1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3007 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill No. 182). Hon. Mr.

Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3007

Statement by Hon. Mr. Hall — 3007

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 (Bill No. 183). Committee

stage.

Mr. McGeer — 3007

Mr. Gardom — 3007

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3007

Mr. Richter — 3008

Mr. Gardom — 3008

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3008

Mr. McGeer — 3008

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3008

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3008

Mr. Gardom — 3009

Mr. McGeer — 3009

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3009

Mr. Gardom — 3010

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3010

Mr. Gardom — 3010

Report and third reading — 3010

Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No.

103).

Report stage — 3010

Division on third reading — 3010

Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill No. 153).

Report stage — 3011

Division on third reading — 3011

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164).

Report stage — 3011

Division on third reading — 3011

Automobile Insurance Act (Bill No. 35). Committee stage.

Mr. Gardom — 3012

Mr. Smith — 3013

Mr. Wallace — 3013

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3014

Division on challenge to Mr. Chairman's ruling on amendment — 3015

Mr. Smith — 3015

Mr. Phillips — 3015

Ms. Young — 3016

Mr. Curtis — 3016

Mr. McGeer — 3017

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3017

Mr. Gardom — 3018

Mr. McGeer — 3018

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3019

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3020

Mr. McClelland — 3020

Division on

section 2 — 3021

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3021

Mr. Smith — 3021

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3021

Mr. Smith — 3022

Mr. Gardom — 3022

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3022

Mr. Smith — 3023

Division on

section 8 — 3023

Mr. Gardom — 3024

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3024

Mr. Smith — 3024

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3024

Mr. Smith — 3025

Mr. Gardom — 3025

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3025

Mr. Gardom — 3025

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3025

Mr. Gardom — 3025

Mr. Smith — 3026

Mr. Gardom — 3026

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3026

Mr. Gardom — 3027

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3027

Mr. Phillips — 3027

Mr. Wallace — 3029

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3031

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

PUBLIC SERVICE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Public Service Labour Relations

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, April 18, 1973.

Bill No. 182 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.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement

regarding the bill I've just introduced.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL : Mr. Speaker, it's not the government's

intention to proceed with this bill at this session. It will,

however, reintroduce the bill at the next session. Meanwhile,

consultative committees will be set up with the civil service.

Negotiations will take place regarding an interim wage

increase. We welcome and ask for comments on the bill during

the summer, Mr. Speaker, from the opposition parties in the

House and from all other interested people.

I think that this day is a happy day in British Columbia. I

think that by the next session, when the bill comes into full

effect, we will have achieved a remarkable step forward in the

public service of British Columbia.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 183, Mr. Speaker.

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 1973

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No. 183; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

I note in our estimate books that we passed a vote for $46,000

under the particular Act in the Department of Education. We

moved so quickly here I haven't got my book open right now.

The question is: if we're abolishing the Act, why is it that

we're still spending money under the Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's a

perfectly valid question. You've already passed money and now

you're abolishing the Act. What's happened to the money? Is

this going to end up like B.C. Rail — suspended in

mid-air, go down the drain or what?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): It will be spent

under Human Resources. It's the invalid questions we can

answer. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: Are there any applicants for assistance under

the existing statute who will suffer as a result of its

repeal?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The answer is yes, there are

existing applicants. The answer is no, they will not suffer

under this change.

MR. GARDOM: How will they be taken care of?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right out of the Social

Assistance Act .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 7 pass?

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have a

[ Page 3008 ]

devastating amendment to

section 8 — to delete

section

8. I so move.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're going to ruin the whole thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the proper procedure would be to

defeat the section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, no, no…Well…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Either way.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, can I ask leave to

withdraw the section? The fact of the matter is we don't want

loaded magazines and guns and so forth on boats, but how do you

shoot a duck?

MR. GARDOM: Well, we've got enough loaded magazines on boats

right now, if you take a look at the news stands.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I ask leave to withdraw the section.

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): May I ask the

Minister if he's going to renumber the following sections?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that might be part of the leave,

that we ask leave to renumber.

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just call the old numbers so that we can

get them through. Shall

section 9 pass?

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: It's quite a comprehensive amendment here. Could

the Attorney General just explain to the House the general

purport of this amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In order to receive their income tax exemption from

the Hon. John Turner, private pension plans will no longer have to be registered

through a trust company. We've liberalized a little bit to include more of them

as income exemptions. Having used the word "liberalized" I hope there would

be no further debate. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 10 pass?

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to delete this

section.

Leave granted.

section 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: This refers to the Registered Psychiatric

Nurses Act . I just don't understand what this

section is

all about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It enables the Act to be proclaimed in

technical terms.

MR. McGEER: Well, could the Act not have been proclaimed as

it stood?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, there was a technical difficulty.

MR. McGEER: I wonder if the Premier could tell us what the

technical difficulties were.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was some difficulty proclaiming it.

This allows us to proclaim the Act. I'm not sure of the details

but that was the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This Act was passed in 1968. The regular

section that this comes into effect on royal assent was missing

from the Act. It is now being supplied.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

[ Page 3009 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the

Hon. Attorney General whether this revision to the Trust

Companies Act will bring the many new teeth that came this

session into the Companies Act into the Trust

Companies Act and apply to trust companies?

The report of the Inspector of Trust Companies was filed

yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). We

find within the report that as a result of inspections there is

one trust company presently suspended in the province —

and of course that infamous one still in the course of

liquidation.

It has always seemed to be one of the major difficulties in

the fie Id of trust company law, which came into realization

during the Commonwealth Trust scandal, that there didn't seem

to be really adequate legislation to provide enough safeguards

for the general public, certainly from the point of view of

accounting procedures.

There has been a very dramatic filing yesterday by the

Minister of Finance concerning accounting procedures of the

B.C. Railway. So I just wonder whether or not these amendments

that you are referring to here refer to the new accounting

procedures and methods that are called for under the

Companies Act . Does it mean that they will similarly

apply to the Trust Companies Act ?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to say there was an improvement

in the Trust Companies Act as a result of this technical

section. But the answer is no, we have not got around to

improving that Trust Companies Act . It has to be done;

but their procedures remain the same.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: On the title, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this

is a traditional Act and that it is a collection of the

legislative "sweepings." What we do is throw everything that's

left over into this one final Act. Then we're placed in the

ludicrous position of debating the principle of a bill that has

no principle.

Just speaking to this sort of thing in general, I think

we've got a very effective and dedicated, small — too

small — group of legislative draftsmen who undertake an

heroic workload each session.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: I would like to pay them a little compliment for their chore,

which has been particularly odious this session. I think, too, that these gentlemen…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Onerous. Particularly onerous; not

odious.

MR. McGEER: No, no. I meant odious, Mr. Chairman, because I

would hate to have been in the position of having to draft into

legislation some of the ideas of my colleagues on that side.

But that's perhaps a little bit of a partisan opinion.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder really if this is the best way to go

about passing legislation. I would like to see the day when an

Act of this kind was no longer necessary — I think that

it's undesirable — but was no longer necessary.

The practice that is used in some other jurisdications is

that there is a cutoff date on new legislation well before the

end of a session. Once that date is reached, no more new bills

are introduced. Then it gives the legislative drafting group an

opportunity to work with Members on all sides of the House and

with the community at large, to listen to the presentations, to

correct technical difficulties and to reconsider the meaning of

wording that has been put there with the intent of carrying out

government policy.

For that reason I would hope we could enlarge the staff, we

could set a cutoff date for the introduction of new bills and

bring a new and better style to the way legislation is passed

in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I could respond with the same latitude,

I welcome the remarks made by the Member. It is my

understanding that the House Committee on Practices and

Procedures is going to continue to meet — if I'm wrong

there? It is? Oh, very good.

I would like that kind of suggestion to go right to the

House committee and carry on this discussion.

We have not had the opportunity as a House to review some of

our own internal practices. For example, it is my understanding

that in Ottawa they take estimates and put them in

committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That kind of thing and the suggestion by

the Member would be most welcome to that committee. I wish I

could be a member of that committee, but I can't.

MR. GARDOM: What do you do with your spare time?

[ Page 3010 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said that no cabinet Ministers would be

on that committee. But I would be excited if that committee

would discuss your proposal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make one observation, too, that

historically this bill is supposed to be a sort of sweeping

bill and the omnibus bill; but occasionally you find MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make one observation, too, that

historically this bill is supposed to be a sort of sweeping

bill and the omnibus bill; but occasionally you find a hooker

sort of snuck in therea hooker

sort of snuck in there. I remember last year people were just

trotting merrily along — or was it the year before

— and suddenly we found that it wasn't possible to have

the advertising of alcoholic beverages in the Province of

B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was dumped right in there.

MR. GARDOM: But you fellas have learned well from precedent.

Because you slipped one in yourself yesterday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We did?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, you certainly did. That's when you went

ahead and decided that B.C. Hydro would have to go ahead and

insure under the Automobile Insurance Act .

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did we do that?

MR. GARDOM: Yes!

HON. MR. BARRETT: What we have to change is practice.

MR. GARDOM: A fast step. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make one observation, too, that

historically this bill is supposed to be a sort of sweeping

bill and the omnibus bill; but occasionally you find a hooker

sort of snuck in there

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate what was said about the

drafting staff who do a very skilled and difficult job of work.

