not the case of a line down the centre of a

community, it's a case, as you know, of the Gulf of Georgia

between us, and for reasons which are unknown to me and unknown

perhaps to the Minister as well, the driving, the accident

records are different.

Now the person who has never had an accident presumably they

can be assured from your statement that they are never going to

have to pay a premium, because after all if they don't have any

accidents there's no risk, on what you said. Now that's

obviously wrong because people, even though they have clean

driving records, have chances of having accidents and that's

what the whole question of automobile insurance is all

about.

But I'm interested that you have departed totally from the

concept of regional adjustments for drivers and categories

based upon the different risk factors…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We did that last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …in different parts of the province,

because by so doing you're going to substantially alter — in

some areas decrease, in other areas increase — insurance rates,

and that's the type of thing we'd like to get clearly defined

in this debate.

I believe I come from an area where insurance rates are

lower than in many other parts of the province for people who

drive the same car and have an identical driving record. They

are lower, perhaps

[ Page 3399 ]

because we have fewer bridges than you do in Vancouver,

perhaps because there are fewer people driving on the roads,

perhaps because the age of the drivers is different.

I don't know precisely what the reasons are, but the

accident record is different in different sectors of the

province. The Minister, who comes from the middle of the

Island, knows as well as I do that there is a difference

between accident rates up there and accident rates south of the

Malahat.

What I'm really asking the Minister to say, and I guess I've

got my answer, is whether or not we are still going to enjoy

the advantage — if you would like to call it that — of having

our insurance rates in our area linked to our risks in our

area. According to the Minister's latest statement I take it

that we are not, that we can expect substantial increases in

insurance in areas of the province where risks up to now have

been lower because of geographic considerations and perhaps

weather considerations and that in future we will be paying

more.

I don't like it because I feel that one should, as far as

possible, pay for the true risk that one has to bear. I think

that is the fair way of having insurance. To wipe it out on the

basis simply of the same car and the same driver in different

regions is obviously not basing it on true risk, which also has

to take into account not only vehicle, not only driver, not

only age group and record, but also weather conditions in the

general area of vehicle operation, risks in that area and past

accident experience.

I personally believe that the statement that you have made

is contradictory to the letter you sent out and the quotes that

I have put forward. I fear that the Premier's remark back in

January indicated that we are not only going to have equal and

fair insurance rates across the province but we are going to

have substantial subsidies paid by many drivers — probably half — in this province to assist the other half, whether they be

younger, whether they live elsewhere, or whatever.

Coming from an area where accident rates are not as great as

in some other parts of the province, I don't think it is fair

that our people should pay for other risks of other people in

an unfair manner.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, what I

indicated to the Member was that I felt the same individual or

any individual driving records should be able…. What you're

suggesting is — and I told you this is our ideal — that a man

in Vancouver who has been driving a car for 40 years without

ever a claim on any insurance of any kind, without ever having

been in an accident, should pay more than the man in Victoria

perhaps who has been driving for 10 years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what you're saying. Or even for 40

years. You're saying that the man in Vancouver should pay more

than the man in Victoria. I say that is a wrong ideal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now you're changing it around. Stick to

the same driver with the same car.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, the same car with the same

driving record.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. And a different risk

level.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no. Just a minute. That man, in both

cases, has an absolutely clean licence and has never been in an

accident of any kind. You're saying that in Vancouver he should

pay more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Because his risks are higher there.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But he hasn't had an accident.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: His risks are not necessarily related to

his driving record.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay. That's the area and that's the idea

under which the driver companies have operated. I say the ideal

must be to treat a person the same in one part of the province

as in another. That must be the ideal. That must be the

objective.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I was very interested

indeed to hear the remarks of the parochial Member for Victoria

speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. That's the reason they

will never be government in this province. That's the reason

why they've never been government. It's because they've got

tunnel vision, Mr. Chairman! They speak for the elitists in

the urban riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. But I want to tell

you that this opposition speaks for all of the motorists in

this province.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put forth just a few little

arguments for a postage-stamp rate which the Minister is

talking about. We should have a postage stamp rate for

insurance in this province — absolutely. I want to tell you that

it is the policy of this opposition to have a postage stamp

rate in this province. Too long, too long….

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Twenty years

too long!

MR. PHILLIPS: For too long have the people who developed the

hinterland, who developed the north

[ Page 3400 ]

land, who developed the riches of this province so that the

people in Vancouver and Victoria could live off the fat land — for too long these motorists and these people have been ripped

off! It is now 1974 and we now have a government-run

insurance.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Higher risks for the

Union Club!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, it may well

be true that there is a greater percentage of insurance paid

out in the northern part of the province and in the northern

part of Vancouver. I would like, just for a moment, to explore

some of the reasons why.

First, in those areas people have to predominantly drive

heavier and larger vehicles. They have to drive heavier and

larger and more costly vehicles because of (1) the terrain,

(2) the road conditions, and (3) the number of miles and the length

of distance they have to drive heavier vehicles, if the roads

aren't as good as they are in the lower mainland, and if they

have to drive further, there is naturally going to be a higher

risk of having an accident.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, when I'm talking about road

conditions, I don't know how far the Member for Victoria has

driven on an icy road or in a snow storm. But that becomes part

of your everyday life if you live in the northern part of the

province. I'll tell you in the spring of the year the best

drivers in all of Canada live in the northern part of the

province because they are used to not being able to stop, they

are used to icy conditions, they are used to driving in snow

storms — and that is a higher risk factor.

Should these people who live in that area be penalized?

MR. ROLSTON: No!

MR. PHILLIPS: No, they certainly should not. That's why we

should have a postage-stamp rate for insurance in this province

where the same vehicle and the same driving record has the same

insurance rate, whether he lives in Fort Nelson, Powell River,

Port Alberni or anywhere outside of this area.

MR. ROLSTON: Right on!

MR. PHILLIPS: These people live there and, as I say, they

put up with a lot of conditions that the Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) has never seen or heard tell of and

probably wouldn't believe if he did see it.

I'm not sure, but it may be, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from the insurance

industry we had recently stated, that insurance rates had to be higher in the

northern part of the province because of cost of repairing automobiles was higher.

Well, your labour rate is basically the same. It certainly costs more to operate

a body shop — particularly in the north — because you have ice and mud and snow

and you also have heating conditions in the winter. So there are these costs.

