[ Page 2551 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

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

Housing initiative program. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2552

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

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Hall –– 2553

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2556

Mr. Cocke –– 2558

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2558

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2560

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2561

Mr. Lockstead –– 2562

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2562

Mr. Passarell –– 2563

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2563

Mr. Skelly –– 2563

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2564

Mr. Barber –– 2564

Mr. Lorimer –– 2565

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2566

Mr. Leggatt –– 2566

Mr. Barrett –– 2567

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2568

Mr. Cocke –– 2572

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Visiting us today in the gallery are Mr. and Mrs. Michael Rea from Bangor, Northern Ireland. Mr. Rea is a leading referee, and he is here to referee the Canada-Wales international rugby match this Saturday in Vancouver at Swangard Stadium. I think it must be a thankless task. Can we welcome these visitors to British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: This is somewhat unusual; it's not really an introduction of a person who is here. I would like to mention that in the press gallery at the present time there are people who know very well this individual I'm going to comment on — both present and past members of the gallery. You can find members of the Canadian press who were, you might say, educated and trained by this man. You would even find some of his graduates in government information services.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman I refer to is Mr. Grev Rowland, publisher of the Penticton Herald. He was born in Quebec, graduated from UBC, and moved to the Okanagan in 1930, first as a reporter and then as an editor of the Vernon Daily News, a position he held until he purchased the Penticton Herald in 1940. He then took that paper from a small weekly to a twice-weekly publication, to a three-times-a-week publication, and then in 1957 into the ranks of the Canadian daily newspapers. His newspapers won many awards of excellence, including the prestigious Mason Trophy awarded for the best newspaper in Canada in its circulation class. As I said, there are reporters in the press gallery, past and present — and in other press galleries in the country — who owe a lot of their expertise to this gentleman. He's not in the House today, but I ask the House to join me in wishing him a happy retirement, as he retired as the publisher of the Penticton Herald two days ago. I would just like to extend my thanks as the MLA for that area and, I think, as a member of the government of this province for the contribution he has made to this province over the past number of years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting us today from the Seaquam Secondary School in North Delta are 25 students with their instructor, Mr. Ken Thompson, and I would ask the House to bid them a very warm welcome.

Oral Questions

JOB SECURITY IN FOREST SERVICE

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Forest Service employees in the Kootenay, Kamloops and Cariboo areas have taken unprecedented job action to protest lack of job security resulting from the minister's reorganization policy. Is the minister planning a review of the reorganization policy to guarantee employment security for existing staff as well as provide them with the right to compete for new positions within the ministry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I'm not planning on again reviewing the reorganization of the Forests ministry. We have reviewed this for the last several years with everyone in the Forests ministry. We have now all but completed the reorganization. It does not provide any loss of job security or any changes in opportunities. If anything, it increases career opportunities for most people in the Forests ministry. This reorganization is a part of moves made within this ministry to assure proper management of our forest and range resources in the province.

MR. NICOLSON: Does the minister realize that some of the transfer options would require families to split up in order for one spouse to maintain present employment and the other one to seek a transfer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are many individual problems related to the ministry, and we are talking on a one-to-one basis with anybody who may be adversely affected. As a ministry, we will do everything we possibly can to assure that there are no disruptions of family or individual lifestyles within the industry.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question to the Minister of Forests. Has the minister received a request to approve the sale of Crows Nest Forest Products to CANFOR, Canadian Forest Products Ltd?

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

MR. KING: Can the minister assure the House that no approval will be given to a transfer of licences and permits to a new owner until there is a guarantee that there will be no job loss?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked me by the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) some time ago, and my answer to him still stands.

MR. KING: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the minister's final comments. Did I understand him correctly in saying that there would be no loss of jobs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What I said, if the member would listen, was that the answer I gave to the member for Kootenay is still a valid answer. That describes the situation as it is.

MR. KING: I didn't ask for arrogance: I asked for the courtesy of an answer. Be that as it may, I have a new question for the minister. Is the minister aware that as of May 15, 7,063 IWA members have been laid off and a further 2,200 layoffs are expected in the next four weeks?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of many temporary layoffs in the forest industry right now. I cannot speak to the specific numbers that the member gave me.

[ Page 2552 ]

MR. KING: I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has met with the sawmill operators in B.C. to discuss what measures might be taken to alleviate the growing unemployment in the forest industry in the province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm in constant discussion with all sectors of the entire forest industry about this very serious problem, and the government is cognizant of the fact that there are market problems these days, primarily because of high interest rates in the United States and Canada. The situation is easing somewhat now. There are indications that there will be a much earlier end to the serious market conditions than was previously anticipated. I hope that will be true and that job disruptions will be of an extremely short-term nature.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal in the human breast, but I'd like to ask the minister: when did he last hold a meeting with the industry to discuss this particular problem? What precise steps has the minister proffered as a means of alleviating the unemployment?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, my last discussion with people from the forest industry on this subject was yesterday. As to the second question, Mr. Speaker, it's out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the question may be asked, and the member may decline to answer, but whether or not the question is order or not must be left to the discretion of the Chair.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think it's somewhat presumptuous of the minister to try to instruct the Speaker. The question was: can the minister advise the House what precise steps he has advocated and put forward as a method, on a temporary basis, of alleviating these layoffs in the forest industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member has slightly rephrased his question, but it still deals with government policy, which is still being developed.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. I'm wondering if the minister can advise the House whether his ministry has geared up employment counselling, relocation and other advisory services for workers who have been laid off in the forest industry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that with respect to the forest industry generally the ministry has not been geared up. The problem presently being addressed was one to which we referred yesterday, I believe, involving Ocean Falls — to help those employees who will be displaced or seeking relocation elsewhere.

MS. SANFORD: I understand that the only gearing up that's been done is towards the problem at Ocean Falls. Was that the correct answer? All right.

I'm wondering then if the minister has reviewed the situation in most western European countries where major industry bears direct responsibility for employees laid off through no fault of their own. Has the minister studied what's happening there?

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

HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Lands , Parks and Housing. Can the minister advise whether the government has decided to expand the 9¾ percent mortgage lending program in view of rising unemployment in the forest industry, continued crippling mortgage rates and a zero rental vacancy rate?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I might say in response to some of the statements made by the member for North Island that in British Columbia the percentage of people unemployed is the lowest it has been in a number of years — 6.9 percent. Certainly we're endeavouring to improve on that position. It's progressively improved in recent months because of the progressive economic activities of this government.

On the question of 9¾ percent mortgage, that $200 million program of housing initiative which was so well received by British Columbians and did such a tremendous job in alleviating, to a certain degree, the rental situation which we're facing in the province has been a very successful program. At the moment we're examining a series of methods by which we can look at, and hopefully rectify, some of the problems we're facing which are essentially in the rental market in this province.

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

In view of the present serious housing crisis — which no one would deny — has the minister decided to enter into negotiations with the federal government, with a view to providing joint federal-provincial funds for co-op and non-profit housing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, the minister in charge of CMHC, was visiting Victoria about three weeks ago, I indicated to him that there was a need for additional funding for the production of co-op housing units in British Columbia. I urged his government to give serious consideration to the shortage of funding for this type of housing in British Columbia. I expect to have a reply from that minister fairly shortly.

You have to take into consideration that we signed an agreement with the national government, deregulating to a substantial degree the responsibilities.... We disentangled, I might say, the two bureaucracies that existed — CMHC and my ministry — so that there wouldn't be conflicting endeavours.

The question of additional funding for co-op housing is one which I have urged Mr. Cosgrove to give serious consideration to, so that there can be additional units, instead of the, I believe, 518 units which are deemed to be coming on stream in the current fiscal year. I have urged him to give additional funding for this program, because it is a good, effective program to help people of low and moderate income.

MR. GABELMANN: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government has somewhere around $1 billion in the bank, when the federal gov-

[ Page 2553 ]

ernment expands its contribution to co-op housing — if it does — has the minister decided to use additional provincial funds to cost-share with the federal government in this field of co-op housing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that question could best be replied to by that member having an opportunity to read the agreement with the national government which we signed last year.

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

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

BUS PASSES FOR
ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with bus passes. On May 7 I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources regarding bus passes for handicapped people and seniors. She advised me that negotiations with the GVRD were underway with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and that my question should have been to that minister. However, since that time I have in my possession a letter from Mr. Emmott, chairman of the GVRD board of directors, which states:

"Your concerns regarding restrictions on uses of passes issued by the Human Resources Ministry are part of a current discussion between the Ministry of Human Resources and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The regional district is more than willing to eliminate any limitations on human resources passes, providing the ministry pays to the GVRD an amount commensurate with the cost of services provided."

So I'm asking the minister once again, Mr. Speaker, June 1 is drawing close and there are 28,000 greater Vancouver handicapped and senior citizens who are going to be restricted unless these negotiations are complete. Will the minister give us an assurance that that will be done before that date?

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

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

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I know the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds will accept the statement that I made before, rather than the statement that is contained within a letter which pre-dated my answer, and that is that the negotiations are being carried on by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. HALL: I want to spend some time today, along with my colleagues, discussing the minister's responsibilities for the Crown corporation we call ICBC. I don't know if the minister has been advised of this. I understood that was the case. If that would necessitate him getting some people with him, that's fine too.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Carry on.

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

The thing I wanted to discuss with him first, in a very serious vein, is the reasons for the rapidly deteriorating relationships that exist between the corporation and those sectors of the automotive industry that supply a great deal of service to the motoring public and, of course, particularly to the corporation.

I can't think of a time in the last six years when the relationships have been as bad. The relationships between those people who supply essential services that are paid for by virtue of our insurance policies, following accidents to the fleet of cars that make up the cars used by the public of British Columbia.... The relationship between the people who work in the business and the corporation has never, in my opinion, been as bad. The mail that we are getting as MLAs is full of complaints. We have received delegations from the Automotive Retailers Association; we have been regaled with stories of abortive negotiations, of broken promises, of unfulfilled pledges, of meetings that never took place, by senior people in the corporation and representatives of the various sectors of the supplying industry, the body shops, the towing contractors and others.

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the corporation to sit down at a bargaining table and discuss and negotiate the kinds of annual adjustments that are required in the prices that the corporation is prepared to pay as a base for the repairs that are carried out following accidents, claims, damage, theft and all the rest of it. Certainly bulletins from the Automotive Retailers Association such as that published on April 3, 1980, which take us through a succession of promises, misleading statements, broken meetings, would indicate that something is wrong between the corporation and a representative of one of its major suppliers.

Similarly, the stories I get from the towing industry are just as bad. At a time when gasoline prices in this province have risen by the kinds of cents per litre that we know about, when wage contracts have been negotiated over the last 18 months, when municipal contracts have been renegotiated over the past year, those people who are trying to negotiate with the corporation meet a stony face. They don't get anywhere at all in trying to sort out the kinds of questions that businessmen have got to deal with each other about in order to have an ongoing situation. This isn't the kind of normal negotiations that take place between an employer and an employee. This isn't free collective bargaining. This isn't a trade union trying to get more money and an employer refusing to pay it. This is a question of two kinds of corporate structures trying to do a deal on a business supply.

[ Page 2554 ]

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

Interjection.

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

The level of communication has worsened. The level of trust has worsened to, I think, an all-time low since the corporation was formed. I think that's one of the first questions the minister has to address himself to as the person we ask the questions of in this most important Crown corporation. It isn't enough to provide a service to the insured. It isn't enough to supply a service to those people who have enough money in their pockets to pay for the premium to insure their motorcars. But in terms of those hundreds of millions of dollars that are changing hands throughout the year in the province, we must make sure the corporation does its business in a fair way, in the correct way and certainly as a good corporate citizen.

While I'm on that particular point, I want to ask the minister if he will comment on two incidents which have taken place since 1976 in this specific regard. One was the use of the federal legislation on combines by the corporation against — and that's the only word I can use — one of the supplying industries, namely the towing operators of this province. When the corporation wanted a price to be given to them for towing and negotiated a price for towing, why were the combines people brought in? I suggest it was at the instigation of ICBC to investigate the price that was supplied. Is that really the kind of business tactic you think the Crown corporation should indulge in?

Secondly, in the recent event in the case of body shops who are dissatisfied with the rates paid by ICBC, and who in desperation, if you like, decided to adopt the technique that's been adopted by doctors in many parts of this country to double-bill or balance-bill, billing ICBC for part of the cost of repairing the automobile and then billing the claimant for the remainder, why were the combines investigation people brought in to investigate that? I think that's a bit heavy-handed in view of the corporation's inability to sit down and negotiate those kinds of prices, to negotiate a fair agreement and to bargain between the people who are going to do the majority of the work for the corporation.

I certainly think that the real or implied threat of the use of that kind of federal power, the whistling up.... Ten signatures are all that's required. I think a lawyer would agree with me. The use of the combines investigation is really an action that doesn't sit too well with me, or suit the kind of corporate practice and corporate citizenship of a Crown corporation such as ICBC.

So there we've got the first problem: the bargaining that's got to go on; the striking of a deal between the suppliers; fair practices; and certainly the use of that kind of federal legislation. That's the first series of questions.

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

I think I'm up to date, although you never know; things may change; things can happen in a week. The minister can indicate to me right off the bat if I'm not up to date. The corporation decided to withdraw from the support system of rebates for those people who take driving courses. It's still the decision by the corporation not to engage in that rebate system. You pulled out of a system whereby anybody who passed a driver training course was able to get $50 back from the corporation. On the basis of statistics collected by the ICBC themselves or by the motor-vehicle branch that there was no discernible improvement by students who passed the test at those driving schools, you wiped the program out. It's a program which has been supported by every other insurance company across the country and supported by state after state after state. When the people involved in the business asked for a breakdown of figures, they were refused.

I wonder why ICBC having worked on a committee for so long in trying to improve the situation regarding driver training, having had people from the industry, from the motor-vehicle branch and from ICBC coming up with programs to review and improve the program.... According to the minutes of a meeting held in January they forwarded those recommendations to the corporation. At a meeting two months later the corporation decided to abandon the whole thing. Mr. Earle of the corporation moved the motion to disband the committee — not only withdraw from the program, not only wipe out the rebate, not only in effect ruin a number of small businessmen who had been depending on that kind of incentive, as indeed do many of their competitors and colleagues in other provinces, but disband the very program that might produce a program of some value, but not share the information and indeed use some figures which have many questions to be asked about.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. HALL: One of the largest of schools that's been in touch with many of the members of the House have put forward ideas over the years for programs and have been trying, I think, to interest the corporation and the motor vehicle branch in a reversal of that decision, to have a meeting and a liaison campaign to put a driver training program into action. If the driver training program that this commercial enterprise puts on is no good, according to ICBC and MVB, may I ask what other statistics they have regarding the training programs we have in schools?