But we advertised for an extra body with this kind of rare

craftsmanship. At the salary we would offer and with the

scarcity of that particular kind of animal we haven't been able

to get it. We do need these additions to the public

service.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Attorney General, now let's not call the

legislative council "animals" or "bodies."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're very rare animals.

MR. GARDOM: I think what you should be thinking of doing for these gentlemen

is properly recognizing them. Perhaps the Order of the Dogwood with a Leaf each.

(Laughter).

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make one observation, too, that

historically this bill is supposed to be a sort of sweeping

bill and the omnibus bill; but occasionally you find a hooker

sort of snuck in there

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports Bill No.

183 complete with amendments. The committee also reports a

division in committee and asks that it be recorded in the

Journals.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

HON. A. B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr Chairman, I ask

leave that the bill be considered as reported now.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move third reading.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 183, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1973 , read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Spe MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make one observation, too, that

historically this bill is supposed to be a sort of sweeping

bill and the omnibus bill; but occasionally you find a hooker

sort of snuck in thereaker, report on Bill No. 103.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

INCORPORATION ACT

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the

bill isn't printed but I would ask leave that it be considered

for report now.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I think it was

considered that on the last day we would give leave in that

event. Is this the last day?

AN HON. MEMBER: Could be. Should be.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered. When shall the bill be read a third

time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill No. 103, Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation

Act , read a third time and passed on the

[ Page 3011 ]

following division:

YEAS — 40

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Gardom

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

NAYS — 9

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Schroeder

Morrison

McClelland

Phillips

Fraser

PAIRED

Brousson

Stupich

Bennett

Nimsick

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Spe MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make one observation, too, that

historically this bill is supposed to be a sort of sweeping

bill and the omnibus bill; but occasionally you find a hooker

sort of snuck in thereaker, I ask leave to proceed to

Bill No. 153.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 153, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC WORKS

FAIR EMPLOYMENT ACT

Bill No, 153 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Curtis

Wallace

PAIRED

Brousson

Stupich

Bennett

Nimsick

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill No. 164, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

proceed with Bill No. 164.

Leave granted.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

Bill No. 164, read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 40

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Curtis

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Gardom

NAYS — 9

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Schroeder

Morrison

McClelland

Phillips

Fraser

PAIRED

Brousson

Stupich

Bennett

Nimsick

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 35, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

[ Page 3012 ]

House in committee on Bill No. 35; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I

move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper

under

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, on the amendments.

MR. GARDOM: I was up before the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we continue to oppose the concept of both this

bill 35 and the next bill, 34. I'd like to make a few general

remarks concerning that and then I'm going to deal with some of

the specifics — not by way of amendment, but I'd like to

put them on record. I hope that they will be of assistance to

the Minister and to the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia when it is…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have debated second

principle of the bill which deals with the concept of the

bill.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I appreciate that. Just keep calm, Mr.

Chairman, and we'll get along very nicely.

I will tell you the reason we are opposed to this section,

and that is that we are not in favour of the liquidation or the

absorption of a lawful entity. That is what has happened to a

law-abiding entity, a tax-paying entity and a non-playing

entity; that's what the insurance companies in the Province of

British Columbia have been. By virtue of the provisions of

these two Acts they have been completely put out of business.

Their business endeavours for all practical purposes have been

seized because they cannot carry on in their lawful

avocation.

I don't think, unfortunately, they have contributed enough

themselves to their well-being; nor have they even put up an

effective opposition to these measures that have been taken by

the government. Perhaps they are looking to the more munificent

Ontario market for the retention of business and they are

letting British Columbia slide down the line which I think is most regrettable.

The only area that I can see savings in the industry is by

granting unto the purchasers of policies discounts equal to the

bank interest. Insurance is a prepaid trust and really the only

saving there is the fact that this enormous amount of money

— roughly $150 million — will come in in B.C. and

it will have an interest increment to it, say 8 per cent

— $12 million. Well, that will be a saving to the

public.

But offset against that will be the expenses of operation which are going to

continue — and they are going to be the same as they were before, if not more

expensive and, indeed, I think more expensive. Also there are going to be losses.

They're not going to disappear.

And so, out of the premium dollar, we will find that there

will still be losses having to be taken care of and

administrative costs having to be taken care of, with the only

opportunity of any saving to the public of the interest

income.

I feel that it would have been far better to maintain choice

to the general public. I think this is the most regrettable

feature of all in these bills, that the government has not seen

fit to grant unto the public the opportunity to purchase

automobile insurance from private carriers if they so choose,

Mr. Chairman.

If a private carrier can come in and provide the coverage

and the service in a more efficient and a more effective manner

and a less expensive manner than can the government, I think

that I as a British Columbia citizen should be entitled to that

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you debate the principle of the

bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is to be

debating the changing of the name "motor vehicle" to

"trolley bus;" I fail to see the relevance of your remarks.

MR. GARDOM: No, no. I was up before the Minister started to

move his amendment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: I'm nearly through these remarks, Mr. Chairman.

There's no need to become agitated.

I notice under the bill that we have also thrown out the

automobile insurance board. Now we have here a statute, Mr.

Chairman, that is 43 pages long with 82 sections. The next one

is 13 pages long with 34 sections. I think these two very short

comments that I am making now would much better be made now

than that they be redundantly attended to throughout the

various sections — which I can do, if you prefer it.

The automobile insurance board could have performed a far

better function by being an ombudsman for the industry;

furthermore, it was within the power of this government, Mr.

Chairman, to order, as happened in the State of Massachusetts,

that the $15 million that was over-collected by the industry

— as the Minister of Public Works knows — in the

no-fault sector could easily have been returned on the rebative

premium — which would have meant $7.50

[ Page 3013 ]

less for two years for motorists.

Now, I'm leaving that at this point, Mr. Chairman, noticing…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back into debate on second reading — I

think if we allow this tolerance to you we'd have to allow it

to every Member of the House and we would be here for the rest

of the day debating the principle again. There is an amendment

on the floor, the purpose of which is to delete the word

"trolley bus" from the

section defining "motor vehicles." I

would ask that we dispose of this amendment and that we perhaps

dispose of the section. And then, if you wish to make your

remarks, you could possibly make some of them under

section

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I subscribe to your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 as amended pass?

Section I approved with amendment.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River):

Section 2, Mr. Chairman,

is the

section that allows the corporation to enter into the

auto insurance business on a compulsory basis; in other words,

there is no option for anyone in the Province of British

Columbia who owns and operates an automobile or has a driver's

licence to be exempt from the insurance of this

corporation.

It's a compulsory plan operated exclusively by the

government of this province. The provisions of compulsion are

such that every person that operates a vehicle must have

insurance. It also sets up a corporation which allows no

competition. And we'll go into that in another

section of the

bill.

Surely, if the government is so convinced that a compulsory

auto insurance plan is necessary in the Province of British

Columbia, the Minister should be prepared at this time, before

we debate the other sections of this bill, to rise in his place

in this House and tell us the premium that will be involved for

the average driver for his insurance under this compulsory auto

insurance plan in the Province of British Columbia.

The Minister has had ample opportunity to find out on an actuarial basis what

the costs will be, if not down to the last cent, at least down to within $1

or $2 of the premium that will have to be charged, considering the fact that

all of B.C. Hydro and the other Crown corporations will have to insure under

this plan so that they can become part and parcel of the risk to spread it down

and get your premium average down to a point where the Crown corporations will

pick up a good percentage of costs over and above what they're presently doing

on a self-insured basis.

But if the Minister is not prepared to reveal to this House

the premium that will be involved, including the extra charge

that will be involved upon the issue of a driver's licence to

every person in the province, then we can only conclude that he

is withholding information from the House, Mr. Chairman —

information that is vital and important and should be a part of

this debate in committee section.

Mr. Minister, what will the premium be — $25 a year,

as suggested in your literature, $25 per person, per vehicle,

or what? I suggest that if there are more than two drivers in

the family, the premium will be equal to or greater than the

premiums that they have paid previously. But, the Minister

himself can tell us that on an actuarial, factual basis.

We call upon the Minister now, before we go further into the

debate on this bill, to reveal to the Members of this House the

anticipated premium for the coverage that everyone will have to

have on a compulsory …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Members

again that when we're dealing with a clause-by-clause

consideration of the bill, we should not recanvass arguments

that were put forward during the debate on second reading. The

Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Essentially,

in broad terms,

section 2 states that the government will

operate a compulsory automobile insurance under the terms of

the Act, which means that it will be a monopoly and will, in

fact, eliminate competition.

The basic reason that the Conservative Party opposes this

bill in general — but specifically in

section 2 —

is that it eliminates competition and creates a monopoly.

Furthermore, arising from that fundamental concept, there is

also the fact that there are no details in the bill to justify

the reason that underlies the government policy, namely that

time and time again they have stated that present automobile

insurance in Canada and in this province is unfair. It's

inefficient and the consumer is being overcharged and is being

given poor service.

If this is a fair accusation of the government to make of

this particular private sector of industry, I

[ Page 3014 ]

agree with the former speaker that there should be more

detail in the plan to justify the very broad outline in

section

2. We want to make it very clear, as we did on second reading,

that this is a fundamental objection to this bill. We also

repeat, as we did in second reading, that if the government

wishes to compete with existing insurance, then that would be a

different consideration.