But if you are paying the same labour rate then why should the costs be any

higher? It may have something to do with transportation of the parts into that

area that increases the cost, but I don't think that is passed on, mainly because

unless it is an emergency the freight is prepaid on parts anywhere in Canada.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, we have now a government-operated

scheme and I see no reason why we shouldn't have postage stamp

rates the same as we have in hydro. I could bring up the same

argument that the Member for Victoria brought up — that we

should have lower hydro up there in the Peace River area

because we produce hydro up there and it is costly to bring

hydro here to Victoria. Therefore should I stand up here and be

parochial and say that the good people in Victoria should pay

20 or 30 per cent more for their hydro than we do in the north

where we are within 60 miles of where the greatest hydro

project of all of the free world is? No, I'm not going to be

parochial like that.

Mr. Chairman, I saw large ads in the Vancouver

Province and The Vancouver Sun saying: "This is

your company." All right, if this is my company, I'm telling

the manager now — I'm having a directors' meeting — to

inaugurate postage-stamp rates so that those great people in

the northern part of this province are not going to be ripped

off by having to pay excessive insurance rates to drive their

vehicles, which they are compelled to drive to open up the

great northern part of this province for the benefit of all of

the citizens down here in the lower mainland so they can live

off the fat of the land from the resources and the work of

those great pioneering people in the great north country!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I just couldn't resist

joining this part of the debate where the Minister has so

eloquently declared his intentions to be fair to everyone, to

be fair in all his dealings with government, in all his dealing

with the constituencies and, of course, in all his dealing with

ICBC. I'm sure that his sentiments are reflected in the

attitude of all the Members of this government.

There are a number of things I'd like to discuss in detail

regarding his multiple-faceted portfolio and responsibilities

but I'll save those to later in the debate as a lot of them

reflect directly the concerns of the people in our

constituency, the constituency I represent.

Although I will bring up one point, Mr. Minister, because it

needs your attention right away, through you, Mr. Chairman. I

have been endeavouring to get ICBC's public love office in

Vancouver, and the lines

[ Page 3401 ]

are so busy you can't get through. But in Vernon there is a

man who had, to all intents and purposes, what we believe is

sugar put in his gas tank. Naturally, he took his car to the

service station, they examined it and felt this was the case.

He called in an ICBC adjuster who went over very kindly and

very promptly, he looked at the car and he stood on one foot

then he stood on the other foot, then he looked at the car

again, then he stood on one foot then stood on the other foot.

And Mr. Minister, he said, "Well, perhaps you should examine

the situation and we'll have a look at it." So with this good

faith expressed from ICBC, and the adjuster standing on one

foot then the other foot — by this time he was on one cheek

then the other cheek in his office — the service station

dismantled what was necessary in the car to examine what had

happened. This was a reasonably costly procedure. They said,

yes, they felt that there had been sugar put in the gas tank,

or some similar substance.

So they called the adjuster, and he was then on one cheek

and then the other cheek, and he said, "Well, I don't know, I

think what we better do is have this analyzed for proof." So

eventually we called in the regional representative from ICBC

from Kelowna, who's then going to give permission to have this

analyzed so ICBC can decide whether or not this man is entitled

to ICBC coverage.

Now, I don't condemn ICBC for taking a realistic, a proper

attitude in any of its adjusting procedures. What I object to,

Mr. Minister, is that this has been going on for nearly a

month. During this time, this gentleman has been without a car,

so the service station has had a car in its limited facilities

for this period of time. They've put considerable work in

dismantling the necessary parts to examine the situation, which

ICBC suggested they do, without any commitment of payment. The

man is without his car; he's got plenty of headaches, and we're

now to the point, nearly a month later, where we now are going

to have it all officially analyzed on a chemical basis.

This is just one instance, Mr. Minister, that I'm right on

today. As I say, I can't get through to your office, perhaps

you will get through. I'll be glad to give you the names after,

I don't want to mention them on the floor of the House.

But this sort of thing is going on in many areas, we've had a number in ours.

If you've got people in the field, give them the authority to act, give them

the authority to make a decision. But I fear this is not going to be done and

this is just a forerunner of what happens in government businesses all over

the world, where inefficiencies, stumbling blocks, red tape and bureaucracy

all are the output of a beautifully designed picture. And the one guy who suffers

is the little guy. In this instance, a man who's without his car — he needs

his car — and a little service station which I hope sends you a ruddy great

bill — and that was "ruddy" for the benefit of Hansard — for the rental space

that this car's occupied.

To come back to the previous debate, in terms of fairness, I

have another instance that I would like to bring to the

Minister's attention. I'll have to give you a little background

material because it does involve the Minister's approach to

fairness, and the government's approach to fairness.

Just before going into it, I would like to again plead

before this Minister, as I did under another department's

estimates. When you're talking about fairness for all the

people, in terms of rates, in British Columbia…. that's

certainly a strong Social Credit policy, it has been in the

past; as were one of the first in North America to ever

introduce postage stamp rates for power. We've done it; we've

proved our intentions, Mr. Minister. Why don't you do it and

prove your good intentions and your willingness to act rather

than to talk?

What about the position of ICBC within itself in British

Columbia? Is that fair? Your words ring a little hollow, Mr.

Minister, when you stand up in this House and talk about

fairness and equality for everyone, and the record of the

government so far is preferential treatment in the timber

industry, squeezing out the big-game guides. Your own Member

for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) got up and pleaded for a non-oppressive

government competition in this business.

In your business, the estimates that we're debating at this

moment, Mr. Minister, you've created a corporation in a sledge

hammer way. You've put individual people out of business. You

undertook business practices at the corporate level which, if

they had been done by any other company in British Columbia,

you would have been the first to stand on your feet and

condemn. And if it done now by any other corporation in British

Columbia, this government would be the first to condemn. But

what about the consumer, Mr. Chairman? Why does the public not

have the same protection from ICBC, a government corporation,

that the consumer has the right to expect from other business

enterprises in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What was the question?

MRS. JORDAN: The question is: why doesn't the public, the

consumer in British Columbia have the right to expect the same

degree of public disclosure, honest business practices, open

marketplace, integrity in the marketplace, and the same right

of access to the courts, should they be offended, and the same

rights under any consumer legislation in British Columbia in

dealing with ICBC as they expect from any other enterprise that

is not affiliated with government in British Columbia?

In other words, will you see that ICBC complies

[ Page 3402 ]

with all consumer protection legislation in British

Columbia, all disclosure regulations, and all regulations that

effect f air practices in the marketplace and responsible

business action.