I think the minister owes it to the House to discuss this in full and tell us why we went wrong over all the years we've been paying this money and what he intends to do in its place. Because, as Mr. Sherrell said: "We're going to hell in a handbasket in terms of our driving practices." We are killing people at a faster rate than ever before, we're causing more damage at a faster rate than ever before, and we're having accidents at a faster rate than ever before, regardless of the money we spend on Counterattack and the money spent by the Attorney-General's department, the Minister of Health, and so on. We've even allowed our speed limits to slowly increase, following a reduction at the time of our first energy crisis in 1974. What are we doing in its place? Even if the motor-vehicle branch can't produce figures that indicate that the driver training schools' programs are a complete waste of time, I maintain, from a psychological point of view if from no other point of view at all, it was a foolish thing to do until some other program was in effect.

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

[ Page 2555 ]

want to make sure that we're producing drivers who are well trained. It's pretty obvious that in British Columbia, according to the last statistics we find, we may be the swiftest, but we're certainly not the best drivers in the country. I think there's a series of questions there that I'll be interested to come back to following some replies from the minister.

The next question is about a discussion about the head of the corporation — the chief executive officer, Mr. Sherrell. The minister may now be able to share with the House whether he has any further information as to why Mr. Sherrell left. Indeed, was his leaving predictable? In view of the fact that the government opposite has adopted exactly the same principles that were adopted by ourselves on this side of the House in the formation of the corporation, and that is that we look upon the corporation as an instrument of public policy and not just simply as an insurance company.... Mr. Sherrell, as a trained insurance executive, must have found that the establishment of the corporation as an instrument of public policy was not acceptable, particularly in view of the decisions made by the government in the cabinet regarding the so-called FAIR program. I would also ask the minister if it was possible for us to entirely predict Mr. Sherrell's leaving if we would have examined his length of time away from the United States of America. That's just in passing.

May we ask the minister what steps are being taken regarding a replacement of Mr. Sherrell? Could he acquaint the House with steps taken to date? What kind of search program is going on? I know in 1974 when the search was on for senior executives, it was a difficult one. I was one who shared the concerns that were expressed in 1975 with finding top executives in this most involved and technically complex industry as readily available as we perhaps think they are. Perhaps I tend to think of the problem being a little more difficult than other people. I'm one who doesn't feel that we're going to find people just anywhere to run a corporation like that. I'd like to know what progress has been made to date to run a corporation as important as ICBC.

Now I want to deal with the FAIR program. I think the first aspects of the FAIR program are those which were contained in the bill that was passed in 1979. That bill made it completely clear to all insurers in the province that if anybody wanted to do business in the province, they should remove discrimination on the grounds of age, sex, marital status and, eventually, geographical location or something like that.

But the other part of the FAIR program was not in the bill, and that's the part of the FAIR program that goes something like this: that when you have a $110 accident, you're going to pay $360 for it. That's a side of the FAIR program that bothers me a great deal, because that's not the kind of insurance program that I think the corporation should be in. It seems to me that if we have an insurance program, we should have incentives and disincentives combined. I agreed with the safe driver discount; I agreed that you should show what the basic premium should be and you should show what rewards there are for safe driving. But it seems to me that to set up a program in which, when you have an accident which costs the corporation $110 to repair, the person who has an accident is in effect charged — and remember, the strict definition of the word "accident" doesn't necessarily impute blame at all; although the corporation will indeed impart blame.... But for that $110 bill the corporation pays out on your behalf, you will in fact pay out $320 by invoice over the next three years. That seems to me to be no insurance at all. Now that's how I've read the figures. If I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected; but that's how it seems to me.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the best way of going about it was, indeed, a continuation of the safe driver discount, and to get after the bad driver by making sure that he or she realizes what the cost was — by showing what the real cost of your insurance was and discounting it for the good driver, discounting it for the person who didn't have an accident. After all, you're the bottom-line people; you should understand that better than anybody else — and not to invoice yearly, half-yearly, on anniversary dates and so on.

I think what you're going to see as a result of the FAIR program — whatever it is — is an increase in hit-and-runs. I'm going to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that if you check with SIU in New Westminster today, you'll find there has been an incredible increase in hit-and-runs in some areas already. If you check in the city of Vancouver, you'll find there is already the beginning of an increase in hit-and-runs; and that's before the full effects of the FAIR program are really understood, because the second part of the FAIR program doesn't come into effect until March 1981. As soon as the word gets around that you're going to have $60 to register a claim and $100 per claim per year for three years, there are going to be a lot of people taken off. I think that's shocking; it's irresponsible. It's the worst kind of anti-social behaviour, as, indeed, were the arson troubles that besieged me when I sat on the board — and all the rest of it. I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister — and to your staff and the staff of the corporation — that the corporation had better be on its toes about hit-and-run. I'm given to believe that the SIU — that's the Special Investigation Unit — have already collected enough information.... I'm not referring necessarily to the articles that appeared in the paper the other day, but in parts of the Fraser Valley there have already been significant percentage increases in hit-and-runs. That's the fourth series of questions.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The fifth area which I want the minister to deal with for me, if he would, is the question of ICBC itself and its staff. I claim, as I mentioned right at the beginning, that the relationship between the private sector, which supplies a great deal of services for ICBC and its customers, and the relationship between the corporation and the automotive retailers, have deteriorated. I am now going to say to you, Mr. Minister, that the relationships within the corporation — staff to management — have also deteriorated. Indeed, in the newsletters we get from the staff of ICBC.... While I congratulate the corporation — and have done so openly and on radio just recently — on a distinct improvement in the claim centre — and here I want to definitely congratulate the president who has just resigned, Mr. Sherrell, on one of his major achievements, which, I think, is to improve the service at the claims centre — there is no question in my mind that the growing shadow of deteriorating relationships with the supply industry and the automotive industry, and now the deteriorating relationship with the staff, are the shadows on the horizon. The employee questionnaires reveal a deterioration in morale.

Frankly, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — I'm very concerned that there has been a serious deterioration at the corporation, both at the claims centres and at the head

[ Page 2556 ]

office. I'd like some assurances that the corporation is aware of that kind of drop in morale and that the personnel department and the negotiating teams have got that under control. It's not just a question of dollars and cents, of hard-nosed bargaining for salaries and wages. It's a question of hard-nosed bargaining in meeting the complaints and grievances and day-to-day workings, the hours of work and some of the methodology changes that you try to put into operation in the corporation itself. So there's a question there, about the morale of the corporation itself.

Lastly, on this first round, may I ask if the minister could outline for us.... This is a straight, inquisitive, clinically interrogative question with nothing behind it other than a straight thirst for information. Could the minister outline the role that the corporation is playing in the whole safety program that has to be mounted in this province? We've got the police forces, the Attorney-General's department, the motor vehicle branch and, of course, the highways people. None of us can rest easy over the kinds of things that we're going to hear about in estimates over the next few weeks. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) made an announcement the other day about the serious testing faults shown in the commercial trucks; that was something I've been making speeches about in this House for nearly 15 years. The evidence in the states of Washington and Idaho — the trucks all come through B.C.... Governor Dixy Lee Ray introduced reports just a couple of months ago saying that trucks are in very poor shape in her state. There's no doubt they're going to be in bad shape when they come across the line, and they've got better rules than we've got to catch them.

What I'm really getting at is: what role is the corporation playing? After all, that's where the money's going to be wasted, in effect, if an accident is unnecessary, if a truck goes off the road. Those of us who were out in the interior this weekend had enough. Those of us who were in the Okanagan this weekend on our way home from our convention saw three major accidents.

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

MR. HALL: We should move the convention and keep it in Vancouver. That sounds like the statement that was made by a previous Minister of Highways about tourists.

What I'm saying is, that the corporation must have a role to play in this, and I would like the minister.... I'm giving him the opportunity, frankly, of getting some coverage and getting on the plus side of the argument, because I have been a little negative in some of the criticisms about the corporation; of putting the other side of the story forward as well.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe, without being certain, that the young people sitting in the members' gallery to your left are from a school in my community which is the alma mater of my four children, Brocklehurst Junior Secondary. I believe that there are 35 students and two staff. They visit in the chamber quite regularly, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll try and respond to the questions as the member put them. In regard to the matter of body shop rates, the annual review was carried out and the rates were moved by 8.7 percent, from $23.60 per hour, I believe, to $25.60 per hour, a $2 per hour increase. The new rate was determined after the consulting firm of Wood, Gordon was hired and the ARA — the Automotive Retailers Association — the body shop sector, I gather, of that association.... The corporation cooperated fully with the consultant in the preparation of that report. The end result of the report was that the rate was moved to $25.60.

I'm aware of the concern that has been expressed by the ARA, and some of the body shop hourly rates which they have negotiated in their union contracts have moved up. I believe their settlement was somewhere around 15 percent on the hourly rate that they charge, which was approximately, I believe, $1.90 an hour. Our rate went up $2 an hour but they feel it should be increased further. I, as minister responsible for the corporation, have met in my office with representatives of the Automotive Retailers Association, representatives of the towing companies and other organizations and associations that deal with the corporation. I've always maintained an open-door policy to any organization, representing either the Ministry of Agriculture or, in this particular case, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and I will continue to do so.

In regard to the second question, the member mentioned the use of federal legislation in calling in the combines investigation branch regarding supplying companies and, I believe, body shops. I would advise the member that at no time did the Insurance Corporation call in the combines investigation people.

The third item dealt with the $50 rebates to those persons who took good driver training courses. That is still in existence until the end of 1980, and it has been announced that it will be discontinued for 1981. But, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't mean that the Insurance Corporation has left it at that. We are working with the industry to develop a new approach, a more effective approach than the straight $50 rebate. Statistics that have been gathered since 1974, not just in the past year — and I'm talking about 50,000 new licensed drivers — indicated no positive results under that program. There is a cost to the corporation. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken it works out to about half a million dollars per year. I think we all recognize that a cost like $500,000 to the corporation is only the interim step; it's $500,000 to the drivers of this province, because moneys paid out by the corporation come from premiums paid by drivers. So what we are really saying is that we're attempting to manage the funds — the premiums paid by drivers — in a responsible manner, and the indication was that these moneys did not accomplish the results desired when they were spent. We're looking at a new approach, a more effective approach — one that will have positive results. In doing that, we are working with the industry.

In regard to Robbie Sherrell, the chief executive officer and president of the corporation, I would advise the member that his resignation is for personal reasons. That has been stated a number of times by Mr. Sherrell and by me. That was his decision and his reason, and I can only say to the member and to other members of this House that as minister responsible for the corporation I am sorry to see him go. He did an excellent job and developed a very strong and effective management team.

[ Page 2557 ]

In regard to what we're doing, because Mr. Sherrell's resignation takes effect on May 31, there is a management committee of senior vice-presidents set up to handle the day-to-day operations, and they. report directly to the chairman of the board. We have established a selection committee of board members, and our approach is to look first within the corporation for a replacement for Mr. Sherrell. We have strong people on staff. I hope we succeed, because I would like to feel that any employee that came on staff at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia could maybe take a look at the long-term view, you might say, and say: "There's an opportunity for me to reach the top, to become president of the corporation." It would be nice if we could have that approach and if the calibre of people are there and if somebody within the corporation could fit the bill as far as the president's job is concerned. Failing that, our intention is to look within British Columbia and Canada, and then, of course, as a last alternative, to look elsewhere. I'm hopeful that we will be able to accomplish the selection within the first stage; that's within the Insurance Corporation itself.

In regard to the FAIR program,, you approached it from the point of view that there was a basic premium that everybody paid, and then if you had an accident it was $100 per year for three years. What we've done is removed the discrimination. We've treated every driver equally, regardless of age, marital status or sex, under the FAIR program. Everybody is considered innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to the old program where people under 25 and the single male driver, who might have been the best driver in the world and have driven for the next 50 years without an accident, was discriminated against. He had to pay that high premium, sometimes several hundred dollars more than another driver on the road who just happened to be over 25, or just happened to be married, but wasn't a good driver.

The discrimination took place, and this government took the approach: let's look at a new concept for insurance on the automobile. Let's say that everybody has a clean slate when they start and the young people of this province have the opportunity to pay the same rate as you or I would pay. We may not have as much hair and we may be a little greyer, but we're not necessarily better drivers than the young people, so that discrimination has been removed. I think the statistics will show in the end that the approach will prove to be a valid one and the young people will accept the challenge. I would like to say that maybe the statistics in the past have looked a little heavy in regard to claims by those people under age 25. Maybe we will see a great improvement because they will accept the challenge of being equal to people over age 25 and will not be discriminated against with a larger premium.

In regard to the $100 a year that's charged to drivers after having accidents for which they are responsible. If you took that approach and took the basic premium, added the $100 assessment over three years, or you did the reverse, which was the gross premium Iess the good driver discount that we had under the old program, basically they work out to be similar costs. There is no extra penalty; it’s just a different approach to assessing a guilty driver.

The sixth item I think the member raised was the morale of the corporation. I'm not sure where he's getting his information from and whether he's got anything that he can either quote from or send me copies of. I can only say that in my period of time as minister responsible for ICBC, the management-staff relationship that I have had the opportunity to see has been excellent. There is good morale there. I think a lot of it is attributed to Robbie Sherrell in putting that corporation on a sound financial footing with some innovative ideas, and the staff members of the corporation have picked up the challenge. I think morale is exceptionally high in the corporation.

The last item the member raised was safety programs. The corporation does support the Attorney-General's program regarding Counterattack. As the member probably is aware, some of the staff of ICBC go out and talk to service clubs and chambers of commerce in regard to costs of insurance — why insurance premiums are increased and where the claims arrive and why people should be more careful on the road and better drivers.

We send the seatbelt convincer around to communities in this province, which gives people an opportunity to have the experience of sitting in a seat and having a little bit of a ride and seeing the effect of what a seatbelt can do for you in a car accident. There is a considerable amount of money spent on carrying out that program.

We also are developing a safe driving program for pre-drivers at the school level. We're working with the Ministry of Education and we're attempting to develop a package for teachers who can then discuss the merits, you might say, of safe or defensive driving for those young people who are yet to be drivers, giving them good training and information in the classroom so that when they do get out on the road in their first car they will remember some of the education that they received with regard to good, safe driving habits. I think those were the items that the member raised.