The fact that it has, however, chosen to become a monopoly

conflicts in the greatest way possible with our fundamental

belief in this party that the individual should have a choice.

Whether or not the government feels that in

section 2 it is

taking a paternalistic attitude to the individual and saying to

the individual, "Well, we're setting up a plan which is

compulsory and is a monopoly because we know what's good for

you. You poor, stupid consumer, you don't know that you're

being rooked by the private insurance companies."

This is really the kind of attitude that is inherent in this

bill, and specifically in

section 2. We don't believe that. We

believe that there should always be a choice in society. If the

individual chooses to pay more for whatever reason he or she

believes that the extra payment brings some extra benefit,

either in terms of service or in some other way, we still feel

that this choice must exist.

Furthermore, we would submit the logic of what we think is a

very logical fact at any rate, that if competition were allowed

to continue and if the private companies, in terms of premium

and service, are as bad as the government claims, then surely

by a process of attrition, the private companies would go to

the wall anyway because the government plan would be so

obviously superior in terms of lower costs and better

service.

There are many other things about the bill that we're not

very happy about, but there's no need to repeat all that was

said in second reading. This is our strong fundamental

opposition to the bill, particularly expressed in

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, this

section 2

goes to the heart of the difference between this party's

position, which we campaigned on in the last campaign, and the

government's position. The question is — as has been

outlined by the previous two speakers, and I'm happy to see now

that both their parties are in favour of what we were putting

forward six months ago — the question is whether or not

the government scheme shall be compulsory.

There is no question in our mind that a government scheme which competes with

private enterprise in this field on a fair basis could be beneficial. We made

that perfectly clear well before the last election — and perhaps to our cost.

However, we feel that if the scheme is not one which provides for competition,

the problems that have arisen in other provinces will arise in British Columbia

and the public will be the poorer for it.

Once this is set up as a compulsory scheme, what will we

have — a situation as we have with B.C. Hydro gas sales,

where the consumer is charged 100 per cent more than Hydro have

to pay for the gas? There is a markup of 100 per cent. Will it

be that way? The Minister — well, probably he's not going

to be running the scheme for long — but his successor,

what will happen when he decides that the government is in a

squeeze and needs money? What will happen in that regard?

We have had Crown corporations that have operated with the

consumer in mind. In British Columbia we have had B.C. Hydro,

which has not, and of course the Liquor Control Commission is

another example of pretty heavy charging in a government

monopoly. Now the situation is obviously different, but how

much different? If the government needs money, here's an

excellent way of squeezing and getting the money. So the

assurance that somehow or other it's going to be cheaper for

years hence is, of course, thoroughly ridiculous.

Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to go through the debate that

we put forward on second reading; the debate we had in July and

August of last year regarding the merits of having a government

scheme compete with the private insurance sector. We've gone

over that ad nauseum. All I can say is that I'm delighted to

hear the support of that position from the House leader of the

Conservative Party and the Member who spoke a short time ago

for the Social Credit Party. Apparently they are now taking a

position identical to our own.

At this time, however, I would like to move an amendment. In

section 2, lines 4 and 5, delete the words "universal

compulsory" and in line 7, delete the words "universal

compulsory" so the

section would permit the government to

engage in automobile insurance, but would not require a

universal compulsory scheme. We think this amendment would take

this particular unacceptable bill and turn it into something a

great deal better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule the amendment out of order on the

grounds that it goes to the principle of the bill. This cannot

be done on this particular

section by amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That ruling must be challenged, Mr.

Chairman, for the following reason. We had amendment after

amendment from the government side on Bill 42 which cut in

shreds the principle we discussed in 40 hours of debate on

[ Page 3015 ]

second reading. If we're going to permit that …

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no debate on a challenge of the Chair.

I'm making the decision on the basis of consulting authorities,

and I believe this is the proper procedure. So you've made your

challenge; be seated. We will call the Speaker and have it

out.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, on consideration of

section 2 of

Bill No. 35, an amendment was proposed by the Hon. leader of

the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that in

section 2, in

lines 4 and 5 and line 7, the words "universal compulsory"

would be deleted. There are two places where they would be

deleted.

I ruled the amendment out of order; my ruling was

challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is: shall the

Chairman's ruling be sustained?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. Order! I will name the

Hon. Member if he persists in interrupting in the middle of a

vote. I'm serious. It is against all the parliamentary rules

and this Member particularly has been doing this throughout the

whole session. I urge upon him the importance of conducting a

vote properly. You asked for a vote; do it properly.

Mr. Chairman's ruling was sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Rolston

Young

Lockstead

Lea

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 14

Richter

Chabot

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

PAIRED

Brousson

Stupich

Bennett

Nimsick

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It would seem to me, Mr.

Speaker, that when we deal with the matter of crossfire across

the floor when the Speaker is calling for a vote, that he

shouldn't inflict upon one particular Member of the House an

imposition that he has not called to the attention of other

Members of this House. While some of us may have been out of

order, and that includes both sides of the House, regarding the

fact that a vote was being taken in this House and there has

been crossfire going on across the floor, I think that with due

respect to all the Members of the House, your suggestion should

be to all Members of the House and not to suggest that you are

going to name one Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. And I urge every Member in the House to

observe the rule.

I called for order. Most Members immediately stopped, but

one Member did not. And that is why I rose.

The Hon. Chairman.

House in committee on Bill No. 35; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River on

section 2.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What we have just

witnessed in this House with regard to the monopolistic

section

of this particular Act brings out exactly what is going on in

this province. The government has taken upon itself the

attitude that it knows all, sees all, does all best for

everybody in the province. We don't want them to know how much

they are paying for this "big daddy" government. We witnessed

some of that last night. Even with everybody subsidizing the

government and subsidizing this insurance plan in one way or

another, they are still afraid of competition. Because of the

subsidy they could lower the rates, but with the monopolistic

clause in this Act, no one will ever know.

No one in British Columbia will have the opportunity to know

whether or not they are paying through the nose for this "big

daddy" insurance policy that is being inflicted on every

automobile owner in the province of British Columbia. So far as

I am concerned, the reason that automobile insurance is

[ Page 3016 ]

being brought in in British Columbia is to bring about a

reduction in the rates for those who have to buy it .

Because of the monopolistic views and attitude of this

government no one in the province will ever know whether they

are paying more or less. The same thing will happen in the

Province of British Columbia that has happened in other

jurisdictions in Canada where the government has brought in

automobile insurance.

The rates are down for a couple of years and then they go up

and up. The people who thought they were getting a bargain end

up paying a premium. For the government to say that they are

going to run this cheaper than the independent insurance

companies can do, doesn't really sell me on the idea that they

should have a monopoly.

If they're so afraid of competition, then they must be

afraid of their own ability to run this insurance corporation

in a manner that will bring the people of this province cheaper

rates.

The whole purpose behind this insurance bill lies in the

rates. Yet with all the promises the government has made, we

still have no indication whatsoever what the rate will be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This particular point of rates

was canvassed thoroughly during the debate on second reading

and I've already asked another Member to desist from speaking

about this. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member not to

discuss the matter of rates under

section 2.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I

didn't really intend to discuss this under

section 2 until I

just witnessed one of the most undemocratic exercises in this

House that I have ever seen — than I've seen in this

whole Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is why, Mr. Chairman, we must have the compulsion in this. The compulsion will allow the government

to do anything they want to and to charge any rates they so

desire to charge. That's why there's compulsion — that's

why

section 2 is necessary. That's why the government doesn't

want it debated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not the government that's

making the decision, Hon. Member. It's the Chairman that's

making the decision in this respect and you are trespassing

again into the matters that were debated under second reading

of the bill, which deals with the principle of the bill. I

would ask him to confine his remarks to the specifics in this

section 2.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, if the compulsion

is going to stay in this, who's going to be paying all the costs of the computer?

Where are they going to be rented? This is why we can't have compulsory. This

is why this insurance Act should be opened up to the light of day. This is why

the rates should be opened up to the light of day. This is why there should

be competition, Mr. Chairman. This is why this should not be compulsory.

The people of this province want to know. They want to know

what their rates are going to be. No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not

going to belabour the point, but the people of this province

will never know what the true costs are going to be because of

the compulsory feature as laid out in

section 2 of this

Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. In view of the remarks of the previous speaker

I'd like to point out that universal compulsory insurance was

put into effect in this province by that group over there when

they were government, not by this government. They should

remember that, so when you start talking about compulsion and

universality, you're the ones who brought it in. You are the

ones who are guilty in that regard, so don't lay it on our

doorstep. All we're trying to do is make it equitable for

everybody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich

and the Islands.

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

Chairman, the House Leader for the Progressive Conservative

Party has expressed our point of view, but on

section 2 it is

vital that every Member make his or her position perfectly

clear. I support several statements made by Members of the

opposition with respect to the

section before us now and the

compulsion which is provided for in that section.

I have to rise therefore, to underline the points made

previously and to make it abundantly clear that there was no

need for the government of this province to introduce monopoly

automobile insurance. If the proposal was to be that good, that

effective, that satisfactory to the majority of persons wishing

to be insured, then there was nothing to fear from the private

operators. Again, I suggest that a choice between the private

or public scheme would probably produce better service offered

by both sides.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Point Grey.