Mr. Minister, you were somewhat instrumental in the

development, in an indirect way, of an advertising company in

British Columbia, which I'd like to refer to. This Minister in

himself has been a strong champion of fairness, both in

opposition and here. We now find a situation in British

Columbia where the government is deeply involved and this

Minister's department is involved. To give you some background,

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be best if I relate to the House

the problem in it entirely, it's not a long one, as related to

me by an individual whose word I have no reason to doubt.

It involves the area of Comox, and it involves a number of

publications — more largely the Comox District Free

Press and another publication, The Comox Valley

Star , both of which this Minister advertises in. It's in

relation to this advertising that I wish to relate this story

and also ask the Minister's position.

The background is that in May of last year, this company,

which is basically the Comox District Free Press , became

involved in a dispute between the International Typographical

Union and 13 of their own employees. The company found itself

caught in the middle, the company that this Minister deals with

in his advertising.

The dispute basically arose out of the employees applying

for decertification and the union subsequently expelling these

workers and demanding that the company fire all 13 and replace

them with ITU members.

During this dispute, the company asked that the matter be

put though proper grievance channels, and if not resolved, then

go to arbitration. This request Mr. Minister, at this time,

there was considerable work disruption and some near violence

in the plant that I'm referring to. But near the end of May,

1973, the employees, through their solicitor, obtained a

supreme court injunction against the union and the company,

which prevents either from causing these employees to be

discharged — either the union, the ITU or the company.

The court trial, Mr. Chairman, is still pending in regard to

this matter. But from that time on, this company, Comox Free

Press , has been picketed by the ITU as having locked out

the employees.

Mr. Chairman, I think you'll see this is important to the

advertisements that are being placed by this Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just caution the Hon. Member that if

it's a matter before the courts, I would remind her of the rule….

MRS. JORDAN: No, I'm not going into the dispute at all in

that matter. I appreciate your caution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would also ask the Hon. Member to relate her

remarks to the Minister's responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. Well the Minister has been advertising in

these areas and this is where the whole question comes in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The mere fact that the

Minister's advertising in the paper doesn't bring it under his

jurisdiction. I would just ask the Hon. Member to relate this

matter to his direct responsibility:

MRS. JORDAN: I would assume, Mr. Chairman — and I seek your

guidance in this — that any involvement of ICBC spending money

which is under this Minister's jurisdiction would relate to his

salary vote and that any policy that's practised by ICBC would

be a matter which this Minister would wish to enlighten the

House about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The only way in which the

matter would be relevant would be if the dispute in some way

affected was the result of the Minister's involvement.

MRS. JORDAN: I really don't want to dwell on the dispute,

Mr. Chairman, except the one point that has been made. I'll try

and continue, Mr. Chairman.

In November, 1973, a new

publication, the Comox Valley Star , appeared on our

district. It was funded by the ITU and I have the minutes of

the ITU meeting here which verify this. This meeting took place

on September 29, 1973, at the Steelworkers' Hall at 33 East

Broadway, Vancouver. It was at 3:45 p.m. and there were 42

members in attendance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

think the Member must relate this very, very quickly to my….

MRS. JORDAN: Your department was involved in strike breaking

and you are the Minister responsible for it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't have any meetings with ICU in

Comox!

MRS. JORDAN: Your government was involved in advertising to

a disproportionate degree into a paper that was strike

breaking!

[ Page

3403 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, come on!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, you won't even listen so

obviously I've hit the nail on the head and you want this

covered up! Why don't you listen to the story? Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: She goes on for half an hour about

something that has nothing whatever to do with this vote!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! On the point of order, when a point of

order is made by an Hon. Member then it's the responsibility of

the Chair to deal with the point of order immediately and no

other Member may interrupt. Now, the point of order is well

taken in the respect that it is important that any Hon. Member

raising a matter which does not appear prima facie to be

relevant to a matter should establish the relevance fairly

quickly in a reasonable way. I would ask the Hon. Member to

proceed but to establish the relevance to the Minister's

responsibility as quickly as possible.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

ruling.

Mr. Chairman, the point is that the Minister is advertising

in a paper that was financed during a strike by union funds — $12,000 cash — through a Mr. Harry Harris, who was a staunch

NDP member and runner-up as the party's candidate in the last

election. From the outset this publication, which is being

financed by ITU funds, voted on by 42 members including the

executive, and which was brought to light during a legitimate

procedure between union and management in the courts, is being

heavily subsidized by this government through advertising,

including this Minister's vote and under his, I presume,

jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, this paper has done very, very poorly in

competition within the Comox District Free Press

circulation area from local advertising. It would not survive,

according to these people, without these government subsidies.

I bring to your attention the disparity and I would ask the

Minister, in relation to this, what his priority and his

criteria are for placing advertising. Is it the circulation of

the paper? Is it the subscription of the paper? Is it the

umbilical cord of the paper that goes to this party and this

government, this department and Dunsky Advertising? Is this the

pipeline with indirect and direct taxpayers' funds into that

constituency that you hope to save that radical Member

with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: My, the duckies are quacking now. The duckies

are quacking now! We're really getting onto the sore toes,

aren't we?

On Wednesday, April 24, 1974, in The Parksville-Qualicum

Beach Progresss : a half page of department advertising of

Education, page 3; a half a page Education, page 9; a half

page Labour, page 8; and some ICBC ads running intervening. But

the Comox District Free Press on Wednesday, April 24,

which has a circulation of 50 pages, had only half a page of

Royal Commission on Family Law; half a page of Department of

Education; half a page of Department of Education — two half

pages of Department of Education in one day. But the Comox

Valley Star , which is the paper in question, which

really puts this government in a position of strike breaking

and developing an umbilical cord into a constituency by all

appearances and by this man's suggestion, and which is a much

smaller paper, has a quarter page Royal Commission on Family

Law; half a page Department of Labour; half a page of

Department of Education. It's got more government advertising

per circulation than any other paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're bonkers! You're really

bonkers!

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that's a better term than what they're

calling you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Order, please! I would just point out to

the Hon. Member that you must confine your remarks to the

strict responsibility of this Minister when you're dealing with

this vote and not involve other departments.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is concerning

these people is that a Minister who himself came from the

labour ranks, the working ranks, who stood up in this House as

late as 10 minutes ago and talked about fairness, talked about

equality and talked about responsible use of government funds

and called me a…what did you call me?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bonkers.