MR. HALL: I wanted you to go back to the very first question: that is the relationships with the suppliers of some of the services to ICBC. The answer you gave is technically correct, but it isn't good enough in this sense, Mr. Minister.First of all, it was true that you did give a S2 an hour increase — which is 8.7 percent — following a Woods, Gordon report to which the bodyshops were party. That represented the increase that they asked for not this year, but some time ago. They are already so far behind, according to what they say, that in fact what they're really.... That is even after them telling you that they're in the middle of negotiations with their own union contract. And your man, Mr. Pearson, has now told them that you only ever make one increase a year.So, in effect, you told them that no matter what's going on, no matter what they sign with their workers, they've had it. Take it or leave it, boys; there's no discussion. Your open-door policy isn't going to be very useful for that because whilst your door might be open, with the greatest of respect to you, Mr. Minister, the fellow who is making the decision is Mr. Pearson. I don't want to say that unkindly and I know how those things happen.

HON. MR. HEWITT You're being unkind.

MR. HALL: Well, if I'm being unkind, so be it. That's the way it happens. We can both get on AirWest and go over there and talk to Mr. Pearson if you want, to change his mind. I'll do my bit. The fact of the matter is that that increase was a long time in coming and was a long time ago. That's the bodyshops, who weren't doing too badly, who have always had a fairly regular increase. They also have one other test in terms of the body shops. They have the contracts they make with the automobile dealers, which you can use as some sort

[ Page 2558 ]

of criterion. You've also got the ever-present Autoplan Autobody, which we set up in my riding of Surrey as a constant laboratory in terms of what real costs are on a small scale, although it does a lot of good work.

But the towing industry is entirely different; you've not given them a nickel. Is your door open to them now to come and ask? They're not getting anywhere with ICBC. Gasoline prices are up. Have you tried to buy a three-quarter ton truck recently and put a Holmes wrecker on the back of it? Have you tried to get a guy who's going to run it, a guy who's going to be in a water-filled ditch in Surrey at 12 o'clock at night, with three dead people in the ditch? All for what — $15 a tow? You've got to talk about these things. You've got to listen to what these people....

This isn't just picking up bylaw infractions in the city of Vancouver or getting the mayor of Victoria mad because Gordon's picks him up in some lot here in Victoria. We're talking about proper towing. We're talking about people rescuing people out of ditches, sweeping up the.... We're not talking about the pirates who are knocking off people in apartment blocks who have parked with the back wheel on a yellow line. We're talking about the people you really need when you need them, the kind of people who should have been five miles east of Hedley on Monday afternoon with heavy equipment, the kind of people you are paying a fortune for to sit on the bridges at rush hour. You're paying a fortune for those people to sit on a bridge at rush hour, and ICBC won't pay the same people anything like that kind of money to go and pick up injured people in a ditch on King George Highway in my riding, the most dangerous riding in B.C. in terms of road traffic and road accidents.

There's a story in the barracks in Regina — the Mounties. Three lists go up on the passing-out parade: pass, fail, and posted to Surrey. It's more dangerous to drive in Surrey than it was ten years ago on the Gaza strip. If indeed the number of accidents that happen on the Pattullo Bridge, south of my colleague's riding, happened on an airstrip, there would be a national inquiry into the number of deaths. I'm straying, Mr. Chairman, a little bit from ICBC — other than the fact that we're all paying the cost of that in our premiums; that's the connective tissue of the debate. I think we've got to look at that kind of thing.

Apart from the way we deal with the towing companies on a strict rotational basis of dispatch, how we're dealing with the salvage.... Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), there was $7 million worth a year of salvage when we were directors of ICBC; now there's got to be $12 million a year of salvage. It's a huge business. I'm going to leave that alone, because I don't think we're going to get any progress across the floor of the chamber; we can't negotiate across the floor of the chamber, obviously. But I'm not going to leave it alone publicly, now that I've done my thing here and warned you about what's happening in the industry there. That's all I can do in terms of across-the-chamber discussion.

In terms of the staff morale, I want to take issue with you. Because of staff morale at ICBC, I was the recipient of more trouble than anybody else in this chamber; there's no doubt about that. When I was on the board at ICBC.... I don't want to see any diminution of morale for anybody at ICBC. I'm just telling you that my experience indicates to me that you should tell your chief people at ICBC — as they say back home, Mr. Chairman, in the textile mills in the place I come from — there's trouble in the mill, and I think you should get on to it.

I'm going to hand the debate over to some of my colleagues while I check some of the answers against some of the information I got. Particularly, I want to come back a little bit later on the driving school rebate thing. I want to check some of those figures, because I still think we've got to do a better job on that.

MR. COCKE: We have a great deal of interest in the ICBC estimates this year, I note. The main problem I see that we've got ourselves into is around the FAIR program; I would like to deal with one or two other minor points. I noted, for example, that when the minister was describing FAIR, he said: ''This government took the approach...." Those were his words. I recall on a number of occasions, his illustrious leader, the Premier of this province, explaining very carefully to all who would listen, and to those who would believe, that this government — I refer to the Socred government — would take an arm's length position with respect to their Crown corporations; they have a minority position on the board. However, the minister explains to us that it was a government decision, a government plan and a government program. "This government took the approach...." he said. That's right. They can take any approach they want. I just wanted to show the words of the Premier. How hollow they are and always will be with any government. Crown corporation directors are appointed at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. When the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which happens to be the cabinet, decides that they are not particularly happy with the way that corporation is going, those directors are no longer directors, and the government looks for somebody else who will do their bidding. I just thought I would throw that in for us to think about.

I must confess....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Can I answer?

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member raised an issue and rather than let it go by with a number of other questions, I think it's important that I do answer at this time. The member used my words and said: "The government made this decision," etc. The member, of course, neglects to say that this government challenged the entire insurance industry in the province of British Columbia with Bill 33, which was passed in this House. I guess maybe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) says the insurance companies are the industry of the world, because it is a new concept. We challenged the insurance industry with Bill 33 and then we, of course, challenged, I guess, the ICBC board of directors and management with the concept in Bill 33, which was to end discrimination in automobile insurance. It was the Insurance Corporation that came forward in response to that challenge with the FAIR program.

MR. COCKE: I'm not sure that he answered very much, but in any event, that's fine; we'll accept his words. Going to the next part of my presentation, I must say that I was very surprised and happy about a lot of the work that Robbie Sherrell was doing. I must confess that at the outset I thought

[ Page 2559 ]

that a person coming from as far afield, and having worked with the Hartford group overseas, might be coming to a very strange and different situation, but I think he rather fell in well into the situation here, and it's rather a shame that we're losing him. Having had some experience in the industry, I recognize that he can go afield and probably do better. I do hope that this personal reason that he has isn't one of great seriousness with respect to health or family and I wish him success wherever he might decide to land.

I would also just like to say that I hope ICBC is able to find the person that can fill that position from within the organization, if at all possible. When one looks afield in this kind of a situation, you're probably looking at executives in private industry, who've had very little experience with a government proposition, and very little experience in terms of the scope, demands and the actual public lashing one takes from time to time, just because of the position that one has accepted. Just like the chairman of any other Crown corporation, the chairman of ICBC is right in the limelight at all times. He takes a lot of the criticism for decisions made that he has to live with whether he likes them or not. I hope that in the course of the four or five years that ICBC has been alive and kicking there has developed in that organization the kind of backup manpower that would be ready for this office. Failing that, of course, I hope that the decision is made to stay within the country.

I ask the minister a question with respect to this. Have they hired a firm, as they did the last time, to search for this new person? If so, what is the consulting firm?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about FAIR for a bit. There's no question that there was a need in this province to bring the rates into proper perspective. In other words, one should not be found guilty prior to having committed a crime. I've mentioned the fact before that I have four young people in my family. All have been driving for some years. There has only been one minor accident in all that time. Therefore I don't feel, nor did I ever feel, that they should be paying exorbitant rates because they happened to be in an age group with people who often do. I know the program is here now but I'm not going to forgive the government for doing what they did to the young people in this province in the year 1976: tripling the rates to all and sundry.

Mr. Chairman, after the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) criticizes what I'm saying now, I expect that he will therefore stand up and oppose FAIR. No, he won't. He'll get up and give us a speech on energy three days from now when he finds an appropriate minister.

That's neither here nor there. The fact is, there was a tripling of that rate. The government caught a lot of criticism along the way, justly earned. Now they've come up with a new way of approaching it.

To deal with what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is talking about, I agree totally. He wants to subsidize cars. I agree totally that one should do an evaluation of people's driving records and keep that on the person — not some arbitrary $300 for any old accident, but expand the point system so that it includes the accident situation. Now we've got it all over the place. We've got it on the driver's licence for those with six points or more. Now we've got this arbitrary fine of $100 per year for three years plus the $20 if they can find some mistake that you made prior to 1982 — an arbitrary, fixed amount. I think it is a rather abysmal showing in terms of a reply to the way one should fix blame.

Now if we're going to do the actuarial thing, then I believe that one has to be rated in terms of one's overall driving experience. I believe that accidents should be included in the point situation. I believe that bad driving habits such as going through stop signs and all the rest of it should be included in the point situation. But I don't understand how we come up with this arbitrary, exact amount of $100 per year for three years for anybody that has an accident.

Some of you may know that my young brother is superintendent of traffic in the Vancouver city police force. I've talked to him and others of his colleagues about what they anticipate. They're quite concerned about this situation, because under this program minor accidents are going to be treated exactly the same as major accidents. A fender-brush is exactly the same as a wipeout, and, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that really is an intelligent way to approach the whole question of setting rates appropriate to people's driving habits.

One of the worries that they have is the question of hit-and-runs. Does anybody in this House know how many hit-and-runs there were last year in the city of Vancouver? There were something in excess of 7,200 hit-and-runs in the city of Vancouver alone. That's not the province; that's the city of Vancouver. Now if you start adding to that — and you add across the province — then I believe we've got some problems.

I believe that this FAIR program should be very carefully monitored. I think that it was a very weak approach to an overhaul that should have been done — a proper overhaul, monitoring people's driving habits and thereby getting the rate that would be appropriate for that person. The program, Mr. Chairman, is suspect. I think probably what happened was that the government sat around and decided they had to clean up their image a bit, introduced this program, gave the Insurance Corporation little or no time in which to build safeguards, and this is what they came up with. On the face of it, I suppose some people can accept it, but I don't really think it's a good idea. What you're really doing here is you're saying to ICBC: "You are now a fining authority, and the fines shall be set at X." That's not particularly wise, I don't think.

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.)

MR. COCKE: The member talks about a $10 driving permit — I only paid $5. The government, in order to be popular, took off the $10 base insurance on the driver's licence. That's up to them; it's a popularity contest.

But the whole thing begs the question. It has not been thought out nor has it all been tied to the driver. It strikes me that it's about time, that that's the way we should be going, where people's driving habits, people's driving experiences and people's histories predicate their rate. I am certainly not one who indicates that a person with bad driving habits should be subsidized by those with good driving habits — not at all. But I don't believe this does the job at all.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The proposal was there. The proposal, as I said already, would tie the whole thing to the driver, tie the whole thing to his history. That seems relatively easy and relatively basic. But instead of that we've got a new program

[ Page 2560 ]

called FAIR, and everybody thinks that we're at the dawn of a new age. I'm suggesting, without being a great prophet, that this program will be under a great deal of stress when it comes into full force and effect. I really believe that, and that's my warning.

The first minister, who's chatting from his seat, I'm sure can get up and advise the House why we went this route and give all the basic reasons for having gone this route. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that even he has trepidations about the FAIR program. Can the minister tell us why it was that all of the increases due to either bad driving habits history and accidents were not tied to the driver himself or herself?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to respond to some of the questions that were raised, the selection committee has hired a consulting firm to assist in the selection of a manager. The firm is Peat, Marwick.

In regard to the FAIR program, the member — if anybody in this House should know — should be aware of the whole concept of insurance and the fact that the claims are paid out of premiums and you pool your premiums and you share the risk. In that way a person who has — I believe he talked about a hit-and-brush accident as opposed to a $300,000 claim.... There is a sharing by the total pool so that nobody is hit with an excessive adjustment in premium. That's where you get the $100 per year assessment over the basic insurance rate. That's no different to the way it was with the good driver discount. Previously you lost that and you paid the gross amount of premium. The member makes that comparison about a hit-and-brush accident, I think he called it, as opposed to a $300,000 claim. He knows full well that insurance is paid on a pooling basis of premiums and the only difference with the FAIR program and the previous concept is that all drivers are treated equal and innocent until they have an accident.

MR. COCKE: The minister hasn't answered the other part of the question. It is about the total package being tied to the person's history. I agree that a brushed fender could very well be the same in terms of a person's luck. A person with bad luck can have a head-on and the other person can be lucky enough to just barely miss. But everybody is racking up a history, and one of the factors in B.C. is that we ignore accidents in this history. If there's alcohol involved or if there's driving without due care and attention and other charges.... But there are other people with a history of accidents who are able to get out of it. It's not just defensive driving, but at the same time they have a long history of accidents and come off very, very well in terms of ICBC rating. I'm talking about that history. What we're going to do now is add this $100 fine. I just don't think it's going to work in terms of being fair. I just think it's a $100 fine, period. Anyway, the minister has answered that question.

I want to also ask, Mr. Chairman, how many meetings the minister has attended. If he has attended enough, does he know whether or not most of our investments are being made in this province in terms of our short-term and long-term investments from the premiums that we have secured, this part of this multimillion dollar premium situation that we have here? What percentage of the premiums are invested in this province over which we have some sort of control?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll answer the first item that the member raised about the driver's history. If you look at the old program, Mr. Member, which was that you had a gross premium, you got your good driver discount and you had a reduced premium. If you had one accident you'd lose your good driver discount, if you had two you'd lose your good driver discount and if you had seven you'd lose your good driver discount. That's all. You'd pay the gross premium. But under the FAIR program we are doing basically what the member has been talking about, because if you have one accident your basic premium is increased by $100 a year for three years as the assessment. If you have two accidents then, of course, the second accident comes along and there's $100 related to that. So we are identifying the driver that has the one accident, say, in a number of years driving and he has to pay that penalty. But the man who is habitually a bad driver or is under the influence or whatever the case might be and causes a number of accidents, the cost to him is going to increase, and just maybe through that increase in cost he will change his ways and will not be responsible for x number of accidents. Only so many times does it happen because of bad luck. Usually you find that if a driver is having a number of accidents there is a personal reason for it.

Mr. Member, I did ask the corporation and I have in my office a report in regard to where our investments lie. I can tell you just going from memory that the number in British Columbia and in Canada is a great percentage. I will attempt to get that for you and give you the actual figures. I know it's in my office files.

MR. GABELMANN: I wanted to raise with the minister two or three quick matters relating to ICBC. I want, first of all,  to talk about the monumental cost, not only to the corporation and the driving public in this province, but also to the economy, that traffic accidents are costing.

I do a lot of driving around this province, particularly a lot on the Island, and I too drove through to the Okanagan on the weekend. I would say that our driver education program in this province — what little there has been — has been an absolute failure in terms of driving patterns and behaviour. There are times when I think that two out of three people on the road shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's licence, judging by their driving habits. Many of those people never have an accident and never have to worry about their premiums going up. But many of those same people are causing other accidents by their driving behaviour.

I know that most of this subject of traffic safety can be canvassed under the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but I think it should become a major focus for ICBC. There should be a major campaign in this province at all age levels, directed not only at drivers but at kids under 16 years old who are thinking about driving and who are learning bad habits from their parents and from their peers. There should be an education program designed for these various sectors of our population.

One of the realities of driving, not just in British Columbia but anywhere in North America now, is that much of the driving population learned to drive before freeways were even thought of, much less constructed. As a result, we have a large number of people in this province who don't know how to drive on freeways. Any of us who drive freeways can see that. You see at least one out of three drivers who don't know how to enter a freeway. You see people driving in the left-hand lane, forcing others to do a lot of lane-switching to keep speed.

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

[ Page 2561 ]

education relating to those kinds of behaviour which cause a lot of accidents, which in turn lead to a lot of the costs that the corporation is faced with. There should be an ongoing media campaign directed at teaching people that there are proper things to do at all times when they are behind the wheel. Most people, when they drive, don't always expect to have an accident within the next second. I think very few of us drive that way: every second that I'm behind the wheel I expect to have an accident and I've got an escape route. I don't think 90 percent of the drivers in this province drive that way. The whole defensive driving approach has been talked about a lot, but very little has been done to teach people how to drive in that way. I would urge the minister, Mr. Chairman, to consider that the corporation spend some considerable amount of money relating to driver training and driver education, because I think it will end up in a net saving. That can be done in a variety of ways, but I won't take the time of the House today to expand on that any further.

As an MLA, the issue that I get the most calls about — next to compensation, I guess — is ICBC, from people who are having problems with the corporation and are unhappy with the decisions made by the corporation. For many of those people the process of appeal, or the process of taking a complaint to the next step, is very vague and very difficult. It's not laid out clearly; people are not advised of the procedures by which they can take a dispute to the next stage. I would urge two things in this regard to the minister. One is that the corporation take a little more care in providing information to people who are in dispute with the corporation, advising them clearly and openly about what their options are — what their methods of appeal are. Many people come into my office and, I'm sure, to most MLAs' offices, really bewildered by the process; they are bewildered by the bureaucracy and not sure where to turn. So very simply, there could be printed material simply laid out that would be useful to all people involved in the process.

One of the other things that the minister might consider is setting up an independent agency, a group of people who would operate in a similar fashion to the claims advisory service of the Workers' Compensation Board. At the present time, if you are in dispute with the corporation you have the option of going to your MLA and asking your MLA to take you through the process and argue your case for you, or you can get a lawyer, at some cost to you, to assist you through the process, leading often to the legal costs in small claims court.

Why not establish an independent agency under the ministry that would be independent from the corporation, would have access to all the corporation files and would be able to act in a advocacy fashion, as advocates for citizens who are faced with the bureaucracy which, for many people, is a very intimidating process? To have that person or those persons available as advocates would assist. It may only assist me in cutting down my work week by about ten hours a week, but certainly I think it would assist a lot of other people who are absolutely bewildered and frightened by the bureaucracy.

I want to — and this is really getting down to the small details of the corporation — raise one final matter. I don't know whether this one issue I want to raise is symptomatic of others or an isolated case. The minister and I have exchanged some correspondence on the particular matter.

Let me give you an example of what has happened. You're driving down the road. You decide to turn left in legal fashion. You put your signal lights on; you make sure that you are in a position to turn left in terms of the oncoming traffic. Your defensive driving isn't quite good enough that you check your rearview mirror, but you turn left. As you turn left somebody in the passing lane hits you broadside. That person is speeding. The person passing is charged by the police and convicted. The person turning left is not charged and ICBC assesses the responsibility 50/50. The person who is making a lefthand turn and is not charged, and has signalled his or her intention, is assessed the same responsibility for causing the accident as the person who is speeding and overtaking on the left a vehicle that is turning left.

When I raised this specific question to the minister in a letter, I received the other day a very lengthy letter back from the minister that was clearly written — and fair enough — by staff in the corporation in which they say flat out that the decision rests. This constituent of mine, who is a senior citizen, broke no laws, was not charged, yet in effect pays a price that is equal to the person who did break the law and was charged. That seems to me to be quite unfair.

I would acknowledge, because I believe in defensive driving, that if you're turning left you should look in the rearview mirror and not turn if somebody's overtaking you. But that seems more fair as a 75/25 split rather than a 50/50 one. I intend, by correspondence, to follow up on this further. I would ask the minister if he has any comment on the general principle involved in that assessment of responsibility.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to go back to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who raised the question regarding investments, we have about half a billion dollars, Mr. Chairman, that goes into investment each year. As you know, we collect the premiums. They're put into funds or investments and, of course, are available to pay claims throughout the year. Preference is given to B.C. organizations, whether it be government or business or financial institutions, and we spread it through medium-, short- and long-term investments. So we first look to British Columbia and then secondly to Canada. All the funds we have invested are in Canadian investments.

In regard to the percentage that is in British Columbia, that I'm working on attempting to get, but I just wanted to clarify to the member for New Westminster that preference is given to B.C. and then secondly we look to the Canadian market.

If you took half a billion dollars and placed it in British Columbia, basically the B.C. market couldn't handle it. It just doesn't have the capacity to handle that type of investment.

In regard to claims, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) raised that point. In most cases the procedure goes somewhat as follows: a phone call is made with regard to the claim and details are given. About 20 percent of all those claims are handled over the phone and resolved. For the other 80 percent, an appointment is made over the phone and the person has a time at which they can drive in — no waiting — and get their claim handled. Many times it is handled in less then half an hour. I think the efficiency has improved a great deal at the claims centres.

In regard to what procedure the claimant has if there is some dispute, first of all they have discussions with the adjuster; failing that, if satisfaction is not obtained, they move then to the supervisor; failing that, they move to the

[ Page 2562 ]

manager of the claims centre; failing that avenue, then they have the right to appeal to the claims appeal committee, which is made up of senior head office executive; failing that, of course, after that appeal has been heard, if they have not received the satisfaction they figure they deserve, they can move, of course, to the courts.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm aware of the procedure; that wasn't my point — I've been through it enough times with people. The procedure is very clear for those of us who aren't intimidated by the bureaucracy. The procedure is very clear, and we can advise people if they know enough to call us.

The problem is that that procedure.... When you are in the first stage of a dispute, it seems to me that you should be given a pamphlet of some kind that says: "Here are the procedures you can follow if you continue to be unhappy with the decision rendered when you go through each step." That should be freely available. We should be able to provide that to motorists so they do know what their rights are, without having to check with an MLA. It may be that there is a pamphlet of that kind in the corporation that is available. If so, I haven't seen it. Certainly it has not been available to people who have come in to see me about claims. So I'm just saying that the process could be opened up a bit, and people could feel freer and more at ease with the bureaucracy if it were put in writing for them.

I assume, because the minister didn't respond to the 50-50 blame in that particular driving situation, that he wants to consider it. I'd like to talk to him in another context about that particular case; but it's fair enough if you don't want to comment on that now.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to a pamphlet or some material that a person can look at and get some direction from, there is the Autoplan 1980 motorist's kit which contains the information for the driver. On page 42 it gives the procedure in regard to reporting a motor-vehicle accident, the dial-a-claim program, repairs, hit-and-run claims, invalid claims, uninsured claims, claim disputes — how to handle a claim dispute — legal actions, the insurance laws outside of British Columbia — if somebody gets caught there — and seatbelts and bodily injury claims. It's a pretty comprehensive book, Mr. Member. It's made available with each policy which the driver has — and it's well done, I think. I can understand the problem, though, because my experience as an MLA is the same as yours. When they get the book they file it, and then when the claim occurs they don't have anything to go by. Maybe that's a problem of education we'll have to work on.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just have one topic at this time which I'd like to discuss with the minister. It's probably not a matter that has received a great deal of public attention, but it is a matter of concern to people utilizing the B.C. ferry system. I have in my possession numerous instances of people having suffered some type of accident while boarding or on board one of the B.C. ferries.

What happens in a great number of these cases is that the people who have suffered this type of accident will naturally and normally go to ICBC for damage claims, and they're referred back to the B.C. Ferry Corporation — in fact, to a Mr. Cavin of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The way I normally handle these problems — and I get quite a number of them — is that I usually forward copies of the correspondence to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and to ICBC, hoping the matter will be resolved. Sometimes the matter does get resolved, either by the Ferry Corporation or ICBC. What happens in a lot of cases is that neither ICBC nor the Ferry Corporation will take responsibility for the accident, whatever it may be — a fender bender, damage to trailers, campers, what have you. So what happens is that these people who have suffered this damage are in a Catch-22 situation.

I was prepared to read a great deal of this correspondence into the record, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think I'll do that, because I'm sure that the minister and the ICBC representatives he has with him must be aware of this problem.

I have a number of examples, as I stated earlier. For example, there's an elderly widowed lady who was caught in this type of situation aboard a ferry on route 3, and even the deckhand, in this particular instance, insists that the damages she suffered to her vehicle was not the driver's fault. Yet she was unable to get any kind of funding from ICBC. The Ferry Corporation denies any responsibility whatsoever for this particular instance — and there were others. All I'm saying at this time is that there should be a clear-cut stated policy for either ICBC or the B.C. Ferry Corporation to assist these people in receiving funding or whatever is necessary for repair of their damaged vehicles when they're damaged while boarding or on board the B.C. Ferries.

As I said before, sometimes compensation is made by ICBC, but it's for these people who are caught in this Catch-22 situation, where no responsibility is taken by either party, and particularly where we have people on limited incomes and they can't get assistance and satisfaction from anyone. I wonder if perhaps the minister could look into the matter and, if he's familiar with this situation, could he perhaps discuss it with us today in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I asked the minister a specific question, as have other members in this House, about a serious problem that affects a lot of people in British Columbia. I'd like the minister to have the courtesy to reply, and if he doesn't know anything about it, he should be man enough to get up in this House and say so and say he'll look into it. Otherwise, to let his vote go through that easy is ridiculous.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member. I was waiting for other comments, because I'm trying to answer these in groups. I thought either he or one of his colleagues over there would carry on, and then I would answer them all. With regard to the situation that the member describes, which I gather is a dispute as to who is liable for the accident on or off the ferry, in some cases, of course, where ICBC accepts that liability, the claim is paid. The ones you're talking about are the ones that are in the "grey area," where the Ferry Corporation says: "No, it's not us," and the insurance corporation says: "Yes, it is," and you've got a hangup.

I'm not sure how you easily resolve that, Mr. Member, other than.... If you ran into a situation like that and referred it to my office, I'd certainly attempt to expedite it as quickly as possible, because I can understand that the motorist involved would be a little frustrated if he is dealing with two Crown Corporations and not getting one or the other either to admit to the liability or to share in that liability if the motorist isn't involved in the cause of the accident.

[ Page 2563 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do appreciate the minister replying to the question. However, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you haven't given a commitment that something will be done, and the fact is that some of the examples I have before me.... In this particular example of a resident of the Halfmoon Bay area, the correspondence is dated September 18, 1979. The fact is that this elderly lady has been on limited income and it has been about eight and a half to nine months and she has not received any help, in spite of a great deal of correspondence to ICBC, the B.C. Ferry Corporation, myself and other agencies. I'm not asking for a reply to that; I just want to emphasize that there are people in this situation. I personally viewed that vehicle. I went down to her home to look at the damage that was done to it while I was in Pender Harbour. She has never received a dime or any encouragement from ICBC or the corporation. I did forward this correspondence to the B.C. Ferry Corporation — as I did with other correspondence — and to ICBC, and, quite frankly, have never received a satisfactory answer in this case and other cases like it.

The minister suggests I should perhaps forward this type of correspondence directly to him. I know you're pretty busy, but I will do that if you request that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just send me a copy of that one and let's see if we can deal with it.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a series of three short questions to the minister responsible for ICBC. In northern communities, such as Cassiar or Atlin, when an accident happens people are often stuck without proper communication to the corporation. As one example, an adjuster might happen to come into Cassiar once a year to do any type of claims or adjustment work for the people who have been involved in accidents over the year.

My first question to the minister is: would it be possible to have an adjuster from the Terrace claims office cover all the communities along Highway 37 at least twice a year and have schedules posted in the local newspapers of when the adjuster would be coming through the area?

The second question is: in areas without telephone service, such as Telegraph Creek or Greenville, what methods could the minister suggest to help residents receive proper insurance information when they're involved in an accident'?

The last question to the minister is: the claims process in the north can be slow and intimidating, and I wonder what type of suggestions the minister could offer to help out the claims process in rural areas.

I would appreciate the minister's answering the questions and offering suggestions and helping break down the lack of communication that exists between the corporation and some northern, isolated areas. One problem is that, for instance, in Cassiar you would have to drive almost 500 miles to get to a claims office in Terrace.

To conclude, I would offer the suggestion to the minister of having a claim adjuster travel through the north regularly. It wouldn't be possible or even logical to have one come once a month, but maybe twice a year or three times a year. So I would hope the minister could offer some suggestions on those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: On those good roads!

MR. PASSARELL: Not yet; when you get that $100 million on it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, we do have some travelling adjusters, whether or not it's adequate for the circumstances raised by the member for Atlin. The Insurance Corporation will review it and see whether or not we can improve the service.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions I'd like to ask the minister about the ICBC system. First of all, I hope that he will convey my gratitude to Mr. Rogan and his staff for all the times that head-office staff has helped me with claims in my area. It seems that whenever you give the staff a call when you've run into problems over in claims centres here and there, he is always willing to straighten out the problems. He's been of tremendous assistance to most MLAs on this side.

One of the things I would like to talk about is the driver point program. When a driver is ticketed for a certain offence, he's entitled either to take the points or else to contest it; and in most cases, rather than take days off work and contest the thing, he ends up picking up points whether he felt he was in the wrong or not. It appears to be a double or quadruple jeopardy system that's operating here. The person gets the traffic ticket; beyond a certain number of points he can then be assessed by the superintendent of motor vehicles a certain amount of money per point, sometimes up to $20 or $25 per point. Beyond a certain number of points he can then have his licence lifted or be ordered to take a defensive driving course. Beyond that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia sends him a little note saying that they're going to assess him a certain amount per point on his driver insurance.

It seems that you're hit every time along the way; you could lose your driver's licence, you could pay the assessment to the superintendent of motor vehicles, you could be ordered to take a safe driving course which amounts to some cost to the driver, and in addition you're assessed a certain amount of money by ICBC as additional insurance premium. I don't advocate going back to the fines system, but a person should be penalized once and once only for an infraction. If as a result of that infraction it's shown that he is a greater insurance risk — and I'm sure you work that out actuarially so that you have the information — then it shouldn't be assessed based on the number of points he has, it should be based on the risk that he constitutes to himself and the rest of the driving public.

I think one of the real problems experienced by drivers as a result of the ICBC point penalty system is that they feel they're being fined again for something they've already been fined for a couple of times along the line. I know that the Attorney-General's office and the division of motor vehicles in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is looking at this, but I wonder what the position of ICBC is on these point penalties. They seem to be assessed over and over again; a driver could collect three or four penalties for a single offence or a couple of traffic offences, a speeding ticket or something like that. I think it's unfair. It really amounts to double jeopardy, and even more, in my opinion. I wonder what position the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has taken on that.

On the investments of the Insurance Corporation, I would

[ Page 2564 ]

like to offer a suggestion to the minister responsible or to the minister who is on the board of directors. I visited the state government insurance office in Queensland, Australia, a few years ago. That insurance company also operates the workers' compensation system, sells life insurance, is involved in co-insurance, and that type of thing. One of the things it does with its investments is to buy works of local artists and assist the artists of the state of Queensland to develop an income, because there is a major market for their works within the state. I wonder if that is a part of the investment strategy or policy of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

I had a number of people come to me when the FAIR program first came into effect on January 1 this year and there was a premium reduction for drivers of a certain age. The people who had renewed their insurance between, say, July 1979 and December 1980 were paying — even though they were in the age group that qualified — insurance premiums at a much higher rate than those who on January 1 would renew their premiums and would qualify at the reduced rate for that age group. As a result you have two drivers of the same age, same experience and same risk driving the same kind of car, yet one was paying twice as much as the other. A number of people in my constituency went down to the government agency, traded in their insurance, and bought insurance again at the lower rate. It seemed to me to be a difficult and bureaucratic way of going about things. Why didn't the Insurance Corporation simply, when they announced the lower rate structure for drivers in that age group, refund the balance to drivers rather than forcing them to go through the procedure of cancelling their insurance under the old plan and buying insurance with the lower premium under the new FAIR plan which took effect on January 1? I'm wondering if the minister can explain the reason for that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the points system, it's the motor-vehicle branch, of course — the assessment of points with regard to breaking the law. As the member knows, you achieve the six-point figure, and then you end up by paying the penalty on the points. The number of points are squared, so that if you have six points it's $36; ten points, $100, etc. But there's no charge on the insurance policy; it's not part of the policy. The points have nothing to do with the car insurance; it's on the licensing of the vehicle. We are part of the task force that you mention made up of the motor vehicle branch, Highways and ICBC, and we're reviewing the total system with regard to assessments where people have broken the law.

You mentioned investments, and I believe you referred to purchasing art work as an investment. I haven't given that one any thought, Mr. Member, but I would imagine that maybe the B.C. superintendent of insurance would not be in favour of such an approach. I think our laws, as far as investments go, as they relate to insurance corporations where you have to provide the reserves, etc.... We don't have the flexibility that that particular country would have where you invest in art work. We still have to look at our short-term, mid-term and long-term bond investments.

MR. SKELLY: I think I got the minister a bit wrong here. Out of the profits of the corporation — and they do make profits — they have a policy of investing in works of art that are done by local artists. I think it would be a worthwhile thing for a corporation such as the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, if they have a surplus of revenue over expenditures, to have a policy to invest a part of that profit in the works of local artists. For a corporation the size of ICBC to adopt that as one of their policies would be extremely beneficial to the cultural community here in British Columbia and would encourage local artists, because at least they would have some specified or available market for their works. I'm not suggesting that the superintendent of insurance be the person responsible for buying art works. Perhaps it would be done by a committee selected by the Insurance Corporation of B.C. in conjunction with cultural groups.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The corporation, of course, is on a break-even approach. We don't have profits. If we have surpluses they go back into the automobile insurance fund and the insurance premium is adjusted accordingly, either by a lesser increase in premiums due to the cost of inflation.... So I wouldn't see us adopting that approach with the Insurance Corporation. It's strictly that the premiums shall pay the claims. If we have surpluses at the end of the year, then we should reverse that and say that where we haven't used up all the premiums, we should make sure that we don't arrive at that, you might say, profit area where we would generate large surpluses. We attempt to maintain the premium at a realistic level without overcharging the motorist.

MR. SKELLY: I can't see you doing anything.

MR. BARBER: Could I ask leave of the House to make a couple of introductions?

Leave granted.

MR. BARBER: I'd like, if I may, to introduce two out of three of the most formidable members of the ice hockey team upon which I play every Thursday at midnight. Their names are Brian Fair and Darrell Wad. They are currently falling asleep in the House, and I ask the members to join me waking them up.

If that's not worth an extra pass or two tonight.... I've got to score somehow!

I have a matter I'd like to raise with the minister. I'd like to first of all comment generally, though, that I think ICBC generally provides very good service. I think ICBC is an institution of which the people can be justly proud. I think it's a public enterprise that works, and does a good job. I know it keeps capital here in the Province of British Columbia, and that capital is made available to British Columbia enterprise in a way that it never was when private insurance dominated the field, when the capital went east or south, and was not retained in this province. I think ICBC is a credit to the people of British Columbia who make it work.

If I may, I should like to join with my colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in complimenting Mr. Rogan and his staff. They provide a particularly helpful service to MLAs who, after they have failed to make or comprehend a case made locally at a claims centre, are able often to go to Mr. Rogan's office, and in short order be told precisely what the facts are as ICBC perceives them, and what the routes of appeal for a new decision might be. I think Mr. Rogan and his staff deserve a lot of credit for that, and certainly MLAs opposite here are happy to extend that credit, because they do a good job, and it helps us do our jobs as well.

I'd like to raise an issue of policy in regard to ICBC at the

[ Page 2565 ]

moment. The issue of policy has been raised most recently in a letter I received just this morning. It is, if I determine it correctly, a policy that I think is unfair and creates once again in a different way, a position and a situation somewhat similar to that raised by my colleague just a moment ago, that position being one of double jeopardy. I'd like if I may — removing the names but I'll send the minister the correspondence so he understands it's authentic — to read into the record a letter received, as I said, in my office just this morning. I'd appreciate the minister's comment on the apparent unfairness of the policy as applied in this case. The letter from a citizen in Victoria begins:

"On August 4, 1979, while stopped at a red light at the Kent-Kangley intersection in Kent, Washington state, USA, my vehicle was hit from behind. The driver, Mr. (name deleted) was not insured. Our vehicle required approximately $500 worth of repairs. We paid the $100 deductible from our insurance. ICBC contacted the Washington State Police and had Mr. (name deleted's) licence suspended. They have thus far not been able to obtain any money from him.

"I was informed by Sandy Allen, an ICBC claims officer at the Douglas Street office, that I would lose my safe driver's discount. Upon renewing my vehicle insurance I found that, indeed, my safe driver's discount had been revoked.

"Since I was hit from behind, and since I was in no way responsible for that accident, I did not, and will not, pay for the loss of my three-year safe driving discount. I was warned by an insurance clerk that if I paid in full it would be unlikely that ICBC would reimburse me for the discount, as they do not admit their mistakes. I find it amusing and costly that ICBC has been advertising their 'fairness.'

"This situation appears to be an example of the reverse. Is this how ICBC intends to reward responsible drivers? I have to clear the situation up as soon as possible. This may call for a change in ICBC's Bible of rules, which is exactly the fair and just thing to do. Could I have your advice and assistance in this matter?"

Well, I would like to help him but I can't, because I don't understand the justification for this apparent policy of ICBC. I understand why a safe driver's discount should be forfeited if the person who drives is no longer a safe driver. That's clear, logical and rational. I have no objection to that at all. If you or Mr. Chairman, drive like an incompetent, and we lose our safe driver discount, that's fair and just — no objection. But if you or I are in some other place, parked legally at a stop sign, waiting to go through and were hit from behind as this constituent was, why should we then lose our safe driver discount? Because we had the misfortune to be parked at a stop sign in Washington State and someone hit us? Someone who may have been entirely liable, entirely negligent, even impaired, for all I know. It's not fair on the surface of it, and it is a kind of double jeopardy. The double jeopardy is this. If that constituent of mine were less honest, he might have simply decided not to report the accident, because, you see, that way he wouldn't lose his safe driver's discount. If he decided to break the law, he could keep his mouth shut about the accident and keep the safe driver's discount as well. But because he is honest, he has been penalized. He reported the accident to the Washington State Police and to ICBC. So he's in a position, Mr. Chairman, of being rewarded financially if he breaks the law, and being punished financially if he obeys it. This is not fair. It's not reasonable, and it is not I think, a justifiable policy on ICBC's part.

What I wonder is whether or not the minister is prepared to revise that policy, to allow persons to continue to receive a safe driver discount if they are found innocent of liability and responsibility, whether or not an accident occurs. If in fact, in this case and others, the driver who was hit from behind or wherever is not demonstrated to be in any way responsible, why then should he or she lose the safe driver discount?

My bias is obvious. I think the safe driver discount is a good program. I think it should be supported, maintained and preserved. And when people drive like idiots they should lose it. But in this case the man appears to be entirely innocent. Yet he's lost the safe driver's discount. That would appear, I think, to be the consequence of a far too narrow, literal and rigid interpretation of the rules.

The safe-driver discount is a good program. It has, I think, the unanimous support of every member of this Legislature. But to be good it must also be fair. To be fair it must be applied in an intelligent way. This apparent application is not intelligent and it's not justifiable. It does create a situation where we, in effect, reward people who break the law in this case, the law that required the man to report the accident. He would have saved a lot of money if he didn't report it; he's lost some money because he did. In each circumstance he is entirely innocent of the affair. He did not cause the accident. He was hit from behind, and it was someone else's fault. The someone else lost his licence. This guy lost his safe-driver discount. Is that fair? I don't think it is. I wonder whether or not the minister would care to comment on this policy, and, as well, if this is, in fact, as ICBC has applied it, the way he wants the policy applied. If it's not, perhaps he could inform us as to whether or not he's prepared to revise the policy in order that the safe-driver discount program can work as it should work with fairness and equity to all the drivers of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave, Mr. Chairman, to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA: It's not too often that I, as the member for Prince Rupert, get the opportunity to introduce guests, because of the distance between my riding and the difficulty of getting to Victoria. Today I have a special opportunity because they're not even from the city of Prince Rupert so it's more difficult to get here. I'd like to ask the members to join me in welcoming to the Legislature this afternoon students from Port Simpson, British Columbia.

MR. LORIMER: I would also agree that generally speaking the ICBC operation is a good operation. There are some exceptions and some isolated cases in which I think improvement has to be brought about. I speak basically about the rates, and situations where people have discovered in a certain year that their rates have gone up substantially for similar coverage or the same coverage as they had in the previous years on the same automobile. It would seem to me that if there has been an error in previous years, on the rating of this particular vehicle, when the renewal premium goes

[ Page 2566 ]

out it would be a fairly simple matter for ICBC to send a note explaining to the insured person why that particular rate has increased substantially, in order to avoid a lot of unnecessary complaints against the corporation. I've had a number of people this year who have had substantial changes in their rates. Generally speaking, they have been because there had been an error in previous listings. But in some cases there appears to be less of an explanation.

I would like to read a letter from one person whom I received a notice from:

"I'm extremely upset about my ICBC insurance premium. The corporation has spent a great deal of money telling us all about the new FAIR rates this year. Please consider these facts. I'm a 34-year-old woman, never had an accident, am driving the same car which is now 14 years old, have always received the maximum safe driver discount, and have not changed my coverage from 1979. For all of this I get a renewal notice with a 32 percent increase over last year's rate. Could you please ask the minister in charge of ICBC what on earth he thinks is fair about this? All I want is an explanation for this outrageous increase."

It would seem to me that if information were given for cases similar to this, if it's not a mistake, but a valid reason for the increases.... It would seem a very simple matter to have an explanatory note accompany the renewal notice so that the people receiving these bills would understand the reason for it. I think it would do a lot in creating a better public image for the corporation. I think that's very, very necessary for that to happen.

I'd also like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, about the funds that are being held by ICBC. I'd like to know where the insurance funds are invested and the value of the funds at a certain date — maybe the end of the last fiscal year — as to the amount of money invested by ICBC. I'd like to know what investment income was obtained during any given period that the minister may wish to divulge to us. It would be interesting to note what percentage of the expenditures of ICBC were brought back by investment capital. If the minister could at some time give us that information, it would be appreciated.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the increase in premium for a motorist who has written the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, if he'd send me a copy of the letter, or direct it to Mr. Rogan of ICBC, I'm sure he'll get a response indicating the reasons why that premium was increased.

In regard to the investment portfolio, I refer the member to page 10 of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's annual report. It indicates there that as of December 31, 1979, we had $525.3 million invested — $148.5 million with the federal government; $102.3 million with the banks; provincial, $95.3 million etc. — on down to municipal credit unions, trust companies and others. The investments are with preference given to British Columbia. But there are limitations — as I mentioned to one of the other members — with regard to the ability of the B.C. investment market to absorb these kinds of dollars. But they are all in Canadian investments.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to raise two items with the minister. One concerns the present handling by ICBC of personal injury claims.