[ Page 3017 ]

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

I'm very much inclined to agree with the remarks of the Member

for Saanich and the Islands. That is, that when you're

struggling for business, that's when you make that extra effort

to give service and to keep a weather eye on costs.

I'd just like to ask a question of the Minister of Highways

regarding what sort of supervision is going to be given in the

payout of claims. My reason for saying this is that if there is

to be an "Open Sesame" on repairing every scratch and dent in a

car, and replacing parts to an automobile that may be bent just

a little bit with something brand new, then quite clearly,

costs can escalate manyfold in doing simple repairs.

The biggest cost, of course, in automobile insurance is the

payout to repair damaged automobiles. We've embarked in British

Columbia on a no-fault scheme, based on the premise that nobody

tries to get into an automobile accident. That having taken

place however, the matter of repairing the automobile, the

complete replacement of every scratched or dented part, can add

tremendously to the cost of undertaking the repair.

The old system was certainly an imperfect one, because there

never really has been any kind of adequate discipline over this

matter of repairs and what should or should not be done. But at

least you knew that if you were insured with a cheapskate

automobile insurance company — and there were a number of

them — one of the ways … well, I wouldn't refer to the

kind the former Minister of Public Works, or the Minister of

Hospital Insurance … they wouldn't have worked for cheapskate

insurance companies. If the insurance company showed extreme

discretion whom they hired in their latter years, well that may

have just been able management, though in the long run it may

not have worked out too well. I'm talking about the benefit of

the insurance company.

Here we're really concerned with the benefit of the safe

motorist — the individual who doesn't get into an

accident, but who pays premiums for those who do get into

them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that this can be

canvassed under other sections of the bill.

MR. McGEER: Well, if it can adequately be canvassed here the

debate will then be done, Mr Chairman. It does bear on whether

or not there's compulsion and the point that I'm trying to make

is that there was some opportunity with the old system to have

a discipline on this aspect. What I'd like to hear from the

Minister is what measures he will use to try and keep the cost

down because of the payout system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): First of all, in

reply to the only question I have had about what method we'll

use to keep the costs down, I indicated in an earlier speech

— and the legislation makes it very clear — that

the corporation does have the right to embark on and operate

its own repair shops as pilot projects if they wish, to

determine the costs. That's one thing.

Then of course we'll have the experience through our own

claim centres, I agree with the Member that in many cases in

the past there has been some padding, but I hope in this

operation through the new procedures…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Anyway, I didn't hear what the Member for

Point Grey said.

There have been several repeated statements, especially by

the official opposition, that in some way or other the

operation of this scheme will subsidize or be used to provide

general revenue in the automobile insurance. The Member for

South Peace (Mr. Phillips), who is not in his seat, made his

usual blanket accusation that he's been making all session.

There'll be no way of knowing, no way of knowing, no way of

knowing.

Mr. Chairman, I wish these people would read the

legislation. The legislation makes it very, very, very clear, A

man has to be an idiot not to understand that. The legislation

is very clear. The accounts shall be kept separate…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order, Mr.

Chairman. If he wishes to discuss the accounts, do it in the

section that the accounts are under.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member said that we wouldn't be able

to determine the costs. He said they're hidden. He made

accusations and I'm going to reply to them right now. He made

accusations under this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked about the rates under this

section. I answer that too. The rates aren't under this

section

but you asked it, didn't you? You raised it. Do you want me to

answer it?

[ Page 3018 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled the Hon. Members out of order on

that particular point. I'd ask them not to raise the matter of

rates again under this

section or to answer the matter of rates

under this section.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, I'll answer at the proper

time, Mr. Chairman. I respect the Chair, unlike…

Now, that doesn't leave much to answer, does it? (Laughter).

They talked about the monopoly. That was raised by everyone. No

opportunity for competition. As was pointed out, the previous

administration made automobile insurance compulsory in the

Province of British Columbia. They said that every person in

this province who has an automobile must carry insurance.

I say that there's something ethically and morally wrong

when you say to an individual, "You must pay money for

something," and then you leave a private corporation

free to make a profit from something that's compulsory. That's

ethically and morally wrong. That's why it's universal and

that's why we're going into the whole field.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) used the words,

"fundamentally believe in the right of choice." He made

some reference to our saying that the consumer is stupid.

That's not true. What we're doing in this legislation is

recognizing the fact that the insurance companies who were

operating in British Columbia didn't live up to their

responsibilities. You talk about return to competition. There

was no competition, no real effective competition.

They may have had a choice of companies. But I refer you

again, Mr. Chairman, to the royal commission report which said

very clearly that there was no competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was this report on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the automobile insurance. The Wootton

Royal Commission.

Then the commission recommended that initially the field

— even after their report of how they had eliminated

competition — that initially it would be left completely

to the private companies. That's what was done and the private

companies didn't improve their performance one bit. The royal

commission recommended that if that happened — and it did

— then the government of British Columbia should take over

the sole selling in British Columbia of all automobile

insurance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what we're doing We're simply following the

recommendations of the royal commission in the compulsory and being the sole

agency in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I would distinguish

the difference between the principle and the specifics. The

principle has already been agreed to, that is that the scheme

will be compulsory and universal. It's just a matter of

discussing points around that.

I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Hon.

Minister was talking about the private sector and profits in

the field of automobile insurance. Once again he came up with

the most simplistic socialistic economic posture.

If any company in the Province of B.C. wasn't making a

profit, it wouldn't be paying taxes and we wouldn't have any

provincial revenues. You know that as well as I do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't say a word about profits.

MR. GARDOM: Go ahead and read the Wootton report and say

that you're following that. That's just a bunch of hogwash.

It's fine and dandy to bring in a government plan the way that

you're doing. O.K., but for goodness sake let the private

sector have the opportunity to compete against it. Do we or do

we not live in a free society?

AN HON. MEMBER: No longer.

MR. GARDOM: That's got to be the answer to that question.

Obviously it seems to be "no" in the Province of British

Columbia, because I am not permitted to carry on a lawful,

taxpaying, nonpolluting vocation in opposition to the

government if I choose to do it. That to me is absolutely

ludicrous.

There's no assurance — and you can't give any

assurance to the people of B.C. — that the fenders are

not going to be paid for by the non-motorist B.C. taxpayer.

He's going to be paying for the fixing of fenders and make no

mistake about that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I would repeat again

that the matter of a universal compulsory plan has already been

approved of in principle and therefore taking a position for or

against is not really something that we should be considering

at this time.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you're making all kinds of

presumptions. I got up just to make a very

[ Page 3019 ]

brief point to the Minister, to ask him a question, and I

got a lecture. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I don't have any

new-found respect for the Chair. I had it right along.

(Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. McGEER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Say anything you want. As long as you say it

in 30 seconds. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: I do have just a very brief question and it's

this. Yesterday we had released a devastating report on the

operation of a Crown corporation. The reason why that report

was devastating was because it showed what can happen when

there isn't adequate financial supervision. When you have

competition…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wanted to get into that but I was ruled

out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that this is

not part of

section 2.

MR. McGEER: O.K. The Minister knows my question and he can

choose the time to answer it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Public

Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman,

there's one point that has been completely missed across the

way. It is this: for the first time in the history of British

Columbia, the people of British Columbia have the freedom to

choose to buy their insurance from a service motivated

organization, an efficient operation, at cost.

MR. GARDOM: It's compulsory. You can only buy it in one

place.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, my legal beagles across the way are

screaming about compulsion. But I didn't hear them scream in

1969 when this legislation was before the House. I didn't hear

those legal beagles scream, Mr. Chairman, when that old tired

government took from the hands of the courts the matter of

levying traffic fines and said, "You'll pay no more traffic

fines into the courts. We'll allow the insurance companies,

through compulsion, to increase your rates rather than pay

fines through the legitimate courts of this land." Yes, you sat

back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister to confine his remarks to

section 2.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman,

section 2 under

compulsion. On August 30 there was an election that culminated

20 years of campaigning for compulsory automobile insurance in

this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you asking for a recount?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The recount is being taken now and you'll

be counted out, my friend. You'll be found short and

wanting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, 25 years ago, my friend from Peace

River, this type of legislation was started in one other

province…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe we're discussing the

principle of the bill again. I would ask…

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Compulsory insurance was started in

Saskatchewan over 25 years ago, as outlined under

section 2 of

this Act. The Liberals were elected in 1964, making similar

fallacious remarks as we've heard from across the way. But did

they do anything about removing that compulsion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister

to confine his remarks to

section 2 rather than…

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm speaking to

section 2 —

compulsion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But we're back on the debate of the principle

of the bill again. I pointed out to the Hon. Minister that the

principle of the bill was the universal compulsory automobile

insurance plan. That has already been agreed to by a vote in

second reading. Therefore, we can only debate the specifics in

conjunction with this and not present again arguments for or

against the principle.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to conclude by

saying that if there is any group that could stand that, it is

the group that does not recognize how their party failed to do

something about compulsion when they had the opportunity in

Saskatchewan…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

[ Page 3020 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, there is a

principle of debate which says that when we are discussing a

bill in third reading we discuss the detail and not the

principle. As far as I can see in this bill, there is nothing

referring to the principles decided in the 1964 Saskatchewan

provincial election, which is the subject of the Minister's

discourse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled the Hon. Minister out of

order and he has taken his seat. Therefore I would…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he has because I'm on my feet on a

point of order. He's been popping up and down like a

jack-in-the-box. Now, either you are going to have to try and

govern this House impartially…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken and I have

asked the Hon. Minister to take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K. Well, all we insist upon then is

that your judgments are a little more impartial from the

Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: it is important that the Chairman hear the

arguments before he may pass judgment, as I've done with all

the other Members.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going

to speak, but the Hon. Minister's comments prompted me to say

at least one or two things. He has suggested that there are

things that the opposition has forgotten about with regard to

insurance. I'd suggest that there are many things the

government has forgotten about.