MRS. JORDAN: Bonkers. Well he sets himself up as a pillar of

the corporate image, a pillar of corporate integrity. In fact,

if you look all down the line, Mr. Chairman, and if you had a

bow and arrow, he'd bleed to death because he simply doesn't

qualify. The case that I'm talking about now proves how far

this government will go to try and protect its image, to try

and protect its Members. Really, Mr. Chairman, to see this

Minister abuse public funds this way, I think

[ Page 3404 ]

is not only a terrible shame, but it's a tremendous

disappointment to many people who have known him for a long

time.

Mr. Chairman, right now Dunsky Advertising, which this

Minister was instrumental in attracting to British Columbia — that neophyte little advertising company, that long bred

company developed by British Columbians for British Columbians,

brought to British Columbia just before the last election

through the auspices of this Minister, and which in fact was

given its financial foundation, LIP, through the advertising

placed by this Minister in his previous portfolio and his

current portfolio…. Through this pipeline, through this

umbilical cord, Dunsky Advertising is now seeing, according to

this gentleman, that the advertising from the Department of

Labour and from the ICBC is being cut down not from just its

disproportionate level, but even more in the future. This, even

though this paper has a circulation under the category of ABC

of nearly 8,000 people, that has been in business, that is

registered in the honesty sheet of the News World , the

community newspaper, that this publication, the community

newspaper, came out long after the Comox Valley Star was

born and the Comox Valley Star did not see fit to list

itself as an official publication and one wonders why.

In spite of all this, there's continuing evidence, as this

gentleman says, of political strings being pulled to establish

an NDP house organ for this constituency through the

Star . It graphically shows, according to this gentleman,

that the NDP are in bed with the various international

unions.

Under this vote, I suggest to this Minister that he must

cease and desist now using public funds for political purposes.

Mention was made by my colleague yesterday of the type of ads

that were running — not information ads in the majority, Mr.

Chairman, but public relation ads to sell ICBC to the point of

ramming it down the throats of people in British Columbia. That

this Minister should stand up in this House and say to his own

government and to his own department they should not involve

themselves in strike breaking, they should cut off this

umbilical cord that is a product of an illegal marriage — an

illegitimate marriage, I'd like to correct that, Mr. Chairman — and that he will have no more to do with this type of

preferential treatment, this type of what appears to be

political patronage.

Mr. Chairman, let's hear the Minister talk about fairness

and equality and equal opportunity. But more importantly, let's

see this Minister practise it. I can see that he can hardly

wait to get up out of his chair — hardly wait to stand up and

rant and rave and wave his arms, as we see so often.

As I said, it's a wonderful thing to see all the boys here. It's nice to have

a day off to attend the circus and see the ringmaster at his best. But I would

urge you to pay heed to this type of information that is coming forth in British

Columbia. Protect your Minister; don't let him get into the pickle juice the

way he has a habit of doing himself.

But above all, protect the rights of the people of British

Columbia. Give the consumer fair treatment from Crown

corporations and from Crown business enterprises — particularly

ICBC. Don't be part of a government that's setting up two

standards, one for its business operations and one for the

public, and using the public's money to do it.

Just as a last note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state at

this time…. and I hope that somewhere through this debate

the media and I don't ask many favours of them — would pick it

up. There has been a good deal of criticism of ICBC. It has

been very justified, in my opinion, in the main.

But at no time, other than at any specific instance where an

individual has been named, it is my belief, has anyone in this

House, regardless of party, or any of the public wished to

detract from the employees of ICBC. We recognize that they have

put in many, many hours. And we recognize that in their own

terms they were employed to do a job and they have tried to be

loyal to that job, regardless of any political affiliations

they might have.

Is the Minister of Highways hungry? Because I think the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) has a nursing bottle if you'd like it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine

her remarks to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: But I would like to say at this time that

certainly my reception at ICBC has always been most courteous.

The employees have tried very hard to meet the needs, within

the policies that they have to work with, of the constituents

that I have to represent, or any problems I've taken. I'd like

to pay tribute to them.

I won't end it on a political note and say what I'd like to

say, because in expressing this I feel I do express the opinion

of all Members in the House. Our criticism is with the haste in

which the company was born and the ensuing problems that it's

created for it own employees. Our criticism is of the way in

which the government has tried to sell this company, saying

that it's like the Bank of British Columbia.

No way is it like the Bank of British Columbia. The Bank of

British Columbia is competitive. People support it because they

believe in British Columbia — because they had the freedom to

believe in it, and the freedom to support it. They weren't told

they had to. And they support it because they can see it as a

fair and proper part of the development of British

Columbia.

If the Minister wanted ICBC to be something we as

[ Page 3405 ]

British Columbians of all party faith could be proud of,

then he shouldn't have taken the tack he did. He shouldn't ram

this propaganda advertising down out throats. And he should

tend to the very serious concerns that ICBC is causing in

matters that my colleagues have mentioned: the lack of payment

to auto body shops, the unequal and often discriminatory

treatment of individuals in British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to talk about

umbilical cords, illegitimate marriages….

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know what an umbilical cord is,

and I don't know what an illegitimate marriage is.

MRS. JORDAN: Why don't you tell us the facts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, really, I've heard a great deal

in this House in my short time here, but that was really a little much. I thought

it was ladled out with….

MRS. JORDAN: Which part was that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The whole thing. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: It shows how you can't face the truth.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Really, I don't know whether I should

just sit down and say forget it, or whether to try to reply in

a rational manner to what was a completely irrational statement

in this House.

MR. WALLACE: Do the best you can, Bob.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Lack of payment to the body shops.

MRS. JORDAN: My main point was….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me tell it — no, no, just a minute.

Lack of payment of body shops. As of three days ago every claim

by a body shop was paid right up to date.

MRS. JORDAN: How long did they have to wait?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Some of the…. It's a new operation.

Some of the body shops save all their bills to the end of the

month and then send them in.

Do you know some of the body shops whom we have paid right up to date? And

you talk about the efficiency of the private operation! Some of the body shops

who we've paid right up to date are still waiting for payment from a private

insurance company for bills of last year. For bills of last year — and we have

paid right up to date! Don't talk to me about how efficient private industry

is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Hon. Minister could control his blood

pressure and his inadequacies….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member state her

point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I would just draw to his attention that I

talked about fairness in the marketplace. I didn't champion

anything about the private sector. I suggested that his

companies should operate under the same rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order please! The Hon. Member

was making a correction. Would the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are doing a much better job in the way

of paying her bills than the private insurance companies have

done so far.