At the present time the law requires that in the process of trying to achieve some settlement for injuries an injured person must undergo medical examination at the request of ICBC, the insurer. The difficulty is that the medical profession have been charging up to $350 for the failure of the injured person to attend that particular examination. That is a charge that I find very difficult to countenance, in the time that a medical examiner would have spent had the injured person not failed to attend. It's also a general rule that 48 hours' notice must be given in the event that one wishes to cancel that particular appointment. What I am suggesting to the minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — is that ICBC is being blackmailed to some extent. Those charges that are levied against the person's claim are naturally used by ICBC to reduce the amount of the claim, and they use it to deduct there. What I'm suggesting is that if you would check this through your officials, it seems to me some contact should be made with the medical profession surrounding their procedure and the way they're going about charging for independent medical examinations. That can substantially affect the progress of settlement. It is also a charge that seems very difficult to justify on the basis of time lost by any particular medical practitioner. It seems to me ICBC should not be blackmailing persons claiming for personal injuries, nor should the medical profession be charging what I see as an unconscionable fee for failure to attend.

The second item I would like to raise with the minister, if he wouldn't mind checking it in the course of his responsibilities on the board, is this. Some changes were made which were welcome. I raised about a year ago the question of the compensation that should be paid to someone who is injured as a result of a drunken driver, or where the insured driver is in violation of the statutory conditions. Up to a certain point, the amount that was paid in compensation of the seriously injured victim was at the statutory limits. That has been changed and I welcome that change. They will now compensate on the basis of whatever the award is, up to the extent of the policy limit that the person who was in violation may have carried. That's a welcome change.

The other part of the equation is that the person who is in violation of the statutory condition will also be liable to the full extent of the loss. It means that since ICBC is now paying more than statutory limits, they will also claim — under their rights of subrogation — against the person who had violated the statutory condition. Now those statutory conditions can be more than simply drunken driving. You can be in violation of your statutory condition, for example, if you are unlicensed, or if you're underage. There are a number of other provisions. My concern is that there are a number of people who, in fact, are being bankrupted by the insurance program even where they are insured.

The point is that you should not use subrogation as a way of cleaning up statutory violation or violations on the road. The criminal law is available. Jail terms are available for drunken drivers. To put bankruptcy as well on those who have paid for insurance and expected to be covered when they were driving, and admittedly were wrong in driving either drunk or with drugs, or perhaps failed to qualify for a valid B.C. driver's licence.... It seems to me that here's an area where the public would be willing to pick up this cost. In other words, ICBC should be limited in its rights of subrogation. I could never understand why subrogation should be used as a penalty in regard to drunken driving or persons violating the law. All it usually means is that the

[ Page 2567 ]

person without means leaves the province or runs away, and the person with means can be bankrupted; or if he has a lot of means, it doesn't mean much of a penalty to him in any event. It seems to me that the proper approach to driving safety lies in making sure that the victim is properly compensated — and I'm pleased to see that one change; also, the second half of that should be that rights of subrogation should be severely limited where it means the bankruptcy of any individual driver.

MR. BARRETT: Ironically, Mr. Speaker, talking about car insurance — in the gallery today is Wes Robbins, the Minister of Revenue in the government of Saskatchewan. He's also responsible for the government of Saskatchewan's insurance program. He's here in the gallery listening to our debate today, but I think he just stepped out.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The minister suggests I bring him down. I was going to bring him down, but he hasn't got a tie. Knowing how formal we are in this House, he felt he would rather not be on the floor. I ask the House to greet him when he comes back in; he should be in in a minute. There's Mr. Robbins now.

I don't have too much to say on ICBC, other than to say that those raving socialists over there have gone too far. They have expanded the program to a degree that is shocking even the Soviet Union. They have embraced government-owned car insurance as if it was their own child, and as foster parents they have denied the real maternal and paternal responsibility. As one who has suffered from the vindictive slings and arrows of mad opposition who screamed doom and gloom about the government insurance business, let me say with some humility; welcome to the socialist club.

I hope that no Social Credit supporter will understand that the government is trying to flog itself as a better government by continuing socialist programs which were started by the evil group who are all red inside but pin-striped outside. The minister is nothing but a raving pinko going around broadcasting government-owned car insurance. It is a reverse plot. It has been a Social Credit plot to bring socialism in the back door. They have adopted the program of going around this province and attacking socialists, only to be seeped with the philosophy that they themselves bring in and peddle as if it were their own.

Today the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) has got the exposure of the duplicity that he was sold when he joined that party. He above all knows how the evils of socialism destroy personal initiative, brings dependency on the state, and put out those big international car insurance companies that formerly had the opportunity to participate in free enterprise. I want to say to that member that I can see on his face that he is thunderstruck that free enterprise and the opportunity to defend it in his riding have been taken away from him. I will be the first to understand why he crosses the floor, why he attacks big government, and why he leaves the socialists over there. I know for a fact that he joined that party thinking that he was fighting socialism, and he's been placed in the embarrassing position of having to listen to this debate in which socialism is being praised by the minister responsible for government car insurance. We know what's been going on. That member has been duped. And it is about time that he be given the opportunity and freedom in his caucus to separate himself from that maverick group of secret socialists hiding over there. But, Mr. Chairman, by their deeds shall they be known. When the lightning bolt of reality strikes that member's brain, he will realize that when he campaigned for Social Credit he was really endorsing socialist programs such as ICBC.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if the word goes out from beyond this place that when they were in opposition they fought against ICBC, but in the last provincial campaign they went around saying, "Vote for us, we know how to run socialism better than the socialists...." The only person they bought earplugs for for that line was the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who left her finger in that campaign. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am embarrassed for the member for North Peace River, who sat here and decided that he would only be a silent observer of the debate, and having sat and observed, realized that he had joined a socialist group that has abandoned all of its free enterprise principles and is bringing all drivers to its bosom under government-owned car insurance. That minister baldly endorses....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Objection! Vicious attack! [Laughter.]

MR. BARRETT: We've seen no attempt at a coverup from that minister. It is a straight embracing of socialism, and that member has been embarrassed. Look at the serious grimace on his face now as he realizes he has been struck by the bolt of reality that he joined the wrong party when he should be sitting all alone as the free-enterpriser fighting for the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: We don't want him.

MR. BARRETT: I know.

I'm glad, too, that there are not many students in the chamber today. I would not want many students to see the height of cynicism that is practised by this governing party. Some students believe that Social Credit is so much against socialism that they'd destroy ICBC, B.C. Hydro, the Petroleum Corporation, and all the whipping boys that they had when they were opposition. Thank goodness it's a quiet day in B.C. Too bad the referendum isn't being held today to mask this fraudulent debate that's taking place, because someone's going to leave this chamber and squeal out there that the only good thing Social Credit is riding on are NDP programs like ICBC.

I remember my good colleague, Robert Strachan, and the member for New Westminster, a prominent insurance agent, who went out publicly endorsing this program, only to suffer the slings and arrows of an unremitting opposition at that time. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I welcome this deathbed conversion by the Socreds — the endorsation of ICBC. I welcome the minister's public confession that the NDP was right after all. Don't be too embarrassed to stand up and say: "Thank you, Dennis Cocke. Thank you, Bob Strachan. Thanks to the NDP for this wonderful program." I won't go around repeating your thanks. Not me. I'm just a quiet observer of what is known to normal people as hypocrisy and to politicians as: "Well, whatever the means, it justifies the end." Far be it from me to remember the vicious personal attacks or statements made in this House against socialist car insurance. I'm a forgiving sort. Far be it from me to hold

[ Page 2568 ]

against them their embracing a program of ours to get elected, but it will always baffle me — as I sit down, Mr. Chairman — why the member for North Peace River remained silent on this above all issues. You are embracing socialism. You're going to turn pink tonight unless you confess.

MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one correction. I was not duped; I was simply stunned by the singsong histrionics of Chief Walking Eagle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

The Premier on vote 10.

HON MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, while coming into the chamber, I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition referring to the history of ICBC, because I remember when he went around this province and promised the people $28-a-year car insurance. Remember that?

MR. BARRETT: Pinko!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Today, he tries to run from that promise and the chaos he created in this province, and now he sits, after his long chamber of commerce luncheon today, yelling: "Pinko, pinko." It must have been quite a lunch. A great lunch today, Mr. Chairman.

I remember the $28 promise. We all remember that. Remember the $28 promise of car insurance, the chaos and the hidden losses? That's what I remember most.

MR. BARBER: Pinko!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Victoria yells: "Pinko." No, it wasn't pink; it was red ink! You remember when the member sitting in front of you.... The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) were directors of ICBC and they wouldn't tell the people that they were going to lose $175 million. Those losses were hidden. Do you remember that the party you ran for called an election in a hurry, before the public found out after statements in the newspaper from the Premier of the day that, oh, they weren't going to lose any money and if they lost any it may be as high as $18 million? And what were the losses just a few months later? I remember those losses. They were $175 million or $183 million, somewhere in that bracket.

We remember that. What a change in a few months when we had the then Premier and Minister of Finance and the directors of the corporation all saying that ICBC wasn't in financial trouble! The public wondered why an election was called at that time. It was called in a big hurry, in December. It's not because the cupboard was bare, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) says. It's because the cupboard was full of IOUs that the public were not aware of.

I'm pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has brought up the history of ICBC. Frankly, at one time the ICBC did have a compulsory aspect contained in legislation, which is no longer the case for collision insurance. The opportunity is there for competition. This government isn't afraid of competition so that it has to legislate against it; not at all. But I remember, they were so frightened at that time of the concept they were so proud of, the $28 insurance, that they put legislation in saying that nobody would be allowed to compete against it in any of its aspects.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That was a very, very strong commitment to government, not only writing all the rules but legislating people out of business. The fact that there is opportunity now is far different — opportunity to compete for collision insurance. Members in this Legislature may remember when we made those changes. They may remember the embarrassment of that party as government at being unable to deliver not only $28 insurance but insurance at a price with which they were willing to share with the public and the fact that in doing so, with what were politically suppressed rates, they had hidden losses in that corporation of over $180 million. We remember that. That's a matter of public record.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) — who would like to join his colleague the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who said in this Legislature that the NDP make up their own facts — maybe would like to make up a fact or two about this. But that is a fact of history. Those losses are there. The people are aware of them. They know about them, but they also know about those actions that were taken prior to that period and the subsequent election.

Now we have in place an Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that has some compulsory aspects. It was brought in by that party as government. It left a record of chaos; it left problems; it left a debt; and it also had legislation at one time making all the automobile insurance compulsory, even that part which fixed dented fenders and cracked windshields — you had no right of choice. Well, you have a right of choice now, where you can purchase that, because that legislation was removed. The opportunity is there, then, for insurance coverage to be provided by the private sector in that area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Surrey yells out that they've left the province. Well, they must be aware that the right is here for them to provide optional coverage in that area. That's far different from that right that was removed when you were so insecure as a government and as directors of the corporation that you didn't want them to have that right at all. The fact that you're telling me that in your view that right may not be exercised at any given time doesn't mean they mustn't have that right, a right which you denied them by legislation.

This corporation and car insurance have gone through quite a period in this province. Our government, when we dealt with the principle of how insurance should be offered to the automobile owner, didn't try to manipulate ICBC in how they dealt with their rates. We brought a bill into this Legislature that would apply to anyone providing automobile insurance coverage in this province — non-discriminatory coverage, because this province is the only area in which there is legislation to which all who would provide auto insurance, whether they be government-owned, government complete monopoly or whether there is competition available where all private- and public-sector suppliers of auto insurance would have to respond to the legislation.... The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) says he's against that.

[ Page 2569 ]

Well, I believe in the rules being laid out very clearly for all who apply for the insurance. Now, Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody is against that. Well, I don't believe in discriminatory insurance. This government introduced the legislation.

If that party — who when they were government first started tinkering and brought in the ICBC on a promise of $28 car insurance — had felt that commitment, they would have introduced and passed legislation themselves, or they would have provided a program based on that principle. They did neither; the group you support did neither.

MR. LEA: Pat, is he sparkling?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, the member for Prince Rupert is talking about something "sparkling." I don 't know whether that something is a diamond ring or it's something to drink or what. But, Mr. Chairman, let's get back to the member for Coquitlam-Moody. If the party he supports, and which is in opposition now, had felt committed to that principle when they were government, they would probably have introduced it, but they didn't. This government brought it into legislation, and we placed in that legislation the aspect that no one in this province can sell auto insurance on a discriminatory basis with regard to age, sex, marital status or region. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is something new for a government to clearly lay out for all who would participate that ground rules....

MR. BARRETT: Commie!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition yells across the floor: "Commie." I don't know what he thinks is "commie" about this government laying out the rules. I know what communism would do. They would have a compulsory corporation in which they secretly manipulated the rates themselves. They wouldn't have it laid out in legislation in the people's chamber; they wouldn't do that. No, what they would do is what the NDP tried to do as government: that is, put their members on the board, play around with the rates, hide the losses. That's the way they would work.

This government put it forth in legislation, and that legislation is there for the public to understand and anyone who would sell car insurance to respond to. I must say that the first response was from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, as one would expect, and they came up with the FAIR, program, which is a means of phasing in non-discriminatory auto insurance.

I want to say that the fact that this government brought it in is not lost on those people who were discriminated against before. The fact is that that party over there had a chance, but all they proved is that they were able to manipulate and play around with a monopoly they created — and even given a chance to create and run a monopoly, they were able to run up record losses, the largest losses of any corporation any time in Canada's history. Now that takes skill, Mr. Chairman. It takes great skill to be able to set up your own monopoly, have the only game in town — nobody can drive a car without your insurance — and lose $181 million. Now who did that? Well, that was done by the gang over there; you remember that. Two of these members who sit here today were directors of that corporation, directors who didn't share that information with the public. Two of those members are former Ministers of Finance who may have had that information, who should have had that information. They didn't share it with the public. What they did, Mr. Chairman, was call a winter election so they wouldn't have to tell before — they hoped — they could secure a new mandate. That was one of the reasons why this government brought in the Crown Corporation Reporting Act, quarterly financial reports.... The Leader of the Opposition smiles and hoots and laughs, because he used to tremble that the public would find out. If he is not embarrassed about that record now, he should be embarrassed. Anyone would be embarrassed. You'd be embarrassed, wouldn't you, Mr. Chairman, if you had that sorry record of performance on your conscience for all to see? The Leader of the Opposition scoffs, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is providing his "input" by echoing everything I say. It's good to see he's in a good mood today. The other day he was cranky in here; someone had hidden his curlers.

Now, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go on, but I just wanted to remind the members, while the Leader of the Opposition was using his selective recall on the history of ICBC, that we wanted to have a little more of the history of ICBC — the history of its formation, the promise that led to its formation, the history of its losses, the history of the conduct of members who had knowledge of those losses leading up to the election of December 1975. And who brought in the legislation that would apply to all car insurance companies in this province, public and private, that would indeed remove the discriminatory aspect that has been part of auto insurance for too long? You would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that any government, or party as government, committed to a single monopoly that would introduce such a program would have done that from the start. That was not done.

I wanted to put these few facts on the table in discussing the history of ICBC because those chapters are chapters that will be read and reread over the course of time in British Columbia, a story that will be told and retold. It is a period of British Columbia's history that is most dramatically illustrative of what type of government that party would provide, what type of financial disclosure they would provide given the opportunity to be government again, what type of commitment they really have to non-discrimination, given that record. It is really a period of time that illustrates most dramatically the differences between the two parties in this House at the present time. And that is one of the record. It is the record which speaks very loudly and clearly to the people of this province. It is a record that cannot be erased as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) called out across the floor a little while ago. It is a record that can't be selectively rewritten by making up your own facts, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) might suggest to this Legislature again. It is a record that British Columbians have felt; it's a record that British Columbians have experienced; it's a record that British Columbians will want to be present before them always as a guidepost to what could happen should these members of that party be given another opportunity to govern.

MR. BARRETT: I welcome the Premier in this sparkling debate. Let's start off having a little political fun this afternoon. I think it's important that there always be a little levity in the House. I want to thank the Premier for his levity. He hasn't got much to laugh about when he gets up talking about

[ Page 2570 ]

ICBC. I'll deal point by point with what our Premier's done today. It's a little bit of fun.

Because if I were as embarrassed as he must be deep down inside, over a betrayal of free enterprise by keeping ICBC, I'd spin off that same old stuff that he did today. It was good stuff. Let's hear it for the Premier. [Applause.] Well, come on, you can do a bit better than his own group can, can't you? Come on, let's hear it for the Premier. [Applause.] That's better. Let's hear it for him.

"ICBC is $181 million in the hole," they said. Remember that day? They loaned ICBC $181 million on a Monday and then quietly borrowed it back on a Friday. Why didn't they tell us that today? You forgot that, Bill? Send them $181 million on a Friday and then a phone call: "Send it back. It's only for politics." They got the money back in six days. I never heard the Premier say: "Well, they didn't really need it. We just sent it over for five days for politics, but we got it back in general revenue."

HON. MR. BENNETT: You lost the money.

MR. BARRETT: Why would they do a thing like that? Do you think that that's full fiscal disclosure? Do you think that that's what it is? Well, now that you're here, Bill....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where did the money go, Dave?

MR. BARRETT: Where did the money go? Yes, where did the money go that week?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've been looking for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the usage of first names to refer to members of the chamber must be discouraged.

MR. BARRETT: The money was gone for one week and came back — a little political game. I don't mind — what's politics between parties? But, Mr. Chairman, then we get on to this statement about full financial disclosure in this sparkling debate. This is the first time in weeks we've had the Premier up on his feet talking about an issue. While we've got you here, tell us who you met with in your office and made the deal with on the jetfoil with the public's money. Full public disclosure. We're still waiting. Far be it for me to run around this province saying: "You know, the Premier of this province says one thing in the House when it isn't his estimates, but absolutely nothing when it is."

Let's deal with some of his other fun statements. Equalization, he said. Bragging about bringing in equalization. Good on you. Good for you. When you moved into a good socialist program, you took the next step that should have been taken. Good on you. You're beginning to understand.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, Davey!

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier's a little bit embarrassed. Just calm down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm embarrassed for you.

MR. BARRETT: That's the first time you've ever shown me any consideration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, it's the second. We both remember the first time, don't we?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, here he's got the poor old member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) admitting he's stunned. He's stunned! How would you be if you ran on a free enterprise ticket and you got that explanation for a socialist program? You'd end up admitting you're stunned. I give you credit for that. I won't go around in your constituency telling that the Premier stunned you. But it wasn't his debate that stunned you; it was his actions in adopting the ICBC.

Now let's have a philosophical debate. When you were in opposition over on this side of the House, you were against the idea of a government insurance program. You were against it; you said so. You voted against it. You said you wanted free enterprise.

MR. LEA: They said they'd do away with it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, they said they'd do away with it. Can you tell me why they keep ICBC if they don't believe in a government-owned car insurance program? You do believe in a government-owned car insurance program. The reason you believe in it is that you know people want it. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. It is known as political pragmatism. If this government had any political philosophy, it would have the guts to destroy ICBC. But let's face it, this government knows that when the people get a taste of confidence in having the ability to run their own affairs through democratic socialism, he hasn't got the guts to dismantle it, because he'd lose an election.

Mr. Chairman, the same goes for the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation — socialism embraced by the Premier of this province. He called it socialism and voted against it in the record. You can't erase the words from Hansard; the statements you made against the Petroleum Corporation are there for all to see. The Development Corporation, Mr. Chairman — the words they said against that....

MR. LEA: They voted against it.

MR. BARRETT: They voted against it. They voted against ICBC. They voted against the Petroleum Corporation. They voted against the Development Corporation.

MR. KEMPF: The people of this province voted against you.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they certainly voted against us. But they didn't vote against our policies. If they had, they would have destroyed those corporations.

I'll tell you what, Mr. Chairman: if the Premier's so confident today that he can run socialism better than us, if he really believes what he says in his change of philosophy, then call an election on the basis of socialism and the ICBC, the Petroleum Corporation and the Development Corporation. They have not brought in one single new idea since they've been government; they've been riding on our policies ever since they've been in power.

They did; I want to apologize, Mr. Chairman. Under the insurance program, they did announce extended care. They've had a little trouble delivering it, but there's nothing

[ Page 2571 ]

like a good announcement and a few promises, eh? A little wink and a nod; you know, politics. We understand. Just like denticare. How many times have they announced socialist denticare? Four? Six? Eight?

On this estimate, Mr. Chairman, we've witnessed today a little bit of fun; some politics, but mostly a little bit of fun. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, it is just like socialized medicine: fought against by right-wing governments for years, fought against by doctors for years, but it is here and here to stay. Socialized car insurance is here and here to stay.

I can't help the amusement of seeing the Premier squirming a little bit when he talks about how the insurance companies are going to be allowed to compete with ICBC — the equalization program. They're all leaving British Columbia now. The insurance companies say that the government of British Columbia is unfair. Isn't that interesting? If it was the NDP that brought in that program and scared out the insurance companies like this Premier has, it would be blazing headlines. And if they were in opposition they'd say: "Oh, you're destroying private enterprise." I've heard not one peep from the government about driving the insurance companies out of British Columbia and ICBC. That's what they've done. Who is there to speak for those insurance companies that used to be protected by government?

AN HON. MEMBER: McGeer says: "Let them eat cake."

MR. BARRETT: No, that was the peons getting their cars. "If they don't like it, sell their car." Do you remember that? That led to that motto: "Stick it in your ear." That's why he's building the tunnel.

MR. LEA: The big ear.

MR. BARRETT: The big ear! Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot of fun this afternoon.

I just want to remind people in this House of the fact that among their most vocal spokespersons against the philosophy of government car insurance were the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer). When they get elected, not only do they put people on the board.... The Premier alluded that the NDP put on board members. Who did you put on the board? Who's Mr. Gillen? Why, he was a stranger to the member for Point Grey until they bumped into each other over an election campaign.

Come on, Mr. Chairman, let's have none of that nonsense as if you are some kind of pure, above-politics appointee on boards. Ralph Gillen was a political appointment. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. Citizens should be encouraged to participate in politics; but don't be timid about the fact that you've made political appointments.

Then, to run the corporation, you couldn't find somebody in Canada. You had to go outside the country and hire somebody for $80,000, because you are so insecure about Canadians' ability. You went and got an American because, you said: "We can't run our own affairs."

MR. HOWARD: Just like you did with Boeing and the jetfoil.

MR. BARRETT: Boeing and the jetfoil all over again. We can't have a Canadian crew; we can't have a Canadian flag. Give it to the Americans.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cargill.

MR. BARRETT: Give it to the Americans.

MR. BARBER: Sell the Gray Line.

MR. BARRETT: Give it to the Americans.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scuttle Ocean Falls.

MR. BARRETT: Give it to anybody who will put out their hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe you'd better resign.

MR. BARRETT: No, I've got a better idea. We'll take on the Americans and we'll give them the Socreds. How's that for a trade?

The point has been made today, but not by me. I want to give credit where credit is due. Never mind arguing over who said, what said, I said, you said. Never mind arguing about how long the money was over there or back. Never mind the politics. The fact is that today the Premier of all of the province of British Columbia has had to get up and speak without mentioning one word of the fact that he was philosophically against government-owned car insurance. Now he's up praising it, saying they're running socialism better than us. I'd like to say welcome to the club. You don't have any philosophy as a government, Mr. Chairman. You are political opportunists who have faced the facts that when progress takes place under an adventurous government, you don't dare turn back the clock.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I got a real amount of enjoyment listening to the Leader of the Opposition once more this afternoon.

He keeps referring to some equalization program. I don't know what he is referring to. I know that in this Legislature we passed legislation dealing with non-discriminatory automobile insurance in this province. I don't know where he brings in the word "equalization." It was to prevent discrimination. It may be that ''discrimination'' and "non-discrimination" are not words that he cares too much about, because he talks about something called "equalization."

The sale of non-discriminatory auto insurance was legislation brought in by this government. It was legislation brought in to prevent the discrimination that has taken place by public and private insurance companies since auto insurance has been sold — by either public or private insurance companies. It was not a policy that was adhered to or introduced by the New Democratic Party. It was not a policy they believed in. Given the opportunity to bring in non-discriminatory auto insurance.... I believe they were elected on the promise of $28 insurance. That sounded good to all of us. We all believed that they could do it because they told us they could. Of course they didn't, but they were elected on it.

They introduced an insurance program. Now what did they do? Did they feel confident that the $28 car insurance that they were going to offer could compete with the private sector? No. They had so little confidence in government-run insurance that they didn't set up a corporation that, by com-

[ Page 2572 ]

petition, would drive the private sector from this province. The Leader of the Opposition is hanging his head now. He didn't set up a corporation that could drive them out by competition. They drove them out through legislation. They legislated them out of this province.

They legislated their competition out of this province. They could only have done that for one thing, Mr. Chairman. That is, having been elected on a promise of $28 car insurance — obviously at the time they made the promise they knew they couldn't deliver it — they had to make sure that no one could compete, so they set up by legislation an insurance corporation. With a stroke of the same legislation they legislated out of this province people who had done business in this province for years.

They may not have liked those companies. They may not have cared for the insurance they sold. But to legislate them out of existence wasn't showing confidence in the socialism that the Leader of the Opposition advocates so proudly. He advocates it proudly when he thinks it is working. He runs away from it when it doesn't work, and there have been many experiments in socialism that haven't worked.

What did they do? They legislated away their competition. He talks now of being a great democrat, a new democrat, and that somehow they are democratic socialists. At a time when they had a chance to show confidence in that philosophy in which they believe, they chose the tough way out, the Big Brother way out. They brought in legislation and they legislated out the right to sell insurance business against the corporation they were setting up. It's not hard to get a handle on and get a monopoly and get control of an industry and say the competition has failed when you legislate them out. That's not hard. That's one way to get a foothold.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) says: "What's wrong with that?" I'll tell you what's wrong with that. Everybody knows who has been through business.... It's like building up a law practice, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody. It takes years to build confidence and to build up a practice. But having closed your practice, say, to go and be a politician for a few years, you know what it's like to try and go back and establish your business. It's the tough years all over again.

If somebody was elected in this Legislature and legislated out of business all law offices in competition with the government providing all the legal services, and then a few years later you had an enlightened government that came in and said, "We will restore your right to compete," as we did in providing collision coverage, you'd have a tough time coming back in with your law practice. So members who are concerned about that, of course, while they are full-time MLAs, also maintain their law practices so they don't have that fear of losing the law practice. They can be a full-time MLA and a full-time lawyer at the same time. That is quite a trick, but some people can apparently do it. That's what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Let us then talk about non-discrimination in auto insurance. There was discrimination, and there has been by public and private auto insurance for years. This province has passed landmark legislation in introducing our Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act that would apply equally to the private or public sector. That's never been there before. That was never introduced in any other province or any other state or any other part of the world, either by socialist governments or private enterprise governments; but it has been introduced by this government.

The Leader of the Opposition has the audacity to say that this government hasn't had one good idea or brought in one good piece of legislation. I guess, then, he doesn't agree with the auditor-general, because he said we haven't brought in anything good. Let it be clearly on the record that by his own statement he is against the position of the auditor-general. I guess, then, he doesn't agree with the ombudsman, because he doesn't agree that that was a benchmark piece of legislation for the rights of people. Let it be clearly on the record that he does not agree with that as well. Let us also reflect on the other good legislation. You may oppose us as a party, but your leader has clearly said that this legislation we passed, which the public supports, is not good. He says we've introduced no good legislation.

Let us, then, clearly get it back on the record: he is against aid to independent schools, not only by the fact that they left the Legislature and refused to vote.... Let us say now that, no matter what happens in any coming election, any letters by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) saying to the independent schools, "we didn't mean it, we will allow this aid to continue...." Let it be clearly on the record that he doesn't speak for his leader, who is sitting there laughing at them today because they may have fooled some people.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, that letter was signed by Gary Lauk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I know that you've allowed wide latitude to the Leader of the Opposition. I listened carefully to the number of things he said during this debate. I would like to deal with them as well.

He mentions, as a Crown corporation — this is the ultimate insult to the taxation system — that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation is a tribute to socialism. All it is is a tax-gathering vehicle. We could set up a corporation in the name of socialism, and we could call it the Income Tax Corporation; and when it made a profit we'd say: "What a tribute to socialism! The Income Tax Corporation has made a profit of $384 million out of the pockets of the people of the province." We could set up a corporation called the Business Tax Corporation and the Sales Tax Corporation; and we could say to the people: "What a tribute to socialism! The Sales Tax Corporation made a profit this year." Then we could set up a corporation called the Mineral Tax Corporation and say: "What a tribute to socialism! It made a profit this year." What a laugh we've had, Mr. Chairman.

The Leader of the Opposition got up and said: "This government had a chance to destroy ICBC." Well, it's to our credit that while we opposed, philosophically, a monopoly insurance company, what we did.... Those that destroyed it were the New Democratic Party. They are the ones that had it lose $181 million. If that wasn't destruction, what was? Who destroyed it?

Who didn't want, in being elected, to see those people abandoned, who thought they had bought coverage and didn't know that there was no money to cover their losses?

[ Page 2573 ]

We didn't. We wouldn't see the people of this province abandoned — the young people, the seniors who had bought auto insurance in good faith, who didn't know that you'd lost $181 million dollars that was there to pay for the claims on their cars, which you didn't tell them about. You might, but we wouldn't; you did, but we wouldn't.

Who destroyed it? You destroyed it yourselves. At the same time, in your continual attempt to try to rewrite history, you're destroying your own credibility. ICBC was brought in on a promise that couldn't be kept. It was administered in ineptitude; losses were hidden from the public of this province. At the same time, one of the infamous acts, which will be associated with that party.... They had no confidence in their own philosophy, and with a stroke of the pen they legislated the private companies' right to do business right out of this province. They didn't have the confidence that the promise they made, the thing they believed in, could complete, and they made it a monopoly overnight. They drove them out overnight. That'll never be remembered by the NDP, but it'll be remembered by the people.

The Leader of the Opposition has got his famous forced laugh now, so I know we've got to him.

Let me say it again clearly: that record will remember, but your own lack of confidence in socialism that you had to drive business out by legislation will never be forgotten. You'll never be forgotten. You'll go down in history for losses, legislating business out of the province. Your disrespect for small business, agents, insurance people, the people that worked in the industry.... If I were heavier I would shake my jowls as well, my friend.

MR. COCKE: We have just witnessed probably one of the funniest acts in the House since the flying fish that the Premier was referring to. He was talking about how his father used to wind up the day.

Let the record show that this government that we now have was the government in January 1976 who tripled the rates to the young people in this province. They're having a deathbed repentance now, and they're talking about their Bill 33 bringing the rates down, appealing to the young, saying: "Please vote for us." But they're not going to forget that they are the people who wrecked ICBC, that they were the people who took them down the garden path.

The Premier talks about not driving the auto insurance companies out of the province. We did, he said, with our monopolistic tendencies. Let me quote what Royal Insurance had to say just last fall, after Bill 33. That double-talk we get from that side of the House is absolutely incredible.

Royal Insurance company on October 13, 1979....

MR. SEGARTY: What newspaper?

MR. COCKE: It's in the Financial Post. That's a fairly reliable newspaper. I think that the member agrees. Not that he's ever read it, but there's a possibility he will agree it's relatively reliable. Let me quote what that newspaper had to say in an article written by Gearson:

"Royal Insurance last week announced it will refuse new automobile insurance from its agency force in British Columbia. In addition, all renewal business will be placed on hold position until further notice."

Mr. Chairman, they go on to say:

"Other insurers, such as Commercial Union, Fireman's Fund, Travelers insurance, seem poised to follow the Royal's footsteps unless the B.C. government swiftly commits an about-face"

— which the government did not do.

They are all gone; they kicked them out through the back door. We were honest with them. We said that ICBC would carry the compulsory aspect and that's the way it should it be. Why did we do that? Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you recall why we did that. Because our government and that government's predecessor.... His father, the Premier, brought in an act in this province stating that insurance was compulsory for anyone to drive a car. That's the freedom gang. We said that if it's to be compulsory, then we should provide the public vehicle for them to get a fair account of themselves. They took away the freedom in the first place. Let the record show that very clearly.

I would just like to quote a little more from this article: "Royal is the largest of the few private insurers to return to the B.C. auto insurance market in 1977 after an absence beginning in 1972."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the Premier are reminded that the member for New Westminster has the floor. The member continues.

MR. COCKE: I hope they will enjoy themselves. I can wait; I'm very patient.

The article goes on to talk about the whole question of the Social Credit free enterprise party that returned to power in 1976.

"The insurers entertained fond hopes, which they have never entirely given up, of being allowed to compete freely with ICBC. They were, however, permitted to compete against ICBC only in the optional insurance market catering to people who wanted more than the mandatory third-party liability insurance provided by ICBC."

Well, well, my goodness gracious!

You see, Mr. Chairman, that great socialist who was running ICBC at the time — or for a good part of the time that the Socreds were in power — decided that we were right. However, they had come along, using as their platform: "Freedom. Open it up." Remember? We used to listen to a record playing during the campaign in December 1975. That record went something like this: "Thanks for the Memories" — if I were Alec Macdonald I would even sing the tune — talking about the good old days of free enterprise in British Columbia car insurance. My understanding is that it was sponsored by the independent insurance companies of B.C. which was actually another name for Dan Campbell, who picked up the tab. How do you like them apples? Dan Campbell is the guy who walked away with his tail between his legs just recently after having been disgraced in another campaign that was known as "Dirty Tricks."

When they got into power, Mr. Chairman, they took a good look at ICBC and they said: "Well, look. You know you cannot run an organization like this and let competition come in and cream off." That's what was happening before. When insurance was made compulsory in the first place, companies like Allstate, that had very little regard for people, would say: "Yes. We will offer car insurance.'' Safeco was

[ Page 2574 ]

another good one. They would offer car insurance to people in this province, and they would say as follows: "We'll give you car insurance as long as you don't have an accident, are over age 30 and married." I can recall very vividly that young people faced with the prospect of getting car insurance were absolutely out of their tree. We set up a vehicle in this province so that they could get car insurance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Without assigned risk.

MR. COCKE: It was assigned risk. That's the vehicle. Then they had to pay through the nose. It was awful. So we set up this very fair proposition and brought youths' rates down to an absolutely astonishing level in view of normal insurance practice. They were happy.

The insurance company was making very good progress. Thank you for all of your discussion in terms of....

AN HON. MEMBER: A $181 million loss.

MR. COCKE: I'll go into that in a second. You're too young for this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dennis, you were already into it; you were a director.

MR. COCKE: Anyways, I want to first say this.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Okay, let's get into it right now. Listen to them start hollering. They do it every time we do it. I want to take your minds back to Public Accounts in the year 1977. Think about it. Bortnick came to Public Accounts that year and was being interviewed — the president of ICBC, a trusted man that you kept until he died. Let's face it.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Just a minute, listen to this. Bortnick was asked in Public Accounts at that time: was the money available to ICBC — the $181 million from the government? He said as follows: "Yes." Was it needed? "No."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there is much heated discussion, but the member for New Westminster has the floor and it is against the standing orders of this House to impede a member while he has the floor. I will ask the member for New Westminster to continue.

MR. COCKE: I would like to bring to your attention a vote taken on June 20, 1974. That vote was on 8 cents of the gasoline tax being made available to equalize rates for ICBC. They voted against it, Mr. Chairman. We voted for it. Who voted against it? Gibson, Morrison, McClelland, Richter, Phillips, Williams, Anderson, Fraser, Jordan, Smith and Bennett.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'll read them again for you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Bortnick said it was available but we didn't need it. You proved that absolutely when you gave the money to ICBC and borrowed it back the very next weekend. Come on, who do you think you're talking to — a bunch of kids? You've been playing political games with ICBC right from the very start.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You know what happened to Billy Sol Estes.

MR. COCKE: I just get a little bit impatient with you, Bill. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I apologize.

I would like to also read who voted for it, just to be sure it's all on the record. Yeas, 25: Liden, Webster, Kelly, Steves, Barnes, Anderson, Rolston, Cummings, D'Arcy, Sanford, Brown, Stupich, Nimsick, Strachan, Dailly, Macdonald, Hall, Gorst, Skelly, Nicolson, Radford, Young, King, Cocke, and Williams, R.A. Mr. Chairman, I might have to come back to it in a moment or two, if they start getting back to that old chestnut.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Would you say that 8 cents would cover the $181 million you lost? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

MR. COCKE: Good heavens! Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet): how would you like to have a student like that in your class? Honestly...slow learner.

MR. LEA: Then there'd be two of you stunned.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's very interesting. You think that was going to cover the $181 million, eh, Dennis? Do you know how much 8 cents produces on the gas tax?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to something else that the Premier was talking about while he was standing in this House.

Talk about some way of twisting words and twisting facts! Remember — now, Mr. Chairman, you weren't here and I won't blame you at all — he was talking about the Petroleum Corporation, and he's comparing that to some sort of income tax proposition. This is a way to tax petroleum. In this House those members not only voted against the Petroleum Corporation; they called it the worst kind of socialism, iron-handed socialism, that they ever heard of.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You drove the petroleum industry right out of the province.

MR. COCKE: Come on!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: And you said there was no gas in the Grizzly Valley. That's how you ran this place, I'll tell you. You created ghost towns. You didn't dare be on the bloody roads — you'd get run over by the petroleum industry going out of town.

[ Page 2575 ]

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, courtesy in debate is always a feature of this House, and as I pointed out earlier, it is contrary to our standing orders to impede a member who is speaking.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to go on for one second about that Public Accounts meeting. Incidentally, you know we do have Public Accounts meetings. This Crown corporation reporting committee that the Premier is so proud of, and talks about so often, rarely if ever meets. When they have met with ICBC, it's been a matter of minutes, and that's the end of it, and on to the next Crown corporation.

MR. BARRETT: That's not the Premier's fault; it's Kempf's fault.

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on. He takes his orders from him.

MR. BARRETT: It's his fault, not the Premier's.

MR. COCKE: I don't want to get into an argument with you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What about the gas sales contract? You ruined it too. You forget about that, don't you?

MR. COCKE: Are you threatening me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to order, and the member for New Westminster will continue on Vote 10, the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for ICBC has been usurped this afternoon. The Premier has usurped his position and has brought all these facts into the House. I just have to bring the Premier up to date, actually. I know that he's somewhat confused after having gone through his own estimates without answering questions, and he feel so chagrined that he thought: "By heavens, today is my chance. I'm going to go in there and answer a whole bunch of questions." Beautiful job. The only trouble is you didn't know what the questions were.

Mr. Chairman, at that same meeting, Bortnik said that they had an overdraft at that point of only $26 million. They asked him why, and he said it was because the new government took so long to get the rates sorted out. That's right.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's on the record.

MR. COCKE: It's absolutely on the record. So the losses started very early, and, of course, the Minister of Education at the time, the now Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), became convinced that he had to make a big show, so he came out with those outlandish rates. How he ever got them through his caucus is beyond me, but, in any event, he did. Now we're back to FAIR.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who set the rates in your caucus? I'll tell you who set the rates when you were in government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think probably I should deal with that member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) a little bit. On April 19, it's reported in the Sun that that member made a big to-do in this House over questions that he had to ask. "Phillips began screaming." This is a quote and is over the same question. "Opposition stays firm against plan, but auto insurance scheme passed." This is to do with this whole question that we've been discussing this afternoon.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. "Phillips began screaming." What did he say in those days? "Closure." "Steamroller tactics." Remember, we used to hear 14 hours of that. He finally lost the vote there, too. As a matter of fact, on that one he even lost the Liberals and the Conservatives.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Who were the Liberals?

MR. COCKE: Who were the Liberals in those days? Well, I just don't know if they're all named here. I don't want to name them.

Allan Williams said: "The Premier successfully can...." No. Just a second. Anyway, I can't name them from this article, but it just says that the vote was 41 to 10 with the Liberals and the Conservatives joining the government and voting against the Socreds. That was on his challenge to them.

Back to the original act, and that was Bill 35. The Socreds, Liberals and Conservatives maintained their opposition to the legislation, voting against both the Insurance Corporation Act, Bill 34, and the Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 35. The vote on Bill 35, the more contentious of the two, was 37 to 16, with all the NDP MLAs voting in favour. Bill 34 passed with a vote of 36 to 16.

Mr. Chairman, we set that organization up for one purpose: we had compulsory insurance in this province at that time. You had to have it whether you wanted it or not; otherwise you were contravening the law brought in by the former Social Credit government, the government before us, W.A.C. Bennett's government. When that became law, then the insurance companies of the day, the buccaneers like Safeco and Allstate, began to abuse their right in this province, charging people an outlandish amount for their insurance, putting people on assigned risk and all the rest of it, Mr. Chairman. That's where we were at that time. That is why we did what we did, and we're proud to have done it.

Now let's look at a little more history. We set up the largest insurance corporation in this country in a matter of two years — they said it couldn't be done. I'll tell you something, there were all those forces out there making it almost impossible. The insurance companies were leaving. They dumped on us to the extent that we had to set up a little company called "Fruitgrowers' Mutual" that we had to take over in order to pick up all those people and all their insurance that was being denied by those multinational corporations in this country.

[ Page 2576 ]

Mr. Chairman, even in spite of all of those roadblocks, and this group that were just hounding it at every cross-road, we managed to get that insurance corporation up and running and doing well.

What did we do?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Strachan couldn't lose enough money, so they put you in charge to really lose.

MR. COCKE: Actually, if the member would like to know the history, Strachan was replaced by the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) as the chairperson. I was never chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quit trying to hide. You were there.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were responsible.

MR. COCKE: Sure I was there. I will take all the responsibility. Yes, I will. I'm proud of it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just like Williams was the power, you were the power. You and Williams ran the government.

MR. COCKE: I was very proud of any part I had to play in ICBC. So are you; you kept the company going.

MR. BRUMMET: Made it work.

MR. COCKE: "Made it work." Mr. Chairman, this is how they made it work. All over this province, for months on end, you had demonstrations, you had large coliseums full of people screaming, "In your ear, McGeer," and all the rest of it.

ICBC was a tribute to our government. You've kept it and you'll go on keeping it for two reasons. First, we can give fair insurance to ordinary people, which the private insurers were not doing. Secondly, we wanted the investment in this province because we have always been denied massive amounts of investment from the east. We're not going to hang our heads about ICBC. We're not going to accept any of this nonsense, particularly....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you proud of the $4 billion you lost in the B.C. Petroleum Corporation? That's the truth, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development will have to come to order.

MR. COCKE: That member talks about the loss of the Petroleum Corporation. When we took government in this province we were getting 32 cents per thousand cubic feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 10.

MR. BARRETT: Tell them how we get money for the municipalities.

MR. COCKE: That's right. You know, today I see them giving away certain funds to all these municipalities. We set up that whole program.

The one thing that that government hates worse than anything on earth is truth. That is what they hate because that is what they've had this afternoon.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.