He has brought into this debate the matter of cost; he says

that we are going to buy this insurance at cost. Then if he

says that …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: …why don't you bring those rates before

us so we know what they are?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've already ruled the Minister out of

order and you cannot discuss arguments which were ruled out of order. I ask

you to confine your remarks to

section 2.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we're talking about

section 2

and the Minister's remarks to it. He has also suggested that

they had a mandate to provide this insurance in the last

election in the manner in which it appears in

section 2. I

dispute that, Mr. Chairman, because many of the Members on this

side of the House have said that we recognize that the

government had a mandate to provide automobile insurance, but

they did not have a mandate to provide monopolistic automobile

insurance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This matter has already been

decided in second reading.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not talking about compulsory automobile

insurance, Mr. Chairman; I'm talking about monopolistic

automobile insurance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think the

interpretation would be the

same; the universal is compulsory.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the government has also

forgotten that many, many people are very happy with the kind

of insurance and the kind of service they get from their agents

right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

either discuss

section 2 or take his seat because you are again

debating the principle of the bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about the corporation engaging

in automobile insurance which is what

section 2 is all

about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The principle that was decided

in second reading was that there be a universal, compulsory

automobile insurance plan. This has already been voted on and

agreed to by this House. The arguments for and against cannot

again be canvassed. I would ask that you consider the specifics

in conjunction with the fact that this has already been

approved.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is that we

cannot discuss

section 2 which says that the corporation is to

engage in automobile insurance, and that is exactly what we are

talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You may discuss the

[ Page

3021 ]

specifics so long as they don't trespass on the decision

already made by the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll just conclude then

by alluding again to the Minister's comments in which he says

we have freedom to choose. I suggest that we do not have any

choice, nor do we have any freedom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R. A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Stoves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

PAIRED

Brousson

Stupich

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to draw particular attention to

this section. Perhaps it will allay the misconceptions which

have been expressed earlier this morning as to moneys getting

lost and moneys being used to subsidize, and all the rest of

it.

This

section makes it very clear that all moneys relating to the automobile

insurance part of the business shall be kept, and the words are "separate and

distinct accounts," from the general insurance.

I can understand the official opposition being disturbed

this morning when they look at the headlines in the paper,

where they had been mismanaging Crown corporations, where they

had been keeping financing matters not quite up to order. But,

Mr. Chairman, this calls for separate and distinct accounts,

and in a later

section the Comptroller General will make sure

that this law… because the Comptroller General of this

province has a responsibility when that's written into law to

see that that's done and done properly. And he will do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the matter that has been raised by

a number of Members in this House — and will be reiterated

in this

section which has to do with the keeping of the

accounts and records of the corporation — is simply this:

in the calculation of premiums received and expenses paid out

against those premium collections, it will be very easy for the

provincial government to set a rate for insurance which takes

into consideration a charge against every Crown corporation in

excess of what they are presently paying to self-insure their

own vehicles.

So, if in the accounts the collection of premiums is $150

million, for example, that could very well reflect a 20, 30,

40, 50 or 100 per cent increase in the actual net cost per

vehicle in the government departments, such as B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Railway — all the departments of government — and

it will be covered off as an operating expense of those

corporations or those departments. It will be perfectly legal

and legitimate to bring that in as revenue in premium income;

but the taxpayers of this province will never know the fact

that they have indirectly subsidized the premiums to make this

plan compatible for the people of the Province of British

Columbia.

This is the point that we're trying to make; not that we

argue that the accounts will not be correctly kept, Mr.

Minister, but the fact that you can, through the Crown

corporations, inflate the cost of insurance to those

corporations as compared to what they pay today. And every

taxpayer in the province will be paying part and parcel of

that, without their knowledge and without their consent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I realize why the Member says what he says. That's how the previous

administration operated. We don't operate that way, my friend.

I can understand your being disturbed,

[ Page 3022 ]

because out of your experience as a government that's how

you operated.

I want to repeat what I said when I introduced this bill for

second reading: the plan will be self-sustaining; all services

rendered by any department of government or otherwise will be

paid for from moneys belonging to the plan — payment of

all losses and expenses of administration will be made from

plan funds. I repeat that and I guarantee it will be carried

out.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the fact that the

premiums collected are legally reported and that the claims

paid out are legally reported does not prevent the Crown

corporations and the individual departments of government in

this province being charged a higher rate for insurance on the

vehicles that they have under their collective custody than

they presently pay; and it will not show up in the reports that

come down with respect to this

section of this Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Under this

section there's a provision to allow

the corporation to acquire real property. For the purposes of

the Act, the corporation may expend moneys of the corporation

received under

section 3, which we have just debated. In other

words, the corporation has within its power the provision that

some of the revenue collected in premiums can be diverted to

the acquisition of real property.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to be an

impost upon the plan because it's probably the intention of the

corporation to acquire real property, to set up offices and to

maintain them either in rented premises or in premises that

they themselves may build for the purposes of providing

insurance services throughout the province. It may be as a

result of setting up new body shops that they require real

property and real estate, and this will become a charge against

every person who contributes premiums to the collective

administration and cost of supplying insurance in the Province

of British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Automobile insurance.

MR. SMITH: Auto insurance.

In that respect all of us will be providing and paying for the acquisition

of real estate and property which under the present system we do not have to

buy. We have it supplied as part of the services — even though that costs part

of your premium dollar, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure it is.

MR. SMITH: Sure. But I'll tell you this, that there's a

great deal of difference, Mr. Minister, through you Mr.

Chairman, between acquiring property and setting up new

complexes and buildings at today's inflated rates of building

costs, wages, salaries and all the rest of the costs that go

into acquiring property and setting up buildings than there was

a few years ago. Many of those costs have already been written

out effectively by the general insurance industry collectively

in this province. Now we're going to duplicate the services and

the property and the investment that those corporations have,

and we'll do it at the expense of the taxpayers of this

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, under

section 7(2) you see that a corporation

will not make a contract for extension insurance unless, under

2(b), the individual is a resident of the province. Does this

mean that if a contract for extension insurance is entered into

it becomes void if the driver ceases to be a resident of the

province? It's an item that you should look into, if not today

at some future time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the situation right now. It's

merely a continuation of the present setup.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think if you look at it a little later

on — if you give the insurance and the person ceases to

be a resident, does it cancel or does it continue? The concept

is that it would continue but the

section doesn't clearly

indicate that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was the intent. Until that

particular period has expired — that's the concept.

Yes.

Section 7 approved.

[ Page 3023 ]

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section of the Act

which deals specifically with the monopoly authorization and

provision for the corporation to engage in the sale of auto

insurance in the province. It sets out here specifically that

every person who applies for a policy of auto or trailer

insurance or motor vehicle liability policy in respect to a

motor vehicle or trailer registered within this province must

purchase their insurance from the corporation.

It is one of the provisions of the Act to which we most

strenuously object. It should not have been a requirement of

the government to go into the auto insurance business on a

monopoly basis. In order to provide adequate guarantees to the

public generally in this province — if they wished to

enter into the auto business — they should have done it

on a competitive basis; a basis which would have given the

general public a yardstick to use on their performance and

compare it to the performance of the private insurers within

the Province of British Columbia.

If the government can provide the services in the manner

they say, they should have had no problem in convincing the

public that their plan was the best.

On the other hand, if they were not able to provide that

service as efficiently and for as low a rate of premium as they

have suggested in advertisements which we have seen throughout

this province, then the taxpayers of this province should have

the opportunity of knowing that fact and judging for

themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that the Hon. Member

is again introducing arguments that were brought up during

second reading of the bill, the principle of the bill being a

universal compulsory scheme with the corporation being the sole

insurer.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is repeating

section 2 all over

again.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not. I didn't raise this at

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter of the principle of the bill has already been

dealt with and decided upon and therefore I would ask him to go on to something

new

MR. SMITH: I am trying to confine my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to this

section of the Act which deals with the specific matter of monopoly provision

of insurance in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter of the kind of plan

has already been agreed upon by the House. You may deal with

specifics that do not trespass on the decision already made,

that we have a compulsory universal plan with one insurer. That

is the principle of the bill which has already been decided

upon.

MR. SMITH: Then I'll suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we

are completely and diametrically opposed to

section 8 in this

bill, that it provides a situation for the government to enter

the business on a monopoly basis and that we will have no

yardstick to use and to judge whether the premiums that are

charged are fair in relation to what could have been done by

the private industry.

If the proposed plan cannot stand on its own feet against

the competitive forces of free enterprise business in the

province, then it has no business existing as a compulsory type

of insurance that everyone in this province must adhere to and

purchase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 8 pass?

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Curtis

PAIRED

Brousson

Nimsick

section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 3024 ]

MR. GARDOM: Two points on

section 9. Under

section 9(b), Mr.

Minister, you can promote programmes to provide for "the more

equitable distribution of losses resulting from highway traffic

accidents." What exactly do you mean by "more equitable

distribution of losses"? A loss is a loss. Do you mean that if

one individual might, say, have a $1,000 loss and another

individual a $2,000 loss, you are going to divide it in two and

say they should get $1,500 apiece? The words are obscure.

Then, under

section 9(d), you have the right to negotiate

with people engaged in the business of motor vehicle repairs

"with a view to establishing fair and reasonable prices." This

is really in the private sector, contrary to the Combines

Act , among other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that? HON. MR. BARRETT: I get confused by you free-enterprisers

adopting a double standard of morality when it comes to the

jungle of free enterprise versus the government going into

business. As long as it is free enterprise an employee can be

knifed, cut apart, slashed, abandoned, pushed aside any way

that the jungle wants to, but when the government…

MR. GARDOM: Under

section 9(d). It is one this to try to

determine rates for claim settlements but does this mean you

are going to have a view to having one single solitary repair

shop in major areas? Are the small repair people in the

province going to be put out of business? Are you going to get

them all under one roof? What's the concept behind

section

9(d)?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, let's go to 9(

b) first — you

questioned the wording there with regard to "more

equitable distribution of losses." What we are after is trying

to improve the techniques of assessing loss, damage,

distribution of the cost factors between different

sections.

I think it came out in the royal commission very clearly. I

think the statement was made that the estimation of rate

structures so far has been anything but scientific. I think the

royal commission has said that, as a matter of fact, at one

point. We are now, for the first time, having a group that will

be in a position to get the rate structures on a more

scientific basis.

With regard to repair shops: the experience in other

provinces is that they negotiate a price with the individual

repair shop. I have seen the lists of the hourly rates paid to

all the repair shops in the major centres right through

Saskatchewan, for instance. The rates vary from place to place

and so on, but they do negotiate. That is what we have in mind

here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River on

section 9.

MR. SMITH: Well, it's fairly obvious in

section 9(

c) that

the provincial government intends to maintain one or more

repair body shops in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, a little competition.

MR. SMITH: I don't think that the auto repair industry would

object to competition on a fair basis. But one of the problems

of that is that the shops will probably be located in large

centres of the province. If the plan runs into difficult times

and adverse claims ratios against the plan as compared to the

premiums charged, there will certainly be a tendency on the

part of the government to minimize the costs of repairing

vehicles. One of the ways to do that will be to demand that if

you wish your vehicle repaired then you must take it to the

nearest authorized auto repair shop.

Now, in many cases that will result in forcing the small

independent auto repair body business out of business. It will

also result in a situation where people will be required by the

government to take their cars great distances in order to have

them repaired. In other words, what we will be doing is

providing less service than we presently have, with no

indication that there'll be any savings in providing that

lesser service.

It's also setting up a gun-at-the-head technique with

respect to the small repair shops in the province, because all

of these people bid now for repair business. Basically,

generally speaking, the adjuster awards the contract to repair

a vehicle to the shop who gives them the best bid — the

lowest bid. It's a field of competition at work. But the thing

that would concern any privately-owned shop is the fact that

the provincial government, operating body shops in competition

with them, have opportunities to cover off expenses under the

administration of the public purse, that they as individual

enterprises do not have an opportunity to cover off.

I would be concerned, Mr. Minister, that when you enter into

the repair shop business, as you've indicated that you are

going to do, you will by one means or another make it very

difficult for people to deal with anyone other than the body

shop which carries the stamp of the Province of British

Columbia above its door.

It's just another nail in the coffin of the independent

businessman who has worked hard to build up a business for

himself, his family and his employees over a number of

years.

We certainly do not support that type of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman,

section 9(

c) is

specifically designed to permit the establishment of

experimental repair shops for a number of reasons — to

study the effectiveness of repair techniques, the cost of

alternative procedures, the comparative efficiency of

various

[ Page 3025 ]

kinds of equipment, the effect of automobile structural

design and repair costs, and all that sort of thing. It is

anticipated that the results of such experimental work will be

made available to automotive repair shops in the private sector

for utilization by them. That's the purpose of that

section.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this Member keeps suggesting sneaky

techniques. I want to assure the House that I'm going to shut

them right out of my mind — all these sneaky techniques

that he keeps suggesting would subvert the intention of this

bill and the intention of this government and the intention of

this Minister. So you go on suggesting these sneaky techniques.

I'm not going to listen because I'm not going to be a party to

any of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the Minister's

dissertation, all I can say is that we certainly have ample

precedent before us in other NDP jurisdictions, as to what has

happened with respect to the government-controlled auto

insurance business and the repair of vehicles.

If you look to the Province of Manitoba or to Saskatchewan,

you will find that they do have repair shops set up in

strategic locations, that it has become very difficult for many

people to get their cars repaired anywhere else and that it has

provided a great inconvenience to the public, because they are

required to go to those body shops when they are open, to do

business with that shop, regardless of how far they may be

removed from it at the time of the accident. This is a charge

against them — not against their insurance. I suggest

that this plan will follow very close to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, the wording of

section 9(

c) is clearly "investigate, study, and apply

techniques." What you are suggesting is that this

section is

going to be used for the other purposes. You've already made

that suggestion and I've not ruled you out of order. But I

would ask you not to press the matter; otherwise I would say

that you are imputing a motive to the Minister of Highways or

to those authorities that is not contained in

section 9(c). I

ask you to confine your remarks to the

section itself, and not

to any possible things that the

section might be used for.

MR. SMITH: The first words in

section 9(

c) are: "establish and maintain

one or more repair shops to investigate, study and apply techniques." O.K. But

in the repair of motor vehicles and trailers it's very simple to make sure that

in the studying of techniques the majority of the vehicles that have to be repaired

must be repaired by these body shops.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 9 pass?

Section 9 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey on

section 10.

MR. GARDOM: Dealing with

section 10, Mr. Minister, I'd ask

you what protection an insured would have under an automobile

policy if the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Act did not apply. It would seem that there would be no

protection at all if one of the three people, who are a

faceless five at the present time, decided that a provision of

the Act did not apply. That individual might even have had a

policy, but if you could make the provision that the Act

doesn't apply, then that individual would be without coverage

and also without the right to apply for outside coverage, with

the all-encompassing power that you've given here. That could

end in very tragic results for the person who might suffer loss

and find that he's out of luck.

Perhaps it's something you'd like to look at over the next

few months.

As I mentioned a bit earlier, Mr. Chairman, I have several

quite technical postures here, and this is why I'm putting them

on Hansard for the assistance of the Minister and the

government in the

interpretation of the plan. Notwithstanding

that we grossly disagree with it, if you're going to bring it

in, we want to see it work as best it can.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The purpose of this

section is to ensure

some flexibility which will permit the automobile insurance

programme to develop. It may subsequently appear in light of

experience that provisions of the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia Act are more consistent with the

corporation's function as an insurer in general lines rather

than the automobile insurance. It's just to give it more

flexibility, that's all.

MR. GARDOM: I suppose under

section 10(4) there's no longer

going to be a tax on insurance premiums, on any class of

insurance in the Province of B.C.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, only on the automobile insurance.

MR. GARDOM: He says, "only on the automobile

[ Page 3026 ]

insurance."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, it's in this Act.

MR. GARDOM: The Fire Marshal Act is thrown out too,

isn't it, as far as getting revenue is concerned? How are you

going to fund it? How are you going to fund the fire marshal's

department? Because that was one great source of revenue

through this… Aha! I've found something we haven't thought

about. You might write that down. If you missed it, your wife's

up in the gallery and she'll make a note of it, I'm sure.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My daughter's up there too, and she'll

make a note of it.

MR. GARDOM: Good, well then you're well shepherded today. I

hope you take them both for lunch.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will.

MR. GARDOM: And you buy for a change instead of making them

do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: It seems strange to me, Mr. Chairman, that the

government in its wisdom has decided that if they go into the

auto insurance business, as they are doing here in the business

of providing insurance, in the initial instance they must make

a provision in the act that will allow them to be exempted from

the rules and the conditions and the regulations that every

general insurance company has lived with in this province and

operated under for years.

It is obvious that if the general insurance industry has had

to live with all the provisions of the Act, the provincial

government should be able to do likewise. I've listened to the

explanation of the Minister, but it does seem to me that

they've written into

section 10 provisions which were not

necessary, should not be required and could actually have been

put in by amendment later on if they were, in fact,

required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 10 pass?

Section 10 approved.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Under

section 12, Mr. Chairman, there is not any

provision to provide copies of these reports to the person who

is reported on, which is George Orwell kind of stuff.

Secondly, does this mean that the current traffic reports

which have to be filed by a driver under the provisions of the

Motor Vehicle Act may be used against such an individual

in evidence in any action that he may take against the

corporation? If it does mean that, it is a complete departure

from the existing law. Traffic reports have always been treated

with complete sanctity insofar as they may not be utilized in

courts or in evidence; the view being, of course, that this

would make people report traffic violations, which has been

successfully carried on in the province for many years.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would rather catch the wording:

"Statements, information, and reports made or given to the

corporation…" Only the statements given to the corporation,

not that are made to the police.

MR. GARDOM: Well, would it be your concept that,

"Statements, information, and reports made or given to the

corporation," be used against individuals who would have

suits against the corporation? Yes or no.

And secondly, would copies of them be provided to the person

who was reported on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What was the last question?

MR. GARDOM: Would copies be furnished to the individual who

was being reported on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I would expect so. Remember, it was

his report originally; he was the one who made the report. But

certainly if he wanted a copy of it he could have a copy. It

only applies to the reports of the corporation.

It's a secrecy section, you see. No one else can get hold of

the report.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, but somebody else can report somebody, and

he doesn't have the benefit of that report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 12 pass?

Section 12 approved.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

[ Page 3027 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the amendments standing in my name

on the order paper for

section 16.

Amendments approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey on

section 16 with amendments.

MR. GARDOM: Well, this is the weaning-off section, Mr.

Chairman, notwithstanding the amendment. It seems to me that

this is another one of the steps towards the slow slaying of

the industry — sort of destroying them inch by inch.

If an agent would happen to be in the Minister's favour it

would appear that he would have the ability to live; if he

doesn't happen to be in the favour of the Minister it would

seem that he would have an almost infinite capacity to perish.

This seems to me very much a process of selective livelihood

with the Minister doing the selecting. I suppose insofar as the

agents in the Province of B.C. are concerned they had better

start polishing their apples and polishing them pretty

well, Then under 16(8), we find that we've got great guillotine

powers here. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can cancel any

appointment made under subsection I without notice and without

compensation.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, please. Would the Hon.

Member be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe if I would be allowed permission by the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to move the

amendment standing in my name in the order paper, which would

make what he's referring to,

section 16(8)…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we will let the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey finish.

MR. GARDOM: Under existing subsection 8, the Minister can

cancel any appointment without remedy of the individual,

without any capacity for remedy of the individual, without any

capacity for him for redress, without a hearing, without

appeal, without or beyond the due process of law, without

compensation, and contrary to any single, solitary precept of

natural justice.

I certainly intend to support the amendment of my colleague from the Peace

River, and I ask you one question, Mr. Minister: do you think this is fair?

How would you like to be in the shoes of someone having this kind of a sword

over his head?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, first of all; as you know, the

changes indicated are going to allow any agent to sell his

business.

MR. GARDOM: "May." If you approve of it. If big boss says

yes, otherwise no.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to read the House a letter from

the Insurance Agents Association of British Columbia, dated

April 6, 1973, addressed to me. "Dear Sir,"…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is the Insurance Agents Association

of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've seen the letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: They've walked out on their own boys, that's

what they've done.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It says,

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you

sincerely for the very cordial meeting of April 3. The changes

that you propose in the Act are significant and mean a great

deal to our members.

"We are also appreciative of any change by regulation that

will give our members access to a larger share of the

market."

MR. GARDOM: Did they give you a box of MacIntosh Reds?

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

"We trust that we will be meeting again shortly to discuss

other problems in setting up the public insurance plan."

We're going to be meeting again. There is no question about

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the

amendment to

section 16(8) standing in my name on the order

paper.

Speaking for the amendment, the letter that the Hon.

Minister of Highways just read shows me and the rest of the

Legislature how afraid the insurance

[ Page 3028 ]

agents of British Columbia are of this Minister. He's got

them caught in a trap.

In one respect the association is trying to negotiate for

its independent agents in British Columbia, and on the other

hand they're afraid of arousing the Minister's ire because they

know that with one foul swoop he'll say "Out! Out! We didn't

want you in the first place. You're just gumming up the

works."

So that's the situation the insurance agents in this

province are caught in. They're having to get down on their

knees to the Minister and crawl to him for some small

crumbs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't be silly.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what's happening here, Mr.

Chairman, to the insurance agents in British Columbia. The

Minister has made it quite clear in previous statements that

they're gumming up the works. He's cut their commission in

half.

A man who subscribes to the principles that our Minister of

Highways subscribes to actually amazes me because he has

reduced the assets of many independent insurance agents, many

independent businessmen, many family enterprises, by from 40 to

60 per cent.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is a fact too, Mr. Minister of Highways.

You know it's a fact. And the Minister of Highways says, "Oh,

well, insurance agencies are being bought up all over the

province."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You don't know what you are talking

about.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly do know what I am talking

about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, you don't.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Highways is lending a blind

eye to this situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're shouting

about.

MR. PHILLIPS: He has caused heartbreak in this province, Mr.

Chairman. Heartburn, heartache. He knows it, Mr. Chairman, but

he keeps that blind eye turned towards the problem.

Mr. Chairman, in the Province of Manitoba…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am confining my remarks to the amendment

because, Mr. Chairman, I happen to be speaking about

compensation. In so thinking about compensation I want to tell

you, Mr. Chairman, what happened in Manitoba. Do you not want

to hear it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is relevant to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, very relative. Very, very, very relative,

Mr. Chairman, because in Manitoba the Autopac industry, their

insurance industry in Manitoba offered compensation to the

insurance agents who did not wish to carry the Autopac. What

has happened to our Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman? Where

is his conscience gone?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You never had one.

MR. PHILLIPS: You never had one?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You never had one.

MR. PHILLIPS: You never had one! You said that you never had

one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please confine your

remarks to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about compensation. I am talking

about the Minister being able to chop off an independent

insurance agent, as my friend the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) so ably pointed out,

without any recourse whatsoever.

Now this is after having reduced the value of these agents

to practically nil by bringing in this Act in the first place,

by making it impossible for them to carry on in their business

because of the amount of business that's being taken away from

them.

In the Province of Manitoba the government had compassion

for the independent insurance agents. They knew that there were

many agencies who had built up thriving businesses over a

period of years. They knew in many instances that these were

family-owned businesses. They knew that in many instances the

people who run these independent insurance agencies work

Saturdays, Sundays and late into the night to give service and

build up a clientele, because all an insurance agent has, Mr.

Chairman, is his goodwill and his ability to give service and

his ability to sell a product. Now this has been taken away.

The Minister of Highways, without any heart for these people,

with no compassion for these people, wants to dismiss them

without cause in any case and they have no recourse — to

a court of law or even to the cabinet. This is really just a

bit much. It's more of big government crushing over the rights

[ Page 3029 ]

independent businessmen in this province. It's just not good

enough for the people of this province.

It's not good enough for the Minister of Highways to keep

turning that blind eye to the problems of these independent

people. Great heartbreak has been wrought upon these

people.

I plead with the Minister to accept my amendment here today.

Take a look at what they've done in Manitoba. Have an

independent survey. Let him survey what you should pay, Mr.

Minister of Highways.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have your permission to read a

short excerpt from a letter that the Premier sent with regard

to insurance agencies. This was in 1970. He seems to have

changed his attitude, Mr Chairman, since 1970.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What did I say?

MR. PHILLIPS: In 1970 the Premier said, "As to automobile

insurance rates, my sympathy is very much with an insurance

agent in a small business."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: "…my sympathy is very much with an

insurance agent in his small business." I wish that today, Mr.

Chairman, the Premier's sympathy was with the insurance…

HON. MR. BARRETT: They're happy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh! For the Premier, Mr Chairman, for the

Premier to say that the insurance agents in this province are

happy with this

section of this bill is completely, completely

and unadulterated ridiculous!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you quit describing yourself?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier may laugh all he

wants to. He may joke about this very serious situation. The

Premier at one time used to impress me with having a little bit

of conscience — at one time. I didn't give him credit for

having a great deal of conscience …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am confining my remarks to the amendment,

Mr. Chairman, very much so to the amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Hon. Members on the government

side of the House not to interrupt the Member while he is

speaking.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the Premier

used to impress me with having a little bit of conscience at

one time. But today he has no conscience whatsoever. Power has

gone to his head and closed off that portion of his brain which

gave him the little bit of conscience he had.

Today he just crushes over the rights of people. He sits and

jokes about the heartache that he is causing among the

insurance agents in this province. The fact that he laughs

about it, Mr. Chairman, he's laughing at the insurance agents

that he wants to get rid of.

Not only is he going to be able to dismiss them without

compensation, but he's going to laugh at them at the same

time.

If this government has any conscience whatsoever they will

allow this amendment of mine to stand which will allow the

government to give the insurance agents some compensation when

they are being dismissed.

You're sure in a big rush to rush through this bill aren't

you, Members of the government. I'll tell you, if I have to

stay here until June and fight for these agents I'll be quite

willing to do it, because I'm interested in the plight of the

insurance agents in this province.

I'd like the Minister to get up and defend this case and

tell me why he cannot support this simple amendment. It would

be following precedent already set by other jurisdictions

— in particular Manitoba. I'd like him to try and justify

his stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We

support the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, while one supports the value of the

amendment rather than the person putting it forward

necessarily. (Laughter). That's not fair. I didn't mean that as

an insult to a Member. I am talking about the fact that I…

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll just have to realize where it comes

from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. WALLACE: We've had our philosophical differences on the principle

of this bill. That is passed; it would be both a waste of time and out of order

to reflect on that. But I do say, Mr. Chairman, that it is very disappointing

to me for the three years

[ Page 3030 ]

that I sat in this House and listened to the present

government when they were the official opposition — if there was ever one theme

that ran through their arguments, a theme that I always myself supported and

was frequently accused of being a socialist because I supported their thinking,

it was the protection of the rights of individuals in a free society.

If there is one theme which has been present in all too many

parts of the legislative programme of this their first regular

session, it has been to override or put in jeopardy those

rights which they themselves — the rights of the

individual — championed and said they would defend to the

nth degree if they became government or if they remained in

opposition.

I well remember the long night in this House when the

present Premier was dismissed from this House by the Speaker.

And why was he dismissed, Mr Chairman? The crux of the reason

why he was dismissed is that he was standing up in this House

defending what he believed — and I believed — to be

the rights of an individual widow in this province who was not

getting justice.

I sympathized with the Premier at that time. I felt that he

was only attempting to carry out in practice what he said he

believed in principle. The reason I am supporting the amendment

is that I firmly believe in it.

I don't think that the Premier and the government realize

the contradiction of their own principles which they have put

into the details of this bill. It just is not fair in our

society where government takes complete control of a branch of

industry or business and then holds this much power and control

over an agent, that he can be dismissed without notice and

without compensation.

I just ask, Mr. Chairman, is this the government that is

always preaching the importance of collective bargaining

whereby individuals cannot just be dismissed from their job;

that they have some security in their job; or if they are

dismissed at least there has to be some reason?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: The amendment of 7(

a) as I understand it

— aye, I'll give credit where credit is due as far as at

least recognizing…this was another point I wanted to

mention later on. But since you've raised it, Mr. Minister, the

amendment 7(

a) certainly rectifies one of the other very unfair

parts of the initial description of the initial bill, inasmuch

as these men, as has been pointed out, had built up a business

by their own endeavour which had monetary value; and the bill,

as originally written, wiped out for many people a very

substantial financial interest in their chosen business. And

7(

a) has changed that. I give the government credit, and I was

planning to mention that but since you brought it up at this point I'll mention

it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he would mind confining his remarks to the amendment to

section

16(8).

MR. WALLACE: Well sometimes, Mr. Chairman, there's a

continuity in an argument which it is well to sustain, and I

was simply responding to that continuity.

But in this whole question of 16(8), this really is just not

fair in my view. I think that if an agent is so much at the

control of this Minister and the Automobile Insurance

Act, it is only one of the basic rules of natural justice,

as so many other Members have said in this House, and a concept

of modern employment, that if you work for an employer it is

surely very reasonable if the employer suddenly fires you, that

you should at least have some mechanism of appeal, or you

should be given an explanation.

If, as a result of the action of being dismissed or fired,

or whatever word you want to use, you suddenly find that your

means of making a living is cut off and your possibility of

selling your business is impaired in one way or another, these

are all possible ramifications of subsection 8, Mr.

Chairman.

Surely this government isn't saying that that kind of power,

which is not present in ordinary employers across the province

or across Canada, should be given to this Minister. It just

doesn't make sense at all.

That's all we're asking. This amendment should simply say

that there should be some form of compensation and some

independent appraisal of why the action was taken, and what the

compensation should be, based on the rights or wrongs of that

original decision. For the life of me, I can't understand why

the Premier — who I know has a great respect for fair

play and justice; and he's upheld that principle many, many

times in this House — and I cannot understand why

subsection 8 so clearly and unmistakably contradicts that very

fundamental principle of justice to the individual in our

society.

It isn't just a question of this

section per se, but since

we are specifically trying to stick to this amendment, I think

it should be made quite plain that its correction might not

necessarily cost money. We are not even suggesting that

automatically any agent who is dismissed or has his licence

revoked would automatically receive compensation. We are not

saying that at all. At least I don't understand the amendment

to try and even bring that about. The amendment is simply

saying that there should be some hearing by neutral

individuals, or a body…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 3031 ]

MR. WALLACE: Yes, independent appraisal. All we're saying is

that the least that any person working under such complete

authority of one person, or persons designated by the Minister,

should have is some access to appeal if he is dismissed. If

that independent appraisal says that there was good reason to

dismiss him then we're not suggesting that automatically he

gets compensation.

But I think society has surely advanced far enough.

Certainly a lot of the advances that have been made are because

of the pressure of this particular government, improvement in

terms of employment for various sectors of society. I recognize

that. It just leaves me completely puzzled as to why, once the

government itself becomes a quasi-employer by issuing licences

to people to do their legitimate job, that then they expect

this unbelievable degree of control over an individual agent

which no other employer holds.

So, Mr. Chairman, I really feel that the case is clear and

unmistakable that the government should have surely shown great

wisdom in accepting the appeal that an agent should be allowed

to sell or transfer his business to his son or to his heirs or

to others. As I say, I've given them recognition of that.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, the same kind of sense of justice

would prevail if at least you could not just kick an agent out

of business without either giving him a reason or giving him a

hearing.

I would appeal to the government, very seriously. There is

nothing I've been more sincere about this session. This just

seems to be asking only that agents be given fair play.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I get confused by you free-enterprisers

adopting a double standard of morality when it comes to the

jungle of free enterprise versus the government going into

business. As long as it is free enterprise an employee can be

knifed, cut apart, slashed, abandoned, pushed aside any way

that the jungle wants to, but when the government…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, not true? I'll give some illustrations

which relate to this. When the government comes in and does

something, then come these bleating appeals for protection that

the free enterprise jungle has never given to these agents at

any single time.

Now let's deal exactly with what this

section is. They have

a choice. They can like it or lump it. That's their choice

under those carriers. Not one single carrier of automobile

insurance, not one carrier company, has ever come to this

government as a carrier company saying "please protect the agents." Not

once. They have employed these agents for years and years and

years and they have never made a representation to this

government saying "protect those faithful employees of our

company."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): They

are not employees.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are not employees? What are they, Mr.

Member?

MR. WILLIAMS: Independent agents.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Independent agents. Hallelujah!

Independent agents. Now what's going to happen?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'm glad that point has been

raised. They're still independent agents. They're still

independent agents, and each agent can continue to work or not,

depending on his choice.

MR. PHILLIPS: What other auto insurance can he sell? Don't

be ridiculous, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Chairman, they're agents out

there when they're dealing with a private company, but they're

not agents when they deal with us.

What a pack of nonsense. What a pack of nonsense. They're

independent agents. They can sell our insurance. They can sell

their company's own…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, my poor friend over there. They can't

sell any insurance. Just the government's. Whose insurance

could they flog before? Those insurance rates were fixed. There

was very little difference in those insurance rates, and they

had to go around and flog the poor risks. Yes, certainly there

is going to be one price equally for everybody instead of that

jungle in New York using the agents to flog that fixed

insurance that has been milking the people of British Columbia

out of millions of dollars all these years.

Why don't you deal with the facts? The facts are that each

agent will be allowed to continue to work. We are not taking

away his right to work. He can sell our insurance; insurance

agents will negotiate a commission with the government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 3032 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Number 2: Each agent can sell his

insurance business if he wants to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who to?

HON. MR. BARRETT: To another agent. To his son. To anyone

else. To anyone who wants it. I tell you there is one company

on this island that puts ads in the newspapers saying they'd

like to buy these agencies.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, who wants it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wants it? They know when business is

good. Well, open your eyes. Open your eyes. If they get

panicked into selling their agencies because of the stupid

statements by the opposition, then they are victims of that

kind of misreading. Those agents have come to this government,

they have negotiated with the Minister and they have arrived at

a good package. They're not crying; it is the insurance

companies that are crying.

You tell me one carrier that ever paid compensation to an

agent when they dumped him. You tell me of any insurance

company that has a clause in their arrangement with the agent

that if we cut you off at the pass, baby, we will give you

compensation. No way. You think New York hands out charity

cheques when they cut an agent's throat?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's absolutely stupid. The agent has

got more protection in dealing with this government than he has

dealing with a New York insurance company, I'll tell you that

right now.

You know, I just don't understand how you can have this

double standard. I just don't understand how you can say on the

one hand that the service station operator who has a 30-day

lease with an international oil company can have his throat cut

without compensation, but if the government ran a gas station

you would come in here and say, "Oh, it's different." What kind

of nonsense is this?

The carriers abandoned the agents time and time again. If

you notice and go back over the last election campaign, you'll

notice a noticeable difference between the way the agents

handled themselves in British Columbia and how they got sucked in in Manitoba. In

Manitoba the agents were used as a buffer by the insurance

companies to lead demonstrations on the lawn. The agents got

sucked in in Manitoba to be the forefront to protect the

interests of the insurance companies. But the agents in British

Columbia were too smart; they separated themselves.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the insurance agents

separated themselves from the companies and their goofy

$100,000 campaign right after the election, saying, "Stop the

government car insurance."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They did so. They separated themselves

publicly from that campaign by the insurance companies.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They did so. You know, Mr. Chairman, these

birds are trying to wrap the agents back in with the insurance

companies under this amendment. We say the agents will get a

better deal from this government than they got from any

insurance company at any time and we oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave

to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada