[ Page 2271 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Power Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 30) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2271

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 27) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2271

Greenbelt Act (Bill 29) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 2271

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 3 1) Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 2271

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1) (Bill 7) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2271

Mr. Cocke –– 2274

Mr. Lloyd –– 2276

Mr. Wallace –– 2283

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 2286

Division on second reading –– 2287

Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 18) . Second reading.

Mr. Barber –– 2287

Mr. Wallace –– 2287

Mrs. Wallace –– 2287

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2288

Committee stage –– 2288

Report and third reading –– 2289

Travel Agents Registration Act (Bill 21) Second reading.

Mr. Levi –– 2289

Royal assent to bills –– 2291

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Within the precincts today are five members of the school board in School District 24 in my constituency, including the superintendent, Mr. Charles Bruce, Mr. Al MacLeod, Mrs. Helen Kerr, Mr. Grant MacKinnon and Mr. Bill Mercer. They're down here, Mr. Speaker, on a very interesting project. They have discovered a method of heating schools not only through the conservation of energy but also through the use of solar energy. This, hopefully, will be a pilot project not only in British Columbia but in Canada. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In the gallery today, I'm very pleased to advise you, we have a young couple from the Carrs Landing area in the Okanagan, Mr. and Mrs. Glen Wood. They are in the process of developing a very large and successful vineyard. We're very pleased to have them here and I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

POWER AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Power Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 30 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.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 2)

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Davis, Bill 27, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , 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.

GREENBELT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenbelt Act.

Bill 29 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.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 2)

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) .

Bill 3 1 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.

On behalf of Hon. Mrs. McCarthy, Hon. Mr. Wolfe files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 1)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications) ; Mr. Speaker, Bill 7, which is now before hon. members for second reading, is similar in many ways to Bill 68 introduced in the last session of the Legislature to deal with seatbelts in automobiles and light trucks operated in British Columbia. The changes in this bill include firstly, in subsection (2) , a requirement that seatbelts be suitably fastened to the motor vehicle, and secondly in subsection (4) , application to a person in the motor vehicle being driven or operated on a highway as distinct from a person who is on a highway in a motor vehicle.

The operative words in the new bill are those which require the motor vehicle not merely to be on the highway, but driven or operated. If it is parked, seatbelts don't have to be on; if it's moving, essentially they have to be buckled up.

Thirdly, subsections (5) and (7) of last year's bill are also amended and these changes relate primarily to the issuance of exemption certificates. Under last year's bill a medical practitioner would issue the certificates directly, whether the disability was short-term or permanent. Under the current bill, the .superintendent of motor vehicles issues the certificate covering permanent disability on the recommendation of a medical practitioner. However, short-term exemptions can be granted immediately -that is, for periods of up to six months - by a medical practitioner. That's the substance of amendments to last year's bill with the exception of a change in the penalty that will be introduced in the

[ Page 2272 ]

form of an amendment during the committee stage of the bill.

As to the main intent of the bill, there are two aspects. One requires vehicles to be equipped with safety belts; the other requires drivers and passengers occupying seat locations equipped with belts to use those belts. The British Columbia Motor-vehicle Act has required vehicles operated in this province to be equipped with pelvic belts for the driver and one front seat passenger beginning in the 1964 model year. When the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of Canada came into being in 1971, the requirement increased to belts for all passengers in both front and rear seats of passenger cars, belts for drivers and passengers in light trucks and belts for drivers of buses.

In other words, the present bill requires persons in motor vehicles on the highway - vehicles which, according to federal and provincial law have a seatbelt assembly installed in the original vehicle - to wear the seatbelt assembly whenever the vehicle is in motion.

There is an exemption for children under age 6; medical exemptions may also be granted for disabled persons. Under this bill, the driver is responsible for children between the ages of 6 and 16; passengers over the age of 16 are responsible for their own compliance with this new law.

Certain classes of operations of vehicles are exempt. They include: "driving the vehicle in reverse, " where the wearing of a seat belt could restrict the vision of the operator; "engaging in work which requires the operator to alight at frequent intervals and where the work does not require the vehicle to exceed 25 miles an hour; " and milk deliveries, bread deliveries, and other house-to-house type activities would come under this heading.

Therefore, provision is made in the bill for the writing of regulations which can define the circumstances in which the wearing of a seatbelt is not necessary. I might also add, parenthetically, that under regulations if restraint devices are developed which are satisfactory for children under six, they could be required by regulation under this new bill.

A number of other jurisdictions have already introduced seatbelt legislation. Australia is the leading example, having introduced a bill along these lines in 1971. New Zealand, Sweden, West Germany and France also have seatbelt laws. In Canada, Ontario introduced legislation similar to Bill 7, effective January 1,1976. We have taken advantage of the experience in Ontario in drafting the present legislation. We've taken advantage of their experience, for example, with respect to over-the-shoulder harnesses, which are not required in our case unless they're an integral part of the seatbelt assembly.

The Ontario experience to date has been interesting, to say the least. There was an initial period of relatively high compliance. It grew from 15 per cent before their law was introduced just over a year ago, to more than 75 per cent in the early months of last year. Surveys in Ontario in the late summer of 1976 showed a compliance on the order of 65 per cent. Recent indications, however, are that seatbelt usage in Ontario is now on the order of 50 to 60 per cent. This level of compliance is expected to continue and then gradually improve, if anything, in the future.

We in British Columbia may experience a similar pattern of behaviour. We have a 20 per cent compliance now; we could have a 60 per cent order of compliance a year hence.

Hon. members should note that this bill, when passed, is proclaimable at a future date. It is the government's intention, prior to that proclamation and for a continuing period thereafter, to carry out an intensive programme of informing the public as to the advantages of wearing seatbelts and the difficulties which they can get into if they don't wear them.

Ontario's January-to-November figures show a sharp drop in injuries: the 11,938 recorded by their Department of Transport represented a 16.4 per cent drop in that 11 -month period last year. We had only a 1 per cent drop in injuries in comparison with Ontario's 16-plus per cent drop. Ontario also had a death-rate reduction on the highways on the order of 16 per cent last year.

Had we enjoyed a similar rate of reduction of injuries in British Columbia in 1976, 3,800 fewer people would have been hurt on our highways. It's estimated that the prevention of death and injuries together would have eliminated the demand in our hospitals in bed-day terms on the order of 43,608.

Perhaps I could put it another way and describe it in relation to another location. Today, as many as one-third of all the beds in the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre are occupied by the paraplegic and quadriplegic victims of automobile accidents. Many of these accidents would not have been nearly as severe had those in question been wearing seatbelts. Even if we'd had a 50 per cent to 60 per cent compliance, there would have been a very sharp reduction in the pain, suffering, frustration and bereavement which has occurred all across Canada, and indeed around the world, because seatbelts have not been worn. Or at least that hasn't been the general practice in the past.

I think we all hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to put a dollar figure on any matters of this kind. However, a report recently completed by the B.C. Road Safety Co-ordinating Council - that is, February of this year - suggests the annual dollar saving currently from an increase in seatbelt usage from 20 per cent to merely 50 per cent could save $12.3 million in direct medical and hospital costs alone. This figure of cost, of course, does not take into account the loss of

[ Page 2273 ]

earnings present and future of the victims of such accidents - losses which could have been avoided -nor does it obviously take into account the loss of productive talent, the suffering, the frustrations of the people who have unfortunately been involved in incidents of this kind.

As for penalties for non-compliance, the bill as originally introduced left this to the generality of penalties presently under the Motor-vehicle Act which see fines up to, but not exceeding $500. Yesterday I tabled an amendment which would limit this to $ 100. However, the actual penalty is a matter of discretion for the court. The judge, in other words, could merely issue a warning or prescribe a dollar penalty of $10 or, say, $25, which has been the average experience in Ontario, or some other higher figure. But if our amendment is accepted, it will not exceed $100.

It could, however, cost the offending party money in another very important respect. Insurance settlements could be reduced in the courts. This has already happened in British Columbia. The Hon. Mr. Justice Fulton, in a Supreme Court of B.C. decision handed down in December, 1976, found that failure to wear a seatbelt constituted a degree of negligence. It was a failure to take reasonable precautions for one's own safety and that of others, and Mr. Justice Fulton specifically said.-

"I'm of the opinion that: (a) failure while travelling in a motor vehicle on a street or highway to wear a seatbelt, or any part thereof as provided in the vehicle, in accordance with the safety standards from time to time applicable, is failure to take a step which a person knows or ought to know to be reasonably necessary for his own safety; and (b) if in such circumstances he suffers injury as a result of the vehicle being involved in an accident and if it appears from the evidence that if the seatbelt had been work the injuries would have been prevented, or the severity thereof lessened, then the failure to wear a seatbelt is negligence which has contributed to the nature and extent of his injuries."

That was a finding in the absence of seatbelt legislation in the form which we now have before us in Bill 7 today. Once the present bill is enacted, I would expect that the findings as to negligence and reduction in awards against insurance claims would be even less favourable to those involved in motor vehicle accidents who don't wear seatbelts than they are now.

I would like to make one further point about the use of seatbelts. Many people see the requirement to wear seatbelts as a limitation on their own personal freedom. More is involved than the hazard to the individual directly concerned. A person who wears a seatbelt - and this applies particularly to the driver of a vehicle - is able to retain control of that vehicle much better. Racing drivers wear seatbelts for that reason. Those driving cars in demolition derbies wear seatbelts with over-the -shoulder harnesses. They can come out of all sorts of incidents with no damage to themselves whatsoever. But also they remain in control of their vehicle and therefore the hazard to which others are exposed - second and third parties, in other words - is also reduced by the wearing of seatbelts. So it's not a matter of social concerns and relations, concerns of other people who are innocent victims hit by vehicles which are out of control because the driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is similar in character to other matters which. come under the Motor-vehicle Act. Safety requirements such as driving on the right-hand side of the road, stopping at stop signs, obeying traffic signals, are cases in point. These are all enforceable under our law.

