1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page 5205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill

21). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 5205

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5205

Mr. Howard

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Ree

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

On vote 11: deputy minister's office –– 5221

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 12: finance and administration –– 5221

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 12 –– 5222

Mrs. Wallace

Division on the amendment

Ministerial Statement

Residential rental property of rentalsman.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5222

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5223

Appendix –– 5224

FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, this

is a very special time in British Columbia. While we have had superb

airline service from our two Canadian airlines and a number of other

countries' airlines, on April 23 we will be inaugurating British

Airways flights to British Columbia. They will be commencing with four

flights a week from London to British Columbia. While Robert Morley has

been suggesting that he doesn't really know why anyone would come from

London to British Columbia, we're convinced that after the visit of the

inaugural guests today and over the weekend, and the number of British

overseas passengers that will be coming to see us, his question will be

answered.

I'm sure everyone will welcome this new service to British Columbia,

and I would ask you all to join me in welcoming our special guests in

the visitors' gallery today: Mr. Gerald Draper, who is director of

commercial operations, British Airways, London; Mr. Andrew Matin,

manager for Canada, Toronto; and Mr. Ossie Cochrane, general manager of

western division. With their guests and our assistant deputy minister

of marketing, Mr. John Plul, they are in Victoria today. Would you

please give them, their guests, Mr. Plul and British Airways a very

warm welcome to British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: The House is indeed fortunate today, because one of

British Columbia's most distinguished teachers, from the Okanagan area,

is in the gallery with a group of students. Would the House welcome Mr.

John Powell and the students to the chamber. On behalf of the member

for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), I also extend welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was standing to introduce

them. I'm glad that you are very generous in the way you choose members

in this House, by alternating sides. I can only join in by saying that

we're pleased to have a group of students from the Okanagan, an area

which has provided a lot of enjoyment for the people of this province

during their vacations and has given us much produce. Above all, our

greatest product is our students. I'd like to welcome them here this

morning.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome some old friends from

Coquitlam who are visiting us today. Their names are Ann and Henry

Hensel. I ask the House to bid them welcome to the Legislature.

I'd also like to welcome a friend from both Ottawa and Winnipeg who

is a large businessman, masquerading as a small one, Mr. Michael Decter.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 21, Petroleum and Natural

Gas Amendment Act, 1981, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

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

of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a

question posed last night by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt). I also want to pose a question to the opposition in order

that we can make best use of public servants' time. If we are going to

proceed with ICBC issues this morning, hon. members, and if you could

give me some guidance, I could allow my Deputy Minister of Agriculture

and Food and other staff members to carry on the business of the

ministry, and we could proceed with ICBC issues. However, if the

opposition members wish to question me on items of Agriculture and

Food, Land Commission and ICBC, I'm quite prepared for that. After I

respond to the member for Coquitlam-Moody on ICBC, the Leader of the

Opposition might say that they want to cover a multitude of issues

under my ministry's vote; that would be fine with me. I'm quite

prepared to be guided by their desires.

Now I would like to go on to the issue raised by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody. He was reading from a memo which he said — I haven't

been able to check the Blues yet, but I believe he said this — was

distributed to all ICBC insurance adjusters. I asked him at the end of

the session last night, Mr. Chairman, if he would provide me with a

copy of the memo and the date of the memo; unfortunately he could not

and did not. This morning I did get a copy of a newsletter which he was

quoting from — not the original memo, but a newsletter. The newsletter

is entitled The Verdict ; it's

issue number 5, January 15, 1981. The member was kind enough to present

this to all the press gallery, I guess last night, and never got it to

me, but I did get a copy from the press gallery this morning.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this in regard to the newsletter. It

is entitled "ICBC Memo," and says: "The following is a copy of a memo

distributed to the ICBC adjusters." This newsletter, The Verdict , is published by the

Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, and I understand also

that the same memo is referred to in the newsletter called the Advocate , which is also a lawyers'

publication, on April 24, 1981 — no, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that's

the date of the transcript that has come over to me. The point I make

is that it's not just in the newsletter called The Verdict , but it's also in a

newsletter called the Advocate .

Well, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that this was a proposal put forward

by a new ICBC employee who was hired a few years ago, and it was just

that — a proposal. The proposal was rejected by management and was

never — I repeat, Mr. Chairman — was never sent to the adjusters, as

stated in the lawyers' publication.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I have to take to task the legal profession of

this province, when they send out two newsletters — one called The Verdict and the other called

the Advocate — indicating a

policy that they say has been adopted by ICBC, when actually the

proposal was made by an employee putting forward a suggestion which was

rejected. Nevertheless it still shows up in lawyers' newsletters as

company

[ Page 5206 ]

policy. I find that very regrettable, and I would

ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to contact whoever is the publisher

and editor of the newsletter for the law profession in this province

and ask them if they would correct the statements that they made which

I'm sure he would agree are very misleading to a tremendous number of

dedicated lawyers in this province who would take offence to that type

of approach that was being proposed by the employee.

I might also mention, Mr. Chairman, that that memo, which was dealt

with and rejected by the company, has been in circulation with the

lawyers and used by lawyers for two years. We don't have the date of

the memo, but it was proposed about two years ago and rejected and is

still being published in newsletters as company policy, and that is

most unfortunate. I hope that answers the member's concern. I would

just ask him to work with me, as the minister responsible for ICBC, and

correct the erroneous statement made by the publisher of the newsletter

called The Verdict .

In regard to rehabilitation — the member also touched on that — I

was concerned about some of his statements. He said that funds were

being reduced and that there is a reduction of activity in the

rehabilitation division of ICBC. I have checked with the corporation.

There is no reduction in the budget for that division. In response to

the member for Coquitlam-Moody with those comments, I would now be

prepared to answer questions regarding any activity of my ministry. I

would pose the question to the members opposite: do they wish to

proceed with ICBC or will they deal with all of my responsibilities?

MR. HOWARD: It's very refreshing to have a cabinet minister

finally indicate that he doesn't know what's going on in his own ranks

and to ask the opposition to give him a list of the ways in which he'd

like things to be dealt with. We'll gladly accommodate the minister. In

fact, ever since the Committee of Supply started, we've been trying to

find out from the government House Leader what business is to be laid

before the committee. The government House Leader has been blind, deaf

and dumb to those requests. We want a list of what to deal with so the

minister can organize his department. We'll tell him what to deal with.

Firstly, put aside the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates

and call the Ministry of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the member knows, we may discuss the

administrative action of a department. The administrative actions which

we may discuss presently in this committee are those under the Minister

of Agriculture and Food. We may not enter into discussions on

administrative actions that are not his responsibility. I would ask the

member to continue addressing his remarks to those specific areas.

MR. HOWARD: I'll gladly deal with those specific areas, Mr.

Chairman, noting in passing that the Chair permitted the Minister of

Agriculture and Food on two occasions when he was on his feet just a

minute ago to divert from the administrative function of his

department. He started off asking the opposition to tell him what

business we'd like to deal with. He wound up with that. The Chair

didn't stop him then. Now I'm just trying to put forward to the

minister what it is we would like to have dealt with.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I just

want to rise to, I guess, support the Chair in trying to advise

these....

MR. BARRETT: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify the point of

order for that noisy Leader of the Opposition, my responsibilities are

under debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed on my point

of order, my responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture are

agriculture and food, the Agricultural Land Commission, ICBC, and as a

minister of the Crown I've offered the opposition the choice of which

they want to discuss — any or all. That is my point of order. We're not

talking about the Ministry of Education estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The member for Skeena

continues, if he wishes.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of

order. The minister gained the floor improperly. We were trying to put

forward to him some alternatives as to the conduct of business in this

House, and all we get is this specious argument of his — illegally and

improperly put forward.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Jim, sit down, please. You need the advice of

Doug Heal more than anybody.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, the conduct of business

in this House is not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture

and Food. It is the responsibility of the House Leader. The member is

out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will again read — and this

should be almost second nature to all of us now — from the sixteenth

edition of May, "General Restrictions on Debate in Committee of

Supply," page 739: "The administrative action of a department is open

to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving

legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply...nor action for

which a minister is not responsible...." Hon. members, we have all

heard this numerous times, and I would ask all members to bear in mind

the restrictions that apply to us in Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you read that

last part from May that talked about the responsibility of the

minister. This minister has no responsibility for anything. He is

completely irresponsible in the conduct of the affairs of his

departments, and I'm pleased that you draw that to his attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask the

member to withdraw any imputation if he impugned the minister at all.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I didn't.

[ Page 5207 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister would like to know what affairs

of state should be dealt with in the list of the opposition, after we

get through with the Ministry of Education I suggest we go to the

Provincial Secretary. We can deal with his relationship with Doug Heal

under this minister's responsibility. What's wrong with that? It's

under his administrative responsibility. He needs the advice of people

like Heal more than anybody else. So if the minister wants to have

suggestions as to the conduct and orderly progress of business in this

House, I suggest that he sit down with his own government House Leader

and try to work it out on a rational and sensible basis and not start

off in an accusatory tone as he did this morning, accusing the

opposition of not paying attention to the affairs of his department.

That's what we're doing. If you want to start things off on an orderly

basis, then start right from the beginning and deal through the proper

channels. Don't make it look like you're a Messiah of some nature.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, would the Chair instruct

the House and its members that when a member is on his feet a point of

order to gain the floor must be related to standing orders or to some

abuse of the rules rather than a means to enter the debate. I would

appreciate that clarification at this time, as a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is the responsibility of the

Chair to listen to all points of order and to recognize members who

rise on points of order to first determine if there is a point of

order. Nevertheless, the comments by the Leader of the Opposition are

most appropriate to all members of this House. I would ask that we now

return to vote 10.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister has indicated first of all that the

document referred to yesterday is a valid document. He hasn't denied

its validity. He's obviously checked with ICBC and has found that in

fact this instruction was prepared. He's also said to the chamber that

it was prepared.... I think he used the words, "a proposal put forward

by a new ICBC employee." I don't know whether his name was Foot, but it

sounded like he had his foot way up in his mouth somewhere when he

issued this. But in fact that isn't my information. My information is

that it was distributed; but my latest information is that it was

withdrawn. That's something I'd like the minister to check out. I don't

know how it got into the hands of this organization if it wasn't

distributed to adjusters in the province of British Columbia. Of course

I accept the minister's word, but I do think it's worthwhile for both

of us to check as to whether that particular memorandum was actually

distributed to the adjusters of the province of British Columbia.

[ML Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Which means it was approved.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, which means that it was approved. That's

what I'm interested in knowing. Was it a policy of ICBC that these

adjusters would be instructed to do nothing less than deliberately

hoodwink and con legitimate claimants for personal injuries so that

they would receive far less than the law would permit?

The minister dealt very cursorily with another point that I raised,

which was the question of what's happening in the rehabilitation

division of ICBC. Rumours are rife; I won't deal with rumours. We know

that the best personnel have been lost from that department. There's a

reason why that happens. I say that the reason is that there is a

deliberate policy on the part of ICBC to downgrade the rehabilitation

section. They are downgrading rehabilitation for the agonizingly

injured people in the province, particularly the paraplegics and

quadriplegics. They are on the horns of a terrible dilemma, because

when they go to court the award to those seriously injured people is

reduced by the cost of the ICBC rehabilitation service. Then they go to

the rehabilitation service and find that they're being cut off from

rehabilitation. They're getting hosed at both ends.

There's another aspect to this whole problem that I didn't deal with

yesterday. It's the general law of the province of British Columbia

now, following the decision of the chief justice in Blackstock v.

Patterson, which follows three Supreme Court of Canada decisions which

I won't read in great detail. Their principle is this: regardless of

the amount of pain, agony and suffering that any individual may have,

the general rule is that he can never receive more than $100,000 for

that pain and suffering.

That's not the fault of the government; that is a Supreme Court of

Canada decision. It will result in some substantial savings for ICBC.

But that's not where ICBC should be saving money. People who have those

kinds of injuries deserve fair, adequate and proper compensation from

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. What we should be doing

is giving a jury the freedom to tell us what the standard of the

community should be for those kinds of injuries, and not allowing

Supreme Court of Canada judges, who haven't been in the general

community for so long that they forget what it looks like, to make

those kinds of decisions which override the decisions of the ordinary

people of the province about what is fair compensation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you attacking the supreme court?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, I am. I'm very surprised that the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications would be shocked by that.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Oh, I've argued there before, Peter. Probably as

often as you.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It must be Friday. Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to get back to the point at hand, which

is that the present court system is now depriving grossly injured

people of adequate and proper compensation because of an unrealistic

decision in the Supreme Court of Canada — a decision which our court of

appeal had very little alternative but to follow. What I'm urging upon

the minister is to recommend changes in the statute law of British

Columbia so that this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will not

bind the courts of the province of British Columbia, so juries will be

free to award what is fair, and not have this imposed upon them.

[ Page 5208 ]

The people who are now being injured by the automobile as a result

of a probably deliberate policy on the part of ICBC and an unrealistic,

elitist decision by the Supreme Court of Canada are now in a position

of not receiving adequate and proper compensation for their injuries.

Having been faced with that, they are then faced with the third arrow

in the quiver of attack on these poor, unfortunate people, which is

this now infamous ICBC memo. The minister says it was never policy. He

says it was proposed and rejected. First of all, I don't know how this

particular organization got hold of this. Secondly, my information is

that it was distributed but withdrawn; therefore it must have been

approved at some point. The minister may wish to add something to that,

or if he has some more specific information I'd certainly be glad to

receive it. I just want to again briefly remind the Legislature of the

importance of this particular document which the minister has verified.

Dealing with the first page of this memo, it says this: "When the

adjuster has completed the statement" — that would be a statement from

a seriously injured individual — "he should close the file and put down

his pen to give the claimant the impression that this is an

off-the-record discussion." That's a deliberate attempt to hoodwink, to

mislead. That kind of statement couldn't be admitted in a criminal

court. That kind of deliberate misrepresentation is surely not what

people who are employed in the business of being fair to claimants

should engage in.

The next one: "Should the adjuster determine that the claimant has

or is contemplating retaining counsel, the adjuster should attempt to

discourage the claimant from retaining one, or consider waiving the

solicitor, should he be represented, for the following reasons." Before

you get into the details, what this memo is recommending is: don't let

that person get any advice, information or clue as to what is a fair

settlement; leave it all up to this adjuster whose one purpose in life

is to get as low a settlement as he possibly can.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the purpose of the lawyer?

MR. LEGGATT: The lawyer is to get as much as possible for the

claimant. And the judge, if they can't come to some agreement, sets it

out.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: You're still sitting on it. My God, here's a guy

who is on the public tit for his whole life, and he's worried about

somebody in the free enterprise world. The Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has never gone out and

actually soiled his hands to earn any money. Come, come!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has allowed some

latitude and some levity. However, I would think at this point it's

about time we returned to the administrative acts.

MR. LEGGATT: I'll go through this fairly quickly, Mr.

Chairman. The second item is: "The adjuster is directed to tell the

claimant that the claimant's solicitor can't guarantee a settlement

figure in writing" — that's correct — "and neither can the adjuster" —

that's a lie.

Third: "The involvement of a solicitor may mean unnecessary delays

in settlement of his claim, as traditionally solicitors are extremely

slow." That's true, they are slow. The reason they're slow is that they

want some fairness for the client from those vultures who are working

for ICBC. "A solicitor cannot do any more for the claimant than what we

are doing right now; in fact, probably less, as we control the purse

strings." I've never seen a case yet where a claimant has received less

because he went to a lawyer, which only confirms what those adjusters

are all about.

"If liability is clear and coverage confirmed, advise the claimant,

if in fact he is totally or partially disabled, he in all probability

shall qualify for our PIA program once medical and wage verifications

are at hand." That's the personal injury assistance program, which the

minister's corporation, I submit, seems to be phasing out and

downgrading. That again, therefore, is clearly a misrepresentation to

the claimant.

The minister has said that it's not policy. I accept the fact that

it has clearly been withdrawn. But I can't yet accept the question of

whether in fact it had actually been distributed and was once a policy

of this corporation. I think the public are entitled to a guarantee

that this kind of sleazy instruction to adjusters is not out there now

and they're not acting under these kinds of instructions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the member

for Coquitlam-Moody....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, I rise as a member of

the bar of British Columbia and as a barrister and solicitor, but as

one who in the days of his practice was primarily a solicitor. If I

heard the previous speaker correctly, the member inferred that it was

solicitors in this province who were slow. He may care to speak for

barristers, but as a practising solicitor of this province I want to

make the point that the solicitors of the bar of B.C. are always on

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. You

will be allowed your turn in debate in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As I say, I'm somewhat surprised that the

member for Coquitlam-Moody carried on attempting in his debate to

indicate a proposal in memo form was policy. In my opening remarks this

morning I advised him that I did have an opportunity to check, and I've

now had an opportunity to double-check. While you were talking I sent a

message out and further checked with the corporation. I can advise you

that it was a proposal, that the memo was never company policy, and the

memo was never issued. You did make the admission, Mr. Member, that in

your understanding it was issued and then withdrawn. Even in the

member's own opinion, being withdrawn would mean it was not, therefore,

company policy. But I'm saying to him — after checking and

double-checking — that the memo was a proposal, was never accepted as

company policy and was never issued. As the minister responsible for

ICBC, I will be writing to the publishers and editors of The Verdict and the Advocate asking them to retract

what they've stated — that a memo distributed to adjusters of ICBC was

company policy. It is not and has not

[ Page 5209 ]

been company policy at any time. They should be

sued, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, the discussion brought out by

the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody merely points out the fallacy of

having a Crown corporation of the nature of ICBC the sole arbiter of

automobile insurance in British Columbia. When this corporation was

first envisaged, we out in the field were very distressed, and today

we're pointing out the dangers of monopoly. A monopoly of this kind is

bound to have its inconsistencies, is bound to work against the public

interest, and it does. I believe there's nothing wrong with the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia being just one of the

insurance companies in the province; but to have it the only one is the

problem. On many occasions I have attempted to invite insurance

companies to come into this province, but they were afraid to do so

because of the high cost of establishing a business and the threat of

being thrown out again. That is the problem.

I also disagree with the system of claims centres. I would tell the

minister that the situation in which a person has an accident and is

then bound to approach a claims centre with cap in hand to ask for an

adjuster to please see his car has problems. It should be the other way

around. Although I'm not asking for the closure of the claims centres,

I believe the government should institute a system of private adjusters

in the field as we had before, where an insurance agent can send his

client to an adjuster in the field and not necessarily to the claim

centre. These claims centres are becoming too large, too difficult to

manage and a considerable problem to the motorist when he has

difficulties. We must realize that when an accident happens the

customer is not being done a favour by having an adjuster. The customer

paid a fee for that insurance and he's a customer of the insurance

company. That's the way it should be. He's the only reason they're in

business. If there were no accidents there'd be no business. But to go

in there cap in hand is not the way to run any insurance company. I

will say this in defence of the Insurance Corporation: I have never

found them unreasonable with their clients. I must say that on every

occasion I've had to be in touch for a constituent they've been very

fair and honourable in every way. But the principle of having to go to

one place and one place only is wrong,

I think the government could set up a system of competition to the

claims centres by private adjusters throughout British Columbia. Let

the private sector have a hand in these settlements. It would be

cheaper for the government and better for our clients. I know that it

costs an individual a great deal of money and time to take a day off

from work to go to a claims centre and have the adjustment made. In

many cases it's very costly and takes more than one day. I just feel

that this tremendous Insurance Corporation, while there is nothing

wrong with the principle of government insurance, should have

competition. I urge the government to bring in competition somehow to

this large corporation that's got too big by itself.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody was talking about claims. Here is the

case of a man in Dewdney who had received a settlement of $80,000 for

an accident that happened in New Brunswick. By the time the deductions

were made for his costs to his lawyers, hospitals and all these matters

together, he had nothing left — nothing at all. I think that the system

of insurance must first consider the individual — not necessarily how

much, but the individual's needs and requirements. The private sector

was able to do this, and you could deal with somebody on the level of

one to one. This gigantic corporation is too large, and it must be

dismantled to some degree so the public can have the opportunity of

going elsewhere, if they so wish.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the memorandum that was

published in the Advocate and

The Verdict newsletters, I

think the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) shouted across, "This publication should be sued for

libel," and I certainly would invite such a lawsuit. I would suggest —

although I don't really know who's behind the publication of The Verdict and I have not seen the

publication in the Advocate —

that the editor of the Advocate

is one of the most distinguished barristers in British Columbia, and

I'm sure if he didn't investigate the authenticity of this memorandum

and its widespread circulation, he would invite such a lawsuit. I

reject out of hand the minister's contention that it was not policy and

I want to state to this committee why.

To concentrate heavily on this memorandum may be, for the purposes

of this discussion, Mr. Chairman, a mistake. The fact is that plaintiff

s counsel.... And let me explain to the minister: "plaintiff's counsel"

means lawyers who act on behalf of injured parties who are suing, let's

say, guilty drivers or would-be guilty drivers who are insured by ICBC

— in other words, the injured person who goes to a lawyer sometimes.

The lawyer who acts for that injured person is called plaintiff's

counsel. The reason that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman) knows little or nothing about this is because he's

not only not a counsel but a solicitor. His firm acts primarily for

ICBC as defence. Now I'm not suggesting that's because of his Social

Credit connections, but the amount of work that that firm gets as

defence counsel for ICBC is quite substantial.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Although it's irrelevant to the debate.

MR. LAUK: It's irrelevant to the debate, but the reason why

he's not standing in defence of plaintiff's counsel is because his firm

is seldom plaintiff's counsel.

The point that I want to make is this: since this memorandum has

come to the attention of the Bar Association, plaintiff's counsel,

lawyers that act very often for injured parties in automobile

accidents, have kept a record when interviewing new clients. I just

want to.... Perhaps the minister can receive this deft legal advice a

little later, because I want the minister to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will remind the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that we are in committee.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations would

have to be taken by the hand and led to the courtroom, Mr. Chairman;

I'm not sure that he should be advising the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We can discuss the Blackstock case in a moment, Mr.

Chairman, and I'll advise the minister about the Blackstock case. Or

maybe I should move that the Chairman

[ Page 5210 ]

leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, unless the

ministers....

Are you paying attention? Good. Yes, I'm aware of the chief

justice's decision in Blackstock and the inflationary factors and so

on, and we can deal with that in due course.

The gist of this memorandum, whether or not the minister now claims

it's the policy of the corporation, is quite irrelevant, because

plaintiff's counsel have kept a close record of questions and answers

of new clients who have dealt with adjusters prior to those clients

coming into the office. It would make this memorandum look like child's

play. ICBC officially, I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, is on a deliberate

policy of cheating the public of British Columbia. They deliberately

deceive people who have been injured or are making claims under their

insurance. Adjusters have a designed and effective policy of avoiding

private adjusters. Private adjusters are infinitely superior to the

ICBC adjusters. I'll tell you why. They do not come under the direct

supervision of ICBC and they are told to carry out this practice,

whether you say it's come out through an official document or not. This

is child's play compared to the statements made by adjusters from ICBC

to people who have been seriously injured and who are tied to by

adjusters across this province. I don't believe for one moment that

because you withdrew this memorandum after it got out embarrassingly to

the British Columbia Bar Association it changes one iota the deliberate

policy of deception of ordinary people in the province. I have had

people come and see me with serious claims who are offered less than a

fifth of what courts across the country have been offering them in

terms of rehabilitation cost and future medical cost.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You probably take 40 percent of the cost.

MR. LAUK: The minister had said I take 40 percent. The

minister lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll have to ask the hon. member to withdraw

that imputation.

MR. LAUK: Will the minister withdraw that accusation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order and withdraw

any comment he made personally alluding to another member of the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't make a statement that he did. I

said he probably did, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, that is still an imputation. I

would ask the minister to withdraw any imputation against another hon.

member. Will the minister withdraw, please?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would withdraw it in regard....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I will ask the hon. first member for

Vancouver Centre to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The member continues on vote 10.

MR. LAUK: To clarify the point, all plaintiff's counsel take

contingency fee agreements. I have never charged more than 20 or 25

percent on any contingency fee, depending upon its liability and the

amount involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're arguing about the high cost of

mortgages and you're taking 25 percent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the minister again that we're

not discussing something that might happen outside of this committee.

Could we get back to vote 10 — the administrative actions of the

minister?

MR. LAUK: I'm embarrassingly at fault for discussing my fees

in the chamber.

What is very important is that in Vancouver at least — I'll check

with some good friends in Victoria and in other places — an injured

person who has a claim against ICBC will in 80 to 90 percent of the

cases receive the first interview without charge from a lawyer. In

other words — and this is the practice of the bar in Vancouver and in

other areas — they will come to a lawyer, and the lawyer will say: "The

adjuster's offer is fair. Take it." Quite often that's done. If you

don't have a case, there's no charge. The lawyer will say: "Here are my

costs. Here are your percentage chances of winning this case against

ICBC," etc. If you don't take it, you walk away without paying one dime

to that lawyer. That's the practice which ICBC adjusters know better

than any other person in the province. Yet they say that it will cost

the client much more than it will.

I have had people come to see me claiming adjusters have told them

that some people have gone to lawyers and come away owing the lawyer

money after the settlement. It's alleged that adjusters at ICBC have

said that to people to frighten them away from going to see counsel and

getting proper advice. I think this is scandalous. It's got to be

changed. I argue very strongly for the minister's intercession with the

board of directors and the administration of ICBC. From a broad point

of view it's always attractive to try to lower costs and balance your

books at the expense of injured persons in the cold black and white

atmosphere of a boardroom or an office. When you have to live with

these people who are making their claims and see how badly they are

injured, how much they're suffering, how much they will suffer and how

much cost they will experience for future medical care and so on, it

takes the heart right out of trying to cheat them of a proper

settlement. I would urge the minister, in all sympathy to these people,

to intervene and bring some justice and fair play to this massive

corporation. I don't want to support the approach of the member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) because of the efficiencies involved and the

costs in ICBC. If it were just it is a tremendous idea. But it's got to

be just and fair-minded.

I should point out that from the annual report and from inquiries

I've made of ICBC, the cost of paying adjusters, both private and

in-house, is at least four times as great as ICBC pays to lawyers. That

should tell you something about the kind of money ICBC is saving.

Adjusters settle well before a writ is issued, before court starts,

before any action is taken. They settle these cases without these

people receiving advice. The cost to ICBC for that is at least four

times as great as the cost of counsel brought in to take cases to court.

As the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out, I have

not seen one case — and I defy anyone to

[ Page 5211 ]

show me a case — where once a lawyer is involved on

behalf of the injured party that injured party receives less. In fact,

in 99.9 percent of the cases they receive many times more than the

final offer. Anyone who is practising law knows that. Some lawyers are

ripoff artists and so on, as are some plumbers. But the majority of

people in this field do an excellent job for injured parties and

receive justice for them. They receive many times more the amount they

would have gotten had they taken the final offer from the adjusters.

Sometimes private adjusters do much better, because they seem to have

more freedom to offer more. I know that in our practice we settle

before going to court more often with private adjusters than with

adjusters who work for ICBC, simply because they seem to be a lot more

sensible about what to offer. I wouldn't argue for private adjusters

either. I'm arguing for a change in ICBC policy.

The percentage of the total amount paid by ICBC for injury claims is

fractional compared to the millions of dollars paid out for property

damage — that is, to automobiles. We can afford to be generous to

people who are injured. Maybe we should be more cautious about property

damage. I don't know. Maybe we should tighten up there. If you're

looking at the relative costs, certainly it's more productive to

tighten them up rather than the personal injury claims. The nickel

and-diming and cheating and lying that goes on for poor....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: I'm not attacking the minister; I know he would not

be a party to that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're attacking the employees; I don't

think that's fair either. If you've got names, name them, but don't

attack the general employee who works for ICBC. Shame!

MR. LAUK: If you want names, Mr. Minister, I'll send them to

you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Table them in the House.

MR. LAUK: But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, this minister

would be a lot better off if he took a realistic view of people who

have been injured and who are seeking redress at the hands of an

Insurance Corporation that is on a deliberate policy of cheating them

out of what is rightfully theirs.

As for the cases mentioned by the member for Coquitlam-Moody, I

should point out to you that these are real curtailments saving money

for ICBC. They are curtailments in benefits that should flow to injured

parties.

The rehabilitation problem with ICBC is more than just scandalous,

Mr. Chairman. I want to add my support for the minister taking quick

action to bring up the rehabilitation

section of ICBC as quickly as

possible; the people and the facilities are available, and it should be

done. I don't think there is any conceivable excuse for seriously

injured persons not receiving the very best care in the world at the

hands of the Insurance Corporation rehabilitation section. There's no

conceivable excuse. Having been put on notice, this government will

stand condemned for not bringing that up to the standards which we all

expect for people who through no fault of their own have been injured

in automobile accidents.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I will clarify for the record, as I will do

as each member of the opposition refers to the memo that they keep

attacking as company policy. Again I would advise them, first, that

that was a proposal; secondly, that it was rejected as company policy

by senior management; thirdly, that it was never distributed to the

adjusters. That's all I'll say about that, Mr. Chairman. But I will

continue to say it, because if I'm going to hear political diatribe

from the other side of the House constantly referring to this memo,

it's only right and proper that I respond setting the record straight

after each member refers to that memo.

With regard to other issues that the member for Vancouver Centre

raised.... I notice that right after he finished his comments he left

the House; therefore he's not interested in my response. He mentioned

that adjusters get paid four or five times as much as lawyers. I don't

have the specifics in front of me, but I would assume that that is

possibly quite correct. There are 400,000 to 500,000 accidents in this

province each year, and the majority of them, of course, fall within

the property damage or slight injury area, and many of them are settled

by adjusters. Only when you get to the severe accident or where there

is some debate as to who is responsible for the accident, do you

finally end up engaging a lawyer and going to court. Who else do you

turn to but a lawyer to represent you if it goes that far down the

road? So it's not that the lawyers are being underpaid or that we're

overpaying adjusters. It means that most settlements can be handled in

an expeditious, fair and honourable manner by the adjusters involved,

whether private or company adjusters.

If the member for Vancouver Centre has got claims that he says have

caused major problems to the individual, then I would ask him to bring

them forward to the minister responsible for ICBC. I can assure him I

will go to ICBC and have the matter thoroughly reviewed to ensure that

people who suffer bodily injury are fairly treated. He has stated — and

I believe I got his quotation correctly — that adjusters have said to

him that people have come away from lawyers owing lawyers money. I'm

not sure just what he was getting at, but if he's got specifics I'd

appreciate receiving the information from him. I would certainly follow

up to ensure that there isn't personal hardship on people who have not

been treated fairly, as he seems to imply.

He did say that some lawyers are rip-off artists, but in most cases

the lawyers are fair and dedicated individuals and work on behalf of

their clients. I agree with that 100 percent, but I would apply that

same rationale to the fact that many adjusters are fair, dedicated and

concerned about the wellbeing of the claimant. In making the decisions

and recommendations to ICBC with regard to the amount of settlement,

they take into consideration the personal suffering and the injury of

the claimant. That is why, in many instances, lawyers are not required.

Those were the items that the member raised. But for the benefit of

the House I will give some information to the members. Bodily injury

claims last year totalled $158.8 million or 35 percent of the total

claims expense. Property damage claims totalled $116 million or 26

percent; $110 million or 24 percent went for collision; there was 6

percent for accident benefits; 8 percent comprehensive, and 1 percent

in miscellaneous. The total claims incurred last year by the

corporation were $449 million, and 35 percent of that went for bodily

injury. I think if there is anything that we could accomplish, it would

be encouraging and educating drivers to be more responsible on the

highways, so that we don't have

[ Page 5212 ]

not just the cost of this suffering but the human

suffering that results from bodily injuries and paralyzed people

because of accidents that could have been avoided.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to respond briefly to an item that my

friend the member for Dewdney raised, which is the problem of a person

receiving a settlement and winding up with nothing from the settlement.

This can happen where there is no contingency fee agreement. One of the

things that has been thrown across the floor of this Legislature is,

"Are you charging 40 percent?" which I heard the minister say. I am

quite prepared to say that like doctors, car dealers or anybody, we

have some apples in the barrel that aren't perfect; they do charge too

much. I can tell you from experience that the general rate on

contingency fees is from 20 to 25 percent. It happens to be my view

that those contingency fees should be regulated by the bar association

right now, so that we should not be allowing members of the legal

profession to rip off seriously injured claimants for any more than a

modest percentage.

I want to deal with the principle of the contingency fee. One of the

problems the public has in dealing with lawyers is that they don't know

what it's going to cost. They come in with what seems to them to be a

modest problem but what seems to the lawyer to be a complicated

problem. The lawyer charges out at a rate that he has to to pay for his

overhead in his office, and the poor client winds up with nothing

except a very large legal bill. There is a very substantial advantage

to the public on the contingency fee agreement basis. It permits them

to know what they get at the end of the road on a settlement. For

example, if you were dealing with an offer and the person representing

the injured claimant considered that to be fair, he can work that out

very quickly to tell the client exactly what he's going to receive.

That's a very big advantage.

In the contingency fee arrangement, at least the person knows what

he's going to get. He knows what his bill is going to be. It's all

agreed on beforehand, and in writing. There is some benefit to the

public in the contingency fee arrangement. I agree with the minister

when he says he's heard of 40 percent. I haven't seen it specifically,

but I've heard of it, and I say that's wrong. I say those contingency

fees should be regulated by the bar association, or the government's

going to have to do it. We should keep those contingency fees modest.

Now 20 percent to 25 percent is not an immodest amount considering that

there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into the care,

preparation, presentation and the argument of a personal injury case,

particularly a serious one.

MR. MACDONALD: Unless it's settled right away.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, unless it's settled right away. There again

there should perhaps be some regulation around the contingency fee so

that there's a reduced contingency fee when there's a very early

settlement. If, in fact, ICBC initially operates very fairly and has

done a very good background job of analyzing the value of the injury,

then the lawyer has very little to do. It seems to me that the lawyer

should cooperate. That way, of course, you would be improving the ICBC

balance sheet. I think you'd get the cooperation of the legal

profession in doing so.

The idea that's sort of been scattered about is that there's

something wrong with the contingency fee arrangement. The contingency

fee is a way for impecunious clients, who have no way of going through

the very expensive legal process, to get their matters resolved by a

court. It seems to me that to look askance at the principle is very

wrong. But to look askance at outrageous percentage fee rates, I agree,

is right. I think we can come to some agreement across this floor when

we're dealing with this, that that's an area that should be regulated.

I also had a good deal to say about the memo. I'm not attacking

adjusters. What I'm attacking is a large, monolithic corporation which

now appears on the surface to have a deliberate policy of instructing

its adjusters. I used to be a private adjuster. Before I got involved

in politics, law and all other things I did some private adjustment.

There is an advantage of the principle of the independent adjuster

using some discretion in terms of how he handles a case and how he

handles a file — that he's not under total direction of a board of

directors who are looking at a balance sheet and trying to keep the

costs down.

It's a policy question for ICBC. It's not a question of the

principle of ICBC being wrong. I believe that in that corporation you

can solve these problems, and not by instructing your adjusters to be

ruthless and to use every technique in the book to con the claimant.

The current technique is to take a film of everybody who happens to

have an injury so that the film can be presented in court. They

deliberately try to get the claimant to say that he can't do something.

Then they produce a film showing that in fact he could. A good deal of

that is only a subterfuge by the corporation to get a lower settlement.

In fact the claimant has not been exaggerating, defrauding or trying to

take advantage of the corporation at all. The use of film casts a kind

of fear into the claimant. In a number of cases where film has been

used and the claimant has done nothing wrong whatsoever, it has worried

him so much that he felt he had to settle for some miserable amount.

You have to explain to them very carefully that it's simply a technique.

Again it's not used as a fair technique. I've seen it used as a

lever against people rather than simply another device for presenting

evidence to the court.

MR. MACDONALD: We should get our Hollywood crew.

MR. LEGGATT: That would be an idea. Of course they're getting

quite good at that now. I wonder if Cecil B. DeHeal might be called in

for ICBC. You're paying them $62,000 a year. Why don't you get some use

out of the man by using him throughout the Crown corporation system? It

might be interesting.

Those were the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. I think the

minister understands the position we've taken. I think he will have a

pretty serious look. Even though you've heard a couple of lawyers

talking about it, I've heard this complaint from a broad cross-section

of people. There is very much concern now that the attitude of ICBC in

dealing with claimants is some kind of organized attack by the board of

directors to get those settlements down. They're given these firm

instructions. All of us who have had some experience find that the

treatment that adjusters have been giving claimants now is far less

sensitive, far less humane, than it used to be.

[ Page 5213 ]

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to listen to the two

legal representatives from across the floor with respect to their

support of using more private adjusters for ICBC. It has certainly been

a contention of mine that this would add considerable economy. The NDP

created ICBC, that monolithic monster, to quote my colleague from

Coquitlam-Moody. When such a monopoly is created, it leads to and

allows the breeding of a mentality where we may get such memos as they

are talking about, I'm assured by the minister that this memo is not

policy and I'm quite confident that it did not become policy of ICBC,

but it is a mentality which grows where there is a monopoly. The staff

of such a corporation can adopt this mentality. We do have this

monopoly, and I think the corporation has to be on guard at all time

against this mentality's growth.

As far as the attitude of the adjusters is concerned, I think we

could improve it considerably by utilizing the private sector

adjusters. I have dealt with a number of ICBC adjusters from time to

time and, like my colleagues, have had no great difficulty with them.

I've always found them very courteous and helpful, but when I have

dealt with outside adjusters I have sometimes received the impression

of more equity for my client. The outside adjusters have not had the

same degree of direction and regulation as the in-house adjusters

because they are free agents, they are part of the private sector and

they are individual entrepreneurs not as subject to being fired if they

do something contrary to the monolithic monster.

There is one aspect of our adjusting centres and the adjusting setup

of ICBC with respect to collision damage to vehicles: I think that with

the creation of these centres the public lost a great deal of service.

In the past, prior to the creation of ICBC by the NDP, when you had an

accident and your car was damaged, you phoned your agent — the agent no

longer has a role to play; the client doesn't get service from the

agent now with ICBC — and your agent would get hold of an adjuster or

something. Your agent would follow the accident and try to obtain

service for his client. The agent would get an adjuster; the adjuster

would get hold of the client to see what the problem was. If necessary,

he would go out to see the client at his house to get a statement.

Today you go to the claims centre. Nobody comes to your house; you have

to line up with everybody else at a claims centre.

In addition, if it was reasonably minor and your car was still

mobile, the adjuster would probably suggest to the claimant to get

three estimates and take it to the repair shop with the lowest of the

three estimates. Or the adjuster would ask where you wished it to be

repaired and the car would be towed to that location; the adjuster

would go to that location to visit the car, check out the damage and

probably enter into some negotiations with the repair shop on the cost

of repairing the car.

The ex-adjuster over there can probably confirm that this is what

happened in the private sector. The client received service from the

private adjuster. He didn't line up at a claims centre like a herd of

cows waiting to go through a door. Sometimes there were in-house

adjusters in the competitive field, but it was serving a client, not

serving ICBC.

Today when you have an accident.... Say it's on a Sunday; the claims

centre is obviously closed. You used to be able to get your agent on a

Sunday. He could sometimes get an adjuster. He could give advice on

Sunday but today you can't get it because ICBC is closed Saturdays too

in a lot of instances. Adjusters work a four-day week, so one day out

of every five when you call for an adjuster at a claims centre you're

not going to get that person, so it cuts down the availability of

adjusters. With private adjusters we used to be able to get them all

the time.

You have your accident, the tow truck comes and tows your car down

to a storage place on the weekend — not into the repair shop of your

choice where an adjuster can come and visit it next week. It's got to

be towed into a storage place. So there's one tow paid by ICBC. Then

when ICBC gets around to it and you've gone down.... You have gone

down; the claims adjuster hasn't got in touch with you. You've had to

go down during normal business hours; you've had to take time off work

to get there and see the claims centre. You go in and make your claim,

and when ICBC gets around to it they arrange to have your car towed to

the ICBC centre — two tows. From there, after viewing your car, they

make an arrangement to tow your car out to the repair shop — three

tows. That's expensive. I don't know what the cost of towing cars is

today — $20 a lift? Possibly it's that, or $25. On every collision

claim where the car cannot be driven you're possibly running up at

least a $60 bill plus storage of the car for a number of days until

ICBC is able to see it, and I think there's a great waste here compared

to, in the past, where it would be towed right to one repair shop for a

$20 bill. If we were able to institute a further system whereby the

agent could obtain or provide more service and private adjusters could

be utilized, I think a great saving could be made in such situations.

We have not received any better service from this socialistic

monopoly created by the NDP; we have lost service. The public does not

receive any service whenever there is a monopoly. We have to pay for

it. We're paying because we receive less service than we used to.

[Mr. Ritchie in the chair.]

I find it interesting, because, like my colleague across here, I

used to be in the insurance business — not as an adjuster, but as an

insurance agent. I recall a client coming in tome, and he,

unfortunately, had apolitical philosophy much the same as those across

the hall here. He was telling me of all the freedoms they would have

when the NDP were elected in this province. He said: "You know, they'll

bring in an insurance scheme and all the rest of it, and we'll have a

lot of freedoms." I said: "Yes, you'll have a lot of freedoms. They

will tell you what insurance company you can go to. They'll tell you

which one you have to go to. You'll have that freedom." And that is

what has happened. We are told we don't have any choice, that we go to

one insurance company. I support my friend the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) in that we should not get rid of ICBC, but bring in some

competition, because with competition you're going to get much more

effective and much better service for the people of this province.

I might mention something here about contingency fees, which some of

my friends have been talking about, almost giving the impression that

they're doing their clients great services with contingency fees

because immediately an offer is made, the injured party, or the client,

will know exactly what his fee will be. It has always been my practice,

and the practice of a great many of what I would consider very

responsible and ethical members of the bar, that at all times you

should be in a position to advise your client what his fees incurred to

date are and what anticipated fees should be for the future. I think

most responsible counsel would at all times

[ Page 5214 ]

encourage clients to ask what the costs are. So

this is available whether you're on a contingency fee basis or not. I'm

a great believer in a person being paid for service and time incurred,

and I guess I don't greatly support the contingency fee system, because

there are many instances where a matter can be settled fairly simply. I

think a counsel can be overpaid on a contingency fee. Likewise,

sometimes he may be underpaid too, but it has always been my experience

that, as a counsel, in most cases you know in advance roughly how much

time and what might be involved in settling a case, and I think you

have a pretty good idea of advising your client what the cost is going

to be at that time. I can not support the use of the contingency fee in

the majority of cases. Maybe there is an instance where somebody cannot

afford to pay your fees in the event of a loss, but I don't like to

gamble with my clients. I ran a business when I was practising law.

MRS. WALLACE: Yesterday I asked the minister a question

relative to ICBC and the Lake Cowichan road. I pointed out to him that

there have been two practices used by ICBC in cases of accidents

occurring as a result of the flying rock which was a result of the

seal-coating that was done improperly by the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways. In the first instance, those claims were settled as one

claim for the broken glass and the complete paint damage. More latterly

the ICBC adjusters have been saying that each portion of the car that

has paint damage is a separate claim, as is the broken windshield,

meaning that there will be four, five or more deductibles which cover

the total cost, in effect. I asked the minister to assure the House

that he would advise ICBC to return to the original policy, which is

general practice throughout the province with ICBC. I have had no

answer, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister is prepared to answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has

communicated with me. I believe at one point I had a question on the

order paper which I responded to. I made a note here yesterday that I

would check this out because of the comment she has made where I assume

the one accident report went in. They basically said that windshields

have a $50 deductible and paint has a $50 deductible. Yet it's only one

claim at a specific point in time, not a claim three or four days or

weeks later. I wanted to have an opportunity to check that out with the

ICBC officials. Those questions were put to me late yesterday

afternoon, so I haven't had the opportunity to get a response.

The member may wish to correct me, but it seems to me that the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways had accepted some

responsibility with regard to the quality of work that was done on the

road. Therefore they were prepared to pick up the deductible portion of

the accident claim. Of course ICBC would pay anything over and above

the deductible. Maybe the member could advise whether it be one

deductible per claim or five deductibles per claim. Would not the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways pick up that deductible portion

or are you saying that some of the individuals involved were left

having to pay four or five deductible portions? Maybe you'd just like

to give me some more information.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) has agreed to pick up the deductible for glass, but

is still refusing to pick up the deductible for paint damage. He has

now said that if people will resubmit their claims for paint damage, he

will send them on to the government's insurer and let them make a

decision. The people are in limbo because of this, particularly in

cases where the glass and paint damage have been simultaneous. In order

to get the deductible portion for the glass damage returned, they have

to sign a waiver which absolves the Minister of Transportation and

Highways from all responsibility for an accident that occurred on that

date. Therefore they're automatically losing any possibility of picking

up their paint damage.

The whole thing is just so bogged down. This has gone back two

years. There is real concern that they're not going to get any kind of

settlement out of the Minister of Transportation and Highways because

of the delays. In his most recent letter of March 31, which I have read

to you, he indicated that it was his understanding that damage that

occurred to a vehicle at one time would be one claim. Therefore there

was no problem in the deductible portion for both paint and glass.

Obviously you and the Minister of Transportation and Highways are not

talking to each other, it would seem.

As I said yesterday, I have some sympathy with ICBC because of the

extraordinary costs and workload that has been placed on the Duncan

claims centre as a result of this particular problem. Yet I don't like

to see these kind of extortionist tactics that ICBC is using affecting

my constituents. If there's a problem, it should be worked out between

yourself and the Minister of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman. That's the assurance that I would like to

have on the legislative floor today. To say that you haven't had time

to check it out and you will.... As you well know, I have been writing

you and the Minister of Transportation and Highways for well over a

year on this matter. I raised it in the budget debate because of the

fact that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is the chief

financial officer of this province, and asked that he get the two of

you together and do something about it, but nothing is happening. I can

tell you that the people are getting pretty concerned up there, and

it's not just one, two or three; it's dozens of them, as you well know,

Mr. Minister. I would like some kind of assurance today that this thing

will be resolved, and that ICBC will treat those accidents on the same

basis they treat accidents in other parts of the province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on the inquiries that the

member has made, I thought that I, as minister responsible for ICBC,

had responded to her and given her all the information regarding the

questions she has posed to me. She now has brought up an issue, which I

don't believe she's brought up before, with regard to this multiplicity

of deductibles — this deductible $50 for glass and paint and whatever

else. From what the member advises me, I will be quite happy to give

assurance to her and to this House that if she could send me any

documentation on what she referred to yesterday in her debate — which

she hasn't done — I would most certainly take it upon myself to get

some explanation. Now I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether

or not deductible clauses for glass do only apply to glass as a

separate coverage with further deducibility on the vehicle. So I don't

want to make commitments where I know that the regular insurance in

place is valid and correct. But I will take the information from her,

and I will discuss it with the ICBC people to ensure that the motorist

whose vehicle has been damaged is fairly treated.

[ Page 5215 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for his assurance.

I'm surprised that he hasn't seen the correspondence or been aware of

what's been going on, because I am sure I have sent him copies of

everything that I've sent to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Yesterday I quoted two instances where both windshield and

paint damage were included on one deductible, and I'll be happy to send

him copies of those. They both have $50 deductible for both paint and

glass damage — and those were early on, when this damage first started.

Now, more recently, we've gone to this other thing of five and six

claims for each one. So I'll be happy to send you this, and I

appreciate your assurance and I hope that you will recognize that there

is some urgency on this matter because of the delays that have already

occurred.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a brief question for the minister, and

this is the appropriate vote to pose this question. I'll give you just

a bit of background, Mr. Chairman. This deals with people who have

damaged vehicles while boarding, on board or disembarking from either

B.C. Ferries or Highways-operated ferries. I raised this question last

year under this vote and under the Minister of Transportation and

Highways' vote. On both occasions last year I was told something would

be done; everybody agreed there was something wrong, there was an

anomaly here, it would be looked into and this whole thing would be

corrected.

Very briefly, the problem is that if people sustain damage on board

one of these vessels and if the Ferry Corporation or Highways,

whichever operate the ferry, accepts responsibility, then ICBC does not

become involved. But as a rule neither the Highways people nor the

Ferry Corporation accepts the responsibility for damage to these

vehicles, They just tell the people who have sustained this damage that

ICBC is responsible. If they go to ICBC, they say: "No, we're not

responsible; it's either the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or

the B.C. Ferry Corporation which is responsible." So as a result of all

this bureaucratic shuffling these people — and I have numerous

cases.... In this last fiscal year alone I have, I would guess, 25 to

30 cases where no settlement was reached, where people have paid up to

$1,000 to have their vehicles repaired. In one case, an elderly lady

here on a minimum income had to pay $192, which she couldn't afford;

she was never paid by anyone — neither by the B.C. Ferry Corporation,

in this case, nor ICBC.

What I'm concerned about is that I was promised last year this

situation would be rectified, and it was not. It's still going on and

is worse than ever. What kind of a government do we have over there?

I'm going to raise this again under the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways as well, at the appropriate time, because nobody over there

will accept responsibility for this. In the meantime this is continuing

to happen. I have a case before me now where a gentleman had to sustain

the costs of repairs on his vehicle in the amount of four hundred and

some odd dollars. As a matter of principle, since neither ICBC nor the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways would accept responsibility,

he's been to lawyers and the whole thing. It has cost him more money

for legal fees and the whole thing than the actual damage to his

vehicle. And he's still nowhere; this has been dragging on for several

months.

I want to tell that minister something else. As a result of this

bureaucratic bungling, I forwarded a number of the examples that I have

before me here to the ombudsman of British Columbia. I know the

ombudsman can only recommend, but I have indications from his office

that there is indeed something wrong with the operation of the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways, ICBC, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation in

this case. So I would like assurances from the minister now, before

this vote goes through, that this situation will be corrected.

I see the minister from Calgary is getting to his feet. I'd like to

hear from him, but.... Go up to Hardy Island.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Shameful! I want to talk to this minister

about Hardy Island, Mr. Chairman, while I have the floor. This

government is prepared to let that island go down the tube. I cannot

believe that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please. Will the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) please take his seat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sit down, Jim.

Anyway, I think I've outlined the case very briefly. I was going to

cite numerous examples: letters from people in ICBC saying "no,"

letter; from the B.C. Ferry Corporation, letters from the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways — and the minister from Calgary is still at

it. So I wonder if the minister would be good enough to give me the

assurances now. I know he is familiar with this matter, because I've

written to the minister and ICBC on numerous occasions. All I'm asking

for now is assurance that this particular situation will be rectified

and that the citizens from outside our province who travel on our

vessels on the coast of British Columbia will be protected — or on the

free vessels in the interior. There is the same problem there, by the

way.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought this

matter up before. He now states he has 25 cases in 1981. I'm concerned

about that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Within the last fiscal year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Within the last fiscal year. I'm concerned

about that number of claims that are not being proceeded with in regard

to a decision being made. But I would just like to point out that he

also stated that neither party will accept responsibility. Well, I

think he would agree that if neither party is responsible, they also

shouldn't pay a claim. In other words, if the Insurance Corporation is

not responsible, good management deems that a claim should not be paid,

because they're not paying funds out of the management's pockets or the

government's. They're paying funds out that are collected through

premiums paid for by the drivers of this province.

So, number one, if the company is not found to be liable, they

shouldn't accept responsibility, nor should they pay the claim.

Equally, if it is deemed that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is not

responsible, then it shouldn't pay a claim. Now I don't know what

accident — and I must be honest with the member that the insurance

company insuring a vehicle that is damaged.... Let's say that the

person has collision and it's comprehensive, and he damages his vehicle

in whatever manner on the ferry, then it seems to me that automatically

there should be a claim honoured by the insurance company. It seems to

me that should be the logical way to handle it.

[ Page 5216 ]

Now the insurance company, if there's damage, I

guess, turns to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and says: "It's your fault,

because you jiggled the boat or you didn't get up to the dock right, or

whatever happened, and you should pay it." I agree 100 percent with the

member that if there is a case of liability on either party, then they

should make that determination and fight it out. If the motorist — the

individual who got caught in the middle, which is what I'm sure the

member is referring to — doesn't get any settlement, I'm upset about it.

So if you want my assurance, Mr. Member, give me those 25 claims —

the names of them — and I'll start to work Monday morning with the

corporation to get a decision made. I have to say that if what's

happening — you call it bureaucratic bungling and that may be the case

— is that innocent people out there who pay insurance premiums or ride

on our ferries are caught in the middle because of no final

determination or decision being made, then I can assure you that I'll

do my best to get the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister has given me assurances that this

will take place. I don't mind forwarding all of these cases over to the

minister's office. For the minister's information, copies of every

single case I have with me at the present time have been forwarded to

either the minister's office, the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, the B.C. Ferry Corporation or the Ministry of Highways if it

involved highways. All that information is available. I'm going to take

the minister at his word now without further debate. He has given me

the assurance that this situation will be rectified. Next year at this

time we will know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to respond for the record. You

say that copies have come to my office, have gone to the corporation

and have gone to Highways or the B.C. Ferry Corporation — where they're

involved. That is not the issue. I'm sure you've had responses from my

office acknowledging receipt and passing it on to the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. I'm sure the Ministry of Highways has

done the same thing, as has the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The issue we're talking about, Mr. Member, as you well know, is:

let's get a decision on this. Your role in this House is to speak up

for your constituents. My role in this House is to make sure that the

insurance corporation operates properly. I'll give you my assurance

that we'll get some answers if you give me the material to work with.

MS. BROWN: Yesterday I raised a couple of questions with the

minister. I guess either he forgot to respond or maybe he was doing

some research on them last night. Just to jog his mind a bit, I brought

to his attention the problem of the impact of the microchip technology

on clerical workers in the insurance industry. I asked whether the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had developed any kind of

program to deal with either the retraining of the clerical workers who

are going to be losing their jobs as a result of the extensive use of

word processing and other technological improvements in that particular

field or whether he had done anything at all about seeing that they

would be transferred to other Jobs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's quite possible that the minister does not see this as a very

serious consideration for him to deal with, so I'd like to give him one

or two more statistics. A study done by the government of France has

discovered that within the next couple of years there are going to be

800,000 secretarial jobs in their country which are going to disappear

as a result of this technological revolution. A study done by the

government of Germany discovered that by 1990, 40 percent of the office

work presently being done by clerical workers is going to be done by

computerized equipment and there will be an increase in unemployment in

that particular group of our society. Bell Canada, for example, has

reduced its staff from 13,600 in 1970 to 7,400 in 1979. The report

which I brought to his attention yesterday done by the Institute for

Research on Public Policy indicates that unless policy makers move

ahead of the current trend, up to one million Canadian women are going

to be unemployed by 1990.

I also brought to his attention the fact that insurance companies

are certainly in the forefront of transferring their work to computers.

It's going to have a very serious impact on the clerical ghetto.

I also assured the minister that I was not opposed to technological

change. I just wanted some kind of information from him as to what will

be happening to these women who are presently employed by the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia in this particular field.

The second issue which I raised with him was car seats for children.

I brought out the anomaly of British Columbia as a province in which

adults have to buckle up because we are so concerned about the safety

of adults in cars, but that children have no kind of protection at all.

The government keeps talking about research that's being done in the

field, but to date no decision has been made as to making it compulsory

for a safe car seat to be used when a child below a certain age is

travelling as a passenger in an automobile.

I would appreciate it if the minister would respond to these two

questions at this time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I didn't respond to

the member yesterday. I think two or three speakers got up, one after

the other, and I did miss responding to the questions she raised.

She talked about driver education and the concern about the loss of

the $50 per student driver. That was a program we had in place, and

we've discontinued it. What we have attempted to do, which I think is

proving to be more effective, is to bring in a different approach to

driver education and get better results for those dollars expended. As

opposed to helping X number of people by giving them a $50 grant for

driver education, we are using this money to go out and educate the

population of British Columbia in various age sectors, with educational

programs in the public schools from kindergarten to grade 7 and in the

high schools. We're getting out there and telling the message to a lot

more people. I think it's an effective program and one that will have

better results than the statistics indicated on the $50 grant program

that we had.

There are a number of new designs of car seats for children, as the

member is probably aware. There are some that actually put the child's

back to the front windshield so that instead of flying forward the

infant is protected because the back of the car seat is there to hold

him from hitting the dashboard, windshield or whatever. If the member

will recall — I attempted to get the legislation while she was talking

— I

[ Page 5217 ]

believe the seatbelt legislation said that those

persons under the age of six were not bound to use the seatbelt. There

were valid reasons for that, as I'm sure the member knows; a small

infant in a seatbelt could become entangled and the seatbelt could

cause more damage than not having the seatbelt.

The responsibility of the parent to have a structure or car seat to

protect those small infants is certainly a serious one. I would think

that the majority of parents with infants under age six have those car

seats. The member shakes her head. I guess I find it somewhat hard to

believe that they wouldn't. I think it's fair to say that 99.9 percent

of the parents with infants who are driving cars want to make sure that

those children are not subject to serious injury, and would do

everything in their power to protect them, as good parents should.

I know statistics indicate the number of head injuries etc. I've

mentioned the type of car seat available now. I've asked my staff to

see if we can get some information on the statistics you mentioned with

regard to head injuries of small children.

Moving on to the microtechnology change and the clerical worker — I

believe that's what you mentioned yesterday — I can tell you that at

ICBC, in the short term, our staff has grown from 2,250 employees in

1977 to 2,387 at the present time, so you're not seeing an immediate

drop in numbers.

MS. BROWN: Is that clerical staff?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's total staff, Madam Member.

The technological revolution, as you mentioned, can cause concern in

the long term to the employee and to governments in regard to what to

do when the machine continually takes over from the individual. I think

history has proven through the Industrial Revolution and the computer

age that we've been facing since the Second World War.... As computers

have done more things for people, it opens up an avenue of new

activity. The use of computers in schools and in the home allows for

opening up a broader spectrum of activity. You just have to look at the

space technology we have today and the type of employment available to

people because of this tremendous expansion of knowledge in computer

technology. I think that's an area you have to look at.

I can refer to my trip to China: a billion people's hands do in

China what machines do in Canada. They don't have the technology, and

the concern they expressed in moving from the hand to the machine is

what you are expressing going from the industrial and machine age into

the computer age. What do you do in China when you take all those

workers from the field because you put in three tractors or automatic

harvesters? The concern of government that was stated to us then is the

same as what you state. We must provide for that new activity, that

different occupation, and endeavour to take those employees and put

them into a different type of workforce. That's going to be an ongoing

thing. It's been ongoing from the industrial revolution right up to

now. So there will be an adjustment in workforce and the work place,

and I guess you could look at adjustment in hours of work. The numbers

of people working as opposed to the number of computers may result in

less hours of work. We work a lot less now. The average number of hours

worked in a week is 35 to 37½. Our fathers worked anywhere from 44

hours to 60 hours a week. You can see what happened because of

technology: the numbers of hours of labour has been reduced.

Productivity has increased considerably because of the use of those

machines and the computers that are available to us today.

As I say, in the short term our numbers in ICBC are static or

increasing. But I appreciate your comment, and I would only say that

management and governments, not just in ICBC but throughout British-

Columbia, Canada and the world, have to address themselves to the new

activity. If you don't you're going to have unrest on your hands,

because I think everybody would prefer to have their mind working

rather than sitting idle.

MS. BROWN: Just very quickly Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that

time does not permit us to discuss this issue of the microchip

technology in greater detail. I'm hoping I'll get another opportunity

to raise it under the other ministers' estimates. But what I would

like, if the minister can get it for me, is a breakdown, because I'm

suspicious of the increase in the workload, and I would like a

breakdown as to what's happening to your clerical pool as opposed to

your other group of workers.

I was just speaking with a teacher from Vernon who brought a group

of students down to the House today, and he was saying that the only

people registered for the computer program which is being given by the

high school, because it's not compulsory, are boys. This is what I was

talking about earlier when I said that unless we deliberately make an

attempt to train women to go on to these new jobs they're going to end

up being unemployed.

I think you missed the point about the car seat for children. I

cannot understand it. We do not trust adults to buckle up — we bring in

legislation making it mandatory for adults to buckle up when they're

travelling in a car — but we think they're going to buckle their kids

up. In fact it doesn't happen that way. I think I mentioned yesterday

my own experience as a social worker working on a ward with

brain-damaged children, and that 90 percent of those children were

there as a result of automobile accidents. The younger ones were

passengers in cars that were involved in an accident, and the older

ones were driving the cars and were the cause of the accident

themselves in many instances. What I'm asking the minister to do is to

bring in an amendment to the present seatbelt legislation, now that

he's agreed that there are car seats which his government is willing to

endorse, making it mandatory. Even though it may be true that 99

percent of parents will see to it that the child is in a safe car seat,

the children of the 1 percent of parents who don't do this are in

jeopardy. I think the government has to assume some responsibility.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We're dealing with children below

the age of six, and I was asking the minister for an amendment to the

seatbelt legislation, making the use of safe car seats mandatory in the

same way that we make the use of seatbelts mandatory in British

Columbia.

Finally, I would be interested in seeing some real research done on

the driver education statistics. What happens with this new program,

where instead of using the $50 incentive to encourage young people to

take the driver education program — recognizing it as a preventive

measure — they are showing films in the school? I would like to see

some research done on that so we can accurately assess which of the two

programs work better rather than have the minister saying "thinks."

[ Page 5218 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to the education program, the

member knows that we just stopped the $50 incentive in 1980. We will be

carrying out an ongoing review — as we do with all of our programs — to

ensure that we get the best results for the dollars expended. As I

mentioned earlier, those dollars are provided for by the driving public.

MR. COCKE: I listened to the minister indicating what his

position was vis-à-vis driver training. I asked that question

yesterday, along with the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and

others. They suspended driver training and said that there were better

ways of doing it. I think that what the minister gave us was just a

bunch of poppycock. He told us about this audio-visual training program

that's going around the province. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that

that was a make-work program for Andy Stephens. Andy is going around to

the schools — here, there and everywhere — telling everybody that this

is the way one should drive. If that's a good program, fair enough. But

I think taking away the incentive to go to driving school is crazy —

shortsighted beyond words. I have had it reported to me that driving

schools have now been cut to probably around 50 percent in terms of the

number of students taking driver training. That means that there are as

many drivers going onto the roads, but that a significant and very

large proportion of that number will now be untrained. They will not be

trained in defensive driving and not trained to drive carefully and

safely.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), the member for Windermere, for Calgary and points around

there....

AN HON. MEMBER: No sales tax.

MR. COCKE: No sales tax. Diamond Jim they call him. Mr.

Chairman, that member says: "So what?" I'll tell you so what, Mr.

Chairman — through you to that irresponsible minister: it's death and

carnage on the road. That's so what.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing will come to order. The member for New Westminster will deal

with vote 10, please.

MR. COCKE: Vote 10 is what we're on. We're talking about

driver training. Up until just recently, ICBC gave a discount of $50

for anybody that had taken driver training. Now they have discontinued

that program. I'm suggesting very strongly here that the minister has

not given us one argument in favour of his position for dispensing with

that program — no statistical argument, no nothing. I suggest that

there will be statistics very soon that will indicate that ICBC,

through that minister, have made a tragic mistake. I believe that it's

in the best interests of the province if we have well trained drivers

on the road. We're not going to have well trained drivers on the road

if the majority of them do not go to driving school. Any parent will

tell you that a driving school will do a better job of training his or

her. children to drive than that parent himself or herself, and the

same thing with the husband-wife situation. It's far better to go to a

driving school. I think there should be an incentive for driving school.

Mr. Chairman, at the door I see a person who would be very much

affected by this proposition. This is another subject altogether:

clergy and ICBC rates. This last year under the FAIR program clergymen

were increased some 95.8 percent.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Bad driving record.

MR. COCKE: Again, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

suggests that the average clergymen ha's a bad driving record. I

suggest that he should be called to task by the Speaker of this House

when we go back into the House.

I suggest that to have an entire about-turn.... Remember that for a

number of years now they were allowed class 002, which was the rate

class that could be dubbed the clergy rate. That rate gave them a

relatively low premium, as with people driving for pleasure.

The minister, as usual, in his arrogant way is wandering around the

House, not listening. He doesn't really care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: So far, we have not had one official from ICBC

advising the minister. He's been getting up and giving us totally

inadequate answers. Now he talks to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and doesn't even listen to a very important

plea on behalf of all the clergymen in this province. I think that's

disgraceful behaviour, don't you, Mr. Chairman? He's not going to go to

heaven for this, I'll tell you.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'll quote from a letter: "Up to 1980 there

was a special classification for clergy when insuring a vehicle through

ICBC. It seems that for 1981 this category has been dropped because

FAIR is fair." That FAIR program was surely not fair to everybody, was

it? "Consequently, for a 1976 Volvo sedan I must insure the vehicle for

business use. The resulting figures follow." He gives the figures. And

the difference is that he once paid $287, and now he has an increase of

95.82 percent. FAIR is fair.

If ICBC could have presented statistics indicating that it was

warranted, that would be one thing. I believe that it goes without

saying that a significant number of very careful people out there have

been denied access to FAIR is fair.

What did that government do about senior citizens? The senior

citizens put a lot of electoral heat on that government. They said:

"For years we have been driving safely." That was quite correct.

Nonetheless, their rates increased. So what did the government do? They

turned around because they saw a significant number of votes, and they

gave a grant and subsidized the rates for senior citizens. But

clergymen are fewer in number, and their votes don't count to the

extent this government feels is warranted. Therefore what do they do?

They throw a left hook at them, and that left hook costs them 95.82

percent.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) calls them

"godless Socreds." I don't know whether that's entirely fair, but it

sounds like a statement I've heard before around this place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I

feel, and I'm sure other members of this house also

[ Page 5219 ]

feel, that the remark made by the member opposite —

I believe it was "godless Socreds" — impugns members on this side of

the House and is not called for in the Legislature of the province of

British Columbia. I find that shameful, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask the

member to withdraw, if he would be so kind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in our rules that unless a personal

attack is delivered upon an individual member there is nothing to be

withdrawn. However, the member for New Westminster is reminded that

parliamentary language is always a feature of the committee.

MR. COCKE: That was a paraphrase of former Premier W.A.C.

Bennett, who quite often used to stand in his place and talk about

godless socialists. If that former Liberal member finds that that's an

uncomfortable situation, why did he ever join that party over there in

the first place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister again rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I find that remark offensive. In good

conscience, I would ask the member to consider what he has said. I ask

him to withdraw.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw the remark very, very happily, if it

offends the minister. I gather he didn't get the humour of the

situation. I don't imagine he gets very much humour. I tell you, Mr.

Chairman, I don't get very much humour out of seeing him walking around

the House when people are making a plea for a particular group of

people. He's walking around discussing questions with other ministers

and not doing his job. That's not an unusual situation, but I find his

behaviour reprehensible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we are verging on a personal attack. I will

remind all members that we are in committee in the Legislative Assembly

of the province of B.C., and we should make our remarks parliamentary.

MR. COCKE: Anyway, what this Father X.... I'm not going to

give his name. The minister can have it; as a matter of fact, he has a

copy of the letter. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to quote the last part

of the letter:

"What I would dearly love to know is what is the

philosophy behind the change which forces me to pay $562 for the

business rate. I do not drive my car to work, and even if my home were

not next door to the church, I would be driving it within a small area,

as 90 percent of the clergy live in their own parish area and do their

work in the same small area.

"When I phone ICBC in Vancouver, all I get is, 'That's

the way it is now,' the kind of statement which is less than helpful.

The FAIR program may very well be: 'That is the way it is.' But I would

like some reasoning for something that seems less than fair.

"Thank you for your concern."

AN HON. MEMBER: Signed Peter Rolston.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's true. It's signed by Father

Donald L. Mullins. I wonder if we might find that he's in the Columbia

River constituency. He's not, but it would be interesting if he were.

I'll tell you, if he were, that Minister Of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) would be absolutely shivering in his shoes. He's so

close to defeat now that just one more vote is the end of him.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that if ICBC cannot give a reason why

the clergy were not treated the same way as the senior citizens.... If

they can give us some statistics that warrant a 92.8 percent increase

in rates, fair enough; but if they can't, I believe that they should

have been handled exactly the same way. Most of them, as I suggest,

live within 40 feet of their church and drive very little within their

diocese or within their area. I think that they're being handled very

unfairly. Another thing: this is a group of people who, for the most

part, live on a relatively low income. I think that they've been

handled unjustly by ICBC.

MRS. WALLACE: Apparently the minister is not going to answer

the member for New Westminster.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, yes, I will.

MRS. WALLACE: I will yield the floor to you if you want to

answer him, because I'm going to move on to something else.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go ahead; I'll respond after you've finished.

MRS. WALLACE: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the

minister seemed to be in a snarky mood this morning when he came into

the House and asked what we were going to do. I think the opposition

has been very explicit and very consistent in what it has done. We

dealt with the Agricultural Land Commission and agriculture, and then

we dealt with ICBC. The minister might know full well that we have to

finish ICBC under his ministerial vote we can't move on to anything

else.

As I recall, when we finished agriculture the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) stood up and said: "We're now going to move into

another phase, ICBC." I can't predict how long we're going to be.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you back in agriculture or are you still

with ICBC?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's what I tried to tell you, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, I'm sorry, you've finished ICBC. I'll

just respond then to the....

MRS. WALLACE: Again, you see, he wanders around talking to

other people instead of listening to what the argument is and what's

going on. It's no wonder his estimate is taking so long. He doesn't

answer the questions that are asked.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the

member for New Westminster with regard to the clergy and the fact that

the person he refers to had approximately a 95 percent increase. There

was an increase, as we all know, because of high claims experience, and

that increase was passed along to all drivers in the province. It was a

substantial one because our claims experience was much

[ Page 5220 ]

higher, and inflation of course was a factor.

Therefore we have to raise premiums to cover the cost of claims.

Now with regard to the clergy, who were a separate category and were

allowed a discount, if you want to call it that, or a special rate

under the Insurance Corporation's policy: when we passed the Automobile

Insurance Nondiscrimination Act in 1979, that automatically identified

certain areas which could no longer be company policy, and all drivers

would be treated as equal. What it meant was that you were in a

classification — you drove your car for pleasure or you drove it to and

from work or you drove it for business — and you would all be treated

as equal. No special consideration would be given for age, sex or

marital status. With that passing of the legislation that I just

mentioned, ICBC had its instruction. It was government policy.

Therefore they couldn't grant senior citizens a discount for being over

the age of 65. They had to take the stance that all drivers, regardless

of age, were treated as equals. We brought in a senior citizens

discount similar to the senior citizens' homeowner grant.

People of the clergy lost their classification because of that

legislation. They are driving cars and are carrying out the business

that they are involved in — visiting people, going to hospitals and

going to weddings and funerals. They are on the road and are no

different than any other drivers. As a result they are put into the

same class: good drivers pay the same premium and bad drivers are

assessed a driver-accident premium.

On July 30, 1979, I believe it was, the bill passed and the House

divided. The motion was nemine contradicente, which I understand means

that we were all in favour of the legislation, including — if I can

look at the list here.... I'm looking for the member for New

Westminster's (Mr. Cocke'

s) name, and maybe, he wasn't in the House at

the time. I was going to say that he automatically would have been part

of the yeas, but I guess he was absent on that day, because I don't see

his name here on the list. Mr. Hall, the second member for Surrey, was

here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point, alluding to or

briefly reflecting upon a vote like this could be allowed, I guess, but

any long, involved reflection on a vote or past legislation is not

allowed in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Chairman, I just mentioned that the

legislation put the ICBC in a position whereby they have to address the

question of there being no discrimination regardless of age, sex or

marital status. They felt that to carry that concept, they couldn't

maintain the policy that was in place before. I have to agree with

that, because there are many drivers who live next door or down the

street from work who leave their car at home all week and go to work,

and just use it on the weekend. There are some drivers who drive 5,000

miles a year and some that drive 20,000 miles a year. Those members of

the clergy who live close to their premises may not expose their cars

to the possibility of accident, because they only go to and from their

home to the church, but there are other members of the clergy who drive

more miles per year, possibly, than I do. Therefore I feel that they

should be looking at the same rates for insurance coverage that I do,

or that any other member of society does, taking into consideration the

Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act.

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, I understand that we do have a rule

that one should not reflect upon a vote that is taken in this session

of the Legislature. You can reflect all you want, I understand, on

votes that have gone in the past. But anyhow, that's neither here nor

there. I'm not going to defend the minister. Whenever I want to reflect

upon a vote, we'll have that argument at that time.

I just want to say that I really think that when that legislation

was brought in, it was brought in in terms of, "this is going to be

staged in." There was certainly no indication that some of the things

that would be done would have been done the way they have been. I'm

just suggesting that to recategorize a whole group of people was

clearly and simply wrong.

Just one other word before I sit down, and that is with respect to

handicapped seniors who receive a special deduction from Autoplan. They

get that 25 percent off for handicapped people if they show proof that

they're eligible for elimination of the gas tax. However, it's my

understanding that although seniors receive a 20 percent deduction for

fire insurance, the same does not apply to the handicapped. As a

suggestion, it might be worthwhile to extend this program to

handicapped persons as well. I just wonder what the minister's comment

would be on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion put forward by

the member for New Westminster is something that can be researched and

investigated. I have no comment at this time as to whether or not it

would be something that would be acceptable.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's a long time since we started

to discuss vote 10. I think it's three weeks today, as a matter of

fact. Of course, a lot of that time was spent in Easter recess.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

When we first began the estimates, discussing agriculture, I raised

the point that the figures in the budget which showed an increase of

11.2 percent were really quite incorrect because, in fact, if you

deduced the 6.1 percent ICBC rebate you were down to something like 1.9

percent. It's interesting to note too, based on that figure with the

ICBC money out, that last year the agriculture industry had 1.3 percent

of the total budget and this year it's down to 1 percent. I think that

gives some credence to the arguments that I have been making, while we

have been discussing agriculture, that agriculture is really not

getting its fair shake. As we get into the votes I intend to point out

some of the specific reasons.

Dealing specifically with vote 10, I have a specific question.

Again, the minister is joshing away with the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) and not listening to what I'm saying. I note in vote 10

the addition of one salaried position; the minister's office is going

from six to seven persons. I'm wondering what that particular job is to

be, whether or not the position is filled and at what salary.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The additional position in my office is for

an administrative assistant whose responsibility primarily deals with

ICBC and Agricultural Land Commission issues. The member will recall

that at the end of 1979, when I was reappointed Minister of Agriculture

and Food and gave up my responsibilities as Minister of Energy, I

accepted

[ Page 5221 ]

two additional responsibilities. One was as the

minister responsible for the land reserves which came from the Ministry

of Environment, find the other was as the minister responsible for

ICBC. As a result, in order to give proper attention to them I expanded

the staff in my office by one individual. Yes, the position is filled

and the member is on staff.

MRS. WALLACE: What is his salary?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe his salary is — if I'm incorrect

I'm sure I'll get a memo down to advise me — $19,200 or $19,800.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that two executive assistants that you have

in total?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe the proper

classification of one is executive assistant, and I believe that the

other title is administrative assistant.

Vote 10 approved.

On vote 11: deputy minister's office, $1,091,714.

MRS. WALLACE: Vote 11 is the vote that includes the program

that covers aid to developing countries. The minister knows that this

is a program I'm very interested in.

I note that he has increased the amount slightly this year from

$393,000 to $428,000. I congratulate him for that, but I point out that

had that government retained the fund of $5 million which was

established by W.A.C. Bennett — the interest of which was to be used

for this purpose — the interest at today's interest rates would have

been between $.5 million and $1 million as a result of investment of

that fund. I would encourage the minister to keep putting money into

this fund, because it's a very worthwhile and needed program. Every day

that we pick up a paper and on every television program we look at we

see more and more problems of people who need assistance to produce the

food they require to stay alive. That's what that program is all about.

It's an excellent program and one that really needs expanding.

I would like to ask the minister two specific questions apart from

asking for his assurance that he will continue to upgrade the program.

Firstly, when will the report for the aid to developing countries

program be ready? I haven't seen that filed yet. I'm wondering how soon

that will be available. Does the minister know whether the $393,000 was

expended in full last year? If not, why not? Has he any idea of the

countries which were aided under that program?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: As the member said, the $393,000 that was

allocated last year has been increased this year to approximately

$427,000. The member refers to the $5 million fund that was in there

some time ago and what interest could be earned. That's quite right,

Madam Member, although we're going over old ground. You recall that

fund was transferred back in 1976 or 1977 — maybe my figure is a bit

more correct. It was done to allocate funds to cover some of the losses

that we inherited in 1975-76. Be that as it may, the funds of $393,000

have been expended. The report will be filed in the near future. The

member can understand that our fiscal year ends March 31, 1981. It

takes time to compile those reports. As the member knows, in our report

we specifically identify each of the activities and the various

countries.

What I have before me is a breakdown of the projects. I don't have

all the countries, Madam Member, but there were 44 projects, with a

total commitment of $393,000. The agencies we assisted were the United

Church of Canada, the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development

and Peace, Canadian Lutheran World Relief, the Canadian Red Cross,

Canadian University Services Overseas, CARE of Canada, Food for the

Hungry, Operation Eyesight Universal, the Tibetan Refugee Aid Society,

World Literacy of Canada, World University Service of Canada and the

YMCA of greater Vancouver. All these agencies had ongoing projects — in

many cases jointly funded — in various parts of the world, but mainly

in the Third World countries. For the benefit of the members of the

House, the funds that go there are basically aimed at trying to improve

the lifestyle and wellbeing of the people involved. Although we call it

agricultural aid to developing countries, in some cases it is also used

for relief as a result of a disaster, and in many cases it's used for

putting in an irrigation system, a drainage system, developing wells so

the people have potable water to drink, etc. I'm pleased with the

results we've had, and yes, Madam Member, each year I will continue to

get the budget amount increased, because I think it's dollars well

expended.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister has any idea how many

applications from participating organizations had to be turned down

because of lack of funds.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not at this time, but I'll have my staff

give me that information and advise the member.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: finance and administration, $1,736,900.

MRS. WALLACE: I've talked a lot about this ministry's votes

being cut back and depleted. That's certainly true in relation to votes

where the programs relate to expenditures in the field. This particular

vote, finance and administration, "provides for the accounting and

personnel programs of the ministry as well as administrative support

and other services to the operational programs of the ministry." I note

that in this particular vote "professional and special services" has

jumped from $13,000 to $68,000 — a 500 percent increase. I'm wondering

if this is a little bit of hidden money that's going into Hollywood

North. Then looking down the line to advertising and publications,

there is another jump of $10,000.

What we have been saying on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, is

that when a government decides that they are going to levy some $625

million worth of additional taxes on the people of this province, the

time has also come for governments to tighten their belts. When I see a

500 percent increase in this vote for professional services, plus a

$10,000 increase in advertising and publications, then I am prompted to

move that vote 12 be reduced by $65,000.

My reasons, Mr. Chairman, are very clear. If the farmers of this

province are asked to take cutbacks, as they have been asked to take in

other votes in this ministry in the programs that relate to field

operations, then I think the ministry should at least be prepared to

hold the line. That's all we're asking.

[ Page 5222 ]

We're not asking that he doesn't spend what was

budgeted last year — and you must remember that the figure we're

looking at is what was budgeted, not what the revised budget was or

what was actually spent — we're saying, "Okay, you can spend that

amount," but on programs dealing with things like professional services

and advertising and publicity, we're suggesting that the minister

should at least hold the line. That's the purpose of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member may

withdraw the amendment after my explanation. Let me deal with the

advertising and publications. The 1979-80 actual expenditures were

$106,000. In the last fiscal year of 1980-81, the actual expenditures

were $125,000. The amount increased between 1979-80 and 1980-81 was

$19,000, and the amount increased from 1981 to 1982 is $10,000. That is

less than a 10 percent increase. It doesn't even cover the inflationary

costs, and here she is saying that we're overexpending. I suggest that

the arguments she uses for putting forward the amendment are in error.

Professional services. She'd be interested to know that the majority

of those funds to be spent on professional services are basically for

enhanced staff training, to upgrade our staff to give the best service

possible to the agricultural community. I don't think I need to say any

more. That is a plus for agriculture and for the farmers of this

province. With that explanation I suggest the member might wish to

withdraw the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister can say what he

likes about the intents and purposes of that particular program. I'm

suggesting that he should hold the line, as he's asking the citizens of

the province to do. He's asking them to hold the line on their

expenditures because he's draining it off by mandatory taxation; he's

not even giving them a choice. If he can expect the citizens of British

Columbia to take that stand, then I think it's incumbent upon the

minister to take the same stand and hold the line on things like staff

training and advertising. Therefore the amendment stands.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 26

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Segarty

Mussallem

Vote 12 approved.

On vote 13: field operations, $10,809,073.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit

again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

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

ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial statements require no leave. Please

proceed.

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY

OF RENTALSMAN

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Last week I was concerned to receive press

reports alleging that the rentalsman of British Columbia, Mr. Jim

Patterson, held an interest as a landlord in residential rental

property in Victoria, and further questioning whether the office of the

rentalsman or this ministry had been involved in the exercise of

special influence in terminating a tenancy agreement involving tenants

at one of the rental properties of which the rentalsman was alleged to

be the owner. Upon learning of the content of the media reports, I

asked my acting deputy minister, Thomas Cantell, QC, to conduct a full

investigation into the matter.

I have now received and studied Mr. Cantell's very comprehensive

report, and I have also interviewed the rentalsman, Mr. Patterson. May

I say that Mr. Patterson has been fully open, frank and cooperative in

providing any information requested.

May I stress the reason why I, as minister responsible for the

office of the rentalsman, was so gravely concerned about these reports,

even though they were reports and required verification. The office of

the rentalsman in British Columbia is very much a quasi-judicial

office, having as it does the power and capacity to adjudicate the

economic rights and property rights of citizens, be they tenants or

landlords. The fact that the office of the rentalsman frequently

conducts hearings into matters of rent review or the rights and

responsibilities of landlords and tenants under tenancy agreements

means, as a practical fact, that the daily functionings of that office

across the province are very much an integral part of the justice

system which serves the citizens of British Columbia. For that reason

it is not only important that in fact and action the office of the

rentalsman operate with independence and complete fairness, but also

that it be seen to operate with complete independence and fairness. It

must be the case that for tenants and landlords alike the office of the

rentalsman and its regular functionings are perceived to be independent

and without any bias, actual or perceived, in favour of landlords or

tenants.

[ Page 5223 ]

It has been my experience, Mr. Speaker, since being appointed to

this portfolio several months ago, that on a day-to-day basis the

officers and staff of the office of rentalsmen throughout the province

are keenly conscious of the need to be independent, unbiased and fair

in the exercise of their duties, and work extremely hard to be in fact

independent, without bias and fair. In my discussions with Mr.

Patterson concerning this particular matter he has at all times

displayed his continuing recognition of and insistence upon the fact

that he and his office at all times reflect independence, fairness and

a complete absence of bias.

As a result of my investigation I am fully satisfied that at the

time of Mr. Patterson's appointment as rentalsman in 1978 he disclosed

his then interest in a rental duplex in the Whistler area. At the time

this holding was not deemed to be an investment that would create any

bias or apprehension of bias. In late 1980, Mr. Patterson, having

disposed of his interest in the Whistler duplex, sought to maintain

some investment as a hedge against inflation, and acquired a one-half

interest in two separate residential properties in the Victoria area.

Although he did not disclose