1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Job security in forest service. Mr. Nicolson –– 2551

Housing initiative program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2552

Bus passes for elderly and handicapped. Ms. Brown –– 2553

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Hall –– 2553

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2556

Mr. Cocke –– 2558

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2558

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2560

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2561

Mr. Lockstead –– 2562

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2562

Mr. Passarell –– 2563

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2563

Mr. Skelly –– 2563

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2564

Mr. Barber –– 2564

Mr. Lorimer –– 2565

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2566

Mr. Leggatt –– 2566

Mr. Barrett –– 2567

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2568

Mr. Cocke –– 2572

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Visiting us today in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Michael Rea from

Bangor, Northern Ireland. Mr. Rea is a leading referee, and he is here

to referee the Canada-Wales international rugby match this Saturday in

Vancouver at Swangard Stadium. I think it must be a thankless task. Can

we welcome these visitors to British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

This is somewhat unusual; it's not really an introduction of a person

who is here. I would like to mention that in the press gallery at the

present time there are people who know very well this individual I'm

going to comment on — both present and past members of the gallery. You

can find members of the Canadian press who were, you might say,

educated and trained by this man. You would even find some of his

graduates in government information services.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman I refer to is Mr. Grev Rowland, publisher of the Penticton Herald .

He was born in Quebec, graduated from UBC, and moved to the Okanagan in

1930, first as a reporter and then as an editor of the Vernon Daily News , a position he held until he purchased the Penticton Herald

in 1940. He then took that paper from a small weekly to a twice-weekly

publication, to a three-times-a-week publication, and then in 1957 into

the ranks of the Canadian daily newspapers. His newspapers won many

awards of excellence, including the prestigious Mason Trophy awarded

for the best newspaper in Canada in its circulation class. As I said,

there are reporters in the press gallery, past and present — and in

other press galleries in the country — who owe a lot of their expertise

to this gentleman. He's not in the House today, but I ask the House to

join me in wishing him a happy retirement, as he retired as the

publisher of the Penticton Herald

two days ago. I would just like to extend my thanks as the MLA for that

area and, I think, as a member of the government of this province for

the contribution he has made to this province over the past number of

years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting us

today from the Seaquam Secondary School in North Delta are 25 students

with their instructor, Mr. Ken Thompson, and I would ask the House to

bid them a very warm welcome.

Oral Questions

JOB SECURITY IN FOREST SERVICE

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Forest Service employees

in the Kootenay, Kamloops and Cariboo areas have taken unprecedented

job action to protest lack of job security resulting from the

minister's reorganization policy. Is the minister planning a review of

the reorganization policy to guarantee employment security for existing

staff as well as provide them with the right to compete for new

positions within the ministry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

No, I'm not planning on again reviewing the reorganization of the

Forests ministry. We have reviewed this for the last several years with

everyone in the Forests ministry. We have now all but completed the

reorganization. It does not provide any loss of job security or any

changes in opportunities. If anything, it increases career

opportunities for most people in the Forests ministry. This

reorganization is a part of moves made within this ministry to assure

proper management of our forest and range resources in the province.

MR. NICOLSON:

Does the minister realize that some of the transfer options would

require families to split up in order for one spouse to maintain

present employment and the other one to seek a transfer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, there are many individual problems related to the

ministry, and we are talking on a one-to-one basis with anybody who may

be adversely affected. As a ministry, we will do everything we possibly

can to assure that there are no disruptions of family or individual

lifestyles within the industry.

MR. NICOLSON: Could I ask the minister if that is a guarantee that there will not be any hardship posed to any individual families.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question to the Minister of Forests. Has the

minister received a request to approve the sale of Crows Nest Forest

Products to CANFOR, Canadian Forest Products Ltd?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, I received such a request either yesterday or the day before.

MR. KING:

Can the minister assure the House that no approval will be given to a

transfer of licences and permits to a new owner until there is a

guarantee that there will be no job loss?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, that question was asked me by the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty) some time ago, and my answer to him still stands.

MR. KING:

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the minister's final

comments. Did I understand him correctly in saying that there would be

no loss of jobs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What I said, if

the member would listen, was that the answer I gave to the member for

Kootenay is still a valid answer. That describes the situation as it is.

MR. KING:

I didn't ask for arrogance: I asked for the courtesy of an answer. Be

that as it may, I have a new question for the minister. Is the minister

aware that as of May 15, 7,063 IWA members have been laid off and a

further 2,200 layoffs are expected in the next four weeks?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of many temporary layoffs in the forest industry

right now. I cannot speak to the specific numbers that the member gave

me.

[ Page 2552 ]

MR. KING:

I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has met with the

sawmill operators in B.C. to discuss what measures might be taken to

alleviate the growing unemployment in the forest industry in the

province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm in

constant discussion with all sectors of the entire forest industry

about this very serious problem, and the government is cognizant of the

fact that there are market problems these days, primarily because of

high interest rates in the United States and Canada. The situation is

easing somewhat now. There are indications that there will be a much

earlier end to the serious market conditions than was previously

anticipated. I hope that will be true and that job disruptions will be

of an extremely short-term nature.

MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, hope springs eternal in the human breast, but I'd like to ask

the minister: when did he last hold a meeting with the industry to

discuss this particular problem? What precise steps has the minister

proffered as a means of alleviating the unemployment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, my last discussion with people from the forest industry on

this subject was yesterday. As to the second question, Mr. Speaker,

it's out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, the question may be asked, and the member may decline to

answer, but whether or not the question is order or not must be left to

the discretion of the Chair.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I

think it's somewhat presumptuous of the minister to try to instruct the

Speaker. The question was: can the minister advise the House what

precise steps he has advocated and put forward as a method, on a

temporary basis, of alleviating these layoffs in the forest industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the member has slightly rephrased his question, but it

still deals with government policy, which is still being developed.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. I'm wondering if

the minister can advise the House whether his ministry has geared up

employment counselling, relocation and other advisory services for

workers who have been laid off in the forest industry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that with respect to the

forest industry generally the ministry has not been geared up. The

problem presently being addressed was one to which we referred

yesterday, I believe, involving Ocean Falls — to help those employees

who will be displaced or seeking relocation elsewhere.

MS. SANFORD:

I understand that the only gearing up that's been done is towards the

problem at Ocean Falls. Was that the correct answer? All right.

I'm wondering then if the minister has reviewed the situation in most western

European countries where major industry bears direct responsibility for employees

laid off through no fault of their own. Has the minister studied what's

happening there?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, I have not.

HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands , Parks and Housing. Can

the minister advise whether the government has decided to expand the 9¾

percent mortgage lending program in view of rising unemployment in the

forest industry, continued crippling mortgage rates and a zero rental

vacancy rate?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I might say in

response to some of the statements made by the member for North Island

that in British Columbia the percentage of people unemployed is the

lowest it has been in a number of years — 6.9 percent. Certainly we're

endeavouring to improve on that position. It's progressively improved

in recent months because of the progressive economic activities of this

government.

On the question of 9¾ percent mortgage, that

$200 million program of housing initiative which was so well received

by British Columbians and did such a tremendous job in alleviating, to

a certain degree, the rental situation which we're facing in the

province has been a very successful program. At the moment we're

examining a series of methods by which we can look at, and hopefully

rectify, some of the problems we're facing which are essentially in the

rental market in this province.

MR. GABELMANN: I hesitate to ask a question for length of the answer.

view of the present serious housing crisis — which no one would deny —

has the minister decided to enter into negotiations with the federal

government, with a view to providing joint federal-provincial funds for

co-op and non-profit housing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Works, the

Hon. Paul Cosgrove, the minister in charge of CMHC, was visiting Victoria about

three weeks ago, I indicated to him that there was a need for additional

funding for the production of co-op housing units in British Columbia. I urged

his government to give serious consideration to the shortage of funding for

this type of housing in British Columbia. I expect to have a reply from that

minister fairly shortly.

You

have to take into consideration that we signed an agreement with the

national government, deregulating to a substantial degree the

responsibilities.... We disentangled, I might say, the two

bureaucracies that existed — CMHC and my ministry — so that there

wouldn't be conflicting endeavours.

The question of

additional funding for co-op housing is one which I have urged Mr.

Cosgrove to give serious consideration to, so that there can be

additional units, instead of the, I believe, 518 units which are deemed

to be coming on stream in the current fiscal year. I have urged him to

give additional funding for this program, because it is a good,

effective program to help people of low and moderate income.

MR. GABELMANN:

On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the

government has somewhere around $1 billion in the bank, when the

federal gov-

[ Page 2553 ]

ernment

expands its contribution to co-op housing — if it does — has the

minister decided to use additional provincial funds to cost-share with

the federal government in this field of co-op housing?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that question could best be replied to by

that member having an opportunity to read the agreement with the

national government which we signed last year.

MR. GABELMANN: Has the minister decided to renegotiate that agreement to put the province into the business of co-op housing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government makes a major contribution towards co-op housing.

BUS PASSES FOR

ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: I have a question

for the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with

bus passes. On May 7 I asked a question of the Minister of Human

Resources regarding bus passes for handicapped people and seniors. She

advised me that negotiations with the GVRD were underway with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and that my

question should have been to that minister. However, since that time I

have in my possession a letter from Mr. Emmott, chairman of the GVRD

board of directors, which states:

"Your

concerns regarding restrictions on uses of passes issued by the Human

Resources Ministry are part of a current discussion between the

Ministry of Human Resources and the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. The regional district is more than willing to eliminate any

limitations on human resources passes, providing the ministry pays to

the GVRD an amount commensurate with the cost of services provided."

I'm asking the minister once again, Mr. Speaker, June 1 is drawing

close and there are 28,000 greater Vancouver handicapped and senior

citizens who are going to be restricted unless these negotiations are

complete. Will the minister give us an assurance that that will be done

before that date?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What date is the letter?

MS. BROWN: The date of the letter is April 14.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was before you asked the question.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds will accept the statement

that I made before, rather than the statement that is contained within

a letter which pre-dated my answer, and that is that the negotiations

are being carried on by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $129,448.

MR. HALL:

I want to spend some time today, along with my colleagues, discussing

the minister's responsibilities for the Crown corporation we call ICBC.

I don't know if the minister has been advised of this. I understood

that was the case. If that would necessitate him getting some people

with him, that's fine too.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Carry on.

MR. HALL: Just carry on? Okay. Rafe will take notes and then we'll all be in trouble.

The

thing I wanted to discuss with him first, in a very serious vein, is

the reasons for the rapidly deteriorating relationships that exist

between the corporation and those sectors of the automotive industry

that supply a great deal of service to the motoring public and, of

course, particularly to the corporation.

I can't think of a

time in the last six years when the relationships have been as bad. The

relationships between those people who supply essential services that

are paid for by virtue of our insurance policies, following accidents

to the fleet of cars that make up the cars used by the public of

British Columbia.... The relationship between the people who work in

the business and the corporation has never, in my opinion, been as bad.

The mail that we are getting as MLAs is full of complaints. We have

received delegations from the Automotive Retailers Association; we have

been regaled with stories of abortive negotiations, of broken promises,

of unfulfilled pledges, of meetings that never took place, by senior

people in the corporation and representatives of the various sectors of

the supplying industry, the body shops, the towing contractors and

others.

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the

corporation to sit down at a bargaining table and discuss and negotiate

the kinds of annual adjustments that are required in the prices that

the corporation is prepared to pay as a base for the repairs that are

carried out following accidents, claims, damage, theft and all the rest

of it. Certainly bulletins from the Automotive Retailers Association

such as that published on April 3, 1980, which take us through a

succession of promises, misleading statements, broken meetings, would

indicate that something is wrong between the corporation and a

representative of one of its major suppliers.

Similarly, the

stories I get from the towing industry are just as bad. At a time when

gasoline prices in this province have risen by the kinds of cents per

litre that we know about, when wage contracts have been negotiated over

the last 18 months, when municipal contracts have been renegotiated

over the past year, those people who are trying to negotiate with the

corporation meet a stony face. They don't get anywhere at all in trying

to sort out the kinds of questions that businessmen have got to deal

with each other about in order to have an ongoing situation. This isn't

the kind of normal negotiations that take place between an employer and

an employee. This isn't free collective bargaining. This isn't a trade

union trying to get more money and an employer refusing to pay it. This

is a question of two kinds of corporate structures trying to do a deal

on a business supply.

[ Page 2554 ]

Frankly, the level of communication has worsened; the level of trust has worsened.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Fair enough. The minister indicates he'll be right back.

The

level of communication has worsened. The level of trust has worsened

to, I think, an all-time low since the corporation was formed. I think

that's one of the first questions the minister has to address himself

to as the person we ask the questions of in this most important Crown

corporation. It isn't enough to provide a service to the insured. It

isn't enough to supply a service to those people who have enough money

in their pockets to pay for the premium to insure their motorcars. But

in terms of those hundreds of millions of dollars that are changing

hands throughout the year in the province, we must make sure the

corporation does its business in a fair way, in the correct way and

certainly as a good corporate citizen.

While I'm on that

particular point, I want to ask the minister if he will comment on two

incidents which have taken place since 1976 in this specific regard.

One was the use of the federal legislation on combines by the

corporation against — and that's the only word I can use — one of the

supplying industries, namely the towing operators of this province.

When the corporation wanted a price to be given to them for towing and

negotiated a price for towing, why were the combines people brought in?

I suggest it was at the instigation of ICBC to investigate the price

that was supplied. Is that really the kind of business tactic you think

the Crown corporation should indulge in?

Secondly, in the

recent event in the case of body shops who are dissatisfied with the

rates paid by ICBC, and who in desperation, if you like, decided to

adopt the technique that's been adopted by doctors in many parts of

this country to double-bill or balance-bill, billing ICBC for part of

the cost of repairing the automobile and then billing the claimant for

the remainder, why were the combines investigation people brought in to

investigate that? I think that's a bit heavy-handed in view of the

corporation's inability to sit down and negotiate those kinds of

prices, to negotiate a fair agreement and to bargain between the people

who are going to do the majority of the work for the corporation.

certainly think that the real or implied threat of the use of that kind

of federal power, the whistling up.... Ten signatures are all that's

required. I think a lawyer would agree with me. The use of the combines

investigation is really an action that doesn't sit too well with me, or

suit the kind of corporate practice and corporate citizenship of a

Crown corporation such as ICBC.

So there we've got the first

problem: the bargaining that's got to go on; the striking of a deal

between the suppliers; fair practices; and certainly the use of that

kind of federal legislation. That's the first series of questions.

The second series is to do with the recent removal....

think I'm up to date, although you never know; things may change;

things can happen in a week. The minister can indicate to me right off

the bat if I'm not up to date. The corporation decided to withdraw from

the support system of rebates for those people who take driving

courses. It's still the decision by the corporation not to engage in

that rebate system. You pulled out of a system whereby anybody who

passed a driver training course was able to get $50 back from the

corporation. On the basis of statistics collected by the ICBC

themselves or by the motor-vehicle branch that there was no discernible

improvement by students who passed the test at those driving schools,

you wiped the program out. It's a program which has been supported by

every other insurance company across the country and supported by state

after state after state. When the people involved in the business asked

for a breakdown of figures, they were refused.

I wonder why

ICBC having worked on a committee for so long in trying to improve the

situation regarding driver training, having had people from the

industry, from the motor-vehicle branch and from ICBC coming up with

programs to review and improve the program.... According to the minutes

of a meeting held in January they forwarded those recommendations to

the corporation. At a meeting two months later the corporation decided

to abandon the whole thing. Mr. Earle of the corporation moved the

motion to disband the committee — not only withdraw from the program,

not only wipe out the rebate, not only in effect ruin a number of small

businessmen who had been depending on that kind of incentive, as indeed

do many of their competitors and colleagues in other provinces, but

disband the very program that might produce a program of some value,

but not share the information and indeed use some figures which have

many questions to be asked about.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I wonder if we could ask the Minister of Arrested Development to do his chatting outside somewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a most reasonable request, hon. member. I would ask the minister to come to order at this particular time.

MR. HALL:

One of the largest of schools that's been in touch with many of the

members of the House have put forward ideas over the years for programs

and have been trying, I think, to interest the corporation and the

motor vehicle branch in a reversal of that decision, to have a meeting

and a liaison campaign to put a driver training program into action. If

the driver training program that this commercial enterprise puts on is

no good, according to ICBC and MVB, may I ask what other statistics

they have regarding the training programs we have in schools?

think the minister owes it to the House to discuss this in full and

tell us why we went wrong over all the years we've been paying this

money and what he intends to do in its place. Because, as Mr. Sherrell

said: "We're going to hell in a handbasket in terms of our driving

practices." We are killing people at a faster rate than ever before,

we're causing more damage at a faster rate than ever before, and we're

having accidents at a faster rate than ever before, regardless of the

money we spend on Counterattack and the money spent by the

Attorney-General's department, the Minister of Health, and so on. We've

even allowed our speed limits to slowly increase, following a reduction

at the time of our first energy crisis in 1974. What are we doing in

its place? Even if the motor-vehicle branch can't produce figures that

indicate that the driver training schools' programs are a complete

waste of time, I maintain, from a psychological point of view if from

no other point of view at all, it was a foolish thing to do until some

other program was in effect.

I certainly want to come to the side of the people who

[ Page 2555 ]

want

to make sure that we're producing drivers who are well trained. It's

pretty obvious that in British Columbia, according to the last

statistics we find, we may be the swiftest, but we're certainly not the

best drivers in the country. I think there's a series of questions

there that I'll be interested to come back to following some replies

from the minister.

The next question is about a

discussion about the head of the corporation — the chief executive

officer, Mr. Sherrell. The minister may now be able to share with the

House whether he has any further information as to why Mr. Sherrell

left. Indeed, was his leaving predictable? In view of the fact that the

government opposite has adopted exactly the same principles that were

adopted by ourselves on this side of the House in the formation of the

corporation, and that is that we look upon the corporation as an

instrument of public policy and not just simply as an insurance

company.... Mr. Sherrell, as a trained insurance executive, must have

found that the establishment of the corporation as an instrument of

public policy was not acceptable, particularly in view of the decisions

made by the government in the cabinet regarding the so-called FAIR

program. I would also ask the minister if it was possible for us to

entirely predict Mr. Sherrell's leaving if we would have examined his

length of time away from the United States of America. That's just in

passing.

May we ask the minister what steps are being taken

regarding a replacement of Mr. Sherrell? Could he acquaint the House

with steps taken to date? What kind of search program is going on? I

know in 1974 when the search was on for senior executives, it was a

difficult one. I was one who shared the concerns that were expressed in

1975 with finding top executives in this most involved and technically

complex industry as readily available as we perhaps think they are.

Perhaps I tend to think of the problem being a little more difficult

than other people. I'm one who doesn't feel that we're going to find

people just anywhere to run a corporation like that. I'd like to know

what progress has been made to date to run a corporation as important

as ICBC.

Now I want to deal with the FAIR program. I think

the first aspects of the FAIR program are those which were contained in

the bill that was passed in 1979. That bill made it completely clear to

all insurers in the province that if anybody wanted to do business in

the province, they should remove discrimination on the grounds of age,

sex, marital status and, eventually, geographical location or something

like that.

But the other part of the FAIR program was not in

the bill, and that's the part of the FAIR program that goes something

like this: that when you have a $110 accident, you're going to pay $360

for it. That's a side of the FAIR program that bothers me a great deal,

because that's not the kind of insurance program that I think the

corporation should be in. It seems to me that if we have an insurance

program, we should have incentives and disincentives combined. I agreed

with the safe driver discount; I agreed that you should show what the

basic premium should be and you should show what rewards there are for

safe driving. But it seems to me that to set up a program in which,

when you have an accident which costs the corporation $110 to repair,

the person who has an accident is in effect charged — and remember, the

strict definition of the word "accident" doesn't necessarily impute

blame at all; although the corporation will indeed impart blame.... But

for that $110 bill the corporation pays out on your behalf, you will in

fact pay out $320 by invoice over the next three years. That seems to

me to be no insurance at all. Now that's how I've read the figures. If

I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected; but that's how it seems to me.

seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the best way of going about it was,

indeed, a continuation of the safe driver discount, and to get after

the bad driver by making sure that he or she realizes what the cost was

— by showing what the real cost of your insurance was and discounting

it for the good driver, discounting it for the person who didn't have

an accident. After all, you're the bottom-line people; you should

understand that better than anybody else — and not to invoice yearly,

half-yearly, on anniversary dates and so on.

I think what

you're going to see as a result of the FAIR program — whatever it is —

is an increase in hit-and-runs. I'm going to suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, that if you check with SIU in New Westminster today, you'll

find there has been an incredible increase in hit-and-runs in some

areas already. If you check in the city of Vancouver, you'll find there

is already the beginning of an increase in hit-and-runs; and that's

before the full effects of the FAIR program are really understood,

because the second part of the FAIR program doesn't come into effect

until March 1981. As soon as the word gets around that you're going to

have $60 to register a claim and $100 per claim per year for three

years, there are going to be a lot of people taken off. I think that's

shocking; it's irresponsible. It's the worst kind of anti-social

behaviour, as, indeed, were the arson troubles that besieged me when I

sat on the board — and all the rest of it. I'm suggesting to you, Mr.