However, they cannot be enforced on everyone at all times. The existence of the law in each of these cases has brought about a pattern of behaviour. Generally speaking, people comply. They comply mainly because the law in their view - for example, for driving on the right-hand side of the road - makes sense. It's reasonable; it makes sense to drive on the right-hand side of the road because it's not only in their own best interest but that of others as well. Eventually drivers and passengers in motor vehicles on B.C. highways will also come to recognize that wearing seatbelts can and should be viewed in much the same manner as staying on the right-hand side of the road, stopping at stop signs and so on. That saves lives; it cuts down on injuries. Not everyone stays on their own side of the road 100 per cent, not everyone stops at every stop sign, but they should. In their interest and the interest of others they should wear seatbelts for the same reasons.

The existence of the law itself tends to cause people to comply merely because it is the law. In Ontario's case, it clearly caused a better than threefold increase in usage. We expect that it will result in a threefold to fourfold increase here over the next several years.

Hon. members have already received many submissions on this subject. I have certain material available which can be distributed, including "The Human Collision, " a seatbelt presentation made by the B.C. Road Safety Co-ordinating Council, February 9,1977; a report from the interdepartmental working group on traffic safety entitled "The Merits of Mandatory Seatbelt Legislation for British Columbia, " February, 1976; and reports on "Canadian Attitudes Toward Mandatory Seatbelt Legislation" put out by Transport Canada in May, 1976. This material can be circulated.

Incidentally, the latter report indicated that

[ Page 2274 ]

roughly two out of three Canadians were in favour of seatbelt legislation. The figure was somewhat higher for British Columbia - more like three out of four.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the minister and the government he represents for bringing in this legislation.

I have one or two little negative things to say a little later on with respect not to the legislation itself but to some of the problems I think I can anticipate that you're going to have with the motorcar companies and the total inadequacy of some seatbelts that are available at the present time.

First let me say that I attended a meeting with the Hon. Marc Lalonde and all the rest of the Health ministers in Canada two or three years ago. At that meeting it was generally agreed that it would be the responsibility of provincial governments across the country to introduce legislation of this sort. At that time we discussed the tremendous saving in lives, the tremendous saving in morbidity - illness as the result of accident - and there could be no doubt from a financial situation that this was something that just could not be overlooked.

Beyond that, and much more important, was the stopping of human suffering to the extent that it will as a result of this kind of legislation. There is absolutely no question now, if there ever was a question in anyone's mind, that mandatory seatbelt legislation was needed. All you have to do is look at the tremendous savings that have been enjoyed in human suffering in Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and other countries that have led us. Recently in Ontario, as preliminary as it is, the savings there in human suffering have been shown amply. With that 16 per cent drop in injury that the minister referred to, nothing more can be said.

One of the reasons I'm no very, very interested in this legislation is the suffering that I witnessed a few years ago when one of my very closest friends was in an accident which should not have taken a life. He was driving along a road and passed an automobile. His car, though not driven all that quickly, because of something that he managed to hit on the wrong side of the road - speaking of the wrong side of the road, Mr. Minister - rolled over into a ditch. Hardly any damage was done to that automobile, but my close friend was thrown out and the automobile rolled over him. Had he been restrained, had he been in that car, he would be alive and well today. I'm absolutely positive. There was just no shred of evidence that he would have even been bruised to any extent by virtue of the damage done to the car. It only rolled over once, but that's all it takes. As far as I'm concerned, that is just one of many illustrations.

I am sure the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) can tell you about the people he has seen while walking around the hospitals in this province who are suffering from automobile injuries. They are suffering to the extent that they should not suffer. They are suffering when, in many cases, they wouldn't even have been there had they been restrained by a seatbelt.

Oh, yes, the minister has received many letters, as I have, from people who have said that this is in opposition to human dignity and all the rest of it. It's an invasion of freedom. But one thing that people don't really remember is that in the first place it is not a matter of freedom whether we drive or use an automobile. It has always been a privilege in our society. We have to be licensed to drive that automobile. It has to be proven that we're well enough to drive that automobile. We have to pass certain tests in order to drive that automobile. So this is not something new. This is not a new invasion of human rights. This is just a matter of practical common sense.

I am pleased that the minister has brought this forward at this time. I was rather disappointed that it died last year. Had it not, maybe there would have been a similar set of statistics to what they had in Ontario. But we have it now and I am not at all disappointed.

I was terribly disappointed when I watched Nova Scotia cop out. Nova Scotia, as some of you might remember, was the first jurisdiction in Canada to put forward this kind of legislation. I presume the letters were strong, as they are today in this jurisdiction. The minister is getting - as we all are - lots of letters in opposition of mandatory seat belt legislation from people who are terrified. There are people who have claustrophobia. If they read the bill carefully, they'll find that there are ways and means of receiving exceptions.

In any event, Nova Scotia knuckled under to the outcry in opposition. As a result, they did not pass their legislation. That was a matter of three years ago that it was put forward. Think in terms of the amount of saving in human suffering that could have been enjoyed between then and now.

There are a number of areas that I think we must touch on. One of the most important, in my view, is that the minister who is in charge of motor vehicles, as well as so many areas of concern, would be well advised to take a look at some of the equipment offered on the standard automobile. Some of it is pretty preposterous in terms of design and engineering. Poorly attached seatbelts - I've seen seatbelts that are so badly attached you could just rip them out with your hands. I know that it says in the Act: " . . . attached in a satisfactory manner." I think we must be very careful, because some of the attachments leave a lot to be desired.

For those people who are concerned about getting out in case you flipped into a ditch in Richmond,

[ Page 2275 ]

where the water is coming in the window, I think the seatbelts must be easy to get out of and must be shown to be easy to get out of. Otherwise I am afraid some people will defy the law. They will have the feeling that they are imprisoned in that seatbelt unless they can be shown that they can get out. There are difficulties in getting out of some seatbelts. I think a real study should be done on seatbelts and their adequacy in the province of British Columbia. I think we can look at what other jurisdictions have done. Sweden particularly has been very safety conscious over the years about all aspects of cars. I really think that we should have a look at what they have done and what they've called for, and improve on it if we can.

I've seen seatbelts that are fully attached - that is, the shoulder and the pelvic seatbelt - that come across in such a way that the shoulder part of the seatbelt comes right across the throats of certain people. Maybe someone with a long torso, like myself, is in good shape with that seatbelt, but I know that when my daughter gets into our LTD the seatbelt comes right across her eye. Now there is just no way that the upper part of the seatbelt can be used for her so we have to detach that part of it. She uses the pelvic seatbelt only. However, she would be so much safer with the shoulder harness as well -there is no question about that. They should be made adjustable somehow or another, in such a way that they can be adjusted for the size or the height of the person, from the seat to the top of the head, so to speak.

I haven't seen any evidence of a great deal of thought going into the manufacture and attachment of a lot of the seatbelts that I've seen today. So with every confidence we can rely on that minister to tighten up on his regulations with respect to the seatbelts that are there now and seatbelts that we can look forward to in the future.

Some of the seatbelts with spring retrieval, where the spring is very strong, can get away from you very quickly. Sometimes people who haven't quite attached their seatbelt - you've seen this on the road, I'm sure - push it in, think it clicks, but it doesn't quite click. You're driving along the road and, all of a sudden, it becomes unattached and springs away very quickly. The person grasps for the seatbelt and drives into oncoming traffic. It could happen.

These are the kinds of things that I think one must think about in terms of the future of the whole seatbelt situation. It's not just regulating that people wear seatbelts; it's also regulating that seatbelts are adequate and that seatbelts will in fact take care of the needs. ~

I'm not going to say disparaging things particularly about automobile companies any more than any other. They're in the business to make a profit and they'll keep their design cost down as low as they can. They'll keep their manufacture cost down as low as they can. That's the name of the game.

In Sweden one of the reasons automobiles had to be much safer than they are here was because in Sweden the regulations were such that the insurance companies and others just absolutely insisted that they conform, and were able to do so - a little duress here and there, but I think it was worthwhile because it certainly saved lives in Sweden in many other ways besides seatbelts. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister, in his closing remarks when he moves second reading, will indicate that he will look with some interest at the whole question of design, quality, et cetera, of seatbelts.

Mr. Speaker, I was also pleased to see that an exemption certificate can be had by applying to the superintendent of motor vehicles with the support of one's doctor, and that a temporary exemption can be provided.

There are people who either for anatomical reasons, or possibly even psychiatric reasons, cannot wear seatbelts. I believe they should be exempted, but certainly they must be in such a minority that the numbers would be very difficult to perceive in terms of numbers in our population of 2.25 million. It's dwindling because of Socred policies. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we can get the message to those people who are very, very concerned about the fact that there are exemptions for those who are in a position where, by virtue of health or whatever, cannot wear seatbelts.

I think that I would also like to hear what the minister has to say with respect to proclamation. I notice that this is a proclamation bill. That means that when it receives royal assent, it still is not in fact law. It will be proclaimed at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council thereafter. I would like him to suggest to us how long it will be in terms of weeks, months or whatever. I realize that there are reasons for having a proclamation bill here in that you have to give warning of the intention so that people can bring their act into line, and it will take some little time. But I would hope that that time isn't too long, because now that we're on the course let's see to it that we don't lose any more in terms of those statistics that the minister gave us earlier in this debate.

I believe that the compliance will also improve, as the minister said. I think there is a sort of a hidden thing here that as the young people grow older, the young people are going to be much easier.... I notice with my young family that there is no problem - once they started wearing seatbelts, they always wear seatbelts. I don't think there's one of my kids who hasn't worn seatbelts right from the day he started. Once they have families, their kids will wear seatbelts just as a matter of course.

Older people are a little.... It's difficult to change

[ Page 2276 ]

habits and one thing and another, but I do think compliance will grow. I think, too, that it's up to all of us who are interested in human safety to be missionaries, to get out there. If people are crowing because they're not getting caught, then I think it's up to us to admonish them and indicate that they're really jeopardizing themselves.

There is that factor that I wanted to bring up, and I was glad the minister referred to it. The fact is you are a safer driver if you're wearing a seatbelt. You can get into a situation where you can be thrown around in an automobile and lose control by virtue of the fact that you're not held in place. So it's not only the case of saying to one: "Well, if I don't mind being hurt, who should interfere?" The fact is that that driver can also hurt the other drivers, other pedestrians or other people in the vicinity. So, Mr. Speaker, that is one argument that I see as being a very strong argument in favour of the question of safety of others. One can say to a person: "Well, okay, go out and impair your own health." There are those of us who would say: "If you do, don't expect the system to look after you." But then on the other hand, when the person jeopardizes your health or somebody else's health, then I suggest that that person is really showing that he has no case whatsoever in terms of this matter of human rights.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that and with the suggestion that we all work towards seeing to it that this law is complied with once it becomes law, seeing to it that we have the same kind of results they've had in Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, West Germany, France, Ontario - regretfully not in Nova Scotia -seeing to it that the spinal-cord injury unit... ~ I'm not sure whether many of you realize or not - I know the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) does - that we have in B.C. the finest spinal-cord injury unit in all of the world, with the possible exception of Perth, Australia. Isn't it interesting that it's Australia that also has a magnificent spinal-cord injury unit? But let's see to it that it's used an awful lot less. Really that's what this legislation says to me. It says that we're going to absolutely resolve that it's going to be used less.

MRS. JORDAN: With your permission, and the permission of the House - and not to interrupt the debate I would like to introduce I I players of the Falconettes Girls Native Basketball Team from the North Okanagan. They're here with our manager, Hazel Snow, their coach Albert Saddleman, and their chaperone, Walter Parker.

I'm sure that the House would like to know that these fine young people are not only very healthy as a result of their involvement in recreation, but they have now won the title of zone 3 champions, and they're on their way to the provincial all-Indian junior basketball team in Duncan. I would ask the

House to give them a very warm welcome and to wish them luck.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I take great pleasure in rising in my place today to speak in favour of Bill 7.

I'm sure everyone is aware, with the interest that has been created in my riding, of this legislation coming in. I'd like first to congratulate the hon. Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications for presenting this legislation. I'm sure everyone is going to welcome the presentation and enforcement of it.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope the House would show some indulgence to me as I'd like to explain briefly the part that I feel the Prince George Take the Car out of Carnage committee played in bringing to the attention of the government and the public the need for a compulsory seatbelt legislation in our province. I think it is a very good example of what dedicated volunteer citizens interested in their fellow human beings' welfare can do in a community and in a province. Mr. Speaker, I feel their dedicated efforts are very worthy of recognition.

I have an article from the B.C. Medical Association newspaper of July, 1976, that explains the Prince George Take the Car out of Carnage and how they got started. The article states:

"What does a community do when it has one-seventh the population of Vancouver and in the first six months of the year kills 27 persons on its roads - one less death than Vancouver? How does it react when 22 out of 27 persons killed were under the age of 30, 86 per cent of the fatal accidents involved alcohol, and when 341 persons were injured in the same timespan, with property damage and hospital costs going over the $8 million mark?

"Those were the questions being asked in Prince George during July, 1975. In retrospect, the questions were being asked in the coroner's office, the police building, and the news rooms. However, the medical community was only aware of these questions being asked by the ambulance personnel, the nurses, the hospital workers and by themselves. Among the doctors and nurses, a sense of distaste had set in at having to work on weekends in the certain knowledge that young teenagers would have to be pronounced dead, their families told that those still alive on arrival were put back in some semblance of their original state. What those at the hospital did not know was that even hardened members of the RCMP district highways patrol were getting shaky about going out there for fear of what they would see at the hospital. The word that most frequently was used was 'carnage'."

[ Page 2277 ]

The beginning of Carnage started one evening when two friends, a medical doctor, Tulley Chambers, and John Evans, the publisher of our city's daily newspaper, discussed the carnage that had been taking place. The feeling was that something had to be done. So the next day, Friday, the newspaper publisher contacted the general managers of the electronic media in Prince George and the two inspectors of the RCMP, city and district. He then called a medical doctor and informed him that he'd set a meeting for the following Monday at noon at one of the hotels, and to have the medical representatives, the coroner and the ambulance personnel there.

In July, 1975, the president of the Prince George medical society and the society's communications officer met with the above group and discussed the Take the Car out of Carnage programme. The group discussed the specific problems that they were going to address themselves to. On July 8, a subgroup of one from each agency met at the district RCMP headquarters to map out the programme in detail.

Mr. Speaker, this group was given one week. The next Monday morning, prior to the meeting, there were seven more bodies in the morgue from that weekend's accidents. The group decided that the time had come to stop talking, organize the groups together and get some action going. The next evening the daily newspaper, the Prince George Citizen, had christened the group the Take the Car out of Carnage Committee. They launched the programme with a story with a banner on the front page. Since then, over 45 agencies and individuals have become involved in the programme.

The editorial policy in the media shifted into play and went into a shock programme first to bring the effects of automobile accidents to the public. Feature articles were run about the ambulance men, the accident victims, hot cars, the grave diggers and the economic facts of the accidents. In the first two weeks, three prime-time, half-hour TV programmes were made. They featured a TV announcer who had lost his own 17-year-old son in an automobile accident five weeks before. So it really got a big emphasis back to the community of what had been going on.

After Labour Day of that year, the campaign changed to a more positive programme, and safety features were emphasized. The group turned its attentions to the Legislative Assembly where the push was started for compulsory seatbelt legislation, Criminal Code amendments, and mandatory driver training prior to licensing. One of the other things they were pushing was putting stricter penalties on for drunken driving and driving under the influence of alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, that is how the Prince George Take the Car out of Carnage committee had the original beginning. I still feel they are one of the driving forces helping to bring this seatbelt legislation before us today. They presented their brief to the government on October 10,1975. This outlined their concerns regarding the seatbelt legislation as well as other recommendations for lowering of highway accidents.

I might just add that this group is still very active in our community. The Take the Car out of Carnage Committee meets every Monday at noon. I just have some minutes of one of their recent meetings which indicate that they are achieving quite a few beneficial results plus, of course, stricter penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol. The minutes of their January 10 meeting state that:

"Sgt. Grant Tindell of the RCMP gave some very interesting statistics on the number of accidents which involved alcohol in the last three years. In 1974, they were 86 per cent. In 1975, they were 72 per cent. In 1976, they had decreased to 37 per cent."

So I think the Carnage group has really emphasized the safety aspect in our community. I certainly want to give them credit for it.

I have a brief, Mr. Speaker, that was presented by the Minister of Health. This has to do with the Ontario programme and the brief they prepared called "The Human Collision." I believe the Minister of Transport referred to it in his opening remarks. It has some very good statistics in it and I'd like the House to bear with me; I'd like to run through a few of these. I think they really illustrate the need for compulsory seatbelt legislation.

Introducing the brief, they state:

"Motor vehicle accidents are a serious social and economic problem. In Ontario, one out of every three reported accidents results in injury, and one in every 100 results in a death. During 1973, there were nearly 100,000 people injured and 2,000 killed in traffic accidents.

"Serious accidents are especially frequent among the younger people. For people under the age of 35, traffic accidents are responsible for more deaths than any disease and for more deaths than all the other accidents combined.

"The use of seatbelts dramatically reduces the risk of injury and death. Scientific evidence strongly supports the value of seatbelts, yet only a small proportion of people actually use them. People do not wear seatbelts for a variety of reasons: fear that the seatbelts will trap them in their cars, belief that good drivers don't need them, and some people just feel they are too much trouble.

"This booklet provides the information to help you decide on the basis of available scientific evidence whether or not the seatbelts are worth the trouble it takes to use them."

[ Page 2278 ]

1 think their explanation of what happens in a collision is very important, Mr. Speaker. From the results of the collision studies in recent years it becomes clear that there are really two kinds of collisions within a single accident. The first is the car's collision, in which the car hits something, buckles and bends and then comes to a stop. The second and more important collision is the human collision which happens when a person's body or head hits some part of a car. It's the human collision, of course, that causes the injury.

A crash into a solid barrier at 30 miles an hour is a severe accident. It involves the same force as hitting a parked car at 50 miles per hour, since a parked car would move a little while a solid barrier will not. Because the solid barrier does not move, the car is forced to stop. The front bumper is the first part of the car to come in contact with the barrier and it stops immediately. Within one-tenth of a second the front of the car crushes about two feet and the car comes to a complete stop. The crushing on the front end serves as a cushion for the rest of the car and helps absorb the shock of the collision. As a result, the passenger compartment comes to a more gradual stop than the front of the car and it remains undamaged by the collision.

Even in very severe collisions the passenger compartment usually remains in good shape. If a collision occurs at extremely high speed or if the car is hit broadside, the passenger compartment can be partially rushed. Fortunately however, this happens in only a small minority of all collisions. In a great majority of the accidents the front or the rear end of the car sustains most of the damage. The passenger compartment usually is not damaged at all by the vehicles' collision. Instead it is damaged by the human collision - a person striking it with his head or body.

I have a diagram of a car, Mr. Speaker. It illustrates where the majority of the damage on cars occurs in accidents - on the front portion of the car, the bumper. The head-on collisions account for 32 per cent of the accidents; the rear end accounts for 9 per cent; the right-hand side of the car amounts to a further 9 per cent; while the left-hand side of the car is 6 per cent. So I think it clearly illustrates that over 41 per cent of the actual impact of an accident occurs on the front or rear of the car.

They state that in the example of a 30 mile-an-hour barrier crash, the car is crushed a couple of feet and comes to a stop about one-tenth of a second after hitting the barrier. A slow-motion film would show that the people keep moving inside the passenger compartment at that same 30 miles per hour. They continue moving inside the car during the one-tenth of a second that the car takes to stop. The people are still moving forward at their original speed when they slam into the steering wheel, the windshield or some, other part of the car, and this is the human collision.

I think I'll just stress that again, Mr. Speaker. They illustrate it in a diagram. On impact the car begins to crush and to slow down. The person inside the car has nothing to slow him down so he continues to move ahead at 30 miles an hour. Within one-tenth of a second the car has come to a complete stop. The person is still moving at 30 miles per hour so one-fiftieth of a second after the car has stopped the person slams into the dashboard and windshield. This is the human collision. In the car's collision it takes one-tenth of a second to stop; in the human collision it only takes one one-hundredth of a second, because. they have kept moving.

Some people believe that they can protect themselves in a crash by holding on to the steering wheel while bracing themselves with their arms and legs. Collisions usually happen too fast to permit this. Even if there is time to brace yourself, the forces involved in a collision are too great to withstand. Even at moderate speeds - in a 30-mile-per-hour barrier crash - an occupant strikes the interior of the car with a force of several thousand pounds, causing serious injury to himself and damage to the interior of the car. ,

It is not easy to appreciate just how severe the human collision can be, even in low-speed crashes. To help understand what happens, imagine someone walking briskly, head-on into a steel post. This would be about a 3- or 4-mile-per-hour collision. The person would probably survive without serious injury. Now imagine running full speed into the post. If he ran fast, this would be about a 15-mile-per-hour collision. His injuries would be severe; he might not survive. Now imagine his head striking the post at 30 miles per hour. The force would be four times greater than at 15 miles per hour and the person would not survive.

Most parts of the car interior provide little padding and severe injuries to the head and chest can result from even minor accidents. For example, a person flying around inside a car can strike the windshield, the windshield frame or the doorposts.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to illustrate that when a person hits the steering wheel or a padded portion of the interior some of the force is absorbed by the car. Except in extremely low-speed collisions this will not be enough to protect the occupant from injuries. Padded dashboards and collapsible steering columns provide only a few inches of cushioning. If an occupant's head hits the well-padded dashboard at more than 30 miles per hour, serious injury will result. The Take the Car out of Carnage programme calls that type of accident "mushheads." Quite often people will argue that a seatbelt will injure you more than the accidents. But, Mr. Speaker, they've said that a lot of these people who have these very serious

[ Page 2279 ]

arc I injuries.... The brain damage that happens to them - they're practically a vegetable for the rest of their lives. They call them "mushheads."

The chest injuries from the steering column are common in car accidents. Also facial disfigurement often results from being thrown into the windshield or through the windshield. In fact, head and chest injuries are the most frequent cause of death in collisions. In Ontario about half of the people in fatal accidents die of head injuries. They have an illustration of a body of a man showing where the injuries occur mostly in car accidents. The head accounts for 47.7. per cent of the injuries; fracture of the spine and the trunk is another 8.3 per cent; internal injuries to the chest, the abdomen and the pelvis account for a further 37.3 per cent; while the fracture of limbs and other injuries are another 6.7 per cent.

I think that those injuries - fracture of the spine and trunk - are quite important, Mr. Speaker. Those are the ones that fill the hospitals with paralyzed people and make invalids out of them for the rest of their lives. They're a loss to their families and an expense to society.

Another type of collision is the person-to-person collision. The brief states that:

"In a collision, passengers tend to move towards the point of impact, not away from it as might be expected. The tendency of everyone in the car to move in the same direction during a collision sometimes gives the term 'human collision' special meaning. In a frontal collision, the drivers and the front-seat passengers can receive serious neck and spinal injuries from the rear-seat passengers who fly into the front seat a fraction of a second after the impact. People can bump heads with fatal force, and in a side collision a person can be hurled against the passenger next to him and force him out the window or door. Considering that people normally weigh between 100 and 200 pounds, it is not surprising that high-speed, person-to-person contact during collisions is a very common source of injury.

"People often carry young children On their laps while riding in a car and this can lead to another form of human collision. Accident cases have shown that mothers can crush their children against the dashboard during a crash, and Oven in relatively minor accidents or panic stops a child can be pulled away with surprising force and hit the dashboard or the floor."

The brief goes on to state that the seatbelts can prevent the human collision. It's not the fall, it's the stop at the end. It also goes on to point out where the technology for seatbelts came from, and I think that's quite interesting, Mr. Speaker.

"The first attempts to research the human body's ability to withstand crash forces were begun in the early 1940s by Hugh Dehaven. During investigations of air crashes, he became interested in miraculous survivals. He studied the cases in which people have survived falls from high places, and through the analysis of these free-fall case histories he demonstrated that under special circumstances, the body could withstand extreme forces.

"In each case of the free-fall survival, the person landed on something like soft ground, an automobile roof, or a rooftop that absorbed some of the force created by the fall, and when the body landed the surface gave way a few inches. These few inches allowed the body to come to a more gradual stop than if it had landed on the hard surface.

"Dehaven concluded from this that the injury could be reduced if forces and impact were spread out in time and in space. In fact, spreading out the forces of impact and stretching them over just a few hundredths of a second could make the difference between life and death. He therefore suggested that improved interior design and restraining devices such as seatbelts would serve to stretch out the impact of a collision and to distribute the forces more evenly over the body. His ideas were eventually adopted in both the automobile and aircraft designs.

"How much can people take? Others took up Dehaven's interest in the ability of the human body to tolerate crash forces. Colonel John Stapp of the U.S. Air Force became particularly well known in the 1950s and '60s for his research on safety harnesses. Stapp was one of the first to initiate the scientific testing of Dehaven's observations and conclusions. He developed various crash simulators to test the upper limits of tolerance to the forces of deceleration. The best known of these was the high-speed rocket sled which was capable of speeds greater than 600 miles per hour.

"Stapp's experiments showed that, when properly belted, subjects could tolerate abrupt changes in speed that would otherwise cause serious injury. He demonstrated scientifically that the forces involved in many serious automobile and aircraft accidents could be survived without serious injury if the seatbelts were worn to restrain the occupants.

"The findings of people like Dehaven and Stapp soon led the automobile manufacturers to offer seatbelts as optional safety equipment, and by 1964 they were standard equipment in many North American and European cars. Now all the new cars sold in North America must be fitted with seatbelts and it is estimated that

[ Page 2280 ]

about 90 per cent of the cars presently used in Canada do have seatbelts.

"How do the seatbelts work? In a 30-mile-per-hour crash test, the car takes about two feet to come to a stop and this is a fairly abrupt stop. The occupants usually stop over a much shorter distance - perhaps only of one or two inches - and this is the difference in stopping distance that could mean that the occupants will stop much more abruptly than the car. To allow the body to come to a more gradual stop, all of the car's stopping distance has to be used. Holding the person in his seat with the seatbelt will allow him to stop within about the same distance as the car instead of travelling ahead with the speed of the car. As a result, the forces on the body are greatly reduced.

"The difference between the belted person's stopping distance and the unbelted person's stopping distance is often the difference between life and death. This is like the difference between one of Dehaven's fall victims landing on a sidewalk or in garden soil from a high altitude. The soft ground gives the person a few more inches in which to come to a stop, while the seatbelts give the person in the car a couple of feet in which to stop.

"The lap belt keeps a person inside the car, protecting him from the many dangers of being thrown clear. Even if used alone, the lap belt usually keeps the head from striking the windshield or windshield frame and allows the body to bend forward so that the head only hits the steering wheel or dashboard. These are designed to absorb some energy and, although their effect is somewhat limited, they do much less damage than harder structures.

"The lap belt allows the hips to absorb much of the force of the collision, and this reduces the force that the head or chest must absorb in hitting the steering wheel or dashboard. The shoulder belt, with a cross strap, prevents the head and chest from hitting the steering wheel or dashboard. Together the lap and shoulder belts work to keep a person in his seat and to distribute the force of the collision over the hips and shoulders - the parts of the body which can best withstand the force."

I think another section of it that's quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the evidence from real accidents. They mention in the report what they've studied in laboratory tests. The evidence from simulated accidents indicates that seatbelts reduce the forces and injuries to dummies and to humans in laboratory settings. However, this does not prove they help people in real accidents. They are more complex than the controlled laboratory collisions, but the actual accidents have been studied and the findings all point to the great benefit of the seatbelts.

These accident investigation studies have all concluded that about half or more of the deaths and serious injuries would have been avoided if lap and shoulder belts had been worn.

In the city of Toronto in 1970, 35 drivers and 22 passengers were killed in traffic accidents. None of them were wearing seatbelts. Investigation showed that of these fatal accidents, more than half the deaths of both passengers and drivers could have been prevented if seatbelts had been worn. When larger numbers of accident records were surveyed, it was again found that seatbelts reduced injury and death by about half.

In Sweden a major study of 28,000 accident records was conducted in the mid 1960s. This study included all kinds of accidents - the serious and the minor. But only one make of car was involved; I believe it was the Volvo. All vehicles were equipped with three-point lap and shoulder belts. The study found that the belted people received about half as many injuries as unbelted people in collisions at all speeds. As expected, the greatest reductions were in the head, the face and the chest injuries.

No one wearing a seatbelt was killed in any collisions at speeds of up to 60 mph, while unbelted people were killed in collisions at speeds of less than 20 mph. The Swedish study is the most widely known of it ' s type. However, similar studies done in North America have all found that the belt saved many lives and reduced injuries in all types of real collisions. Much of the benefit from the belts in real accidents is due to the dramatic effect of lap and shoulder belts in reducing the most common serious injuries - those to the head and the chest.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned children in a car. The article deals with children as well. Because the small child has a relatively heavy head and a fragile skull, he is very likely to suffer serious head injuries even in low-speed accidents. Seventeen per cent of the car occupants killed or injured in Ontario in 1973 were children under the age of 14. Children over the age of 5, or weighing over 50 pounds, can wear the regular seatbelts. Sitting the child on a firm cushion or pillow would help the lap belt to fit lower and more properly on the child's hips.

The brief goes on to state that in almost every case it is better to be wearing the seatbelts. In Ontario in 1973,830 drivers died in accidents. The death rate for unbelted drivers was about 2.3 per 1,000 accident-involved drivers. The death rate f or drivers with belts was I per 1,000. These figures show that belts alone cannot save everybody in all collisions. However, they are consistent with studies done elsewhere that show that the belts can reduce the chances of death by more than one-half. Of the few

[ Page 2281 ]

belted drivers killed, some were probably only wearing lap belts. They may have been saved if they had had both the lap and shoulder belts.

Another point that they make is that the belts also help to keep the driver in his seat and in control of the car after even a minor collision. I believe the Minister of Transport mentioned that the racing car drivers are a good example of people who wouldn't go into a race without a properly fastened seatbelt.

Some of the people who argue against seatbelts say that they're safer to get thrown clear of an accident. The article deals with this as well. It states in the various studies that have checked to see whether to be thrown clear would be safer, the risk of death or serious injury is many times greater if the person is thrown out of the car. One-quarter of all the passenger and driver deaths resulted from being thrown out of the vehicle.

In one study it estimated that 80 per cent of the deaths could have been prevented if the person had stayed in the car. Those who believe that it's safer to be thrown out of the car should consider why motorcycle accidents are so dangerous. Motorcyclists suffer an extremely high rate of injury and death in their accidents because they are thrown clear nearly every time. The world outside the car is very dangerous for a fast-moving, unprotected human body.

I think they've done a very good job of compiling their brief, and it certainly fits in with the other studies that were done previously, Mr. Speaker.

In British Columbia we have our own B.C. Road Safety Co-ordinating Council which was formed in 1975 and involves representatives from 29 different organizations, including the government departments, police, the medical profession, the safety council and motoring clubs. I think they are doing a good job of bringing the facts concerning seatbelts to the public. They state on the issue of seatbelts and mandatory seatbelt legislation that:

"Council's unanimous position is that the wearing of available seatbelts should be made mandatory in British Columbia as soon as possible. In this opinion the council is conscious of the fact that only through such legislation has the level of seatbelt wearing been raised in other jurisdictions to the levels of about 50 per cent and further, and that this level of wearing in B.C. can be expected to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the highways by 25 per cent or more."

They have some very interesting statistics in their brief as well, Mr. Speaker. Exhibit 2 mentions that of the people killed in the world in this century, 25 million people were killed in motor vehicle accidents. By all the wars in this century, there were 23.5 million killed. It clearly states how serious the motor-vehicle deaths are. In British Columbia in the last 10 years there were 6,492 deaths and there were 232,064 injured. I think when one stops to think that you could reduce that by 50 per cent by wearing belts, it really amounts to a terrific saving in lives.

In exhibit 3 they go on to state that the motor-vehicle accident is the major cause of potential life lost in Canada. In motor-vehicle accidents the total years of life lost for the data year of 1971 were 213,000 years; heart disease, the next largest killer, was 193,000 years, while all other accidents were 179,000 years lost. Diseases of the lungs were 140,000, while suicide accounted for 69,000 lost years. Mr. Speaker, in regard to those lost years, what makes the motor-vehicle accidents so high is the fact that so many of the people who lose their lives are in their teens and are very young drivers.

When they presented this brief and the film to the Social Credit caucus, they presented a particular instance of a woman being trapped in a car which had overturned and caught on fire. She stated that because of the fact that she was conscious and she knew exactly where she was, she had no difficulty whatsoever in releasing her harness and escaping, Tom the car. She felt that if she hadn't been belted in, she could well have been knocked unconscious and would have been trapped in the fire. So I think most of them. seatbelts do trip fairly easily and certainly are a benefit even in overturning.

Mr. Earle, the chairman of the B.C. Road Safety Co-ordinating Council, sent me further correspondence, and this had to do with the conference of the International Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine that was held in Melbourne, Australia, on January 31 to February 4 of this year. I won't go into too much detail but their first resolution, and I think the most important one to this particular bill, is that:

"The International Conference of the International Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine has reviewed research and other evidence concerning the legislation making the use of seatbelts mandatory. The conference concludes that the evidence which now exists showing that the wearing of lap-sash belts - the three-point belts - by occupants of passenger cars is the most effective measure so far developed in the search for protection against the injury in all types of traffic accidents.

"However, in no country" - and I think this is quite important - "has the seatbelt use reached the desirable levels without legislation making such use compulsory.

"The conference further concludes that governments and other appropriate authorities which have not enacted legislation making seatbelt use mandatory are placing the

[ Page 2282 ]

road-using populations under their administration at very needless risk. The conference therefore recommends the introduction of mandatory seatbelt-use laws in all countries."

I just have a few further articles that I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I have quite a file developed on this over the two years that I have been in here, with the Carnage committee and others interested in the seatbelt legislation who have been sending in a good deal of correspondence on it. I would say with my letters, I am probably running only about 3 per cent against compulsory usage; so I think it shows there is good public support for compulsory seatbelt legislation.

Some of the letters referred to the withdrawal of the legislation last year and an annoyance that it hadn't been presented earlier in the session. Dr. Tulley Chambers from Prince George, who, as I mentioned, was one of the charter members of the Take the Car out of Carnage programme, sent me a letter in regards to the fact that we hadn't submitted it earlier. I'd just like to read a portion of that letter. He says:

"Apparently some of your fellow members of the government are concerned that this is an infringement on personal liberty."

He states that:

"The Carnage committee feels that's a very spurious argument. Certainly the fact that it's costing the average taxpayer a fortune, through failure of others to take all possible reasonable steps to lessen their injury or the chance of them getting killed if they are involved in an accident, is good reason for the compulsory seatbelt legislation. I see no reason why those taxpayers who do wear seatbelts should have to pay the excess medical costs and human resources costs that are unnecessary, because these people refuse to wear the belts. I think where society is paying the shot, society has every right to demand that people wear seatbelts and take every possible precaution to minimize their injuries."

He mentioned the alternative legislation which would be to make them non-compulsory, but to require that the people pay their own damages if they are in an accident, their own medical bills, their own human resource 'benefits and so on. Of course, I'm sure that no one wants to take that attitude and go that step, so I'm quite pleased to see the legislation back before us today.

I think there's one further news article I'd like to quote from. This is from The Vancouver Sun, I believe it was, from Dr. Herbert Parkin. It's an editorial to the paper:

"What's holding B.C. back? The last excuse that we had was the statement that: 'Let's wait and see what happens in Ontario.' Ontario's saving in lives and injuries has been documented for more than six months. There has been a 21 per cent decrease in fatalities and a 25.7 per cent decrease in the injuries for the six-month period from January 1 to June 30,1976. From this data it is shown that 25 per cent of the drivers who are still either not wearing the seatbelts that are available or are driving cars that do not have belts, are sustaining 75 per cent of the deaths.

"Yes, there has been some confusion because speed limits were lowered at the same time, but in the urban byways where there was no change in speed limit, at least a 29 per cent decrease in fatalities has occurred. We have to recognize that of the 600 or 700 people killed in British Columbia each year, 45 per cent of these fall in the 16-to-24 age group, with the sons outnumbering the daughters by a ratio of 3.5 to 1.

"These dead represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, with approximately 500 acute-care hospital beds constantly being filled by the fractured femurs, crushed chests and pulped faces. Add this to the many who never recover: the paraplegic, the head injuries, the lame and the disfigured.

"The fact that this is a disease of the young can be shown in another way, by analyzing the number of years of life lost. . . ."

I believe I ran through that earlier in one of the other reports where it stressed that the major cause of death, coronary heart disease, caused a loss of 192,000 man-years, but motor-vehicle accidents caused a loss of 234,000 man-years.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just interrupt you long enough to draw your attention to the fact that you are in your final three minutes.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): As a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is he the speaker for the government side?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the clock is on the hon. member on his feet. He has 40 minutes as well as anyone else who speaks, other than the minister who introduced the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Is it decided who... ? Under standing orders, Mr. Speaker, is it automatically the... ?

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, no. I'm just wondering this just as a point because I don't know that this has

[ Page 2283 ]

happened very often. I'm wondering if the minister is automatically the designated speaker for the government side.

MR. SPEAKER: Not necessarily - no more than the Leader of the Opposition is the designated speaker for the opposition side.

MR. LLOYD: I appreciate the member's concern. I wasn't running through it for the purpose of boring the House by any means, and I was going to get to that in my closing remarks.

I think it's very vital, Mr. Speaker, that we make it very clear to the House and to the public how important this legislation is to the province when we have these seatbelts already in the cars, when they're a safety feature that is there, and we're not using them. I would like to see us go a lot higher than what Ontario has managed to accomplish. I'd like to see us get up to 80 or 90 per cent. So I think it's very important that we clearly illustrate the benefits of these seatbelts. I think the saving in dollars alone at this present time would be justified without talking about the saving in the young lives that are tragically lost in automobile accidents.

For that very same reason, after we had the presentation from the B.C. safety committee, I asked if they would make that same presentation to the opposition side because I feel it's very important that we have as unanimous an agreement on this particular legislation as possible. I think it'll indicate to all the people in the province how necessary we feel it is, how important we feel it is. It might help raise the level of usage. Even if it raised it to 5 or 10 per cent, that would account for a good deal of lives saved every year.

I do thank the House for their tolerance for me presenting the material I had. As I mentioned, it's a very small portion of what I received on this during the last two years.

I would ask all members to endorse this legislation and give is as unanimous support as possible. It will help the Carnage committee in their original programme of Taking the Car out of Carnage.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to move the adjournment of the debate on Bill 7 until the next sitting of the House.

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: The House Leader had indicated before that he was going to swing into other legislation, but I'll withdraw if they want to go ahead.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wish to commend the government and the minister concerned, and perhaps particularly the Premier, for this progressive legislation when he was elected and decided that governments cannot be bound necessarily by resolutions of their own party in convention. If this bill demonstrates nothing else, it demonstrates that kind of courage on the part of the Premier to decide that what his cabinet believes to be in the best interests of the people of British Columbia is the decision that will be made, even when it conflicts with convention resolutions of his own party. I respect that decision. I haven't seen it happen before that I can remember, and I think for that reason that this is something of an historic bill in this House. It shows leadership by the Premier of this province which deserves recognition and commendation.

I think it also represents the importance of many groups in society taking their own initiatives in helping governments to realize the importance of this kind of legislation. In a way, it represents the best, in a phrase coined by another politician, about "participatory democracy."

The member for Prince George has made an enormous contribution to this subject, and I think he should also be given credit and congratulations, not only for the work of the Carnage committee, but for the way in which he has consistently presented facts and figures to this House which justify this legislation being brought forward at this time.

It is the participation of groups of that nature -the nurses association, the B.C. Auto Association, the B.C. Medical Association and many other groups -that is setting some kind of example in our modern society by taking the initiatives that they did. Too often today there are voices in society who are always asking: why doesn't the government do this and why doesn't the government do the next thing? But the degree to which these same voices will actively take the trouble to go to government or to research the material and present the researched material to government, is disappointingly infrequent. So I think that, in many respects, regardless of the inherent content of this bill, the events which led up to this bill are exciting in themselves. It seems to have resulted from a greater degree of dialogue between many groups in society and the government, and a greater degree of research and documentation by interested groups, which then took the next important step of convincing government that the purposes behind such legislation are well founded.

I wouldn't want to repeat a lot of the facts and figures that will probably be mentioned in this debate. Any criticism that I might offer is being put forward in a constructive way. I do believe, although I wholeheartedly support the principle of this bill, it can be improved in some ways. The data that's been presented and probably will be presented in the debate, in my view, makes it completely unquestionable that the use of seatbelts reduces the number of injuries and fatal accidents. I don't want

[ Page 2284 ]

to spend the time of the House repeating information and data which proves that point.

I think, again, that the member for Prince George has done an excellent job of quoting the solid facts and figures that support the concept of the use of seatbelts. There's no question at all that a seatbelt accomplishes two vital results: it keeps the occupant securely within the car, and it reduces the severity of impact. In fatal accidents, the single most common factor is the ejection of the individual from the vehicle.

Here again, while there are arguments presented by certain individuals that they would prefer to avoid the use of seatbelts so that they might not be trapped in a vehicle, there is only partial validity in that point of view, because the statistics show very clearly that most of the fatal accidents occur because of ejection of the individual on impact. In fact, another study shows that where....

This is interesting. I was interested in the member for Fort George's comments on the same point. I have a document somewhere - we all have our documents. This was a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail in July of last year. It's quoting statistics that 90 per cent of persons who are ejected from the vehicle are fatally injured, so I don't think, again, that there is need to belabour that point. The facts and the figures speak for themselves, and this is one area that we are dealing with today where the amount of information from all around the world is increasing at a great rate. We already have enough basic information and facts and figures on which I believe we can reach a very sound and reasonable conclusion.

There is resistance to the use of seatbelts - and I think we can't take part in this debate without recognizing it - and there seems to be a lack of motivation. The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that people do not feel vulnerable. I've seen this in the same way in medical practice, regardless of whether it's an injury from a vehicle accident. It's the basic human reaction of: "it can't happen to me." It's the same with persons, let us say, who smoke very heavily, or drink very heavily, or overeat and go to the physician. The physician tries to point out that the likely consequences of continuing in that lifestyle are possibly lung cancer, or duodenal ulcers, or whatever. But that patient time and time again, 99 times out of 100, tells the physician: "Well, that may be what happens to most people who indulge in these habits, but it won't happen to me."

I know that in wartime it perhaps was very fortunate that so many people did think that way because they saw people being killed around them in warfare and they kept feeling that the bullet would never hit them or the bomb would never hit their house. So in wartime that may be an advantage in society, but in peacetime that lack of sense of being vulnerable, that "while other people get killed in car accidents it can't happen to me, " is one of the most difficult public factors that we must all collectively try to overcome. The individual's perception of his or her own likelihood of injury or death is remarkably poor.

The other factor that I think the minister very clearly and rightly touched upon is the convenience of use of whatever apparatus is to be used and the comfort while wearing that apparatus. If these two factors could also be improved then I think the motivation would be increased for more people to use seatbelts, regardless of legislation.

Now I want to touch particularly on the element of this argument which deals with the rights of the individual. I've had a particular amount of protests on my desk and on my telephone because one of the issues that I frequently talk about in this House, and have done ever since I was first elected, is the rights of the individual in the face of big government. I'm just as anxious and concerned as anybody in this chamber, or perhaps anybody in British Columbia, that there is a real danger in society today that governments increase in size, increase in power, increase in the number of people carrying out government orders. There is an ever-present danger that the individual isn't only being further and further removed from levels of government, but is increasingly having his rights eroded by government.

Mr. Speaker, individual rights must always be balanced against the rights of society as a whole, and that must never be forgotten. The individual in society should always be given the widest possible freedom to exercise his rights as long as they do not penalize or unfairly interfere with the rights of others and the rights of society as a whole. The action of driving on a public highway is not a private action which affects no one else. Driving on a public highway is a privilege and not a right, and it must be performed with due regard to the safety of others. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that a vehicle occupant without a safety harness or a seatbelt literally becomes a misguided missile inside a vehicle when it comes into sudden impact during an accident.

I have already mentioned that a person ejected from a vehicle not only has about a 90 per cent certainty of being killed himself but, through the fact that his body becomes a missile, is very much a danger to others, whether it's others in the vehicle or pedestrians on the highway or vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. So we cannot escape the fact that this is not just a matter of an individual exercising his rights when he drives a motor vehicle. Any one of us, the minute we step into a motor vehicle, has a responsibility to others on the highway, whether they be vehicles or whether they're pedestrians.

The other factor which has already been mentioned in debate is that unquestionably a driver

[ Page 2285 ]

who wears some form of restraint is more securely held there on impact and is more likely to retain a better and greater control of the vehicle. Once again, that better control of the vehicle is of tremendous importance in preventing injury or death to innocent other parties, either in the vehicle or pedestrians on the highway or other vehicles approaching from the opposite direction.

The minister made an excellent point, Mr. Speaker, when he talked about demolition derbies. I was interested the other day when I listened to an open-line programme. I don't know if many people in this House follow auto racing, but Jackie Stewart, who's one of Scotland's finest sons, is now retired from....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he still alive?

MR. WALLACE: He's still alive and he's retired, and making a lot more money than he ever made car racing, I might say. But that's irrelevant. The point was, Mr. Speaker, that he was on the Jack Webster programme and somebody phoned in. In the bluntest, most direct way they said to Jackie Stewart: "What is your opinion on the mandatory use of seatbelts?" Before the questioner could even get the question finished, Jackie Stewart made it plain in the clearest of language that ...

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): A Scottish language.

MR. WALLACE: Of Scottish language, yes.

... unquestionably a driver of a vehicle without a seatbelt simply rolls around and gets thrown from one side to the other or out or through the door or through the windshield or whatever.

I think that if it's good enough for Jackie Stewart, who happens to be one of the best drivers the business has seen, surely.... I'm a little prejudiced, yes. He's a good Scotsman. But seriously, the directness of his answer and the evidence he quoted, and the fact that these people whose profession involves driving consider that the No. 1 requirement when they get behind the wheel.... If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for every citizen in British Columbia.

In dealing with individual rights, Mr. Speaker, I'm also a little surprised that so many people have been giving me a lot of criticism because they feel I should be opposing this bill because I'm always preaching individual rights. We have a very substantial number of precedents of which this is only a very similar provision.

I wonder how many people ever challenge the airlines when they get on an airplane. Before they can get off the ground the prerequisite from the Ministry of Transport at the federal level is that everybody buckle their seatbelts. When an airplane crashes, people seem to accept very clearly that their chances of survival are a great deal better if you don't have bodies flying through the confined space in the cabin.

So is it just a matter of degree? Do they feel that 50 miles per hour on the highway is so much safer than 400 miles per hour in the air? While you wear seatbelts in an airplane, it isn't of the same significance to wear them in a motorcar? I think that's a very inadequate line of reasoning. It seems to me that the physics of the situation and the statistics available make it very plain that if it's reasonable to compel people to buckle up when they're in an airplane, it's equally reasonable and sensible to do so in motor vehicles on the highway.

Of course, we also have the example where motorcyclists - and again, the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) pointed it out very clearly - have a high percentage of fatalities in motorcycle accidents because the cyclist is thrown a distance and may often land on his head. We have legislation which makes it mandatory for motorcyclists to wear helmets. So this next step in the same direction of providing a greater measure of safety and the lesser number of accidents and fatalities seems to me to have a great deal of sound, logical justification for it.

With regard to exemptions, I notice this bill changes the previous bill a little bit by having medical certification to be approved by the superintendent of motor vehicles. I suppose, perhaps, the minister can give us more details in committee stage on how that's to function.

I had one very strong letter from an elderly driver who felt that statistics show that a large number of the accidents are caused by younger, less careful drivers who usually also finish up having more points against their licence. He was making the point that perhaps exemptions should be possible for elderly drivers with a clean driving record and no points against them. I would say in passing that I think there is perhaps some validity for that. I think that elderly citizens find basic adjustments to be a little more difficult than younger people, and it may well be that elderly drivers who have clean driving records and no points might somehow be given that consideration within the regulations. It's a point worth considering, I think.

I don't want to make a great deal of the economic factors, because other speakers have mentioned them today and I'm sure other speakers in the debate will repeat the savings in dollars and hospital bed costs and all the other economic factors. I would prefer to emphasize that I do not believe that this is an intrusion into the rights of an individual, since the individual driving a car on a public highway is not carrying out a private act which does not affect anybody else. I think our debate today has emphasized time and time again that the

[ Page 2286 ]

responsibility, when an individual gets behind the wheel, is not just to himself or herself. It is a serious responsibility to minimize in every possible way the potential to do harm, or even to bring death, to others. I can't think of a more important way in which an individual has to exercise that responsibility. It has also been shown, where legislation has been introduced of this nature, that usage has increased.

The last point I want to mention quickly is that I hope the minister will embark upon some substantial programme of publicity prior to proclamation of this bill. I don't think anyone in this House would disagree with the fact that if we could find ways of persuading people to use seatbelts without legislation, we would all be much happier. It's a little bit like the argument we had on lotteries the other day: there may not be enough money for medical research, but if it can be provided through a method that is less than your No. I choice, you don't turn it aside. Similarly, we're introducing legislation which makes seatbelt use mandatory. But I would still hope that we would all make every possible effort to persuade the use of seatbelts by the justness of our argument. It's a lot easier to persuade people because your argument is sound, than to use the always-present club, if I could use that word, in the form of legislation.

I will talk in the committee stage about the penalties. I'm not sure that the concept of a fine is the best method. I still feel that there are options -and I have no wish to intrude upon the amendment that I've placed on the order paper. But I think the government should at least give consideration to using the point system rather than fines because, once again, there is a principle involved that I think might be more effective in the long run.

I hope that the government will also take all the measures it can in conjunction with industry to find more effective forms of restraint in terms of the convenience of use and the comfort in wearing them. One of the deficiencies in this bill - and I know there are reasons why it's deficient in this regard - relates to children under the age of six. The main problem seems to be that there are no adequate restraints being manufactured at the present time which can be safely used to protect children under the age of six. In the Ontario legislation, children under five or persons weighing less than 50 pounds are exempt from the provisions of the legislation.

I understand - again from the same report of July, 1976, in The Globe and Mail, which I quoted from -that the Canadian Standards Association and the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are trying to work out some agreement standard that could be used for young children. The same article I quoted earlier related to just two deaths in Toronto: one seven-month-old child was sitting on her mother's lap when a car coming in the opposite direction came across the middle of the highway. The result was that the child had her heart pierced by a rib and died.

Another case was quoted of a three-month-old child where the steering failed and the vehicle hit a hydro pole, and this three-month-old child was thrown against the windshield and fractured her skull and died.

These are cases of very young children whom I think represent a substantial percentage of the total of fatalities that, even though this bill is good legislation and the minister has improved on last year's bill.... I say this in a constructive way. I'm not suggesting the answer exists today, but I hope the minister will give us some assurance that we should take initiatives with industry to try to find appropriate ways to protect children under 6, where the statistics show that quite often they are thrown around inside the vehicle. Unfortunately, a young child in an adult restraint might be just as seriously damaged because of the inadequacy of that restraint.

Just my last comment would be that I think this is not a panacea by any means for solving the problems of injury and death on the highway. Drinking and driving still remains the major problem in the causation and consequences of serious traffic accidents. I know that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has given a commitment that he will be launching an all-out attack on the drinking and driving problem in the province. So I hope this legislation, together with the Attorney-General's efforts, will bring about a fairly rapid and substantial reduction in the carnage on our highways.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I have only one or two short comments to make. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) wanted assurance that my ministry would look at new seatbelt designs. Certainly it's prepared to do that. It has been monitoring them. We'll be prepared in the future to make certain recommendations.

He asked also about when the bill, if it were to become law, would be proclaimed. I would say late summer, perhaps September, October at the latest. It is important, as the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, to make certain that the public is fully informed as to the advantages, advisability, desirability of wearing seatbelts. We intend to carry on an intensive campaign to that end.

The hon. member for Oak Bay also mentioned the necessity of restraining children under 6 in some suitable manner. The basic problem is that suitable restraint systems haven't been developed. Also there is a technical problem as far as our present legislation is concerned. We are passing a bill which deals with seatbelts which are already attached to vehicles. Most of the under-6 children-restraint systems are add-ons

[ Page 2287 ]

which the individual vehicle owner should have to buy. So it is a somewhat different situation. However we'll bear all those matters in mind, Mr. Speaker, an~ no doubt hear more about them at the committee stage. I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 38

NAYS - I

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 7, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1) , read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the government has asked that the opposition consider agreeing to this bill and all its stages today in order that it can receive royal assent this afternoon, and we are happy to agree to that request. We will vote for the bill and my remarks will be very brief.

It's an improvement; it's something that we do support to the extent to which it is an improvement. Our only suggestions would be to ask the minister to indicate to the House whether or not he views this bill or any other piece of legislation which he might contemplate as a means of furthering a programme established by our administration, which was into its second year by the time we got booted out of office, to remove altogether from the property tax the raising of funds for school districts in British Columbia. This bill makes no such commitment, Mr. Speaker; the government at the moment has made no similar commitment.

This bill could conceivably be used to remove the property tax as the basis for school financing in British Columbia. We are disappointed that the bill makes no such provision and that the minister has yet to make any such commitment. That's the major objection that we do have, if "objection" is the word, to this particular bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's a question.

MR. BARBER: Or "question, " if you prefer, Mr. Minister. We would appreciate the point of view expressed by the minister about the commitment his government feels to removing that tax altogether. Both sides of the House agree it is quite inequitable. It's illogical and cannot be explained or defended in any competent way. There is no reason why the property tax should fund school programmes in British Columbia. This bill does not, in its present form, go further toward eliminating that. We wonder what the minister's point of view is on the programme which was, as I say, into its second year of a five-year programme to remove it altogether during our administration.

Those are the questions and that's the point of view we have, Mr. Speaker. We do support this bill and we are happy to see that assent is given it this afternoon.

MR. WALLACE: I am happy to support this bill. I have spoken many times about the plight of the elderly who are so often on fixed incomes and have the toughest job of dealing with the rising cost of living. Since this government is also introducing legislation to help the elderly renters, it only seems to make sense to give the homeowner over 65 some additional assistance. After a year when inflation rose at 8.6 per cent in 1976, it seems to me a very reasonable attempt by this government to give a little extra help to the homeowner.

I would like to support the comments by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that we on this side of the House would like some information to have some indication as to what part this bill may or may not play in achieving the ultimate goal of the government, as stated at the last election, to remove education tax from property. While this is not the time to debate that particular issue, I do feel obligated to support the very valid question asked by the second member for Victoria. Within the limitations of this bill, I certainly commend the government and will support it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): While

[ Page 2288 ]

certainly I agree and support the bill I just feel that I cannot let it go through without raising a couple of points that appear to me to be somewhat objectionable in the bill. In the first instance, it is relating only to those over 65 and those in receipt of the handicapped pension. It is excluding that group below 65 who could well be needing the kind of relief that this bill will provide in the way of a tax burden relief. I am very sorry to see that it does not extend down to age 60 or perhaps even age 55.

The other thing that bothers me about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that in many ways it is going to give relief to people who, perhaps, do not need that relief. The point I would make is that many of our pensioners live in small holdings in rural areas where their tax load is already reduced by existing homeowner grants to the point that many of those people on very low incomes are, at the present time, only paying the minimal token amount of $1. This will do nothing for them.

It will help those who are perhaps better off and are able to afford better homes. It will provide that $50 to the people who live in Oak Bay or Point Grey or any of the exclusive districts, and they will certainly take advantage of it. But there are many people who live in the rural areas, out in the small areas where the tax assessments are not as great, where the homes are not particularly high quality, probably substandard housing, and it is absolutely no help to them because they are already down to the $1 minimum.

To me, it is not getting at the root of the problem. It's not going to those who need it the most in all instances. While I recognize the fact that it will help some senior citizens who do need that kind of help, it's not going to be of help to those who really, perhaps, need it the most. That includes those who are living in substandard housing who are over 65 and those who are of lower age than 65. 1 just felt that I had to point that out to the minister, the fact that it was having that kind of an effect on many, many people in the rural areas - just no effect.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members who have spoken on this amending bill, and I've made notes of what they've said. Whether I can answer all the points today or not is a matter of interest really. I feel that as far as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is concerned, Mr. Speaker, within the confines of this particular bill, which simply increases and extends assistance under the Home-owner Grant Act, I can't answer the question -the very broad question, really - with respect to removal of property tax for school purposes. I think that's understood by the member who raised the question.

There is going to be further legislation with respect to the relationship between provincial government and local government in the course of this session, Mr. Speaker, and next year as well, I would imagine, as we continue to evolve assistance to the property owner, to the tenant - that's the subject of another bill - and to local government as a unit. But for the purposes of this bill, I'm afraid I just can't say anything more than was indicated in opening the debate introducing the bill for second reading.

I have a similar remark to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) with respect to the 60-to-64 age group, if I understood her comments to be directed to that particular group. Further refinements under the homeowner grant assistance programme will, I trust, come in due course.

There's one important thing with respect to the homeowner grant which I'm sure all members recognize, Mr. Speaker, and that is that there isn't a means test. The argument has been advanced by a number of people in the province from time to time with respect to the fairness of the homeowner grant as a mechanism for transferring money to a property owner. To introduce a means test in the case of HOG.... I'm not sure it would be that effective. I'm sure the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, will recognize that the magnitude of the assistance offered through the homeowner grant is considerable where there is a lower total tax bill. If the tax bill is in excess of $2,000, as it would be in the very higher categories, the very wealthy homeowner, then the assistance offered is relatively small. But where you're dealing with a smaller property, a less expensive property with a lower tax bill, then, of course, this assumes even greater significance.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that those remarks are of some use to the hon. members as they consider this matter. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 18 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 18, Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1977 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in Committee on Bill 18; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 2289 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on , second reading of Bill 2 1.

TRAVEL AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT

(continued)

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I'll try to be relatively brief, Mr. Speaker; I understand we have something happening a little later on.

What I'd like to say first of all is that while the legislation certainly is necessary, I think the fact that we're in the process of doing it is really something of an indictment against the industry. The industry has had warning of this kind of legislation for about two years. Now it's had an opportunity to get its own house in order. It hasn't done that. It's had an opportunity to view what has gone on in Ontario in 1974 when they passed the legislation and then the amendments in 1976. 1 say that they haven't got their own house in order.

When you think about the industry in B.C., it's worth about $250 million. I understand that on the Island here, they write something like $50 million. Yet the amount of ripoff - and, of course, that's what we're concerned about with this legislation -probably comes to less than half a million dollars. It's amazing to me that the industry wasn't prepared to do something on its own account.

One of the things that evidently has been demonstrated as a result of the introduction of this legislation is that the industry is now very unhappy with the fact that we could be going the route that they went in Ontario, which is the trust account route. I understand that the minister has filed some amendments relating to this.

We are constantly told by people in business that they don't want government involvement. Well, if they don't want government involvement, they certainly have to do something about putting their own house in order. In this case, I think the travel industry can be criticized for not doing this. Fortunately, the industry is a healthy one; it's a growth industry. The amount of ripoff is small. Let's not get any impression at all that by and large the community is not in any way in safe hands when they're dealing with the travel industry.

There are, of course, some fly-by-night operators or ripoff artists who come in. From time to time they're able to "sucker" some of the smaller agencies into getting into situations which.... I think perhaps the most recent one, in January - the Haina people went belly-up. As a result of a number of people were not able to carry through with their travel plans. There's an interesting example. For instance, on Vancouver Island the loss will probably come to $160,000, less what one company has agreed to pick up plus what they might have in terms of assets. But that's out of a $50 million business, so that's a good record.

Again, in talking to the industry I found that a number of people were aware that Haina was coming in and operating a boiler-room operation. But somehow they didn't bother to tell anybody. They didn't, for instance, tell the minister's department. That's a problem. If they'd have done that, I think some of the people would have been protected.

The question now in the bill is: how, specifically, can the industry be monitored? One of the very serious problems in Ontario, which has something like 1,200 agents, is that the registrar - and it's intended in the legislation to have a registrar - only has two staff members to monitor about 1,200 operations. Well, we would hope, if we're very serious about monitoring the operations here in British Columbia, that we are going to have some staff.

The other concern, of course, has to be with the registrar himself. It's generally felt that he should come from the industry-, he should be somebody who's had the actual work experience of being a travel agent and knows all the problems, and who will have staff to be able to do the monitoring.

The other question really relates to the difficulties in relation to compensation - that fund, and how it will be made up. Using the Ontario formula, where what they were doing was something of a percentage - I think it's about 2.5 to 3 per cent of the total value of the turnover of the particular agency operation - they came up with a fund of something like $400,000 to $500,000.

Given our experience in British Columbia, that might prove to be adequate, especially.... If we're going to have some monitoring, we are less likely to have people come in and try to rip off the public. One can't get away from the feeling that it's a bit of a sledgehammer bill for a very small problem, but it's needed.

I keep wanting to emphasize that this kind of legislation really should be a warning to other sections of the business community that if they have problems within their own particular industries they shouldn't wait for the government to start setting up the kind of legislation to police them, but rather they should do it themselves in the first instance. I recall recently meeting with some travel agents, particularly

[ Page 2290 ]

in relation to the proposal that there should be a trust-fund operation in terms of how they were to keep control, and I suggested to them that they should make a presentation to the government and the various caucuses on how they see the legislation operating and what alternatives they have. They haven't done that.

There is an element in the formation of this bill which also, I think, can be aimed at the government that there hasn't been an adequate amount of consultation. I realize that the government has met once or twice with the industry, but the thing is that it's almost a brinkmanship situation where everybody is very unhappy in the industry about the trust funds. I'm given to understand that there will be a trust fund designation. The problems involved in the actual operation of the monitoring and the reporting will not be as arduous as they thought, but because that particular application, in the way the bill is written at the moment, would cost operations more money to be doing the monitoring of trust funds, it would be very hard on small businesses, and because in the final analysis whatever cost there was going to be would be passed on to the consumer, it would not be something that the agencies could carry themselves. A lot of this could have been avoided if there had been adequate consultation, particularly in relation to alternatives - whether they're discussing the question of bonding, and that has not always worked out particularly well.

In doing some research on the bill, I found a fair amount of literature on this particular problem, particularly as there have been three provinces that have been actively involved in it. I don't think that we should kid ourselves that just because we are going to have a piece of legislation like this somehow we're going to obviate some of the problems. I think the public should be warned particularly, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation basically covers companies that are registered in the province. Now if we have companies operating that are registered outside of the province, compensation is not forthcoming.

Perhaps the minister when he closes debate would indicate whether in fact there are any discussions going on across the country about some kinds of reciprocal arrangements in which all of the consumers in Canada would -be covered by the various provincial Acts so that they would be able to get compensation in terms of the various companies in other provinces. That's a problem.

I don't know whether one can require that people who are operating in the travel industry field should be registered companies in British Columbia. That smacks of very heavy-handed government legislation. But the public should bear in mind that this is the beginning of this legislation. It is in no way going to ensure that~everyone will be protected, particularly those people who are dealing with agencies that are not registered in the province.

We've had, in recent months - or certainly in the last two years - a number of very unfortunate occurrences. They are basically as a result of what I think can be characterized as fly-by-night operations. I have in mind the Redwing travel agency, which went belly up last year, in 1976. Then there was the All-Fun International, which also had problems in November, 1975. We had the one in Victoria, the Air Club International, which had trouble in 1975.

We have to have, through the credit bureau, the Better Business Bureau and the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a better alerting system for the public on who is going to come in and be able to do business in the province. I think, for instance, we have to be concerned about municipalities that licence companies that can operate this way. There has to be that kind of close co-operation, because in the Haina case they were in the province less than 30 days and really cleaned up. Out they went, and a number of people were left high and dry.

So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the industry failed over the past two years to put its own house in order. I appreciate that it's a very small part of its house but, nevertheless, if somebody puts himself forward as a travel agency, it brings everybody in. Everybody who's involved in that industry is somehow involved in the particular rip-off situation because it's the same industry. I appreciate that 99 per cent of the agents in the province - and there are some 500 of them - are hard-working. It's a tough business, particularly for small-business people. But it does have to be a warning, I think, to other industries, as I've said. If you don't want the government to get involved then, for God's sake, put your own house in order, and then you won't have to have it the way this has come in now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the members would afford us the opportunity of having an adjournment of the debate at this time until the next sitting of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay had the floor. I presume that he wishes to speak on it.

Mr. Wallace moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Would all members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

[ Page 2291 ]

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Change of Name Amendment Act, 1977

British Columbia Hydro And Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1977

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1977

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Repeal Act Liquor Distribution Amendment Act, 1977

Home Purchase Assistance Amendment Act, 1977

Farm Income Assurance Amendment Act, 1977

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1977

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1977

Agricultural Produce Grading Act Consumer Protection Act

Provincial Home-owner Amendment Act, 1977

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

APPENDIX

61 Mrs. Daily asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

1. Does the Government pay any part of the expense of the State Ball?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, what is the total amount paid, or to be paid, by the Government for the 1977 State Ball?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has made no claim on the Provincial Government for payment of expenses in regard to the 1977 State Ball."

79 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

With reference to convention co-ordinator John Plul's trip to Monte Carlo-

1. What were the total expenses of his trip?

2. I-lave any specific European conventions made firm bookings in British Columbia as a result of this trip?

3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, what are the names, dates, and specific locations of the conventions?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"J. The total expenses of his trip from Vancouver to London, Monte Carlo Nice, London, and return to Vancouver was $2,234.74. It should be noted that only part of his trip was concerned with Monte Carlo.

"2. Yes.

"3. Several conventions are confirmed over the next three years and negotiations are proceeding with an additional number of organizations who have expressed a definite interest in British Columbia as the location for their next international convention."

SO Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

With reference to R. N. Lillico, Information Officer, British Columbia House, England-

1. Did the present Government pay Mr. Lillico any money for services rendered prior to his appointment as information officer on August 1,1976?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, (a) what were the services rendered and (b) what were the amounts paid?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"No., ,