Now you talk about advertising. I want to point out to you

again that these ads were for public information and public

convenience.

MRS. JORDAN: Oooohhhh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But I want you to notice one thing. I

want you to make a comparison of the kind of ads that we used

to get in this province when you were sitting on this side of

the House. Every ad that was placed contained a picture of the

Minister and his name and all the rest of it. I challenge you

to find my name in any of those ads. I challenge you to find my

name in any of those ads.

MRS. JORDAN: How about Eileen Dailly and Gary Lauk?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. I am responsible for ICBC and you

are talking about the ICBC ads. I challenge you to find my name

or my picture on any of those ads.

MRS. JORDAN: Is that public information or propaganda?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's carrying truth to the people of

this province. That's carrying truth to the people of this

province! Because you tried to mislead them….

[ Page 3406 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You mean that it if isn't true, you believe

it's true.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And I answered questions in this House….

AN HON. MEMBER: When? When?

MR. GARDOM: You haven't answered questions since last

September.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Do you want me to go through all the

questions I've answered in the House one by one? Do you want me

to go through them?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are the questions I've answered.

But, Mr. Chairman….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There were ads where we had to carry the

truth to the people because of the fact that the opposition had

been trying to mislead the people. And then….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! Every Member has

the right to be heard in this House in silence.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, they said: "Oh, the money's

being used for reinsurance, and it's leaving the province, and

it's going away, and it's not really a B.C. Company; it not

really staying."

MR. CURTIS: Are you going to London?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've been to London. And Lloyds love it.

Lloyds love it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan state her point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I just want to know the Minister's explanation

of involving his department in strike-breaking — not all this

show and fancy frills.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! It is not a point of

order. The Hon. Minister has the floor and may speak as he sees

fit, as long as he's relevant to the vote.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In answer to all the questions I corrected that misinformation

that the people in the opposition have been spreading about the money leaving

this province. And I pointed out that I think about 0.67 per cent of the auto

insurance premiums is used of the total auto insurance income for reinsurance.

That's why they take that ad — because of the misleading information that others

have been putting around the province.

Again, I point out: (1) they were informative,

(2) I didn't

use those ads as the Socreds did with a big picture and my name

on them. You ask us to be responsible; I challenge you: what

other company tables its annual report in this House as we do?

In what other company does the president of the company come

before the Members of this Legislature and answer questions as

I'm now answering? That's being responsible. But now let's get

to this…

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the

floor. Would the other Members be silent, please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …cock and bull story, this

peregrination around the world, this Comox stargazing effort

that the Member embarked on — this daydream of hers, this

unfilled wish that she could get something on this Minister — that because I happen to have some involvement in the labour

movement that I have something particularly cynical about me.

That was the gist of her tone. She said, "Now this Member came

out of the labour movement…he has an association…."

Terrible, terrible, terrible!

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman I can't quote his

exact words but I would ask the Minister to withdraw the

inference that I suggested because he had worked in the labour

movement that there was something sinful about his actions. I

worked in the labour movement; my husband has been a member of

a union and I would never imply anything like that. I think it

is most improper of the Minister. My words were that the

Minister should know better if anyone should, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would accept the Hon.

Member's comments as a correction.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I accept the Hon. Member's comments. I

just wanted to let her know that I'm not a bit ashamed of

having been involved in the labour movement in British

Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN: Who is?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay, you talked about this advertising

in this trade union paper. I don't

[ Page 3407 ]

know who wrote that for you.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll tell you who wrote it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Dan Campbell, I guess, but that's all

right.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw. For his

information….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member may not ask the

Minister to withdraw something of that nature but she can rise

on a point of order and correct the statement. I would suggest

that you wait until the Hon. Minister is finished and correct

all of his statements.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said before in this House, we

advertised in all of the papers in the province. The fact that

this one happened to have been started — you say — by strikers

— I didn't even know about it. I think we advertised in the

Express in Victoria, too. We advertised in all of the

papers — union, non-union, no matter. We were carrying

information to the people and that was the objective. You may

think that we should say "we will advertise in this paper and

not that one" but that's not my attitude.

I didn't know there was a strike up there. I didn't know a

union paper had been started. But to suggest that I, as a

Minister of the Crown, deliberately ordered anybody to place

advertising in any paper in order to support a strike situation

is completely reprehensible and wrong. At no time have I taken

any such position.

As a matter of fact, I challenge you, Ms. Member — Hon.

Member — I challenge you to give one shred of evidence of any

kind that I even hinted, in any way, shape, or form that that

ad should be placed in that paper. I didn't even know the paper

existed.

The ads were placed in that paper as they were placed in the

Express , as they were placed in any paper that operates

in the Province of British Columbia, by the advertising agency

that do the job. It's not been a political thing at all in any

way, shape, or form. It hasn't been, it won't be. We are

carrying information to the people. I simply resent that

particular attitude.

In closing, if you'll send me the name of the individual who

had the little problem you talked about at the start I will

check into it.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary. I did not accuse the Minister of

doing it. I asked him to take proper action and I just sit here

amazed as the hon. chicken farmer who came from the north said,

"Put up, or shut up."

Mr. Chairman, this Minister is a Minister, and as Minister he seems to fail

to realize that one of the major responsibilities of being a Minister and one

of the major pleasures and problems of being a Minister is, first, that you

are privileged to reflect the glory and really bask in the glory of those who

do so much to make your portfolio a success. That is one of the privileges of

being a minister.

Conversely, Mr. Chairman, it has been traditional

parliamentary procedure that a Minister stands as a Minister — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources wouldn't

know about this — and as he basks in the glory so he takes the

responsibility.

To stand up in this House and to say that if it was placed

in the newspapers wrongly you don't know anything about it is

just another admission of this man's incapability of assuming

the responsibility as a Minister. If this man is a Minister

then he must bear the responsibility of all those who work for

him in their capacity in the government and he must answer to

this Legislature and he and he alone must answer to the

public.

I suggest to the Minister that there is unfair advertising

being placed. I asked him what his criteria was in terms of

what size ads he placed in papers, what paper he used — are

they all weeklies, do they have to be listed as official

papers? If management is involved in a legitimate dispute

between labour and the courts and management, and management

goes out and starts another paper — is this Minister prepared

to place the same amount of advertising in that paper as he is

in the Comox Valley Star and perhaps other papers in

this province?

Is that consistent with his policies. He said he placed it

in all papers. Is he standing in this House today saying

"Management, if you are involved in a situation between labour

and the courts and yourself and your paper is not operating and

you want to go out and start another paper, then, of course,

ICBC and the department which I am responsible for will

advertise in that paper."

I would ask the Minister to seriously comment on that point

and to not distort the picture. If there is improper or perhaps

inappropriate advertising being placed by any members of his

department, if there is then he should take the matter under

advisement, look into R, and have the situation corrected.

Treat everybody fairly. Then in light of that he should tell me

what his policy is, and tell me what his policy is if

management does the same thing as has happened in this

situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's obvious that there is a difference

in philosophy between the Member and myself. As I indicated the

ads were placed in both the newspapers in that area. I don't

know how much fairer you can be than that. That Member

apparently believes that some people have the right to operate

a newspaper and other people shouldn't have the right.

[ Page 3408 ]

I'm supposed to make a decision and say that I will support

some and not others. I support the right of anybody to operate

a newspaper in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not car insurance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is lots of difference between car

insurance and running a newspaper, my friend. It's apples and

oranges. If you are asking me to support this newspaper and not

support some other newspaper then I'm not going to do that.

We're going to take the newspapers fairly according to the

normally-accepted criteria for the placing of advertising.

Interjections.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On a point of

order, you have recognized me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would that Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: The statement by the Member of North Okanagan

directed to someone down here — "Why don't you grow up?" could

be turned around, I think.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that we have had the histrionics on

both sides of the House. Perhaps we can put that to one side

for a few minutes.

Frankly, I wish the Minister would control his feelings from

time to time and give us some more answers and share with the

House some of the problems that he faces with respect to all

aspects of his portfolio. That really is surely the purpose of

our discussing estimates.

I wonder if the Minister would consider at some point, Mr.

Chairman, introducing — if he is among the assembled group — the new general manager of the British Columbia Ferry

Authority. I've not had the pleasure of meeting him. If he is

here it would be very nice to see him or on some other occasion

perhaps.

I don't think it is my right to ask him to say a few words,

but I wish Mr. Gallagher well, Mr. Chairman. I hope that he is

up to the task ahead of him. He comes with very good

credentials. I understand this from a number of people in the

marine field.

Now I would like to talk briefly about the ferry system and

can assure the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I will

have other matters to raise in due course.

There are a number of individuals within the ferry fleet who have thoughtfully

shared with me, and perhaps with other Members of this House, some of their

concerns about the British Columbia Ferry System as it presently operates. They

have done so in, I believe, a constructive manner and in several instances I

have no knowledge of the politics of the individuals concerned, and I emphasize

that point because from time to time, clearly, individuals with one or another

political persuasion bring emphasis to a point which is made in the House.

But this individual in particular has told me, among other

things, that he has a positive feeling about the ferry service.

He likes the job from a professional point of view and he likes

to feel that he contributes the kind of attitude which is

desirable in all aspects of public service.

However, he goes on to say that he's felt that the status

and responsibilities attached to the licenced or officer

personnel, in both the B.C. Ferries fleet and the Canadian

Merchant Service as a whole, have not been given the proper

consideration that the profession deserves, especially with

regard to passenger vessels — which I'm sure the Minister would

admit carry a much higher degree of responsibility than most,

if not all others.

Then he also admits that members of the seagoing fraternity

are themselves partly to blame for this. But the ship owner — and in the case in point here, the provincial government — can,

and does, frequently do the most harm. It seems that they want

the best of both worlds. The best possible senior personnel for

the least expense.

Again, I raise the question of the salaries paid to, as an

example, senior employees in the Washington State Ferry System.

I realize that raises were granted last year in the British

Columbia Ferry System. Now I'm speaking of senior personnel. I

feel that they still lag behind comparable positions, in, as an

example, Washington State.

I'm told by more than one individual, Mr. Minister, that

morale in the British Columbia Ferry System is for a variety of

reasons, lower than it should or need be, and that this

inevitably reflects on the overall attitude of the

employee.

There's reference made to the uncertainty which existed.

Admittedly, it has been corrected now with respect to the

appointment of a new general manager, but months went by in

that state of limbo before the appointment was made.

The Minister's comments notwithstanding, and I'll be happy

to hear if my information is incorrect, relatively few

employees, relatively few have yet had an opportunity to meet

the new manager. I understand that he has indicated in a letter

dated April 23 which was addressed too "All Masters, Senior

Chief Engineers, Chief Engineers, Chief Stewards and Terminal

Agents."

"As I wish to meet with you on a regular basis, I am

intending to travel on the ferries on Thursdays and hope to be able to

cover the

[ Page 3409 ]

fleet once a month, also the various terminals."

This is again quoting from Mr. Gallagher's letter:

"I realize it will be some time before I'm able to meet

with all of you, however, I feel that by my travelling in this way it will save

you trips to Victoria to attend various meetings. You will appreciate that it

may not always be possible for me to keep strictly to this schedule, however,

I certainly hope to be able to do so."

There is a large number of shifts and I wonder if the

General Manager might not consider expanding his travel

schedule 1n order to get around to as many vessels and

terminals as possible just as soon as he can.

The individuals who have helped me in reviewing the ferry

system have indicated that where public servants should find

morale improved with the advent of new arrangements made by the

government such as labour legislation, certification of the

B.C. Government Employees' Union, somehow this hasn't happened

yet in the ferry fleet.

Back to the restaurants: although some clarification has

been stated by the Minister thus far in the debate on his

estimates, the statement is made here that "somehow we have

been like a ship without a rudder."

The Minister's stated intentions to discontinue, or severely

downgrade the restaurant services on the ships, has contributed

very largely to low morale. As far as we can judge from the

public it would be a poorly-received idea and would seriously

detract from the standard of service offered on the ships.

Again, where it said, Mr. Chairman, that the "restaurants

are losing thousands of dollars" there is the opinion both on

the ships and ashore that the method of arriving at that

particular conclusion — the dollars involved in loss — could be

possibly due to inclusion of heavy and unnecessary managerial

expense in the catering services

section ashore, and also such

things as live music in the summer months which, as far as I

can see, should not be considered a catering cost item.