Minister — and to your staff and the staff of the corporation — that

the corporation had better be on its toes about hit-and-run. I'm given

to believe that the SIU — that's the Special Investigation Unit — have

already collected enough information.... I'm not referring necessarily

to the articles that appeared in the paper the other day, but in parts

of the Fraser Valley there have already been significant percentage

increases in hit-and-runs. That's the fourth series of questions.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The

fifth area which I want the minister to deal with for me, if he would,

is the question of ICBC itself and its staff. I claim, as I mentioned

right at the beginning, that the relationship between the private

sector, which supplies a great deal of services for ICBC and its

customers, and the relationship between the corporation and the

automotive retailers, have deteriorated. I am now going to say to you,

Mr. Minister, that the relationships within the corporation — staff to

management — have also deteriorated. Indeed, in the newsletters we get

from the staff of ICBC.... While I congratulate the corporation — and

have done so openly and on radio just recently — on a distinct

improvement in the claim centre — and here I want to definitely

congratulate the president who has just resigned, Mr. Sherrell, on one

of his major achievements, which, I think, is to improve the service at

the claims centre — there is no question in my mind that the growing

shadow of deteriorating relationships with the supply industry and the

automotive industry, and now the deteriorating relationship with the

staff, are the shadows on the horizon. The employee questionnaires

reveal a deterioration in morale.

Frankly,

Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — I'm very concerned that

there has been a serious deterioration at the corporation, both at the

claims centres and at the head

[ Page 2556 ]

office.

I'd like some assurances that the corporation is aware of that kind of

drop in morale and that the personnel department and the negotiating

teams have got that under control. It's not just a question of dollars

and cents, of hard-nosed bargaining for salaries and wages. It's a

question of hard-nosed bargaining in meeting the complaints and

grievances and day-to-day workings, the hours of work and some of the

methodology changes that you try to put into operation in the

corporation itself. So there's a question there, about the morale of

the corporation itself.

Lastly, on this first round, may I ask if the minister could outline

for us.... This is a straight, inquisitive, clinically interrogative

question with nothing behind it other than a straight thirst for

information. Could the minister outline the role that the corporation

is playing in the whole safety program that has to be mounted in this

province? We've got the police forces, the Attorney-General's

department, the motor vehicle branch and, of course, the highways

people. None of us can rest easy over the kinds of things that we're

going to hear about in estimates over the next few weeks. The Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made an announcement

the other day about the serious testing faults shown in the commercial

trucks; that was something I've been making speeches about in this

House for nearly 15 years. The evidence in the states of Washington and

Idaho — the trucks all come through B.C.... Governor Dixy Lee Ray

introduced reports just a couple of months ago saying that trucks are

in very poor shape in her state. There's no doubt they're going to be

in bad shape when they come across the line, and they've got better

rules than we've got to catch them.

What

I'm really getting at is: what role is the corporation playing? After

all, that's where the money's going to be wasted, in effect, if an

accident is unnecessary, if a truck goes off the road. Those of us who

were out in the interior this weekend had enough. Those of us who were

in the Okanagan this weekend on our way home from our convention saw

three major accidents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four if you include the convention.

MR. HALL:

We should move the convention and keep it in Vancouver. That sounds

like the statement that was made by a previous Minister of Highways

about tourists.

What I'm saying is, that the corporation

must have a role to play in this, and I would like the minister.... I'm

giving him the opportunity, frankly, of getting some coverage and

getting on the plus side of the argument, because I have been a little

negative in some of the criticisms about the corporation; of putting

the other side of the story forward as well.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, with leave, I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe, without being certain, that the young people

sitting in the members' gallery to your left are from a school in my community

which is the alma mater of my four children, Brocklehurst Junior Secondary.

I believe that there are 35 students and two staff. They visit in the chamber

quite regularly, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll try and respond to the questions as the member

put them. In regard to the matter of body shop rates, the annual review was carried

out and the rates were moved by 8.7 percent, from $23.60 per hour, I believe,

to $25.60 per hour, a $2 per hour increase. The new rate was determined after

the consulting firm of Wood, Gordon was hired and the ARA — the Automotive Retailers

Association — the body shop sector, I gather, of that association.... The

corporation cooperated fully with the consultant in the preparation of

that report. The end result of the report was that the rate was moved

to $25.60.

I'm aware of the concern that has been expressed

by the ARA, and some of the body shop hourly rates which they have

negotiated in their union contracts have moved up. I believe their

settlement was somewhere around 15 percent on the hourly rate that they

charge, which was approximately, I believe, $1.90 an hour. Our rate

went up $2 an hour but they feel it should be increased further. I, as

minister responsible for the corporation, have met in my office with

representatives of the Automotive Retailers Association,

representatives of the towing companies and other organizations and

associations that deal with the corporation. I've always maintained an

open-door policy to any organization, representing either the Ministry

of Agriculture or, in this particular case, the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia, and I will continue to do so.

In regard

to the second question, the member mentioned the use of federal

legislation in calling in the combines investigation branch regarding

supplying companies and, I believe, body shops. I would advise the

member that at no time did the Insurance Corporation call in the

combines investigation people.

The third item dealt

with the $50 rebates to those persons who took good driver training

courses. That is still in existence until the end of 1980, and it has

been announced that it will be discontinued for 1981. But, Mr.

Chairman, it doesn't mean that the Insurance Corporation has left it at

that. We are working with the industry to develop a new approach, a

more effective approach than the straight $50 rebate. Statistics that

have been gathered since 1974, not just in the past year — and I'm

talking about 50,000 new licensed drivers — indicated no positive

results under that program. There is a cost to the corporation. As a

matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken it works out to about half a

million dollars per year. I think we all recognize that a cost like

$500,000 to the corporation is only the interim step; it's $500,000 to

the drivers of this province, because moneys paid out by the

corporation come from premiums paid by drivers. So what we are really

saying is that we're attempting to manage the funds — the premiums paid

by drivers — in a responsible manner, and the indication was that these

moneys did not accomplish the results desired when they were spent.

We're looking at a new approach, a more effective approach — one that

will have positive results. In doing that, we are working with the

industry.

In regard to Robbie Sherrell, the chief executive

officer and president of the corporation, I would advise the member

that his resignation is for personal reasons. That has been stated a

number of times by Mr. Sherrell and by me. That was his decision and

his reason, and I can only say to the member and to other members of

this House that as minister responsible for the corporation I am sorry

to see him go. He did an excellent job and developed a very strong and

effective management team.

[ Page 2557 ]

regard to what we're doing, because Mr. Sherrell's resignation takes

effect on May 31, there is a management committee of senior

vice-presidents set up to handle the day-to-day operations, and they.

report directly to the chairman of the board. We have established a

selection committee of board members, and our approach is to look first

within the corporation for a replacement for Mr. Sherrell. We have

strong people on staff. I hope we succeed, because I would like to feel

that any employee that came on staff at the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia could maybe take a look at the long-term view, you

might say, and say: "There's an opportunity for me to reach the top, to

become president of the corporation." It would be nice if we could have

that approach and if the calibre of people are there and if somebody

within the corporation could fit the bill as far as the president's job

is concerned. Failing that, our intention is to look within British

Columbia and Canada, and then, of course, as a last alternative, to

look elsewhere. I'm hopeful that we will be able to accomplish the

selection within the first stage; that's within the Insurance

Corporation itself.

In regard to the FAIR program,, you

approached it from the point of view that there was a basic premium

that everybody paid, and then if you had an accident it was $100 per

year for three years. What we've done is removed the discrimination.

We've treated every driver equally, regardless of age, marital status

or sex, under the FAIR program. Everybody is considered innocent until

proven guilty, as opposed to the old program where people under 25 and

the single male driver, who might have been the best driver in the

world and have driven for the next 50 years without an accident, was

discriminated against. He had to pay that high premium, sometimes

several hundred dollars more than another driver on the road who just

happened to be over 25, or just happened to be married, but wasn't a

good driver.

The discrimination took place, and this

government took the approach: let's look at a new concept for insurance

on the automobile. Let's say that everybody has a clean slate when they

start and the young people of this province have the opportunity to pay

the same rate as you or I would pay. We may not have as much hair and

we may be a little greyer, but we're not necessarily better drivers

than the young people, so that discrimination has been removed. I think

the statistics will show in the end that the approach will prove to be

a valid one and the young people will accept the challenge. I would

like to say that maybe the statistics in the past have looked a little

heavy in regard to claims by those people under age 25. Maybe we will

see a great improvement because they will accept the challenge of being

equal to people over age 25 and will not be discriminated against with

a larger premium.

In regard to the $100 a year that's

charged to drivers after having accidents for which they are

responsible. If you took that approach and took the basic premium,

added the $100 assessment over three years, or you did the reverse,

which was the gross premium Iess the good driver discount that we had

under the old program, basically they work out to be similar costs.

There is no extra penalty; it’s just a different approach to assessing

a guilty driver.

The sixth item I think the member raised was the morale of the corporation.

I'm not sure where he's getting his information from and whether he's

got anything that he can either quote from or send me copies of. I can only

say that in my period of time as minister responsible for ICBC, the management-staff

relationship that I have had the opportunity to see has been excellent. There

is good morale there. I think a lot of it is attributed to Robbie Sherrell

in putting that corporation on a sound financial footing with some innovative

ideas, and the staff members of the corporation have picked up the challenge.

I think morale is exceptionally high in the corporation.

The

last item the member raised was safety programs. The corporation does

support the Attorney-General's program regarding Counterattack. As the

member probably is aware, some of the staff of ICBC go out and talk to

service clubs and chambers of commerce in regard to costs of insurance

— why insurance premiums are increased and where the claims arrive and

why people should be more careful on the road and better drivers.

send the seatbelt convincer around to communities in this province,

which gives people an opportunity to have the experience of sitting in

a seat and having a little bit of a ride and seeing the effect of what

a seatbelt can do for you in a car accident. There is a considerable

amount of money spent on carrying out that program.

We also

are developing a safe driving program for pre-drivers at the school

level. We're working with the Ministry of Education and we're

attempting to develop a package for teachers who can then discuss the

merits, you might say, of safe or defensive driving for those young

people who are yet to be drivers, giving them good training and

information in the classroom so that when they do get out on the road

in their first car they will remember some of the education that they

received with regard to good, safe driving habits. I think those were

the items that the member raised.

MR. HALL:

I wanted you to go back to the very

first question: that is the relationships with the suppliers of some of

the services to ICBC. The answer you gave is technically correct, but

it isn't good enough in this sense, Mr. Minister.First of all, it was

true that you did give a S2 an hour increase — which is 8.7 percent —

following a Woods, Gordon report to which the bodyshops were party.

That represented the increase that they asked for not this year, but

some time ago. They are already so far behind, according to what they

say, that in

fact what they're really.... That is even after them telling you that

they're in the middle of negotiations with their own union contract.

And your man, Mr. Pearson, has now told them that you only ever make

one increase a year.So, in effect, you told them that no matter what's

going on, no matter what they sign with their workers, they've had it.

Take it or leave it, boys; there's no discussion. Your open-door policy

isn't going to be very useful for that because whilst your door might

be open, with the greatest of respect to you, Mr. Minister, the fellow

who is making the decision is Mr. Pearson. I don't want to say that

unkindly and I know how those things happen.

HON. MR. HEWITT You're being unkind.

MR. HALL:

Well, if I'm being unkind, so be it. That's the way it happens. We can

both get on AirWest and go over there and talk to Mr. Pearson if you

want, to change his mind. I'll do my bit. The fact of the matter is

that that increase was a long time in coming and was a long time ago.

That's the bodyshops, who weren't doing too badly, who have always had

a fairly regular increase. They also have one other test in terms of

the body shops. They have the contracts they make with the automobile

dealers, which you can use as some sort

[ Page 2558 ]

criterion. You've also got the ever-present Autoplan Autobody, which we

set up in my riding of Surrey as a constant laboratory in terms of what

real costs are on a small scale, although it does a lot of good work.

But

the towing industry is entirely different; you've not given them a

nickel. Is your door open to them now to come and ask? They're not

getting anywhere with ICBC. Gasoline prices are up. Have you tried to

buy a three-quarter ton truck recently and put a Holmes wrecker on the

back of it? Have you tried to get a guy who's going to run it, a guy

who's going to be in a water-filled ditch in Surrey at 12 o'clock at

night, with three dead people in the ditch? All for what — $15 a tow?

You've got to talk about these things. You've got to listen to what

these people....

This isn't just picking up bylaw

infractions in the city of Vancouver or getting the mayor of Victoria

mad because Gordon's picks him up in some lot here in Victoria. We're

talking about proper towing. We're talking about people rescuing people

out of ditches, sweeping up the.... We're not talking about the pirates

who are knocking off people in apartment blocks who have parked with

the back wheel on a yellow line. We're talking about the people you

really need when you need them, the kind of people who should have been

five miles east of Hedley on Monday afternoon with heavy equipment, the

kind of people you are paying a fortune for to sit on the bridges at

rush hour. You're paying a fortune for those people to sit on a bridge

at rush hour, and ICBC won't pay the same people anything like that

kind of money to go and pick up injured people in a ditch on King

George Highway in my riding, the most dangerous riding in B.C. in terms

of road traffic and road accidents.

There's a story in the

barracks in Regina — the Mounties. Three lists go up on the passing-out

parade: pass, fail, and posted to Surrey. It's more dangerous to drive

in Surrey than it was ten years ago on the Gaza strip. If indeed the

number of accidents that happen on the Pattullo Bridge, south of my

colleague's riding, happened on an airstrip, there would be a national

inquiry into the number of deaths. I'm straying, Mr. Chairman, a little

bit from ICBC — other than the fact that we're all paying the cost of

that in our premiums; that's the connective tissue of the debate. I

think we've got to look at that kind of thing.

Apart from

the way we deal with the towing companies on a strict rotational basis

of dispatch, how we're dealing with the salvage.... Mr. Member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke), there was $7 million worth a year of salvage

when we were directors of ICBC; now there's got to be $12 million a

year of salvage. It's a huge business. I'm going to leave that alone,

because I don't think we're going to get any progress across the floor

of the chamber; we can't negotiate across the floor of the chamber,

obviously. But I'm not going to leave it alone publicly, now that I've

done my thing here and warned you about what's happening in the

industry there. That's all I can do in terms of across-the-chamber

discussion.

In terms of the staff morale, I want to take

issue with you. Because of staff morale at ICBC, I was the recipient of

more trouble than anybody else in this chamber; there's no doubt about

that. When I was on the board at ICBC.... I don't want to see any

diminution of morale for anybody at ICBC. I'm just telling you that my

experience indicates to me that you should tell your chief people at

ICBC — as they say back home, Mr. Chairman, in the textile mills in the

place I come from — there's trouble in the mill, and I think you should

get on to it.

I'm going to hand the debate over to some of

my colleagues while I check some of the answers against some of the

information I got. Particularly, I want to come back a little bit later

on the driving school rebate thing. I want to check some of those

figures, because I still think we've got to do a better job on that.

MR. COCKE:

We have a great deal of interest in the ICBC estimates this year, I

note. The main problem I see that we've got ourselves into is around

the FAIR program; I would like to deal with one or two other minor

points. I noted, for example, that when the minister was describing

FAIR, he said: ''This government took the approach...." Those were his

words. I recall on a number of occasions, his illustrious leader, the

Premier of this province, explaining very carefully to all who would

listen, and to those who would believe, that this government — I refer

to the Socred government — would take an arm's length position with

respect to their Crown corporations; they have a minority position on

the board. However, the minister explains to us that it was a

government decision, a government plan and a government program. "This

government took the approach...." he said. That's right. They can take

any approach they want. I just wanted to show the words of the Premier.

How hollow they are and always will be with any government. Crown

corporation directors are appointed at the pleasure of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. When the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which happens to be the cabinet,

decides that they are not particularly happy with the way that

corporation is going, those directors are no longer directors, and the

government looks for somebody else who will do their bidding. I just

thought I would throw that in for us to think about.

I must confess....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Can I answer?

MR. COCKE: Sure, I'll yield the floor. The minister suddenly wants to answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, the member raised an issue and rather than let it go by

with a number of other questions, I think it's important that I do

answer at this time. The member used my words and said: "The government

made this decision," etc. The member, of course, neglects to say that

this government challenged the entire insurance industry in the

province of British Columbia with Bill 33, which was passed in this

House. I guess maybe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says the insurance companies are the

industry of the world, because it is a new concept. We challenged the

insurance industry with Bill 33 and then we, of course, challenged, I

guess, the ICBC board of directors and management with the concept in

Bill 33, which was to end discrimination in automobile insurance. It

was the Insurance Corporation that came forward in response to that

challenge with the FAIR program.

MR. COCKE: I'm not

sure that he answered very much, but in any event, that's fine; we'll

accept his words. Going to the next part of my presentation, I must say

that I was very surprised and happy about a lot of the work that Robbie

Sherrell was doing. I must confess that at the outset I thought

[ Page 2559 ]

that

a person coming from as far afield, and having worked with the Hartford

group overseas, might be coming to a very strange and different

situation, but I think he rather fell in well into the situation here,

and it's rather a shame that we're losing him. Having had some

experience in the industry, I recognize that he can go afield and

probably do better. I do hope that this personal reason that he has

isn't one of great seriousness with respect to health or family and I

wish him success wherever he might decide to land.

I would

also just like to say that I hope ICBC is able to find the person that

can fill that position from within the organization, if at all

possible. When one looks afield in this kind of a situation, you're

probably looking at executives in private industry, who've had very

little experience with a government proposition, and very little

experience in terms of the scope, demands and the actual public lashing

one takes from time to time, just because of the position that one has

accepted. Just like the chairman of any other Crown corporation, the

chairman of ICBC is right in the limelight at all times. He takes a lot

of the criticism for decisions made that he has to live with whether he

likes them or not. I hope that in the course of the four or five years

that ICBC has been alive and kicking there has developed in that

organization the kind of backup manpower that would be ready for this

office. Failing that, of course, I hope that the decision is made to

stay within the country.

I ask the minister a question with

respect to this. Have they hired a firm, as they did the last time, to

search for this new person? If so, what is the consulting firm?

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to talk about FAIR for a bit. There's no

question that there was a need in this province to bring the rates into

proper perspective. In other words, one should not be found guilty

prior to having committed a crime. I've mentioned the fact before that

I have four young people in my family. All have been driving for some

years. There has only been one minor accident in all that time.

Therefore I don't feel, nor did I ever feel, that they should be paying

exorbitant rates because they happened to be in an age group with

people who often do. I know the program is here now but I'm not going

to forgive the government for doing what they did to the young people

in this province in the year 1976: tripling the rates to all and sundry.

Mr.

Chairman, after the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

criticizes what I'm saying now, I expect that he will therefore stand

up and oppose FAIR. No, he won't. He'll get up and give us a speech on

energy three days from now when he finds an appropriate minister.

That's

neither here nor there. The fact is, there was a tripling of that rate.

The government caught a lot of criticism along the way, justly earned.

Now they've come up with a new way of approaching it.

deal with what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is talking about,

I agree totally. He wants to subsidize cars. I agree totally that one

should do an evaluation of people's driving records and keep that on

the person — not some arbitrary $300 for any old accident, but expand

the point system so that it includes the accident situation. Now we've

got it all over the place. We've got it on the driver's licence for

those with six points or more. Now we've got this arbitrary fine of

$100 per year for three years plus the $20 if they can find some

mistake that you made prior to 1982 — an arbitrary, fixed amount. I

think it is a rather abysmal showing in terms of a reply to the way one

should fix blame.

Now if we're going to do the actuarial

thing, then I believe that one has to be rated in terms of one's

overall driving experience. I believe that accidents should be included

in the point situation. I believe that bad driving habits such as going

through stop signs and all the rest of it should be included in the

point situation. But I don't understand how we come up with this

arbitrary, exact amount of $100 per year for three years for anybody

that has an accident.

Some of you may know that my young

brother is superintendent of traffic in the Vancouver city police

force. I've talked to him and others of his colleagues about what they

anticipate. They're quite concerned about this situation, because under

this program minor accidents are going to be treated exactly the same

as major accidents. A fender-brush is exactly the same as a wipeout,

and, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that really is an intelligent way to

approach the whole question of setting rates appropriate to people's

driving habits.

One of the worries that they have is the

question of hit-and-runs. Does anybody in this House know how many

hit-and-runs there were last year in the city of Vancouver? There were

something in excess of 7,200 hit-and-runs in the city of Vancouver

alone. That's not the province; that's the city of Vancouver. Now if

you start adding to that — and you add across the province — then I

believe we've got some problems.

I believe that this FAIR

program should be very carefully monitored. I think that it was a very

weak approach to an overhaul that should have been done — a proper

overhaul, monitoring people's driving habits and thereby getting the

rate that would be appropriate for that person. The program, Mr.

Chairman, is suspect. I think probably what happened was that the

government sat around and decided they had to clean up their image a

bit, introduced this program, gave the Insurance Corporation little or

no time in which to build safeguards, and this is what they came up

with. On the face of it, I suppose some people can accept it, but I

don't really think it's a good idea. What you're really doing here is

you're saying to ICBC: "You are now a fining authority, and the fines

shall be set at X." That's not particularly wise, I don't think.

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

MR. COCKE:

The member talks about a $10 driving permit — I only paid $5. The

government, in order to be popular, took off the $10 base insurance on

the driver's licence. That's up to them; it's a popularity contest.

But

the whole thing begs the question. It has not been thought out nor has

it all been tied to the driver. It strikes me that it's about time,

that that's the way we should be going, where people's driving habits,

people's driving experiences and people's histories predicate their

rate. I am certainly not one who indicates that a person with bad

driving habits should be subsidized by those with good driving habits —

not at all. But I don't believe this does the job at all.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

The proposal was there. The proposal, as I said already, would tie the

whole thing to the driver, tie the whole thing to his history. That

seems relatively easy and relatively basic. But instead of that we've

got a new program

[ Page 2560 ]

called

FAIR, and everybody thinks that we're at the dawn of a new age. I'm

suggesting, without being a great prophet, that this program will be

under a great deal of stress when it comes into full force and effect.

I really believe that, and that's my warning.

The first

minister, who's chatting from his seat, I'm sure can get up and advise

the House why we went this route and give all the basic reasons for

having gone this route. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that even he has

trepidations about the FAIR program. Can the minister tell us why it

was that all of the increases due to either bad driving habits history

and accidents were not tied to the driver himself or herself?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to respond to some of the questions that

were raised, the selection committee has hired a consulting firm to assist in

the selection of a manager. The firm is Peat, Marwick.

regard to the FAIR program, the member — if anybody in this House

should know — should be aware of the whole concept of insurance and the

fact that the claims are paid out of premiums and you pool your

premiums and you share the risk. In that way a person who has — I

believe he talked about a hit-and-brush accident as opposed to a

$300,000 claim.... There is a sharing by the total pool so that nobody

is hit with an excessive adjustment in premium. That's where you get

the $100 per year assessment over the basic insurance rate. That's no

different to the way it was with the good driver discount. Previously

you lost that and you paid the gross amount of premium. The member

makes that comparison about a hit-and-brush accident, I think he called

it, as opposed to a $300,000 claim. He knows full well that insurance

is paid on a pooling basis of premiums and the only difference with the

FAIR program and the previous concept is that all drivers are treated

equal and innocent until they have an accident.

MR. COCKE:

The minister hasn't answered the other part of the question. It is

about the total package being tied to the person's history. I agree

that a brushed fender could very well be the same in terms of a

person's luck. A person with bad luck can have a head-on and the other

person can be lucky enough to just barely miss. But everybody is

racking up a history, and one of the factors in B.C. is that we ignore

accidents in this history. If there's alcohol involved or if there's

driving without due care and attention and other charges.... But there

are other people with a history of accidents who are able to get out of

it. It's not just defensive driving, but at the same time they have a

long history of accidents and come off very, very well in terms of ICBC

rating. I'm talking about that history. What we're going to do now is

add this $100 fine. I just don't think it's going to work in terms of

being fair. I just think it's a $100 fine, period. Anyway, the minister

has answered that question.

I want to also ask, Mr.

Chairman, how many meetings the minister has attended. If he has

attended enough, does he know whether or not most of our investments

are being made in this province in terms of our short-term and

long-term investments from the premiums that we have secured, this part

of this multimillion dollar premium situation that we have here? What

percentage of the premiums are invested in this province over which we

have some sort of control?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll answer the first item that the member raised

about the driver's history. If you look at the old program, Mr. Member,

which was that you had a gross premium, you got your good driver discount and

you had a reduced premium. If you had one accident you'd lose your good

driver discount, if you had two you'd lose your good driver discount and

if you had seven you'd lose your good driver discount. That's all. You'd

pay the gross premium. But under the FAIR program we are doing basically what

the member has been talking about, because if you have one accident your basic

premium is increased by $100 a year for three years as the assessment. If you

have two accidents then, of course, the second accident comes along and there's

$100 related to that. So we are identifying the driver that has the one accident,

say, in a number of years driving and he has to pay that penalty. But the man

who is habitually a bad driver or is under the influence or whatever the case

might be and causes a number of accidents, the cost to him is going to increase,

and just maybe through that increase in cost he will change his ways and will

not be responsible for x number of accidents. Only so many times does it happen

because of bad luck. Usually you find that if a driver is having a number of

accidents there is a personal reason for it.

Mr.

Member, I did ask the corporation and I have in my office a report in

regard to where our investments lie. I can tell you just going from

memory that the number in British Columbia and in Canada is a great

percentage. I will attempt to get that for you and give you the actual

figures. I know it's in my office files.

MR. GABELMANN:

I wanted to raise with the minister two or three quick matters relating

to ICBC. I want, first of all, to talk about the monumental cost,

not only to the corporation and the driving public in this province,

but also to the economy, that traffic accidents are costing.

do a lot of driving around this province, particularly a lot on the

Island, and I too drove through to the Okanagan on the weekend. I would

say that our driver education program in this province — what little

there has been — has been an absolute failure in terms of driving

patterns and behaviour. There are times when I think that two out of

three people on the road shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's

licence, judging by their driving habits. Many of those people never

have an accident and never have to worry about their premiums going up.

But many of those same people are causing other accidents by their

driving behaviour.

I know that most of this subject of

traffic safety can be canvassed under the estimates of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways, but I think it should become a major focus

for ICBC. There should be a major campaign in this province at all age

levels, directed not only at drivers but at kids under 16 years old who

are thinking about driving and who are learning bad habits from their

parents and from their peers. There should be an education program

designed for these various sectors of our population.

One of

the realities of driving, not just in British Columbia but anywhere in

North America now, is that much of the driving population learned to

drive before freeways were even thought of, much less constructed. As a

result, we have a large number of people in this province who don't

know how to drive on freeways. Any of us who drive freeways can see

that. You see at least one out of three drivers who don't know how to

enter a freeway. You see people driving in the left-hand lane, forcing

others to do a lot of lane-switching to keep speed.

I think ICBC could do a lot more in terms of driver

[ Page 2561 ]

education

relating to those kinds of behaviour which cause a lot of accidents,

which in turn lead to a lot of the costs that the corporation is faced

with. There should be an ongoing media campaign directed at teaching

people that there are proper things to do at all times when they are

behind the wheel. Most people, when they drive, don't always expect to

have an accident within the next second. I think very few of us drive

that way: every second that I'm behind the wheel I expect to have an

accident and I've got an escape route. I don't think 90 percent of the

drivers in this province drive that way. The whole defensive driving

approach has been talked about a lot, but very little has been done to

teach people how to drive in that way. I would urge the minister, Mr.

Chairman, to consider that the corporation spend some considerable

amount of money relating to driver training and driver education,

because I think it will end up in a net saving. That can be done in a

variety of ways, but I won't take the time of the House today to expand

on that any further.

As an MLA, the issue that I get the

most calls about — next to compensation, I guess — is ICBC, from people

who are having problems with the corporation and are unhappy with the

decisions made by the corporation. For many of those people the process

of appeal, or the process of taking a complaint to the next step, is

very vague and very difficult. It's not laid out clearly; people are

not advised of the procedures by which they can take a dispute to the

next stage. I would urge two things in this regard to the minister. One

is that the corporation take a little more care in providing

information to people who are in dispute with the corporation, advising

them clearly and openly about what their options are — what their

methods of appeal are. Many people come into my office and, I'm sure,

to most MLAs' offices, really bewildered by the process; they are

bewildered by the bureaucracy and not sure where to turn. So very

simply, there could be printed material simply laid out that would be

useful to all people involved in the process.

One of the

other things that the minister might consider is setting up an

independent agency, a group of people who would operate in a similar

fashion to the claims advisory service of the Workers' Compensation

Board. At the present time, if you are in dispute with the corporation

you have the option of going to your MLA and asking your MLA to take

you through the process and argue your case for you, or you can get a

lawyer, at some cost to you, to assist you through the process, leading

often to the legal costs in small claims court.

Why not

establish an independent agency under the ministry that would be

independent from the corporation, would have access to all the

corporation files and would be able to act in a advocacy fashion, as

advocates for citizens who are faced with the bureaucracy which, for

many people, is a very intimidating process? To have that person or

those persons available as advocates would assist. It may only assist

me in cutting down my work week by about ten hours a week, but

certainly I think it would assist a lot of other people who are

absolutely bewildered and frightened by the bureaucracy.

want to — and this is really getting down to the small details of the

corporation — raise one final matter. I don't know whether this one

issue I want to raise is symptomatic of others or an isolated case. The

minister and I have exchanged some correspondence on the particular

matter.

Let me give you an example of what has happened.

You're driving down the road. You decide to turn left in legal fashion.

You put your signal lights on; you make sure that you are in a position

to turn left in terms of the oncoming traffic. Your defensive driving

isn't quite good enough that you check your rearview mirror, but you

turn left. As you turn left somebody in the passing lane hits you

broadside. That person is speeding. The person passing is charged by

the police and convicted. The person turning left is not charged and

ICBC assesses the responsibility 50/50. The person who is making a

lefthand turn and is not charged, and has signalled his or her

intention, is assessed the same responsibility for causing the accident

as the person who is speeding and overtaking on the left a vehicle that

is turning left.

When I raised this specific question to the

minister in a letter, I received the other day a very lengthy letter

back from the minister that was clearly written — and fair enough — by

staff in the corporation in which they say flat out that the decision

rests. This constituent of mine, who is a senior citizen, broke no

laws, was not charged, yet in effect pays a price that is equal to the

person who did break the law and was charged. That seems to me to be

quite unfair.

I would acknowledge, because I believe in

defensive driving, that if you're turning left you should look in the

rearview mirror and not turn if somebody's overtaking you. But that

seems more fair as a 75/25 split rather than a 50/50 one. I intend, by

correspondence, to follow up on this further. I would ask the minister

if he has any comment on the general principle involved in that

assessment of responsibility.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just

to go back to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who raised

the question regarding investments, we have about half a billion

dollars, Mr. Chairman, that goes into investment each year. As you

know, we collect the premiums. They're put into funds or investments

and, of course, are available to pay claims throughout the year.

Preference is given to B.C. organizations, whether it be government or

business or financial institutions, and we spread it through medium-,

short- and long-term investments. So we first look to British Columbia

and then secondly to Canada. All the funds we have invested are in

Canadian investments.

In regard to the percentage that is in

British Columbia, that I'm working on attempting to get, but I just

wanted to clarify to the member for New Westminster that preference is

given to B.C. and then secondly we look to the Canadian market.

you took half a billion dollars and placed it in British Columbia,

basically the B.C. market couldn't handle it. It just doesn't have the

capacity to handle that type of investment.

In regard to

claims, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) raised that point.

In most cases the procedure goes somewhat as follows: a phone call is

made with regard to the claim and details are given. About 20 percent

of all those claims are handled over the phone and resolved. For the

other 80 percent, an appointment is made over the phone and the person

has a time at which they can drive in — no waiting — and get their

claim handled. Many times it is handled in less then half an hour. I

think the efficiency has improved a great deal at the claims centres.

regard to what procedure the claimant has if there is some dispute,

first of all they have discussions with the adjuster; failing that, if

satisfaction is not obtained, they move then to the supervisor; failing

that, they move to the

[ Page 2562 ]

manager

of the claims centre; failing that avenue, then they have the right to

appeal to the claims appeal committee, which is made up of senior head

office executive; failing that, of course, after that appeal has been

heard, if they have not received the satisfaction they figure they

deserve, they can move, of course, to the courts.

MR. GABELMANN:

I'm aware of the procedure; that wasn't my point — I've been through it

enough times with people. The procedure is very clear for those of us

who aren't intimidated by the bureaucracy. The procedure is very clear,

and we can advise people if they know enough to call us.

The

problem is that that procedure.... When you are in the first stage of a

dispute, it seems to me that you should be given a pamphlet of some

kind that says: "Here are the procedures you can follow if you continue

to be unhappy with the decision rendered when you go through each

step." That should be freely available. We should be able to provide

that to motorists so they do know what their rights are, without having

to check with an MLA. It may be that there is a pamphlet of that kind

in the corporation that is available. If so, I haven't seen it.

Certainly it has not been available to people who have come in to see

me about claims. So I'm just saying that the process could be opened up

a bit, and people could feel freer and more at ease with the

bureaucracy if it were put in writing for them.

I assume,

because the minister didn't respond to the 50-50 blame in that

particular driving situation, that he wants to consider it. I'd like to

talk to him in another context about that particular case; but it's

fair enough if you don't want to comment on that now.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to a pamphlet or some material that a person can look at and

get some direction from, there is the Autoplan 1980 motorist's kit

which contains the information for the driver. On page 42 it gives the

procedure in regard to reporting a motor-vehicle accident, the

dial-a-claim program, repairs, hit-and-run claims, invalid claims,

uninsured claims, claim disputes — how to handle a claim dispute —

legal actions, the insurance laws outside of British Columbia — if

somebody gets caught there — and seatbelts and bodily injury claims.

It's a pretty comprehensive book, Mr. Member. It's made available with

each policy which the driver has — and it's well done, I think. I can

understand the problem, though, because my experience as an MLA is the

same as yours. When they get the book they file it, and then when the

claim occurs they don't have anything to go by. Maybe that's a problem

of education we'll have to work on.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I

just have one topic at this time which I'd like to discuss with the

minister. It's probably not a matter that has received a great deal of

public attention, but it is a matter of concern to people utilizing the

B.C. ferry system. I have in my possession numerous instances of people

having suffered some type of accident while boarding or on board one of

the B.C. ferries.

What happens in a great number of these

cases is that the people who have suffered this type of accident will

naturally and normally go to ICBC for damage claims, and they're

referred back to the B.C. Ferry Corporation — in fact, to a Mr. Cavin

of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The way I normally

handle these problems — and I get quite a number of them — is that I

usually forward copies of the correspondence to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation and to ICBC, hoping the matter will be resolved. Sometimes

the matter does get resolved, either by the Ferry Corporation or ICBC.

What happens in a lot of cases is that neither ICBC nor the Ferry

Corporation will take responsibility for the accident, whatever it may

be — a fender bender, damage to trailers, campers, what have you. So

what happens is that these people who have suffered this damage are in

a Catch-22 situation.

I was prepared to read a great deal of

this correspondence into the record, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think

I'll do that, because I'm sure that the minister and the ICBC

representatives he has with him must be aware of this problem.

have a number of examples, as I stated earlier. For example, there's an

elderly widowed lady who was caught in this type of situation aboard a

ferry on route 3, and even the deckhand, in this particular instance,

insists that the damages she suffered to her vehicle was not the

driver's fault. Yet she was unable to get any kind of funding from

ICBC. The Ferry Corporation denies any responsibility whatsoever for

this particular instance — and there were others. All I'm saying at

this time is that there should be a clear-cut stated policy for either

ICBC or the B.C. Ferry Corporation to assist these people in receiving

funding or whatever is necessary for repair of their damaged vehicles

when they're damaged while boarding or on board the B.C. Ferries.

I said before, sometimes compensation is made by ICBC, but it's for

these people who are caught in this Catch-22 situation, where no

responsibility is taken by either party, and particularly where we have

people on limited incomes and they can't get assistance and

satisfaction from anyone. I wonder if perhaps the minister could look

into the matter and, if he's familiar with this situation, could he

perhaps discuss it with us today in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I asked the minister a specific question, as have other members in this

House, about a serious problem that affects a lot of people in British

Columbia. I'd like the minister to have the courtesy to reply, and if

he doesn't know anything about it, he should be man enough to get up in

this House and say so and say he'll look into it. Otherwise, to let his

vote go through that easy is ridiculous.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member. I was waiting for other

comments, because I'm trying to answer these in groups. I thought

either he or one of his colleagues over there would carry on, and then

I would answer them all. With regard to the situation that the member

describes, which I gather is a dispute as to who is liable for the

accident on or off the ferry, in some cases, of course, where ICBC

accepts that liability, the claim is paid. The ones you're talking

about are the ones that are in the "grey area," where the Ferry

Corporation says: "No, it's not us," and the insurance corporation

says: "Yes, it is," and you've got a hangup.

I'm not sure

how you easily resolve that, Mr. Member, other than.... If you ran into

a situation like that and referred it to my office, I'd certainly

attempt to expedite it as quickly as possible, because I can understand

that the motorist involved would be a little frustrated if he is

dealing with two Crown Corporations and not getting one or the other

either to admit to the liability or to share in that liability if the

motorist isn't involved in the cause of the accident.

[ Page 2563 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I do appreciate the minister replying to the question. However, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you haven't given a commitment

that something will be done, and the fact is that some of the examples

I have before me.... In this particular example of a resident of the

Halfmoon Bay area, the correspondence is dated September 18, 1979. The

fact is that this elderly lady has been on limited income and it has

been about eight and a half to nine months and she has not received any

help, in spite of a great deal of correspondence to ICBC, the B.C.

Ferry Corporation, myself and other agencies. I'm not asking for a

reply to that; I just want to emphasize that there are people in this

situation. I personally viewed that vehicle. I went down to her home to

look at the damage that was done to it while I was in Pender Harbour.

She has never received a dime or any encouragement from ICBC or the

corporation. I did forward this correspondence to the B.C. Ferry

Corporation — as I did with other correspondence — and to ICBC, and,

quite frankly, have never received a satisfactory answer in this case

and other cases like it.

The minister suggests I should

perhaps forward this type of correspondence directly to him. I know

you're pretty busy, but I will do that if you request that, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just send me a copy of that one and let's see if we can deal with it.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a series of three short questions to the minister responsible

for ICBC. In northern communities, such as Cassiar or Atlin, when an

accident happens people are often stuck without proper communication to

the corporation. As one example, an adjuster might happen to come into

Cassiar once a year to do any type of claims or adjustment work for the

people who have been involved in accidents over the year.

first question to the minister is: would it be possible to have an

adjuster from the Terrace claims office cover all the communities along

Highway 37 at least twice a year and have schedules posted in the local

newspapers of when the adjuster would be coming through the area?

The

second question is: in areas without telephone service, such as

Telegraph Creek or Greenville, what methods could the minister suggest

to help residents receive proper insurance information when they're

involved in an accident'?

The last question to the minister

is: the claims process in the north can be slow and intimidating, and I

wonder what type of suggestions the minister could offer to help out

the claims process in rural areas.

I would appreciate the

minister's answering the questions and offering suggestions and helping

break down the lack of communication that exists between the

corporation and some northern, isolated areas. One problem is that, for

instance, in Cassiar you would have to drive almost 500 miles to get to

a claims office in Terrace.

To conclude, I would offer the

suggestion to the minister of having a claim adjuster travel through

the north regularly. It wouldn't be possible or even logical to have

one come once a month, but maybe twice a year or three times a year. So

I would hope the minister could offer some suggestions on those

questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: On those good roads!

MR. PASSARELL: Not yet; when you get that $100 million on it.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, we do have some travelling adjusters, whether or not it's

adequate for the circumstances raised by the member for Atlin. The

Insurance Corporation will review it and see whether or not we can

improve the service.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have

a number of questions I'd like to ask the minister about the ICBC

system. First of all, I hope that he will convey my gratitude to Mr.

Rogan and his staff for all the times that head-office staff has helped

me with claims in my area. It seems that whenever you give the staff a

call when you've run into problems over in claims centres here and

there, he is always willing to straighten out the problems. He's been

of tremendous assistance to most MLAs on this side.

One of

the things I would like to talk about is the driver point program. When

a driver is ticketed for a certain offence, he's entitled either to

take the points or else to contest it; and in most cases, rather than

take days off work and contest the thing, he ends up picking up points

whether he felt he was in the wrong or not. It appears to be a double

or quadruple jeopardy system that's operating here. The person gets the

traffic ticket; beyond a certain number of points he can then be

assessed by the superintendent of motor vehicles a certain amount of

money per point, sometimes up to $20 or $25 per point. Beyond a certain

number of points he can then have his licence lifted or be ordered to

take a defensive driving course. Beyond that the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia sends him a little note saying that they're going

to assess him a certain amount per point on his driver insurance.

seems that you're hit every time along the way; you could lose your

driver's licence, you could pay the assessment to the superintendent of

motor vehicles, you could be ordered to take a safe driving course

which amounts to some cost to the driver, and in addition you're

assessed a certain amount of money by ICBC as additional insurance

premium. I don't advocate going back to the fines system, but a person

should be penalized once and once only for an infraction. If as a

result of that infraction it's shown that he is a greater insurance

risk — and I'm sure you work that out actuarially so that you have the

information — then it shouldn't be assessed based on the number of

points he has, it should be based on the risk that he constitutes to

himself and the rest of the driving public.

I think one of

the real problems experienced by drivers as a result of the ICBC point

penalty system is that they feel they're being fined again for

something they've already been fined for a couple of times along the

line. I know that the Attorney-General's office and the division of

motor vehicles in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is

looking at this, but I wonder what the position of ICBC is on these

point penalties. They seem to be assessed over and over again; a driver

could collect three or four penalties for a single offence or a couple

of traffic offences, a speeding ticket or something like that. I think

it's unfair. It really amounts to double jeopardy, and even more, in my

opinion. I wonder what position the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia has taken on that.

On the investments of the Insurance Corporation, I would

[ Page 2564 ]

like

to offer a suggestion to the minister responsible or to the minister

who is on the board of directors. I visited the state government

insurance office in Queensland, Australia, a few years ago. That

insurance company also operates the workers' compensation system, sells

life insurance, is involved in co-insurance, and that type of thing.

One of the things it does with its investments is to buy works of local

artists and assist the artists of the state of Queensland to develop an

income, because there is a major market for their works within the

state. I wonder if that is a part of the investment strategy or policy

of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

I had a

number of people come to me when the FAIR program first came into

effect on January 1 this year and there was a premium reduction for

drivers of a certain age. The people who had renewed their insurance

between, say, July 1979 and December 1980 were paying — even though

they were in the age group that qualified — insurance premiums at a

much higher rate than those who on January 1 would renew their premiums

and would qualify at the reduced rate for that age group. As a result

you have two drivers of the same age, same experience and same risk

driving the same kind of car, yet one was paying twice as much as the

other. A number of people in my constituency went down to the

government agency, traded in their insurance, and bought insurance

again at the lower rate. It seemed to me to be a difficult and

bureaucratic way of going about things. Why didn't the Insurance

Corporation simply, when they announced the lower rate structure for

drivers in that age group, refund the balance to drivers rather than

forcing them to go through the procedure of cancelling their insurance

under the old plan and buying insurance with the lower premium under

the new FAIR plan which took effect on January 1? I'm wondering if the

minister can explain the reason for that.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to the points system, it's the motor-vehicle branch, of

course — the assessment of points with regard to breaking the law. As

the member knows, you achieve the six-point figure, and then you end up

by paying the penalty on the points. The number of points are squared,

so that if you have six points it's $36; ten points, $100, etc. But

there's no charge on the insurance policy; it's not part of the policy.

The points have nothing to do with the car insurance; it's on the

licensing of the vehicle. We are part of the task force that you

mention made up of the motor vehicle branch, Highways and ICBC, and

we're reviewing the total system with regard to assessments where

people have broken the law.

You

mentioned investments, and I believe you referred to purchasing art

work as an investment. I haven't given that one any thought, Mr.

Member, but I would imagine that maybe the B.C. superintendent

of insurance would not be in favour of such an approach. I think our

laws, as far as investments go, as they relate to insurance

corporations where you have to provide the reserves, etc.... We

don't have the flexibility that that particular country would have

where you invest in art work. We still have to look at our short-term,

mid-term and long-term bond investments.

MR. SKELLY: I think I got the minister a bit wrong here. Out of the

profits of the corporation — and they do make profits — they have a policy of

investing in works of art that are done by local artists. I think it would be

a worthwhile thing for a corporation such as the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, if they have a surplus of revenue over expenditures, to have a policy

to invest a part of that profit in the works of local artists. For a corporation

the size of ICBC to adopt that as one of their policies would be extremely beneficial

to the cultural community here in British Columbia and would encourage local

artists, because at least they would have some specified or available market

for their works. I'm not suggesting that the superintendent of insurance

be the person responsible for buying art works. Perhaps it would be done by

a committee selected by the Insurance Corporation of B.C. in conjunction with

cultural groups.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The corporation, of course, is on a break-even approach. We don't have

profits. If we have surpluses they go back into the automobile

insurance fund and the insurance premium is adjusted accordingly,

either by a lesser increase in premiums due to the cost of

inflation.... So I wouldn't see us adopting that approach with the

Insurance Corporation. It's strictly that the premiums shall pay the

claims. If we have surpluses at the end of the year, then we should

reverse that and say that where we haven't used up all the premiums, we

should make sure that we don't arrive at that, you might say, profit

area where we would generate large surpluses. We attempt to maintain

the premium at a realistic level without overcharging the motorist.

MR. SKELLY: I can't see you doing anything.

MR. BARBER: Could I ask leave of the House to make a couple of introductions?

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER:

I'd like, if I may, to introduce two out of three of the most

formidable members of the ice hockey team upon which I play every

Thursday at midnight. Their names are Brian Fair and Darrell Wad. They

are currently falling asleep in the House, and I ask the members to

join me waking them up.

If that's not worth an extra pass or two tonight.... I've got to score somehow!

have a matter I'd like to raise with the minister. I'd like to first of

all comment generally, though, that I think ICBC generally provides

very good service. I think ICBC is an institution of which the people

can be justly proud. I think it's a public enterprise that works, and

does a good job. I know it keeps capital here in the Province of

British Columbia, and that capital is made available to British

Columbia enterprise in a way that it never was when private insurance

dominated the field, when the capital went east or south, and was not

retained in this province. I think ICBC is a credit to the people of

British Columbia who make it work.

If I may, I should like

to join with my colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in complimenting Mr.

Rogan and his staff. They provide a particularly helpful service to

MLAs who, after they have failed to make or comprehend a case made

locally at a claims centre, are able often to go to Mr. Rogan's office,

and in short order be told precisely what the facts are as ICBC

perceives them, and what the routes of appeal for a new decision might

be. I think Mr. Rogan and his staff deserve a lot of credit for that,

and certainly MLAs opposite here are happy to extend that credit,

because they do a good job, and it helps us do our jobs as well.

I'd like to raise an issue of policy in regard to ICBC at the

[ Page 2565 ]

moment.

The issue of policy has been raised most recently in a letter I

received just this morning. It is, if I determine it correctly, a

policy that I think is unfair and creates once again in a different

way, a position and a situation somewhat similar to that raised by my

colleague just a moment ago, that position being one of double

jeopardy. I'd like if I may — removing the names but I'll send the

minister the correspondence so he understands it's authentic — to read

into the record a letter received, as I said, in my office just this

morning. I'd appreciate the minister's comment on the apparent

unfairness of the policy as applied in this case. The letter from a

citizen in Victoria begins:

"On August 4,

1979, while stopped at a red light at the Kent-Kangley intersection in

Kent, Washington state, USA, my vehicle was hit from behind. The

driver, Mr. (name deleted) was not insured. Our vehicle required

approximately $500 worth of repairs. We paid the $100 deductible from

our insurance. ICBC contacted the Washington State Police and had Mr.

(name deleted'

s) licence suspended. They have thus far not been able to

obtain any money from him.

"I was informed by

Sandy Allen, an ICBC claims officer at the Douglas Street office, that

I would lose my safe driver's discount. Upon renewing my vehicle

insurance I found that, indeed, my safe driver's discount had been

revoked.

"Since I was hit from behind, and

since I was in no way responsible for that accident, I did not, and

will not, pay for the loss of my three-year safe driving discount. I

was warned by an insurance clerk that if I paid in full it would be

unlikely that ICBC would reimburse me for the discount, as they do not

admit their mistakes. I find it amusing and costly that ICBC has been

advertising their 'fairness.'

"This situation

appears to be an example of the reverse. Is this how ICBC intends to

reward responsible drivers? I have to clear the situation up as soon as

possible. This may call for a change in ICBC's Bible of rules, which is

exactly the fair and just thing to do. Could I have your advice and

assistance in this matter?"

Well, I would like to help him

but I can't, because I don't understand the justification for this

apparent policy of ICBC. I understand why a safe driver's discount

should be forfeited if the person who drives is no longer a safe

driver. That's clear, logical and rational. I have no objection to that

at all. If you or Mr. Chairman, drive like an incompetent, and we lose

our safe driver discount, that's fair and just — no objection. But if

you or I are in some other place, parked legally at a stop sign,

waiting to go through and were hit from behind as this constituent was,

why should we then lose our safe driver discount? Because we had the

hit us? Someone who may have been entirely liable, entirely negligent,

even impaired, for all I know. It's not fair on the surface of it, and

it is a kind of double jeopardy. The double jeopardy is this. If that

constituent of mine were less honest, he might have simply decided not

to report the accident, because, you see, that way he wouldn't lose his

safe driver's discount. If he decided to break the law, he could keep

his mouth shut about the accident and keep the safe driver's discount

as well. But because he is honest, he has been penalized. He reported

the accident to the Washington State Police and to ICBC. So

he's in a position, Mr. Chairman, of being rewarded financially if he

breaks the law, and being punished financially if he obeys it. This is

not fair. It's not reasonable, and it is not I think, a justifiable

policy on ICBC's part.

What I wonder is whether or not the

minister is prepared to revise that policy, to allow persons to

continue to receive a safe driver discount if they are found innocent

of liability and responsibility, whether or not an accident occurs. If

in fact, in this case and others, the driver who was hit from behind or

wherever is not demonstrated to be in any way responsible, why then

should he or she lose the safe driver discount?

My bias is

obvious. I think the safe driver discount is a good program. I think it

should be supported, maintained and preserved. And when people drive

like idiots they should lose it. But in this case the man appears to be

entirely innocent. Yet he's lost the safe driver's discount. That would

appear, I think, to be the consequence of a far too narrow, literal and

rigid

interpretation of the rules.

The safe-driver discount

is a good program. It has, I think, the unanimous support of every

member of this Legislature. But to be good it must also be fair. To be

fair it must be applied in an intelligent way. This apparent

application is not intelligent and it's not justifiable. It does create

a situation where we, in effect, reward people who break the law in

this case, the law that required the man to report the accident. He

would have saved a lot of money if he didn't report it; he's lost some

money because he did. In each circumstance he is entirely innocent of

the affair. He did not cause the accident. He was hit from behind, and

it was someone else's fault. The someone else lost his licence. This

guy lost his safe-driver discount. Is that fair? I don't think it is. I

wonder whether or not the minister would care to comment on this

policy, and, as well, if this is, in fact, as ICBC has applied it, the

way he wants the policy applied. If it's not, perhaps he could inform

us as to whether or not he's prepared to revise the policy in order

that the safe-driver discount program can work as it should work with

fairness and equity to all the drivers of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave, Mr. Chairman, to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA:

It's not too often that I, as the member for Prince Rupert, get the

opportunity to introduce guests, because of the distance between my

riding and the difficulty of getting to Victoria. Today I have a

special opportunity because they're not even from the city of Prince

Rupert so it's more difficult to get here. I'd like to ask the members

to join me in welcoming to the Legislature this afternoon students from

Port Simpson, British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER: I would

also agree that generally speaking the ICBC operation is a good

operation. There are some exceptions and some isolated cases in which I

think improvement has to be brought about. I speak basically about the

rates, and situations where people have discovered in a certain year

that their rates have gone up substantially for similar coverage or the

same coverage as they had in the previous years on the same automobile.

It would seem to me that if there has been an error in previous years,

on the rating of this particular vehicle, when the renewal premium goes

[ Page 2566 ]

out

it would be a fairly simple matter for ICBC to send a note explaining

to the insured person why that particular rate has increased

substantially, in order to avoid a lot of unnecessary complaints

against the corporation. I've had a number of people this year who have

had substantial changes in their rates. Generally speaking, they have

been because there had been an error in previous listings. But in some

cases there appears to be less of an explanation.

I would like to read a letter from one person whom I received a notice from:

"I'm

extremely upset about my ICBC insurance premium. The corporation has

spent a great deal of money telling us all about the new FAIR rates

this year. Please consider these facts. I'm a 34-year-old woman, never

had an accident, am driving the same car which is now 14 years old,

have always received the maximum safe driver discount, and have not

changed my coverage from 1979. For all of this I get a renewal notice

with a 32 percent increase over last year's rate. Could you please ask

the minister in charge of ICBC what on earth he thinks is fair about

this? All I want is an explanation for this outrageous increase."

would seem to me that if information were given for cases similar to

this, if it's not a mistake, but a valid reason for the

increases.... It would seem a very simple matter to have an

explanatory note accompany the renewal notice so that the people

receiving these bills would understand the reason for it. I think it

would do a lot in creating a better public image for the corporation. I

think that's very, very necessary for that to happen.

I'd

also like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, about the funds that are

being held by ICBC. I'd like to know where the insurance funds are

invested and the value of the funds at a certain date — maybe the end

of the last fiscal year — as to the amount of money invested by ICBC.

I'd like to know what investment income was obtained during any given

period that the minister may wish to divulge to us. It would be

interesting to note what percentage of the expenditures of ICBC were

brought back by investment capital. If the minister could at some time

give us that information, it would be appreciated.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to the increase in premium for a motorist who has written the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon, if he'd send me a copy of the letter, or

direct it to Mr. Rogan of ICBC, I'm sure he'll get a response

indicating the reasons why that premium was increased.

regard to the investment portfolio, I refer the member to page 10 of

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's annual report. It

indicates there that as of December 31, 1979, we had $525.3 million

invested — $148.5 million with the federal government; $102.3 million

with the banks; provincial, $95.3 million etc. — on down to municipal

credit unions, trust companies and others. The investments are with

preference given to British Columbia. But there are limitations — as I

mentioned to one of the other members — with regard to the ability of

the B.C. investment market to absorb these kinds of dollars. But they

are all in Canadian investments.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to raise two items with the minister. One concerns the present handling by ICBC of personal injury claims.

the present time the law requires that in the process of trying to

achieve some settlement for injuries an injured person must undergo

medical examination at the request of ICBC, the insurer. The difficulty

is that the medical profession have been charging up to $350 for the

failure of the injured person to attend that particular examination.

That is a charge that I find very difficult to countenance, in the time

that a medical examiner would have spent had the injured person not

failed to attend. It's also a general rule that 48 hours' notice must

be given in the event that one wishes to cancel that particular

appointment. What I am suggesting to the minister — through you, Mr.

Chairman — is that ICBC is being blackmailed to some extent. Those

charges that are levied against the person's claim are naturally used

by ICBC to reduce the amount of the claim, and they use it to deduct

there. What I'm suggesting is that if you would check this through your

officials, it seems to me some contact should be made with the medical

profession surrounding their procedure and the way they're going about

charging for independent medical examinations. That can substantially

affect the progress of settlement. It is also a charge that seems very

difficult to justify on the basis of time lost by any particular

medical practitioner. It seems to me ICBC should not be blackmailing

persons claiming for personal injuries, nor should the medical

profession be charging what I see as an unconscionable fee for failure

to attend.

The second item I would like to raise with the

minister, if he wouldn't mind checking it in the course of his

responsibilities on the board, is this. Some changes were made which

were welcome. I raised about a year ago the question of the

compensation that should be paid to someone who is injured as a result

of a drunken driver, or where the insured driver is in violation of the

statutory conditions. Up to a certain point, the amount that was paid

in compensation of the seriously injured victim was at the statutory

limits. That has been changed and I welcome that change. They will now

compensate on the basis of whatever the award is, up to the extent of

the policy limit that the person who was in violation may have carried.

That's a welcome change.

The other part of the equation is

that the person who is in violation of the statutory condition will

also be liable to the full extent of the loss. It means that since ICBC

is now paying more than statutory limits, they will also claim — under

their rights of subrogation — against the person who had violated the

statutory condition. Now those statutory conditions can be more than

simply drunken driving. You can be in violation of your statutory

condition, for example, if you are unlicensed, or if you're underage.

There are a number of other provisions. My concern is that there are a

number of people who, in fact, are being bankrupted by the insurance

program even where they are insured.

The point is that you

should not use subrogation as a way of cleaning up statutory violation

or violations on the road. The criminal law is available. Jail terms

are available for drunken drivers. To put bankruptcy as well on those

who have paid for insurance and expected to be covered when they were

driving, and admittedly were wrong in driving either drunk or with

drugs, or perhaps failed to qualify for a valid B.C. driver's

licence.... It seems to me that here's an area where the public

would be willing to pick up this cost. In other words, ICBC should be

limited in its rights of subrogation. I could never understand why

subrogation should be used as a penalty in regard to drunken driving or

persons violating the law. All it usually means is that the

[ Page 2567 ]

person

without means leaves the province or runs away, and the person with

means can be bankrupted; or if he has a lot of means, it doesn't mean

much of a penalty to him in any event. It seems to me that the proper

approach to driving safety lies in making sure that the victim is

properly compensated — and I'm pleased to see that one change; also,

the second half of that should be that rights of subrogation should be

severely limited where it means the bankruptcy of any individual driver.

MR. BARRETT:

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, talking about car insurance — in the gallery

today is Wes Robbins, the Minister of Revenue in the government of

Saskatchewan. He's also responsible for the government of

Saskatchewan's insurance program. He's here in the gallery listening to

our debate today, but I think he just stepped out.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

The minister suggests I bring him down. I was going to bring him down,

but he hasn't got a tie. Knowing how formal we are in this House, he

felt he would rather not be on the floor. I ask the House to greet him

when he comes back in; he should be in in a minute. There's Mr. Robbins

now.

I don't have too much to say on ICBC, other than to say

that those raving socialists over there have gone too far. They have

expanded the program to a degree that is shocking even the Soviet

Union. They have embraced government-owned car insurance as if it was

their own child, and as foster parents they have denied the real

maternal and paternal responsibility. As one who has suffered from the

vindictive slings and arrows of mad opposition who screamed doom and

gloom about the government insurance business, let me say with some

humility; welcome to the socialist club.

I hope that no

Social Credit supporter will understand that the government is trying

to flog itself as a better government by continuing socialist programs

which were started by the evil group who are all red inside but

pin-striped outside. The minister is nothing but a raving pinko going

around broadcasting government-owned car insurance. It is a reverse

plot. It has been a Social Credit plot to bring socialism in the back

door. They have adopted the program of going around this province and

attacking socialists, only to be seeped with the philosophy that they

themselves bring in and peddle as if it were their own.

Today

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) has got the exposure of

the duplicity that he was sold when he joined that party. He above all

knows how the evils of socialism destroy personal initiative, brings

dependency on the state, and put out those big international car

insurance companies that formerly had the opportunity to participate in

free enterprise. I want to say to that member that I can see on his

face that he is thunderstruck that free enterprise and the opportunity

to defend it in his riding have been taken away from him. I will be the

first to understand why he crosses the floor, why he attacks big

government, and why he leaves the socialists over there. I know for a

fact that he joined that party thinking that he was fighting socialism,

and he's been placed in the embarrassing position of having to listen

to this debate in which socialism is being praised by the minister

responsible for government car insurance. We know what's been going on.

That member has been duped. And it is about time that he be given the

opportunity and freedom in his caucus to separate himself from that

maverick group of secret socialists hiding over there. But, Mr.

Chairman, by their deeds shall they be known. When the lightning bolt

of reality strikes that member's brain, he will realize that when he

campaigned for Social Credit he was really endorsing socialist programs

such as ICBC.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if the word

goes out from beyond this place that when they were in opposition they

fought against ICBC, but in the last provincial campaign they went

around saying, "Vote for us, we know how to run socialism better than

the socialists...." The only person they bought earplugs for for

that line was the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy), who left her finger in that campaign. I want to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, I am embarrassed for the member for North Peace River,

who sat here and decided that he would only be a silent observer of the

debate, and having sat and observed, realized that he had joined a

socialist group that has abandoned all of its free enterprise

principles and is bringing all drivers to its bosom under

government-owned car insurance. That minister baldly endorses....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Objection! Vicious attack! [Laughter.]

MR. BARRETT:

We've seen no attempt at a coverup from that minister. It is a straight

embracing of socialism, and that member has been embarrassed. Look at

the serious grimace on his face now as he realizes he has been struck

by the bolt of reality that he joined the wrong party when he should be

sitting all alone as the free-enterpriser fighting for the citizens of

British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: We don't want him.

MR. BARRETT: I know.

I'm

glad, too, that there are not many students in the chamber today. I

would not want many students to see the height of cynicism that is

practised by this governing party. Some students believe that Social

Credit is so much against socialism that they'd destroy ICBC, B.C.

Hydro, the Petroleum Corporation, and all the whipping boys that they

had when they were opposition. Thank goodness it's a quiet day in B.C.

Too bad the referendum isn't being held today to mask this fraudulent

debate that's taking place, because someone's going to leave this

chamber and squeal out there that the only good thing Social Credit is

riding on are NDP programs like ICBC.

remember my good

colleague, Robert Strachan, and the member for New Westminster, a

prominent insurance agent, who went out publicly endorsing this

program, only to suffer the slings and arrows of an unremitting

opposition at that time. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I welcome this

deathbed conversion by the Socreds — the endorsation of ICBC. I welcome

the minister's public confession that the NDP was right after all.

Don't be too embarrassed to stand up and say: "Thank you, Dennis Cocke.

Thank you, Bob Strachan. Thanks to the NDP for this wonderful program."

I won't go around repeating your thanks. Not me. I'm just a quiet

observer of what is known to normal people as hypocrisy and to

politicians as: "Well, whatever the means, it justifies the end." Far

be it from me to remember the vicious personal attacks or statements

made in this House against socialist car insurance. I'm a forgiving

sort. Far be it from me to hold

[ Page 2568 ]

against

them their embracing a program of ours to get elected, but it will

always baffle me — as I sit down, Mr. Chairman — why the member for

North Peace River remained silent on this above all issues. You are

embracing socialism. You're going to turn pink tonight unless you

confess.

MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to make one correction. I was not duped; I was

simply stunned by the singsong histrionics of Chief Walking Eagle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

The Premier on vote 10.

HON MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, while coming into the chamber, I was pleased to hear the

Leader of the Opposition referring to the history of ICBC, because I

remember when he went around this province and promised the people

$28-a-year car insurance. Remember that?

MR. BARRETT: Pinko!

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Today, he tries to run from that promise and the chaos he created in

this province, and now he sits, after his long chamber of commerce

luncheon today, yelling: "Pinko, pinko." It must have been quite a

lunch. A great lunch today, Mr. Chairman.

I remember the

$28 promise. We all remember that. Remember the $28 promise of car

insurance, the chaos and the hidden losses? That's what I remember most.

MR. BARBER: Pinko!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Victoria yells: "Pinko." No, it wasn't pink; it was red ink! You remember when the member

sitting in front of you.... The member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) and the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) were directors of ICBC and

they wouldn't tell the people that they were going to lose $175

million. Those losses were hidden. Do you remember that the party you

ran for called an election in a hurry, before the public found out

after statements in the newspaper from the Premier of the day that, oh,

they weren't going to lose any money and if they lost any it may be as

high as $18 million? And what were the losses just a few months later? I

remember those losses. They were $175 million or $183 million,

somewhere in that bracket.

We remember that. What a change

in a few months when we had the then Premier and Minister of Finance

and the directors of the corporation all saying that ICBC wasn't in

financial trouble! The public wondered why an election was called at

that time. It was called in a big hurry, in December. It's not because

the cupboard was bare, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith)

says. It's because the cupboard was full of IOUs that the public were

not aware of.

I'm pleased that the Leader of the Opposition

has brought up the history of ICBC. Frankly, at one time the ICBC did

have a compulsory aspect contained in legislation, which is no longer

the case for collision insurance. The opportunity is there for

competition. This government isn't afraid of competition so that it has

to legislate against it; not at all. But I remember, they were so

frightened at that time of the concept they were so proud of, the $28

insurance, that they put legislation in saying that nobody w