I wonder if the live music, with all due respect to those

who are engaged for that purpose, is an essential part of

enjoying the ferry trips between Vancouver Island and the Lower

Mainland. It's enjoyable, but if that is part of the rationale

that the restaurants are costing a great deal of money, then I

think we should have some clarification from the Minister.

The first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) spoke about an expanded

schedule and I certainly subscribe to that. We've been over this with the Minister

several times in the past but I see no reason at all why on the major routes

the ships could not commence operations earlier in the day and run later in

the evening, particularly during the peak travel months, mid-May to sometime

after Labour Day.

I think that, in fairness to the former government, the

British Columbia Ferry System started with just a few ships,

two initially, a relatively small staff and there was the means

of close communication on a two-way basis between the operating

personnel, senior management, the Minister of the day who was

responsible for the work, and the individual employee.

It certainly is understandable that as a system grows and

more routes are added, more vessels come in, more passengers

are carried, this means of communication becomes extremely

difficult. It becomes more difficult with each passing year

regardless of what political party is in power, and that surely

is an important part of the new General Manager's job and, I

submit, of the Minister's job to make sure that there is this

freedom of communication from the top to the bottom and from

the bottom to the top.

References were made to individuals in the past being afraid

to express their opinion, but nonetheless I think there is, if

not fear, there is still reluctance and so they have to be

encouraged. The terminal agents, the individuals on the smaller

runs as well as those who are responsible for the safety of the

ships and their operation, all individuals must be encouraged

in the British Columbia Ferry System to feel free to express

their opinions about ways in which the service can be improved

and those elements which are not terribly satisfactory can be

corrected, deleted, or whatever.

There's even the possibility that the Minister could, at

some time when the House is not sitting, bring himself to

discuss proposed policy and plans with joint meetings of

representatives of the ferry management, senior personnel from

the ship, and the terminals, and possibly even, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, with representatives of the

opposition parties, because this is the British Columbia

system. Certainly there is a need for freer exchange of

opinions at all levels.

One of my contacts in the ferry system says that it's his

personal opinion that "the ferries are not being run as well as

they could or should be, that the service is not as good as it

used to be. That the attitude of most employees ashore and

afloat, licensed or unlicensed, that attitude does not receive

the leadership or incentive to give of their best."

He goes on to say: "It's also my opinion that all ills

starts at the top, that lack of enthusiasm at that level gives

way to growing and widespread complacency in the labour force

and that the disinterest engendered by what was certainly an

ivory tower attitude of the bosses, if you will, will

[ Page 3410 ]

inevitably be reflected throughout the system.

So where a most enthusiastic group that started the system

and had an enthusiastic leadership, much smaller in size, has

been slowly intimidated, not deliberately, but through a series

of events, into remaining silent and not showing the enthusiasm

which was a very vital part of the system in the early

years.

I think that it is summarized very, very briefly with this

statement: "This gets to the very root of the thing, this

apparent steady effort to quell initiative in the system for

the sake of uniformity and the system itself."

One other point on this particular topic: How does one

answer the question — what is wrong within the ferries? In

spite of a tremendous volume of standing orders, company

policies, commission policies and requirements, general orders

from a long list of superintendents and their assistants, and

what is stated to be a multitude of day-to-day memoranda,

letters, directives, there are so many things of a routine

nature which are done differently on various ships that the

casual or lay observer might well wonder if all the vessels are

operating under the same company, in this case the provincial

government, or under the same rules.

So again, through the Minister, I suggest that, perhaps in

addition to his travels and his efforts to communicate with the

employees, officers and senior personnel of the department,

what British Columbia ferries may need at this point is an

ombudsman — someone who is knowledgeable in this kind of

operation, who could look and see and report and with whom the

individuals employed by the system could feel completely free

and comfortable in making their points and making their

suggestions for the improvements of the service.

There are, as I indicated earlier, a number of points which

will have to be raised before we leave the Minister on the

question of British Columbia Ferry Authority, or the British

Columbia ferries, I should say.

He may wish to comment on those statements, some of mine and

some which have been passed to me by, again, individuals who

are very, very keen about the British Columbia ferry fleet.

They've worked there a number of years, they want to continue

working there, they want to have pride in the service, but they

are fearful about some of the things which have been done and

those which have been left undone.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member for Saanich and the Islands

spoke about individuals being very, very keen about the ferry

service. Well, that's the prime requirement for any successful

service, and if people are very, very keen then you've no

morale problem.

The matter of the ombudsman, I would point out, as I did

yesterday, that they now have full union rights, full

bargaining powers, and any grievances that might arise are now

handled in a vastly different way from the paternalistic manner

that was only possible under the old — whatever they call it

— agreement-thing….

MR. CURTIS: These are not necessarily grievances — they wish

to make suggestions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, okay. I've no objection. But for

suggestions you don't need an ombudsman. An ombudsman is

somebody to whom you go with a grievance.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, anyway, an ombudsman is a person to

whom you go with a grievance, and you feel aggrieved.

I have some difficulty in determining or discerning or

differentiating between what the Member himself was saying and

when he was quoting a letter he had received from someone

active in the service. He made some statements about memos

passing hither and yon, back and forth, from one to the other.

And at the same time he was asking us to try and communicate

more. Now this is one way of communicating.

I think too, perhaps wrongly, perhaps unintentionally, he

repeated a statement that has been part of the problem, when he

said, "The Minister stated his intention to close the

restaurants." Now, I made a very clear statement, I think last

October, in which I denied any such intention. I indicated what

we are doing; we're having an experiment. But that's been

repeated and repeated and repeated: the Minister's stated

intention of closing the restaurant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But every time you repeat it, the harder

it becomes to shoot down, and you don't help it when you say

"the Minister's stated intention." You don't help my

credibility a bit. The union didn't help it when they did that

questionnaire and said "the Minister's stated intention." That

didn't help it. I made a statement here last October, I think

it was, very clearly, because at that time the rumour was

starting.

However, I want to say about the general manager…. This

is the general manager, Mr. Gallagher, by the way, on my

left.

Interjection.

[ Page 3411 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With regard to his travelling…. You

have a copy of a letter which he did send to the licensed

personnel, as I recollect it, and I was sent a copy of the

letter where he's going to travel one day a week. As a matter

of fact he also travels weekends. He has now been on every ship

in the fleet except two, which I think is a remarkable record

in the situation, and talked to the people. So he's getting an

individual feel and knowledge of the individual ships and the

crews. As I said yesterday, he's had meetings with the

union.

I hope, I expect, that this will be the beginning of an

improvement in the morale situation within the ferry system.

There have been problems — some of them I inherited, some I may

have created, I don't know. But certainly I agree that we must

always be concerned with the morale between any employer and

employee group. That must be the objective of both sides to

maintain a rapport and morale. I think we are on the way to

doing that, to re-establish the kind of attitude that was part

of the enthusiasm in the beginning days of the ferries.

Really we are embarking on a similar period, I think, of

change within the ferry system — a re-examination of its

purpose. We're in a society of conflicts where people are

demanding more service, yet, at the same time we don't want to

hurt the social milieu. It's going to be a very difficult

course for the ferries to chart — and that's not intended as a

pun — in the next few years to meet the requirements of the

people without doing damage, and meeting other demands that you

yourself place on us.

Anyway, I want to thank the Member for his remarks.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): A few questions

for the Minister, to do with ICBC.

The Minister has mentioned before in this House that a pilot body shop will

be set up in B.C. I would like further clarification of when this will be

set up, where, and if plans are now completed for the pilot body shop because

there seems to be some problem of stability of rates, some problem of body

shop rates in different areas. I would like to know if the Minister will get

this functioning, and if it will, indeed, alleviate the situation. There does

seem to be disparity, particularly with the more remote regions, in body shops.

I know they are locked into a lease in downtown Vancouver, but could the

Minister tell me if ICBC has initiated any studies for the decentralization

of their offices in the downtown Vancouver core? This is something that was

discussed earlier, and the Minister said that because they had an arbitrary

deadline to meet, they had to locate in that area, but he was in favour of

relocating the premises. I wonder if ICBC, through the direction of the Minister,

has indeed initiated these studies, and if they are considering different

locations within the province.

Further, I'd like to know if the Minister is able to provide

some of the figures that have had to be capitalized on start-up

costs. One of the things that wasn't clear in obtaining the

lease rates in the Royal Centre was the amount of

capitalization ICBC had to do in the way of improvements to the

premises over and above the lease rate.

What areas is the Minister capitalizing as part of the

start-up costs, and where do you draw the line in the

apportionment of operating costs in this crucial first

year?

Another question that has popped up recently is: is the Minister, or ICBC,

negotiating with the government for a subsidy of any nature, whether it comes

in gasoline revenue or any funds from general revenue to apply against projected

losses? This is a question which has come up recently, and I wonder if the Minister

could advise the House if these negotiations are indeed going on.

Another question we asked the Minister earlier, and never

did get a satisfactory answer, was to do with the British

Columbia preference for British Columbia manufactured goods.

The specific question we had was on the supply and installation

of carpeting for the offices in downtown Vancouver, and the

fact of a direct complaint from a B.C. company that they were

well within…in fact below I per cent, on the supply of

carpeting.

I wonder if they've got a part of the job, were finally

awarded part of the job, or all of the job, or whether indeed

this carpeting was awarded to a mill from eastern Canada. And

whether the supply of materials to ICBC did indeed specify,

even if they were local bids, specify locally manufactured

products. And whether you did actually use the formula, whether

it was 5 per cent, 8 per cent, or 10 per cent B.C. local

preference. And in what areas you were able to use B.C.

products. Because there have been complaints from manufacturers

in British Columbia to me which I passed on earlier. Some of

them last year to the Minister.

Just one further question, to the Minister, and that is to

do with just going through some of the logs. The situation

touched me a bit last September when I was running in a

by-election in Kelowna and it is something I have to commend

the Premier on because it was to do with his flight to campaign

in the by-election. He was forced to use a government plane to

make connection with Vancouver to get to the Okanagan, but I

understand from the newspaper that he wanted to pay.

An

article written by Mr. Peter McNelly, said, "NDP Can't

Pay For Flight." I'm going to read this because I want to ask

if you've been able to change any policy on these flights when

there is an emergency of this nature. It says:

[ Page 3412 ]

"The NDP will not be able to reimburse the government

for Dave Barrett's flight Tuesday on a government aircraft for a

campaign stint in South Okanagan, a highways department official said

Wednesday."

Now that the aircraft is under the Department of

Transportation I wonder if steps have been taken to change

these situations.

The Premier told the reporters about the incident, saying he

would ask if the NDP could pay the government. And he said

later he has a self-imposed rule that he not use government

facilities during election campaigns and I commend him for

this. This

article was written by Peter McNelly. What I'm

questioning is, if the government can't pay for that flight for

the Premier, I notice on the same flight there was a Mr.

McNelly. Now, this is back in September.

If the NDP couldn't pay for the Premier is it possible that

the province was able to pay for Mr. McNelly? Because at that

time although he's listed here as under the Premier's office,

in September at that time I understand he was still a reporter

for The Province , in fact he wrote this

article — or was

he a dual employee? Have any steps been made to collect from

the Vancouver Province on Mr. McNelly's flight at that

particular time?

I wonder if the Minister could advise the policy of his

department in being able to get these collections when they're

offered by parties where it's inadvertent and to bill where it

may be that people outside of the political parties and not

government employees just happen to be on the same flight.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is a very difficult area. There are

many problems relating to operating government aircraft. And it

is certainly to be my intention and my effort and was the

intention of my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Black, to keep it

certainly as clean as humanly possible. There are continual

problems. I find myself sending my wife by commercial flight a

day ahead of the time I'm going to get there by government

aircraft and so on.

It is my understanding that we cannot accept….

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you know you start taking your wife

with you and then…. You say "take you wife with you…."

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I do this many times, send my wife a day

before I'm going by commercial flight and then I say….

AN HON. MEMBER: Then you stay at home!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that might be… I would certainly like to see acceptance by the general

public of a Minister being able to take his wife with him. I

know private industries are now at the point where they're

sending the wife with the delegate to conventions and so

on.

It is my understanding that the federal Department of

Transport would create some problems if you accepted payment

from individuals for the flight. This would place it on a

commercial basis and all your regulations are completely

different. And to my knowledge no fee has ever been accepted by

the government aircraft for anyone that has an occasion outside

the public service travelled by it, I try to keep that to an

absolute minimum. And I can tell you quite frankly, as the logs

will show, I am pretty tough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are MLAs permitted to use the aircraft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Only if on government business, or with a

Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government MLAs use them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: