[ Page 5179 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ombudsman's report on Garibaldi land. Mr. Howard –– 5179

Use of government video facilities. Mr. Levi –– 5179

Mr. Leggatt –– 5179

Ms. Sanford –– 5179

Ms. Brown –– 5179

Mr. Lauk –– 5180

Mr. Nicolson –– 5180

Mr. King –– 5180

Pharmacare claim delay. Ms. Brown –– 5180

Sale of Crown land to Happy Valley Timber. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 5180

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 5181

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5181

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Hall

Mr. Lea

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

Ministerial Statement

Survey of Motorists.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5203

Appendix –– 5203

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a group of students from the Ballenas Secondary School in Parksville, with their teacher Mr. Price. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today are members of the Fort St. John city council, who are visiting Victoria for conferences with some of the ministers. I would like the House to welcome Mayor Brian Palmer, aldermen Ella Fraser, Dave Bodnar, Wayne Gretzinger, John Herron, Ben Klassen and Jack Temple, city administrator Roy Blackwood, and the wives of two of the aldermen, Mrs. Bodnar and Mrs. Gretzinger.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome here today Mr. Pat Wiley, a resident of Williams Lake in the riding of Cariboo.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT ON GARIBALDI LAND

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to address a question to the Attorney-General, in his capacity both as Attorney-General and as Deputy House Leader, and ask him what procedures the government contemplates following to ensure that there's a full examination of special report 1 of the ombudsman relating to the Garibaldi case and to allow for the necessary corrective action to be taken, as he suggests.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, copies of the report which Your Honour tabled in the House last night were made available to the ministries just this morning. It is being examined, and the appropriate course of action to be taken will be considered following completion of that examination.

USE OF GOVERNMENT VIDEO FACILITIES

MR. LEVI: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Under vote 173 for 1980-81 this House voted funds to be applied to a video studio for the production of films for staff training purposes; that was clearly stated. It is now reported that the famous Douglas Heal, also known as Dougie Glitter, is expending funds purely to improve the image of Socred politicians at taxpayers' expense. Has the new comptroller-general approved this expenditure under section 23 of the Financial Control Act?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The hon. member would know that with the variety of very large number of individual votes which are dealt with it would only be appropriate that I take that specific question as notice and determine from the comptroller-general what approval has or has not been given.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to ask the same minister a question along the same lines. This expenditure of funds by Mr. Doug "Polanski" Heal is clearly in breach of section 23 of the Financial Control Act, and may in fact breach other sections of that act. Has the Minister of Finance decided to launch an investigation into this expenditure of funds?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would think that having taken as notice the question from the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would indicate I would make inquiries. I have given that undertaking to the House today.

MR. LEGGATT: Could the minister confirm that the next taped vignette to come from there will be called "Grace of the D'Urbervilles?"

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister confirm that the hiring of two Hollywood professionals is in part to ensure that the Minister of Human Resources does not show up on camera with frizzy hair?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member refers to the contracting for the services. I believe, of Mr. Sedawie and Gayle Sedawie. Could I ask her whether that's what she is referring to?

MS. SANFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the two Hollywood professionals whom the minister mentioned.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think that the member should be made aware that these so-called Hollywood professionals are Canadian citizens and long-time residents of Vancouver. Presuming that the opposition members shave every day, as the government members do, I think we can assume that the contracting of people of this calibre, if it is in the interests of improving the quality of training films and government information....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that these persons are highly qualified, the best in the nation who can be obtained to advise and train senior staff and anyone interested in improving their ability to present filmed information.

Now there's been a lot of discussion about the film production centre in the Health building. That film production centre has been there for some four or five years, producing training and other explanatory film not only for the Ministry of Health but also for a number of other ministries. I think it behooves all parties to accept the fact that in the interests of providing a better quality type of communication, and to communicate effectively. particularly in terms of government information, training films and explanatory films, we have an objective here to improve both in the electronic media as well as in the printed media.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the same minister. I'm wondering what steps this highly qualified, very capable new information service team has taken to prevent the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) frizzy hair from getting widespread exposure.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, as someone who has spent a number of hundreds of years acquiring my own frizzy hair,

[ Page 5180 ]

I'm really disappointed that the minister did not respond to that last question. However I was intrigued by his response that these Hollywood professionals were going to be dealing primarily with communication. I would like to ask him what steps these two Hollywood professionals will take to prevent the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) from going off the deep end.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think you've indicated that we would not be required to answer facetious questions of that nature.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the question wasn't facetious. The answer was just obvious: frontal lobotomy is the only way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Move to the question, please.

MR. LAUK: He knows I'm only kidding. I have a question to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Were the positions given to Mr. and Ms. Sedawie, better known as Norman and Gayle, posted with the Public Service Commission or were they just advertised in Variety magazine?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question to the Minister of Labour. It's reported that Cecil B. DeHeal has signed a contract with ACTRA. Can the Minister of Labour confirm that the contract entered into with Rich Little to do imitations of the Premier at interprovincial first ministers' conferences is in accord with the new B.C. Employment Standards Act?

MR. KING: My question is to the Minister of Health. Now that the video studio formerly under the Ministry of Health has been transferred to a Hollywood set, can the minister advise the House as to who will be producing the much-needed staff training films formerly produced by the government for Health staff?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer, I'm sure, is quite obvious: those people who have the technical expertise and who are engaged in producing such films.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, from the minister's response, I take it, then, that the government of the province of British Columbia now feels it is necessary to hire Hollywood film-makers to do government business not only to try to drape the Social Credit political corpse with tinsel but also to get involved in providing mundane educational films for the Ministry of Health and other ministries, which traditionally have provided the proper programs for the public in this province. I ask the minister how he can possibly justify gouging the taxpayers of this province to come up with the frivolous amount of $14,000 to pay for imports from Hollywood to try to resuscitate the Social Credit corpse in this province. It's strictly a political ploy. How do you justify that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A large number of videotapes and films have been produced at that centre, many of which have been referred to as training films, and they've been seen in various parts of the province and have had wide distribution. They've been produced by people who have been hired, in some instances by contract, to produce particular films or videotapes. I can assure the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, if he's concerned, that I understand there will not be a disaster film entitled "The NDP Years," so don't worry about it.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think the taxpayers of this province will make their own determination regarding the disaster years in British Columbia, given the opportunity. The polls released yesterday indicated where the disaster is. My question is: can the minister assure the House that the facilities normally and formerly operated under the Ministry of Health will be available for those staff training films, and will not be pushed aside to try and improve the image of the Premier and his cabinet colleagues in this province? That's the primary purpose put forward for hiring these Hollywood people for $14,000 of the taxpayers' money. I want the minister's assurance that staff training films are going to receive priority, rather than whether or not the Premier needs a shave or whether or not the Minister of Human Resources' hair is properly done to give her the best possible exposure on television. I say this is a shocking misuse of the taxpayers' money in this province.

MR. LAUK: We notice that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) isn't here, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should ask a question of the Premier. Is the Minister of Tourism on a tour? When can we expect her to attend to the service of the House?

PHARMACARE CLAIM DELAY

MS. BROWN: My question really has to do with the Minister of Human Resources, but I would imagine she is busy with the Sedawies, so I will ask the Premier. Many people are expressing frustration in the delay of the processing of the Pharmacare claims. On March 31, 1981, the Pharmacare office advised that they were working on claims received on February 1. On April 14 the office advised that they were now working on claims received February 1. On April 22 the office advised that they were now working on claims received the week of February 17. Can the Premier advise the House as to what measures are being taken to alleviate the delays in processing Pharmacare claims?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't answer the question on behalf of the minister, so I'll be pleased to take the question as notice.

SALE OF CROWN LAND
TO HAPPY VALLEY TIMBER

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd like to respond to a question which was raised yesterday by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). He asked a question related to suggested negotiations on behalf of the Attorney-General's department with Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the sale of Crown land in Metchosin on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated. The question asked whether there were negotiations taking place on behalf of the Attorney-General's department for this property.

The answer to the question specifically is that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is, in fact, not negotiating for the sale of any Crown land or, in particular, this property. They have expressed an interest in the property in question. They were informed that only if the property were to become surplus and

[ Page 5181 ]

therefore available would the property be put up for public tender. There would be no other arrangement entertained.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 35.... Is this the time?

MR. SPEAKER: This is the time for standing order 35.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's the right place, but the wrong face, Mr. Minister.

Under standing order 35, I wish to move that the assembly adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the impact of the recently announced provincial mill rate for school purposes and increased taxation on homeowners.

Yesterday I raised a similar question under this standing order. I felt that the Speaker's ruling as to whether or not the motion supported by the statement was in order dealt with matters that I did not intend to indicate were substantive.

My intention is to bring this matter to the House because of: (1) the urgency involved; and (2) its widespread impact on homeowners. The issue is not the administrative act of the minister per se, which I know is not the subject matter of a motion under standing order 35; it is the substantive impact and the threatened action of school trustees, which, incidentally, only in an ancillary way have something to do with his administrative act. It is excluded from standing order 35 on the basis of administrative acts under statutory provision simply because that has been decided by a statute and there is nothing that he can do one way or the other. However, the amount of the levy and its impact and the threatened action by the trustees is the issue that I wish Mr. Speaker to take into consideration, and whether or not this is a proper cause to have the House adjourn to debate this important issue.

The other point that I wish to make is that there is no information — and I know the Speaker is not technically entitled to this information — with respect to when the minister's estimates will come up. If we had an indication that it was before the end of the month, that would be another thing.

The last point is that if there could be some agreement between both sides to have a limited time for this debate, I'm sure that the opposition would be glad to agree to it. To have an hour or so when the minister can make his point and this side can make our point is a very reasonable approach, to me, and the public would be very well served. If the minister has been misunderstood, I'd like to hear about it. Certainly the opposition has its role to play in this debate.

If the debate is resolved in this chamber in some way, school trustees may not take the precipitous action threatened.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the matter raised is similar to the matter raised yesterday. I might add that I have sympathy for the hon. member's feeling of urgency in the matter. Undoubtedly he is convinced that it is an urgent matter and he could so convince the House. This is not what the Speaker has to decide. The Speaker has to decide whether or not that order of business which has already been given priority and precedence by a former action of the House shall be suspended so that this important matter can be debated.

The opinion of the Chair was given yesterday. The House spoke, although in an indirect fashion, in answer to that question when the ruling was put to the House that an opinion was not subject to appeal. The House, indeed, did support the position of the Chair. Therefore I rule that the matter is similar to the one put forward yesterday, and I further rule that the same decision as yesterday applies today.

MR. LAUK: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you put to the House a request for unanimous leave that the rules be suspended and that one hour be set aside to debate this resolution. I have a feeling that the government side may agree to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is now asking for a completely different proposition. Under standing order 35 it is first determined whether or not the matter meets the criteria to be put forward to the House, and leave is asked in that fashion. If the member wishes to bypass the opinion of the Chair and simply ask for a suspension of the rules and for the matter to be considered at a certain hour, leave can certainly be asked. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. HOWARD: I ask that the government members who said no stand up and be counted so that the public will know that they denied this opportunity to debate the subject. Are you man enough to stand up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a legitimate point of order.

Introduction of Bills

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

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

MR. LEVI: This morning, in answer to some questions I put to him, the Minister of Agriculture and Food came up with one answer which perhaps he might elucidate for me when I sit down. We talked about the cost of food being imported at $1.18 per dollar, because of the exchange rate, and the minister replied: "I'm glad that the member brought up the question of the expanded mandate, because quite often during estimates and other times I'm addressed as the Minis-

[ Page 5182 ]

ter of Agriculture, when I'm really the Minister of Agriculture and Food." Well, I recognize him as such.

We go on to this. He said:

The member is correct that we have to pay approximately $1.18 Canadian for imported products because the value of our dollar is approximately 83 cents. That gives a competitive advantage to the B.C. food product. It means that the price of that imported product is now...higher than what we charge, and it gives us the opportunity to compete and displace some of that imported product.

I think that's a very interesting theory, except that 65 percent of the food we bring in is at the higher rate. We are not producing anywhere near the amounts.... I suggest the only thing it might tend to do is give the opportunity for the local grower to increase the price, but it does not necessarily mean that it makes it competitive with the cost of the product that's coming in.

The minister might be able to tell us what information he has about this. Has he done some kind of study that shows that in some way we've turned a disadvantage to an advantage?

I raised the general question of food with the minister. All through his estimates he only started to talk about it when I raised the question. I'm still convinced, even though he is the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that he really is still acting as though he's the Minister of Agriculture. Food is really not a significant part of his agenda. I would have thought, considering there is this new dimension to his portfolio, that he would have had something to say right at the beginning. It's probably the most serious question the Minister of Agriculture can deal with in terms of the general consumer. I'm talking about not just the problems of farmers, but rather the problems of general consumers. I'd like the minister to tell us what kind of discussions he has with his colleagues in respect to the new aspect of his portfolio.

I'll give him an example. It's generally estimated that 12 percent of all the energy used in Canada is used by the food industry, in terms of both what the farms do in direct relation to the production of food and what the retailers are doing. Every time we have an increase in energy, whether it's B.C. Hydro rates or the cost of gasoline, there is a significant impact on the cost of food. The minister has a colleague in the cabinet, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who twice since he's held that portfolio has been responsible for allowing the passing on of increases in B.C. Hydro rates. This, in effect, has an impact on the cost of food. The projections made by the retail food people back east are that we can look forward to a horrendous 15 percent increase in food prices in 1981-82.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI. Oh, we have a xenophobic Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That's an interesting one. He's made some rather disparaging remark about the east.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I didn't.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you did. I just heard you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I said: "Back-east statistics."

MR. LEVI: Oh, back-east statistics. My God!

I want to suggest this to the minister: if he's going to take this aspect of his portfolio seriously, there are many things that his colleagues do as members of cabinet and decisions the cabinet makes that have an effect on food prices — particularly the energy question; that is an important one. Every time the cabinet is discussing the advisability of passing on another Hydro increase, one would expect or hope that the minister would have some input into that whole question, like: "Wait a minute, Mr. Minister of Energy; this will be the third increase that you're asking for, and this does have an effect on the whole question of energy." That, of course, relates to whether in fact the Minister of Energy can answer by saying: "Well, we can try some other mechanisms of conservation so that we don't necessarily have to increase." But that's part of the portfolio that the minister now has and that he has not been that concerned about, to my knowledge.

I asked the minister this morning — and I'd like him to be more specific than he was, because all he really talked about was the price of imported food versus what the local growers can charge — what kind of strategy he has worked out in terms of addressing the problem of people, particularly young people, who want to go into farming. I noticed from Agri-facts, which is put out by his ministry, that he says that there were some 20,600 farms in 1979 in British Columbia and in 1980 in a preliminary estimate there were 20,800, an increase of some 5 percent. Perhaps the minister can tell us what participation his ministry had in expanding the number of farms in the province. What programs do they have to make this 5 percent increase possible, or is this something that is entirely left to the entrepreneur to do? What percentage of that increase of 200 farms — which is still an estimate — was brought about by the government enabling young farmers, who have great difficulty in collecting the desired amount of capital that they need, to go into the investment? In 1977 there were 19,800 farms, and to 1980 there was an increase of 1,000 farms,

The question is: how does this affect the whole business of the production of food? Of course, we may not necessarily be dealing with farms that are producing food. They may be in the grain area; they may be in the business of raising hogs or beef. But because his ministry is becoming involved in the whole area of food, and he hasn't been very forthcoming in the kind of information that we need to have from him....

This is an important part of his portfolio. What have they got in the way of programs? At the moment we don't have the annual report; we can't look at what they have in mind, what they've done over the past year. I appreciate that one year is not a great deal of time, but at least it's the kind of time that you can make use of in developing this strategy. Two years ago the minister spoke quite a bit about a food strategy; we've not heard from him since.

Aside from the questions that he answered this morning, I would appreciate it if the minister would give us more information on specifically what his ministry is doing in the encouragement of the production of food by farmers, to the extent that he is reducing the imbalance which at the moment is of the order of 60 percent coming in from the outside and 40 percent being home-grown. If the minister addresses those questions, then we'll get some appreciation of just how seriously he is taking this new aspect of his portfolio. I would like to sit down now and see if we can get an answer from him when he's finished talking to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

[ Page 5183 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a good member.

MR. LEVI: He's a good member, but I'd be a lot happier if he was sitting over there, so that I could get the attention of the minister. It's very difficult to get any attention from the minister; he's only got one good ear and he's giving it to the member for Dewdney. Ah, there is the minister looking now. Just to repeat, can the minister tell us...? He's probably getting the information from him. Do you think that's what's happening? It's very difficult to talk to that minister without him listening.

Well, I'll ask once more and then I'll sit down. Can we get from the minister some specific ideas of what the strategy is in respect to the food part of his ministry? What have they been doing for the past year to put into motion those programs that are going to make it better for the consumer of food in this province in terms of getting more home-grown foods and not having to rely on the very expensive imports that in the main come from the United States?

MR. COCKE: It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the minister seems to be caught dumbfounded. The first part isn't strange, but the last part of my statement is. I suggest that the most important thing we have to look at in the future is just what we're going to do for food in this province. I was talking yesterday a bit about Delta, Richmond and other areas that I was quite familiar with when I was quite a bit younger. Like the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I go back a relatively long way, to when there was a lot of food being grown up there. There are other parts of the province which have provided tremendous amounts of food. We've seen this vertical integration and major food chains and outfits at all levels going from the land right to the retail outlets, an opting away from B.C.-grown foods and an opting instead for what might be more convenient American sources for them.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister in his very facetious way suggests avocados. I'll turn it around to tomatoes. Tomatoes were in great supply in this province at one time. I can remember at least five canneries in the Ashcroft area....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Best potatoes in the world — netted gems.

MR. COCKE: It's too bad that that senior member of the government can't restrain himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-five, that's his I.Q.

MR. COCKE: On a wet day, Give him a little sunshine and he goes up to 63.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it's a very serious situation that we have been unable, somehow or other, to contain the erosion of our food industry. Oh, yes, the minister can say we're now producing 45 or 46 or whatever percent of our foodstuffs. I have recently gone into some major food chains and some smaller food outlets looking for British Columbia canned tomatoes. I defy you to find them. The closest we can find to here is Ontario.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Aylmer was bought out lock, stock and barrel. The minister is so far behind the times.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've still got a couple of cans in my house.

MR. COCKE: Good. They're old-fashioned cans.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "They're in his air-raid shelter," the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) says. There's no question about that.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the product that I'm talking about now, the Canadian canners we see are in Ontario. For the most part, however, the canners are across the border.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member from Peace River is giving some advice. He had better find some good advice, because, as far as I'm concerned, the kind of advice we have needed for years.... Don't forget, we have had 34 or 35 years of this government, with a very brief interval, when there has been no protection afforded that particular industry. If you want to, you can go to the interior. You can find some tomatoes that you can pick up at a food stand. Later in the year you can buy our fresh, home-grown tomatoes. The canning industry is gone. That is the backup for that kind of food industry.

Last summer — we all had a very brief summer, as you recall — I did have an opportunity, when I flew up to see my spouse in the Okanagan, where she at least had three weeks' holiday.... I recall going down to Oliver to a major tree-fruit orchard. I saw boxes and boxes of apples, not consigned back to the ground like those the minister was talking about this morning where they were to be ploughed in and used for fertilizer....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, unfortunately the only place that he could send them was to the dump.

They looked great. They looked better than the apples you see on the trees. What was wrong with them? Possibly they had a little thumb-nail mark on them or a small bruise. I'm not talking about windfalls. I'm talking about slightly damaged fruit. I do know that we use some of that fruit for juice. I do believe that the government could give a lot more support to enlarging that enterprise. I don't think that we should see the colossal waste that we do see. Along with that colossal waste we are seeing more and more orchardists and farmers going out of business. There has to be a great deal more thought and concern about the future, as I've suggested. It's just a matter of time till we're in a position where we can't import because other jurisdictions will be saying to us: "A lot of our agricultural land has been eroded and now we only have enough for ourselves." I think it's very important.

Today we're paying a mighty fine price for dried apricots. I think we're paying a fair price for imported canned apricots, yet we used to have a fairly large apricot industry.

Interjections.

[ Page 5184 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm listening to the member for Peace River out of my left ear. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is quite right. That rascal has been doing this ever since I stood up. I know that he needs a lot of help from the new stage managers from Hollywood, but I hoped that he would go now and get the help while he's still surviving.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: At least there's help for me, friends. There's none for you.

MR. COCKE: There's no hope for a lot of people in this province if we don't get some government. I don't see that we're getting government now. I particularly don't see that we're getting government now when important questions like the questions that were posed by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) went unanswered.

I think that history should be a teacher, but we find that it is not a teacher. We continue to make the same mistakes. It's time, I believe, that the government sides in with the orchardists and farmers and really puts together a program that will help them survive. Is there anything wrong, for example, with us either getting some great free enterpriser to begin again in the canning industry in this province or, failing that, with supporting a co-op in that same thing? I suggest that it's very important that those kinds of industries are given the support they need in order that our agricultural industry may survive.

I'd like to hear from the minister some of his plans, proposals and some of the suggestions that they're going to be making, not only to the agricultural industry but to the food industry in this province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to go back over some of the questions that were raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who is not in the chamber right now. Just to correct his figures, he mentioned 65 percent importation or product not produced in British Columbia. His arithmetic is wrong. There's 45 percent produced in British Columbia and 55 percent basically comes in from outside of British Columbia. We must recognize that we can't produce all of the product that is consumed in British Columbia — for no other reason, in some cases, than weather. You can't produce the sugar, bananas or oranges, etc., so we'll never make 100 percent. But our goal is 65 percent self-sufficiency, and I think the statistics that I've read out today and on previous occasions indicate that we are meeting the growth of population in British Columbia and at the same time slowly increasing our percentage of total product originating from British Columbia in the marketplace.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member for New Westminster and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam asked what we were doing in the food sector and what our plans are and what we have accomplished. I think the member for New Westminster mentioned "the colossal waste." Well, Mr. Member, I think you're going to have to do a better identification job than "the colossal waste" that you mentioned. Then you go on to say that in the Oliver area there are apples being dumped in the dump. I suggest that I would have to be given some evidence to prove that statement, because to my knowledge, Mr. Member, the tree-fruit industry in this province take a waste product — in many cases they're cull apples — and put them through a processing plant called Sun-Rype. All apples that don't reach the fresh market go to the processing sector of the tree-fruit industry and have done an excellent job in providing good quality apple juice and processed food in this province.

MR. COCKE: You don't even know what's going on in your own constituency.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I should say that the member for New Westminster is one of my constituents. He has his little summer home up there and goes up and visits my riding periodically. If he has evidence that there is a tremendous amount of wastage and dumping going on, I'm sure I'd appreciate hearing about it. Maybe I or my ministry can be of assistance in giving advice to those farmers who run those orchards up there that they should use the vehicle that they have.

MR. COCKE: You just heard, and you said it's not true.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Name names. I'd appreciate your naming names, Mr. Member.

Let me give you a rundown beyond the farmgate activity, Mr. Chairman, just to give the members opposite some idea of the amount of effort that has gone into the value-added sector of our food production in this province. Westvale Foods has received assistance through our programs for further processing. Sun Dew Foods produces natural fruit juices and also what we affectionately call "fruit leathers," which is a natural product that has certainly made tremendous inroads in sales, not just in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada and the world. There is the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association through our ARDSA program on their UHT milk. For the benefit of those people who don't understand what UHT is, it's the ultra-high temperature milk. It's your milk that has a long shelf life without refrigeration. We've assisted in that, and that's a big plus in the milk industry in this province. We've assisted the B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op, J&L Meats, Polar Meats, the McLean and Fitzpatrick packing house in the Okanagan, Lawrence Meats up in Dawson Creek, Majuba Foods in the Fraser Valley, Colonial Farms, the South Okanagan dairy industry cooperative, St. James Industries, Fraser Valley Frosted Foods and Semiahmoo Bay Shellfish Ltd.

We've moved into the cottage wineries, and we've given assistance to Vinitera and Claremont Wines Ltd. in the Okanagan Valley. There has been a tremendous expansion into a new sector of our agriculture or food production system in this province. It creates jobs by taking a raw product — the grapes — from the Okanagan Valley and turning them into good quality wine. It's a benefit to the producer, to the wineries and to the tourist industry in the province, because we're getting identified in the Okanagan in a somewhat similar manner to the identification in California of the Napa Valley.

Western Protein Foods, Victoria Farm Meat Services, Corral Foods, Sun-Rype Products — the one I mentioned earlier where we gave assistance in putting in new equipment, etc., in that facility to further process foods — the Fraser Valley Mushroom Growers Co-op, Rogers Wholesome Foods, Cloverdale Lettuce, Europac Seafoods, Harmony Seafoods, Okanagan Dried Fruits.... All these are

[ Page 5185 ]

value-added food industries that have been assisted by my ministry and its programs to make agriculture a far stronger, more viable industry, which contributes to the economic well-being of this province and generates revenue and income for those people involved. It's a tremendous record.

I just wanted to take a moment to list a number of them, which I obtained very quickly so that I could respond to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who, of course, isn't here at the present time, and to the member for New Westminster, who also is not here at this time. They made their remarks and they left. But for the edification of the members in the House at the present time, you can see the activity in the value-added or food-processing sector in this province which has taken place over the past several years.

MRS. WALLACE: That was a very interesting list that the minister read from. One would almost think that it had all happened since he became the Minister of Agriculture and Food. A lot of those have been going on for a long time, Mr. Minister, before you ever had Food added to your portfolio. It seems to me that the Food is certainly in name only. There's very little difference. The budget makes no provision. There's a little bit more in marketing, but there's no real emphasis on food. I guess what that minister is thinking about in terms of food is a little narrower in its concept than what the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was talking about or what those of us on this side of the House tend to think of as being a responsibility for food. It goes just a little further than that.

There is nothing in the estimates or in anything the minister has said that would indicate that he and his ministry are prepared to go any further than a little bit of assistance to processing, which was done all the time under the Ministry of Agriculture, and a little more marketing. I'm not knocking it, but it's certainly not the whole concept of what a Food ministry should be all about. Food is a basic essential, just as air and water are basic essentials. When a minister of the Crown is charged with the responsibility for food, it has connotations of making sure that food is available to people at a price they can afford, or that their incomes are such that they can afford a healthful diet. That's the kind of concept that we on this side of the House have relative to food. It's certainly not a concept evidenced on that side of the House.

The last time I was on my feet I indicated that I wanted to talk about staffing. The minister will recall that I had asked some questions on the order paper some time ago, which he was good enough to respond to. He told me that at the time of the freeze on hiring he had certain vacancies, and he listed them. If you add them all up, there were some 38 vacancies. He said, "At the time of the hiring freeze, I had a total of 38 vacant positions," and then he lists them.

The second part of my question was: how many vacancies did he have at the time the freeze was lifted? The answer to that is very interesting: "It should be noted that the vacancy levels at the time the freeze was lifted are similar, as Treasury Board agreed to lift the freeze for the ministry very quickly. In fact, verbal approval was received approximately one week after the imposition of the freeze." That freeze was lifted, I was told, because the ministry was in the throes of reorganization and needed to continue to hire people to fulfill roles established in the reorganized form. We know that was true. There were a lot of facilities sitting around this province that were vacant or half-vacant because of regionalization, and there was nobody in those particular spots. So the freeze was lifted within one week. That was a way back a year or more.

My third question relates to how many vacancies the minister had at the latest available date, which was March 31. He said: "At the present time the ministry has 38 vacancies." It's exactly the same number before the freeze and after the freeze. There's no attempt to staff up, even though the freeze was lifted. It's obvious he told the Minister of Finance that he wouldn't spend any money. There's some difference in personnel. It’s interesting to note that a lot of the office-type positions are filled, yet the positions of technicians, agrologists, agricultural workers and officers are still vacant.

I asked a question earlier this session about the Abbotsford lab and the problem with vets getting selenium testing results. The minister told us about the backlog of work and the response that had come out through the efforts of his ministry relative to the selenium situation. I know there's a backlog there, and I know the reason for it, but he told me he'd hired a temporary assistant and hoped to clear it up. Yet when I look at this list I see that vacant at the present time is one laboratory technician 2 at Abbotsford and one laboratory scientist 3 at Abbotsford. Then he tells me he's going to try and cure it with temporary help. It takes time to train a temporary assistant. That assistant will probably only be there until August and then will have to go. That training will be lost. He's really not resolving the problem that's facing the farmers of this province where cattle are dying and vets are waiting to get returns from samples they send in. His solution, with vacancies in that lab for a lab technician and a lab scientist, is to hire a temporary assistant. That, to me, doesn't represent good faith. It represents good faith to the Minister of Finance, whom he has told he will not spend money.

MR. HALL: He knuckled under.

MRS. WALLACE: Knuckled under. That's right, Mr. Member from Surrey. He's knuckled under.

While I'm speaking of the Minister of Finance, there's a question.... The minister will never know how many times I was just about to ask him this question in question period when the bell rang. It has to do with the Bobcat situation, the little farm tractor, and the list that is so outdated. I know the minister has been working on that, but really that list needs to be updated. It's a disaster as it is. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) has indicated the problems with that list. It is a real disaster. It needs a minister with a bit of clout to go to the Minister of Finance and say: "Look, this has to be changed." The farmers in the province have indicated that they have a direction they would like to go, and certainly it seems to me that it's very logical. I have suggested that if the Minister of Finance is prepared to issue tax exemption numbers to farmers — and he certainly is prepared to do that — that tax exemption number should be an ample identification that that equipment is being purchased by a bona fide farmer.

I just don't think we can be too choosy in how we do this thing. There is no way you can say you can only make that exemption apply to articles that can only be used in farming, because there is really nothing that only applies to a bona fide farm. For example, in the case of the Bobcat, I gather the reason it has not been accepted is that it can be used for construction, and it doesn't qualify in the terms as outlined on the list. A farm tractor can be used in construction. I know for a fact that at one point in our family history my husband

[ Page 5186 ]

had a part-time job working on the construction of a pipeline, and he used the farm tractor. He rented it out to that construction company.

There's just no way you're going to resolve that situation by making those specifics. If you're going to give exemptions to farmers for sales tax purposes, then don't treat them all as chiselers. Give them the benefit of being forthright, upcoming citizens, and if they have a sales tax exemption number, then for goodness' sake let them go in and get that piece of equipment. On the Bobcat thing it's a disgraceful situation where we have the tax people going out to the dealers and trying to collect five years' retroactive tax payments. This is the government that is supposed to support small industry. They're going out to the dealers and telling them they have to go and collect that back tax from farmers that have purchased those pieces of equipment.

It's simply not good enough, and I hope the minister will take some action and deal with the Minister of Finance to ensure that that particular Bobcat situation is corrected. I understand there's a moratorium on the situation right now, but when that moratorium is lifted I would like to see the thing cleared up, and also that the list is updated so there won't be the kind of hassles we've been having with the sales tax exemption.

Those kinds of programs are necessary as long as the farmer doesn't have a viable return. What the farmer would really like is to have a viable return from the marketplace or from farm income assurance, and then we wouldn't have to bother with all the bureaucratic costs and controls of these other kinds of programs. But as long as the farm income assurance is whittled back and cut back so it isn't a viable return, that's the kind of problem you're going to run into. It's more costly to the taxpayer and certainly more of a hazard and a hassle for the farmer.

The interest rebate is another one. We've had the 8 percent, 9 percent and 2 percent below prime. Apparently this year it's going to 1 percent below prime. When I look at the budget, I'm wondering why there's the money in there that appears to be sufficient to cover 2 percent below. Where could we go next year? Is it going to be held at 2 percent? Is the minister going to go back to 2 percent this year or to 1 percent? What's it going to be next year? Can't he come up with a fixed figure? I think the farmers are being most generous in accepting the 2 percent. Certainly if I were still an active farmer involved in farm group activities, I would be pressuring the government for a fixed rate. How can I plan ahead if I don't know what my rate of interest is going to be? Farming is a high capital investment business. Without knowing what my costs are going to be, I can't plan ahead. I can't set the price to get it out of the marketplace. I have to take what I can get. To just sit at 2 percent below prime is not really fair or equitable.

I had a young broiler grower come to see me in my office here in Victoria. He and his brother went into business some three or four years ago. They took out farm financing at 11 percent at that point in time. They're getting the interest rebate. They got it last year to 9 percent and at 21 percent below prime this year. Do you know what they're actually paying now, Mr. Chairman? It's a floating interest rate. They're paying 21 percent. Those two brothers are going out of business because they simply cannot meet those capital commitments when the interest rates are running that wild. I don't think that's an exorbitant interest rate compared to what rates have been and what they are. They've dropped back a little now. It was about a week or so ago that he was in to see me. Those kinds of high interest rates are facing the farm community. They can't get it out of the marketplace. The minister is not prepared to give it to them out of farm income assurance or out of the interest rebate program. It's not just or fair. It's not going to do anything for the agricultural community.

I asked the minister earlier about the limits on farm income assurance. Unless I didn't listen carefully enough, I didn't hear him answer that one. He talked a bit about the man-and-wife situation. I'm particularly concerned about the limits for the apple producers this year, because of the terrific discrepancy between their cost and their return from the marketplace. It means that if the federal rebate doesn't come through, nearly 100 percent of the apple growers in the Okanagan Valley are going to have returns coming to them from farm income assurance in excess of the limits. If the federal rebate of the 2 cents does come through to the maximum of $750 or whatever it is, that number is going to be about 50 percent of the growers who are going to be affected by the dollar limits on the apple farm income assurance program this year. I would like some assurance from the minister today in this Legislature that he is prepared to review that dollar limit and make that program more accessible to more growers there. They simply are not going to be able to meet their indebtedness if that doesn't happen.

I was concerned about the minister's lack of response to my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) relative to the swans. In relation to that, he did mention a little bit about the problems with the wildlife around the province. I'm concerned, as I'm sure the minister is — I'm sure he's aware that the Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union are concerned — about the wildlife damage, particularly in the Kootenays. I'm wondering what programs, if any, he has underway relative to that particular problem.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, today in the precincts are 54 people from West Heights Elementary School in Mission under the leadership of their teachers, Mr. Rob Plowright, Mr. David Krueger and Shirley Hamilton. They are very bright and able students. I was very impressed with their manner and deportment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the member for Cowichan-Malahat's (Mrs. Wallace's) concern about, I believe, 32 vacant positions, she is undoubtedly aware that there are approximately 550 employees in my ministry. So 32 employees works out to about 6 percent. That's the normal turnover. In most cases we advertise when we have a vacancy, usually within a week. As you well know, we have to review the applications and interview candidates. Sometimes we're successful the first time around and sometimes we're not. I suggest to you that that number of vacancies at any one point in time is normal in any business operation that has a total staff of 550. We don't delay or hold back, Madam Member. We want to have those positions filled as quickly as possible to serve the agricultural community.

Regarding the Bobcat issue, the list is being reviewed by my ministry and also by the Federation of Agriculture with

[ Page 5187 ]

regard to exemption from sales tax for those pieces of equipment and machinery that are used exclusively for agricultural production. Once that review is complete, we will be sitting down and making our case to the Ministry of Finance. Hopefully we will be able to get a new list which is more up-to-date and modern, and which gives relief to the farmer.

Regarding interest rebates, in 1979 the interest reimbursement program was determined to be an ongoing program of this ministry, in spite of all the efforts by the opposition to try and confuse the people in the agricultural community by saying all through the 1979 election campaign and thereafter that we were going to cut it off and weren't going to continue it. What we said at that particular time was that we would live up to our commitment of a 9 percent level of interest reimbursement for the year 1979. But because interest rates moved up very rapidly to 12 percent, 13 percent, 14 percent and 15 percent, the gap between the 9 percent figure and the average interest paid was becoming substantial. We had to recognize the credibility of these programs. It isn't just the agricultural community that will be looking at these programs. There are other sectors of our economy — in small business, in manufacturing and in commerce — which would raise the question: "Why does one sector of our economy get relief of that substantial amount, as opposed to me, as a businessman or a manufacturer, not getting anything?"

We determined that we would have to place our interest reimbursement so that the percentage would float with the prime rate. Instead of doing it in one fell swoop, we advised the Federation of Agriculture that it would be 2 percent below prime for the year 1980, and then 1 percent thereafter as an ongoing program. That was all determined in 1979. That, I believe, will afford a program that has credibility and that can stand the attacks of the economists and other sectors of the economy who may say: "Why agriculture? Why not us as well?" So that is the policy. The program is ongoing and continuing, and the interest rate will be 1 percent below prime. There has been a considerable amount of lobbying done in the past few months, saying that the Agriculture ministry would like to maintain it at 2 percent below prime. I'm just saying that the present policy, Madam Member, is 1 percent below prime, and I think it's a fairly realistic program that gives relief of a net 3 percent on average between the interest rate paid by the borrower and the reimbursement. I can defend that in other sectors of our economy, but if that gap were to go to 6, 7 or 8 percent, I think we would have a tremendous draw on our budget and we would have to cut back on other services that are important, or we could be criticized by other sectors of the economy. So I think the program is one of the best in the country, Madam Member, and it is a realistic program.

With regard to limits on apple producers, the limit is as follows. You have a $20,000 figure for income assurance for the apple producer. Once he hits that $20,000 figure, he gets 70 percent coverage from then on up to a maximum poundage of 1,262,500 pounds. The federal limit is only 750,000 pounds, as the member well knows, so provincially we certainly have a better program than the federal government has provided for the tree-fruit industry.

This year we have a bumper crop, not just in British Columbia but in the rest of Canada and the United States. At the same time, it is a crop that will be sold in the marketplace. Granted the price will be less, but when you're capturing all your fixed costs, the only extra cost really in that bumper crop — 30 percent over last year, I believe — deals with picking; basically that's all. You'll pay the same taxes on the orchard as you would pay if you had no crop at all; if that tree has 30 percent more crop on it, you would do the same amount of irrigating, spraying and pruning in the spring; you would do all those things, and yet your only costs involved really are some of the costs plus the major one of picking. So there is going to be a fair return in the agricultural community this year in the tree-fruit industry.

Yes, the price per pound is going to be lower, they do have some difficulty, and we will be meeting our commitment in paying a contribution to the orchardists in this province; we are making an interim payment of 2 cents a pound to them. As the member knows, in January this year I announced that I would consider that, and those cheques will be going out to the grower within the next few weeks to help him with his operating costs in 1981 prior to getting his final payout from the pools for his 1980 crop. So I think, Madam Member, if you look at the programs.... The agricultural industry knows that the farm income assurance program is the best agricultural program to assist farmers anywhere in Canada. It does have some limitations in some minds, but overall I think the agricultural community knows that they have ample protection in this province when they compare it with what is available elsewhere.

The last item, Mr. Chairman, deals with the member's concern over wildlife. A question was raised about Creston and the problem there. I can only tell the member that I agree that there is a problem with the wildlife in the Kootenay area. I believe the elk are the major problem there. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests are attempting to work together to see if they can come up with an answer to this most difficult problem, because again we're right back to that wildlife agricultural conflict. Because of the access from the hills, you might say, the wildlife can come down on the orchard or on the farm and partake of the crops grown there. This has happened in the past years and will happen for many years to come. It's not a simple matter of putting up a three-strand fence, because elk are pretty good jumpers; they can get into a farmer's field very quickly. So it has to be a cooperative effort by those ministries. and hopefully we can at least maintain a herd that doesn't too seriously affect our agricultural community in that area.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has indicated to me that we on this side have just about come to the end of our general discussion on the vote of the minister's office. In order to achieve some tidiness in debate, I want to start discussing ICBC, and therefore I'm going to switch the subject. That is just so that the House knows and to make a passing reference to the fact that if the minister wants to send a note out, if he wants to have the staff in, he should bring them in, or if he's going to handle the estimate himself....

Almost a year ago we were last in this position of debating the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Under the minister's vote has been the director placed upon the board of that corporation by the cabinet; we went through a number of issues with him and debated the relationships of the corporation, the involvement of the minister in close relationship with other industries related to and supporting the corporation. We dealt with the current issues of driver training; we dealt with the sudden departure of the president of the corporation, Mr. Sherrell, and we dealt with stage one of the five-

[ Page 5188 ]

year FAIR program, and the announcement that came out just a year ago that it could cost, for instance, $360 for a $110 accident; my fears of an increase in hit-and-run, the worry of the minister's own special investigation unit of ICBC of the massive increases already recorded in certain areas of the province in hit-and-run, and then my personal concern over the lowering, the plummeting — I didn't perhaps use that word then, although I certainly felt it, but I didn't want to add to it — of staff morale at ICBC. The remarks that I quoted to the minister were from the corporation's newsletters and the staff newsletters that were available to those of us who were on the mailing list.

I notice the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) coming in and counting the House. It's the first time he's been in. I don't know whether counting the House is part of a university training or not. I've known there's not been a quorum here for quite some time, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It having been brought to the attention of the committee, I will sound the division bells to see if there are members in the precincts and begin taking down the names of members who are present in accordance with our standing orders.

We've reached the amount that's necessary for a quorum, and so I will once again ask the hon. second member for Surrey to continue on vote 10.

MR. HALL: The thought I was just sharing with the minister, in quiet dialogue almost, was that the morale of the staff at ICBC last year was indeed in poor fettle. Certainly events since then have indicated the truth of that statement. We also discussed at that time the rate-increase predictions that were being made, and indeed events have also transpired to suggest that the 10 percent we were talking about a year ago was nowhere near enough to meet the demands on the corporation's purse. The answers we were given in debate last year were general and certainly didn't meet the worries that I tried to convey.

Now we've got a quorum, perhaps we could have silence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right and a point well taken, hon. member. Hon. members, it is nice to see you back in committee, but I wonder if we would not interrupt the second member for Surrey, who has the floor.

MR. HALL: I know that the members opposite don't think much of the corporation, but.... There were a couple of bursts of applause over there that indicate the truth of that remark. That will go down in Hansard. The member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) obviously doesn't think much of the corporation. I hope that that gets picked up by the good people who work for the corporation in his riding.

Mr. Chairman, the responses we got were not too satisfactory, and I have a couple of particulars. One was the answers we got from the minister regarding the cutback in subsidy to the driver-training program. The general attitude of the minister regarding that was that everything was really okay with the corporation. Yet in the eight or nine months that have passed since the debate of the estimates, we've seen the corporation engage in a wholesale strike and disruption of service. I have sympathy for the minister, particularly....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I do. I mean this absolutely sincerely. I've got sympathy for the minister. When any minister who is responsible for a Crown corporation is involved in a disruption of service because of a strike, it's a terrible position for a minister to be in. I know that, because negotiations could be going on this afternoon for all I know. Also, the minister has a responsibility to assist in the running of that corporation, and has a bad enough job to do without having someone like me yapping at his heels. I know that. Nevertheless, examination of the corporation has to continue and questions must be answered.

I'm going to do my level best, without interfering in any way, particularly in terms of the packages that may be on both sides of the table, to try to do the kind of job that I've been sent here to do. I certainly think that we could start in good faith today by, first of all, saying that our predictions about the rate increases that were going to be required for 1981 have come to pass. Indeed, the corporation announced in November or December of last year the general averages of their increases, which we all know turned out in almost every particular to be higher. I never know where these average rates come from, because the average rates of increase always seem to be higher when the piece of paper comes to the door. In fact, we've now got the unenviable record of having the highest rates in the five western most Canadian provinces. If we take the rates for a 30-year-old married male driver going to work driving any one of the following cars — a Chevrolet Impala, Pontiac, Datsun, Oldsmobile, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet pickup or a Chevrolet pickup (light farm) — with a five year accident-free record, a $300,000 third-party liability — which could even be $335,000 in Saskatchewan — with accident benefits, $100 collision deductible and $50 comprehensive deductible — which would be as a low as $25 in Manitoba — we find that the Vancouver rates are higher than any of the other four western provinces. They're higher than Calgary, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg; indeed, they're higher than Toronto. Those figures were provided to me by the Saskatchewan people.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, well.

MR. HALL: The minister says: "Oh, well." Are you suggesting they can't tell the truth?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you sure that's accurate?

MR. HALL: They're not accurate — is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I didn't say that.

MR. HALL: The minister says they're not accurate. I'll send the page over to the minister if he wants, and at some suitable moment he can say those aren't accurate.

In the comparison Saskatchewan and Manitoba still have public order insurance plans. They also have an equalized rate for the young, single driver, and their rates remain lower for such young drivers.

The much-vaunted FAIR program and all the hullabaloo we saw in November of last year still has not produced the kinds of figures the corporation said it would. The 38 percent hike looked much more like a 58 percent hike. I'm sure the

[ Page 5189 ]

battle of newspaper clippings that the minister and I can involve ourselves in will show that. All sorts of increases were seen. In fact those increases, along with all the other increases that the government opposite has seen fit to pass upon the long-suffering resident of British Columbia in this last six months, are probably a root cause of some of the results we've seen in both the polls and the fortunes that have come our way in the last couple of days.

If I may just skid lightly past that, the annual report indicated that not only were the estimates wrong, but the $50 million which was supposed to be in reserve to pay for the costs of the FAIR program this year had gone down the tube last year. In actual fact the entire $61.6 million rate stabilization reserve has gone. The corporation was bailed out last year by the complete utilization of that stabilization reserve fund and the balance charged against previous figures. In fact, if it hadn't been for those unearned funds, through having a higher premium than was necessary two years ago, which had already been allocated by the president, Mr. Sherrell, when he first announced the FAIR program, because he know the FAIR program was going to cost money.... He earmarked $50 million for the 1981 stage, which is the most expensive stage of the introduction of the FAIR program; unfortunately, there's no money there from the rate stabilization fund to meet the FAIR program this year. You're going to have to get it out of current revenue. So that money's gone. So much for the good husbandry and prudence the minister likes to talk about. So much for the board that under a previous minister in 1976 and subsequent years saw fit to increase the premiums the way they have done.

In November, when we were faced with a 38 percent increase on the average in automobile insurance premiums, we were surprised, I think, to see that our actual increases were more than 38 percent. Then when we saw the most recent annual report that had seen all of those rate stabilization moneys used up, I think we were entitled to feel upset and critical about it. Foremost among those hit first of all were, of course, the senior citizens. Already stung by the loss of the 25 percent senior citizen discount. Most of them saw hikes of up to 70 percent. We know that remedial measures have been taken. We know that in this group of estimates there is a sum of money to deal with that.

During these estimates two years ago I suggested to the minister that he phase in the effects of the FAIR program for senior citizens, just as they phased in the territorial equalization. The minister responded that perhaps that was a good idea, and he would take it up with the board. He thought perhaps that could be done. I suggest to him that he never gave it another thought after he went out through that door; never really thought about phasing in the increase. In my travels I have found that most senior citizens don't want a free ride; most senior citizens don't want subsidies. Most senior citizens want to be treated fairly. Being treated fairly would mean, in my view, to process these increases over a period of time, and at the same time deal with hardship and handicap discounts — the whole range of other things — not to do it in the stumble-footed way it was done, when this minister had his senior executive, Mr. Holmes, face a barrage of questions from the television personality, Mr. Webster, all one morning, sticking to his guns, sticking to company policy, sticking to ICBC laid-down schedules, sticking to the minister's own words, "FAIR is fair." Then, the very next day, there was the double shuffle by this government, stripping away whatever credibility poor Mr. Holmes had left following the two-and-a-half-hour grilling by the television personality, Mr. Webster.

Not content with that — I must say this — this minister came out of the press conference flushed with either victory or annoyance — I don't know which. Then he lambasted the ex-member for Kamloops and took a gratuitous verbal poke at him by saying: "We never heard from him. We never had any submissions from the member for Kamloops in cabinet regarding help for senior citizens." As an observer and a participant in the political process, all I can say is that I've seen people get upset with each other, but I've never before seen those kinds of gratuitous left and right jabs coming out of press conferences. But to give Mr. Mair his due, he got his own back. As soon as he departed these hallowed halls for the hotlines, he described the Minister of Agriculture in agricultural terms. I'm not too sure that I can use those terms in this House. He described the minister as something that might be served up on December 25 as an entrée — stuffed.

I sometimes wonder why ministers get themselves into that kind of position when, prior to the event, they've had the benefit of advice during estimates in the House; but they don't seem to want to listen. Even now the minister responsible for this huge corporation isn't even in his seat listening. He'll probably keep on making mistakes. If you don't listen to the member for Surrey, if you don't listen to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and if you don't listen to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), you'll continue to make mistakes. I've already illustrated some of them.

I said last year that I was very fearful of what was going to be one of the results of the FAIR program — the hit and run. That's the loophole people can run through in this FAIR program, and it's going to increase. I wanted to know what the minister was doing about it, and he made no response at all.

In January 1981, six months after I predicted these massive increases, I told the minister that his own unit was concerned about it and that they had seen huge percentage increases in some areas of the province. We got a report that in Vancouver alone hit-and-run offences had increased by 24 percent. The reason I'm using percentages again.... I'm coupling them with the Vancouver region, so now we’re talking about numbers. Sometimes when you talk about a 100 percent increase in this particular thing, you might be talking about a small community along the Fraser River while we're not talking about any real numbers. We might be talking about an increase from 3 percent to 6 percent, which may only be the result of something unfortunate over one weekend. God knows, that can be unfortunate, especially if you're involved. Indeed we could be involved in one of these things the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is spending his time looking up — these phenomenal things of house parties and people getting carried away with liquor and assembling in one place could lead to something like that. That could lead to an increase of 100 percent from 3 percent to 6 percent in one small community. We're talking about Vancouver now. For instance, these figures here went from 779 to 968, an increase of 24 percent. It’s a very real increase.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying and predicting is that this figure is going to get worse. I want to know what ICBC is doing about it and what this minister is doing about it. What message is he taking from this Legislature to the board?

The other question that I'd like to have the minister deal with is the intriguing mystery of where the 210,000 missing

[ Page 5190 ]

motorists went to on March 3, 1981. Thirteen percent of all the motor vehicles in the province were not reregistered, relicensed or reinsured. On February 28, 1981, the headline said: "The Missing Motorists." If you can deal in public relations terms and employ people to help you, surely I'm allowed some poetic licence in my speech, Mr. Minister. You've got all that help over there to make you look good. Perhaps you're being disturbed. I don't know. It was a conservative estimate. Thirteen percent of the motor vehicles of the province were in effect banished overnight in terms of ICBC. In terms of the money that ICBC wants, if you take an average premium of $312, you get $65 million that may not be coming to ICBC. Has the computer at ICBC indicated what's going on? Has the sophisticated system at ICBC indicated that people, for instance, aren't relicensing recreational vehicles until it's time to go on holiday? What is the answer to that mystery — that almost detective story — about the number of people whose insurance expired on February 28 coming up 210,000 short?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Now I want to deal with the corporation itself, if I may. As I deal with it I just want to say how disappointed I am that one of the minister's colleagues has not seen fit to help him. It's Mr. Heinrich. He looked at his chair. He knew exactly what I was going to say. As I said to the minister, "One of your colleagues didn't help you," he looked right at the Minister of Labour's chair. Now doesn't that tell a story? It shows you how right we are on this side and how we can indicate exactly not only what's going on in the minister's mind, but the little battles in cabinet.

I want to say how really disappointed I am that the Minister of Labour wouldn't take his own advice and get involved and assist this poor Minister of Agriculture, who must be really fed up with having to traipse over to the corner of Georgia and Burrard and get up those 33 floors or whatever it is and get those same answers from his hired guns in his labour relations. I'll come to that in a minute. I think that the minister is going to be supervising or presiding — if I can use that word — over a corporation that's going to have an even worse morale problem when this long strike is over. The sooner the Minister of Labour gets involved in the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture the better. In my view, he should listen to his own words and assist.

It was on June 5, 1980, that bargaining commenced at the corporation. From June 5 to September 10 there were 17 different sets of negotiation meetings on 55 proposals: 26 were agreed to and 13 were withdrawn. Of the 28 corporate proposals, 15 were agreed to and 5 were withdrawn. By September 29, 1980, a 92.5 percent strike vote had been obtained. From October 20 to October 31, following six meetings with the mediator, two corporation proposals were agreed to and one corporation proposal was withdrawn. By November 6, 1980, the union commenced strike action with an overtime ban — job action, as it is commonly called. On December 7, 1980, letters started to go to the Minister of Labour seeking industrial inquiry commission assistance to the corporation. Then the next month saw a general deterioration in the situation until, by December 3, everything had broken down: night letters were not responded to and letters of reply from the Minister of Labour did not help. Then we saw, in effect, 2,250 people in the units, 1,350 people in the head office and 950 people in outside claims, all poised ready to take the kind of action that, as we've seen, was unfortunately taken.

I don't want to deal with the merits or whether the officers were good or bad. All I'm saying is that that's the long history of six months of negotiations. The latest we've heard about in our own newspapers and from our own contacts with people in the corporation, both on the management side and in the union side.... One thing I do want to say before my time is exhausted on this first round is that one of the reasons that I honestly feel not only this corporation but many corporations — perhaps I should say this is a general rule rather than be specific about it, because I did the same in my own profession as a labour-management consultant.... I really don't like to see, especially in Crown corporations, the use of hired people in labour negotiations.

I really want to say to the minister with all the sincerity I can command that I think the corporation has made a mistake. Now he may say: "What's the mistake, if you have a strike, with an employee heading labour management and labour relations?" But I do want to say that I honestly feel there is something about certain negotiations going on where all of those people involved on both sides have been party to the negotiations, have been party to the hammering out of the contract and who have a vested interested in making sure the contract works. It's my view that people from outside who are brought in do not have that vested interest. I've seen it in the mining industry, I've seen it in the Yukon and I've seen it in other provinces. It's my experience that it's the wrong way to go, particularly in the sensitive area of Crown corporations. I would like to ask if indeed my information is correct that the corporation has been using that kind of labour-management negotiations during the course of the strike. I'll take my seat, as my time is expired on this first round of questions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, briefly in response to some of the questions that were raised, the member mentioned that we have now the highest rates in the western provinces. He stated some statistics that he got from Saskatchewan — he went out and solicited them. I can quote him some statistics now that I didn't go out and solicit or get from a government that is of the same party as the member. These were published in the Calgary Herald on January 26, 1981, and dealt with Calgary and Edmonton automobile insurance rates. Let me give you the information:

For a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice driven to work, 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year, driver aged 25 to 65, five years accident free, $500,000 third-party liability, standard accident benefits, collision with $100 deductible, comprehensive, the rates — and it deals with a number of private insurers — range from $288 as a low to $415 as a high.

For ICBC insurance coverage, three years accident free — not five — in Vancouver the rate is $263. The three-year accident-free rate in Victoria, because there still is that territorial differential, is $290. So with those new rates that we've had to bring into place, Mr. Chairman, I just want the record to show that we're not the lowest, but we're not the highest. We have said ever since we became government in 1975 that ICBC will pay its own way, that premiums will pay for claims and that the taxpayer of the province will not subsidize the driving public, as that party would do if they were in power. Those people who drive pay premiums, and they pay for the claims that they experience. The non-driving taxpayer of this province shouldn't have to subsidize ICBC.

[ Page 5191 ]

Secondly, as you know, when we took over in 1975, ICBC was faced with a deficit — not just an operating loss but a deficit — of approximately $181 million. That's a substantial legacy that that previous administration left for this government to deal with. We did deal with it. ICBC is run as a corporation. It pays its own way. It's realistic in setting its rates. It does not have to look to government for a subsidy.

I think they have done a reasonably good job. Yes, in 1981 we had to face an average 38 percent increase in premiums, but we had reserves like any insurance company has, built up to protect us against a disastrous year. The loss that was experienced last year was covered by reserves as opposed to having to have a deficit situation develop in the corporation.

With regard to statements that Mr. Holmes made that FAIR is fair, and company policy was that senior citizens could not get the discount, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) knows full well that when the Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act came into being it basically said that all drivers would be treated as equal. It said that all good drivers would pay a premium and all bad drivers would pay a premium plus a driver accident premium. That automatically negated any company policy with regard to the FAIR program and providing a 25 percent senior citizen discount. It would have to be a social program instituted by government, no different than the homeowner grant for seniors that we give to homeowners at the present time. That legislation was brought into the House, and the funding for it is in my budget this year. The senior citizens have maintained their preferred state, you might say, with the 25 percent discount, but as a government program as opposed to a program or discount that would be subsidized by other motorists in this province.

With regard to comments about the 210,000 missing motorists at the end of February in the editorial article that the member read, he'd be interested in knowing that that is the lowest outstanding figure of non-renewables in the history of ICBC. When he was director of ICBC the number of missing motorists, if you want to call them that, at the cutoff at the end of February was substantial. They were ones that either had not renewed on the exact date or had renewed but the submissions hadn't been made to the corporation, etc. It's not missing motorists; it's just that some of those people don't renew prior to February 28 or some renew on the last day, at the last minute. Those motorists aren't missing or lost, Mr. Member; they're there. It's normal to have a reduction in the numbers as of the first day of the current year with regard to automobiles covered, as opposed to the total coverage throughout the year. Within a few weeks you'll find those missing motorists aren't missing. In most cases their documents are in transit, or they've renewed their insurance after the closing date.

I'm not sure about the comment that the member made. He said that I turned and looked to my colleague who wasn't here. He said Mr. Hyndman, I believe, although he didn't mention the minister's name; then he went to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). I'm not sure whether it's Heinrich or Hyndman, but for the record you were meaning the Minister of Labour, as I understand it.

Yes, management and labour negotiations are difficult. The member himself has mentioned that these discussions started in June 1980. The contract expired in October 1980, so there was good faith on both sides to try to reach a decision prior to the expiry of the contract in October 1980. They went through the October deadline and proceeded on. Finally the discussions broke down, and of course Mr. Trotter took the employees out on strike.

During the last meeting they had — I believe it was on March 26 — the management negotiating committee said to Mr. Trotter that they were prepared to put an offer on the table, but they wanted Mr. Trotter's assurance that at least the employees would be able to vote on that offer. Mr. Trotter refused for the members to vote. He denied them that privilege. He made the determination that he was going to take them out on strike, which he has done. I think that's unfortunate. I think that there are many ICBC employees out there who are quite satisfied with the offer that was effective October 1, 1980, and would like to work but can't because of the decisions made by one man on the negotiating team. However, I hope that at some point in time ICBC will get back to the negotiating table with the management and labour people and come up with an offer that is acceptable to both sides, so we can get that corporation back to a high efficiency rate.

One last comment. He asked why I'm not involved, or why the Minister of Labour is not involved. Well, my only response to him is that there is a board, senior management, a labour union, a labour negotiating committee and a management negotiating committee, and that's where the discussions and debate in the bargaining system should take place, not with political interference and the minister responsible stepping in and getting involved in negotiations. There's one member in this House who knows full well how that can backfire on you, and that's the member who just sat down, the second member for Surrey. I can remember in 1975 when he got politically involved with the employees of Panco Poultry and started to tell them what was going to happen to them if the Social Credit Party was elected. He knows what happened, because they threw him out of office. I just say that the negotiations will take place in the normal system, and that's between management and labour, not with political interference.

MR. HALL: I started off my remarks by saying I was going to be very careful how I dealt with the question of the strike. I thought I saw some indication from the minister that he understood and appreciated that. Obviously I was sadly mistaken, and again it's been my misfortune to take an indication from a Social Credit cabinet minister that he understood, that he had any sensitivity whatsoever. For that member to have just suggested that the continuation of this strike is due to one person shows he knows nothing at all about labour negotiations, never did and never will do. He's trying to suggest to this House — and through this House, through the media, to the public of British Columbia — that there's one person and one union responsible for the labour disruption at the corporation. That is a falsehood. I can say no more than that. It shows a complete lack of understanding about the structure of the trade union and what's going on at lCBC. That's point one.

Point two. He says he will not get involved. The point I was making is that the Minister of Labour of this province called upon the Minister of Labour of Canada to get involved in a dispute that had not gone on as long as this dispute has gone on. That's the point I was making. All I was saying to this member, who appears to understand nothing, was that they'd better take unto themselves the advice they give others. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that if it's good

[ Page 5192 ]

enough to call upon Gerald Regan to get involved in a dispute then it's good enough for the member for Kamloops to get involved in a dispute. I didn't get involved in a labour dispute.

Interjections.

MR. HALL: I beg your pardon. The member for Prince George North, Mr. Heinrich, the Minister of Labour.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I said Heinrich. You can't hear, that's your problem. If you'd sit in your own chair you'd do a lot better. You all look alike anyway. Your eyes are all close together, and you can look down the neck of a bottle using both eyes. That's how narrow-minded you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get personal.

MR. HALL: You notice that when I say that I smile.

All I'm doing is indicating some annoyance with a minister of the Crown, who's a director and board member of a corporation that's presently involved in a very serious dispute, suggesting it's the work of one person. Really that is beyond belief.

May I go on to say that in his answers he is also comparing apples and oranges again. He says that the number of licences renewed at the end of the month was the lowest ever. So what am I complaining about? He's comparing different years. His administration was the one that changed the whole ball game. They now have a continuing year. It's not just February 28 for renewal. That administration brought in a year that does not have February 28 as the only renewal deadline. One would expect it to be less than normal. But the fact of the matter is one would not expect it to be 210,000 motorists if we have a year of continuing renewals.

As you drive around, you see different months on the stickers. Do you notice that, Mr. Minister? Do you notice when you're tailgating behind cars that they've got different colours on the back? Do you notice they've got different months on the back? Do you notice anything, Mr. Minister?

Let me read the minister a letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Driving schools.

MR. HALL: I'll come to driving schools in a minute.

Let me read the minister a letter regarding rates. This is from Mr. Rolf W. Loth, 1056 Naramata Road, Penticton, British Columbia — not a member of the Surrey constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a New Democrat.

MR. HALL: I don't know if he's a New Democrat. I have no idea. It doesn't say.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: It's a letter that didn't even come to me. It went to a number of people. I'll tell you what: it went to you. I wonder if you answered it. I'll bet you did. I'm still waiting for some copies of answers to people I've asked you for as well. We'll get to that one of these days.

"Dear Mr. Hewitt:

"I have just compared my 1980 registration insurance statements with the new 1981 issues and found the following: my 1971 Renault premium increase over 1980 is 71.3 percent."

So much for the 31 percent that the minister claimed in his news release. The licence fee increased 72 percent. His 1979 diesel Volkswagen Rabbit premium increased 66.9 percent over 1980. The licence fee increased 70 percent.

He's expecting one of his own constituents to believe his press release that rates went up 38 percent in 1981. He's got a letter from his own constituent, who has never had an accident, never had a claim and takes pride in driving cars that are in good safe condition, as well as being among the best in conserving fuel.

"The only explanation I can give for the above increases, " says Mr. Loth to the Hon. James Hewitt, "is that someone at the top of ICBC must have gone insane." I don't need to add any further comment.

Going back to the dispute, the one thing that I am worried about, other than the worries I've already expressed to the minister, is the determined attempts by some of the people at ICBC to involve the agents, the body shops and the towing companies in strike-breaking. There's been consistent and persistent pressure on body shops and towing operators to do work that is normally done by members of the corporation. I consider that to be wrong, I don't think anybody working for a Crown corporation in a management capacity should indulge in that kind of behaviour. I would hope that the minister would see to it that it stops.

Turning now to the corporation specifically, I would like to ask the minister a couple of corporation questions. Could he tell me if the dial-a-claim proposal being entertained in New Westminster is going ahead with one single telephone number and if any moneys have been spent on this central registry office for the dial-a-claim system? If that is the case, could he give us some indication how far along that particular new proposal, which has been tried before, has gone? Secondly, is the corporation undertaking a centralized bodily injury office where all bodily injury claims will be dealt with, so that they won't be dealt with in the field anymore? Those are two questions regarding the actual operation of the corporation.

I've undertaken to ask you a specific question regarding the glass medic product from somebody in Kelowna, Mr. Minister. I wonder if you have knowledge of that product and a Canadian company using as many Canadian products as possible, dealing with some rather remarkable results in the windshield-repair industry, and a voluminous file on not getting very far with the corporation. If not during estimates then at some later date, could you come up with some answers as far as the g!ass medic franchise and the particular holder of the franchise, Klemar Industries Ltd. of Kelowna, are concerned? They are having a great deal of difficulty getting recognized as having a product. I made a commitment to that corporation to raise it with you.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to what I described last year as being a miscarriage of fairness and, in a way, of justice. That is the decision by the corporation to discontinue assisting driver educators in the province. I think we are now the only province that doesn't have some scheme whereby people are recognized for helping people to learn to drive, even though it's a commercial venture.

[ Page 5193 ]

Last year during the discussion on estimates we were told that the corporation had made that decision, but there was still lots of time and there were meetings going on. We were given the understanding that it was being looked at; not to worry; the minister was looking into it; perhaps something would turn up. Well, as usual, we waited, and like David Copperfield we were disappointed that nothing turned up. In fact, the decision to cancel the incentive grants to students who completed an approved driver-education course went into effect on January 1, 1981, and that incentive grant to students is no more. It was a very unpopular decision. I think it was an unwise decision, based on dubious statistics. The statistics provided by the Canadian Driver Safety Education Association and by private corporations involved in the field have never been refuted by ICBC. We must now ask what the effect is going to be. I would like the minister to tell us why we're the only province and why we're one of the few insurance companies — since we're discussing ICBC — that doesn't have that kind of student reward. Time and time again it can be demonstrated that driver education is an attractive and effective counter-accident measure.

I've discussed this with members of the House, and I think I've even discussed it with you, Mr. Chairman. There are all sorts of measures taken by our police forces and by the corporation to try to reduce the toll of traffic accidents and traffic deaths. One of the best ways of doing this is to have better drivers. One of the best ways to do that is to learn to drive properly in the first place. I don't understand why we put any impediment in the way of doing that or why we don't make some kind of incentive system available, either by having a cash grant or a reduction in premium or some advantage in a discount. I don't understand the thinking behind it. In my view, there's no way that anything can be proven to be more beneficial than good driver education, particularly since it's been proven in other jurisdictions that it actually helps. We have a terrible record. We have to start somewhere.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I notice there has been a change of Chairmen while I'm in the middle of these remarks. You, Mr. Chairman, come from an area which had a fantastic program at one time — I don't know whether the program is still going on — by which you took some very draconian measures to try to reduce the carnage on the highway. It was an excellent program. We should be attempting some of these things. What do we do instead? We see this bottom-line business for the sake of $500,000. For the sake of one little cassette showing the Premier or the Attorney-General on television making a speech, or for the sake of one little 15-minute film showing the Minister of Agriculture pontificating about turkeys, we could have an incentive grant for students to learn how to drive properly. If we did away with Hollywood North, we could have money for people to learn to drive properly. If we stop shaving the Premier $20,000 a time to get rid of the 5 o'clock shadow, we'd have good drivers.

Mr. Chairman, why does the minister contradict such sources as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation by not recognizing the value of driver education? If indeed it is the nondiscriminatory nature of FAIR insurance, then let us return to a more commonsense and popular system of reward where reward is due. I just don't understand what prompts the corporation or the minister to do this kind of thing to our young people. If ever there was a....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Now the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). who's been involved in motor cars all his life one way or another....

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I'm just saying to the members, Mr. Member for Dewdney, that you have had all this correspondence yourself, that your caucus has had this correspondence and you've had visits from the people involved. If you choose to close your caucus door to people bringing information to you, that's not my responsibility. My responsibility is to make sure that young people get an even break.

I represent a riding, Mr. Chairman, which is the most dangerous place in the world to drive. I think there are more accidents in Surrey than anywhere else in B.C. One of the most dangerous places in B.C. is the corner of 104th and King George Highway, where there are two sets of traffic lights, one to turn you left or right as the case may be.

In my view we don't need radar traps on four-lane highways at half past 11 at night; we need driver education. We need people to be shown the results of their bad driving. One of the most signal things I remember was taking my own son — before he drove — to a municipal vehicle wrecker's yard in Surrey and showing him acres of cars, each one representing an accident. Many of our young people believe that when they get in the car and get that satisfying clunk when the door closes, they are safe. You can show them cars that spring apart, cars that have exploded as though there is a bomb on the inside. You can show them the carnage, the trouble, the trial and tribulation and the havoc that is caused. You can get into all sorts of things, but I don't see any evidence that this negative thinking on the part of this corporation and this minister by closing down one program.... All we do is to put stuff on the TV, but there is no evidence that it works.

During the Attorney-General's estimates people will be talking about the Batmobile and the number of occurrences and so on, At the moment, in terms of saving lives, I'm not too sure we wouldn't better be turning some of those Batmobiles into ambulances.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I don't know; I don't have the figures. But I know that we've got to start somewhere, and that's the wrong way to go — for a paltry $500,000.

Mr. Chairman, if that's the best the corporation can do, if those are the best answers the minister can give, if we're seeing this trail of increased premiums, of "couldn't care less," of "let the private people back in again" that we've seen from this government since 1976, it's a sad day for the corporation. I don't like attacking the corporation: it doesn't give me any pleasure whatsoever, because I was there when it was born. I had a great pride in that corporation and I hate to see it badly led, badly administered and going down like this. As long as I'm in this House I shall stand up and try to protect it from the stupidity of decisions like that and from a decreasing level of morale by people who won't pay attention. That's what I have to say about ICBC on this very sad day, because

[ Page 5194 ]

unfortunately the presence of that strike makes me very reticent to get into some of the details I'd like to get into. I'm not going to into a knock-down, drag-out fight with the minister, intemperate and foolish though he was in making that statement about Mr. Trotter. I will not be drawn into that kind of across-the-floor debate. I just regret that he said it; it shows that one member of the board of directors for sure doesn't know the first thing about labour relations.

MR. COCKE: I note that the minister is tremendously interested in this debate on one of his responsibilities. He spends most of his time talking to one of his equally well-informed colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to lead off by suggesting that Goebbels once said that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Whenever that government is faced with any kind of criticism whatsoever, the first thing they do is jump up and talk about that fantastic $181 million deficit.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's true. What's wrong with that?

MR. COCKE: They even have the old Whip agreeing that it's true, because he believes it to be true.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reiterate it once more for the edification of a person who wasn't even in the House at the time. Almost at the advent of ICBC — and I happened to be on the board of ICBC — it was recommended that there be a rate evaluation in terms of the whole province, and it was suggested that there be a rate equalization program initiated to help people in Prince George and other areas of the province where the accident rate was high who, through no fault of their own, are faced with snow, bad roads, etc. That rate equalization implemented recently by this new government — not new, but old and hoary — was originated by us and implemented again by this new government in an entirely different way. We passed legislation in this province permitting 10 cents a gallon to be taken from the gas tax. That bill was passed, it became law and was proclaimed, and there was $200 million owing to ICBC at the time we lost government. Two years, $200 million. So if you want to talk about deficits or this or that, you can suggest there was a surplus of $19 million. It was not needed by ICBC at the time. There was a cash flow such that ICBC, when given the one subsidy of $181 million they were given by the Socred government that took over, immediately turned around and loaned it back to the government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought you at least understood book-keeping.

MR. COCKE: There is a member, Mr. Chairman, that knows all about book-keeping. He used to be a manager of a credit union, and I understand he had a loan allowance of $2,000. He couldn't allow any more than that without going to the board of directors, so obviously his math isn't all that great either. But in any event it's on the record; it's never going to be believed by those who have told it so often, but in any event that's the case.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's believed by the auditor-general.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture and Food would not interrupt the member who's speaking. If the member could refrain from personal allusions then the committee would be well served and debate could proceed.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister got up again a short while ago and reiterated what they said when they took government — that ICBC would never be subsidized. Well, I wonder what we found when the senior citizens in this province decided to raise Cain to the extent that even that counselling service and their nice little brochure that goes out patting everybody on the head and saying what good fellows the government are couldn't convince them that they shouldn't be angry. So what did the government do? They were subsidized, not out of gas tax or anything related to the automobile, but out of general revenue. Their rates were brought down 25 percent. I'm not in opposition to that; what I'm in opposition to is the line we've been fed that we will never subsidize. Then the minister gets up after having done it — this subsidization is even in his vote — and he says: "We'll never subsidize." I don't mind them subsidizing, I don't mind the gas tax, I don't mind this and I don't mind that, but I do mind them getting up and trying to kid the troops. That's what bothers me: this facade we have, this ridiculous government. No wonder they need to go down to Hollywood to hire people to come up here and try to dress up their image. Even that won't do.

I suggest to you that it's scandalous that we have to listen to the suggestions the minister has made so far in answer to the member for Surrey's (Mr. Hall's) legitimate questions. I would like him to get up in this House and answer the last question the member put again. That is: why did they end the program of a reduced rate for young people who'd had driving training? The minister can suggest that statistically it didn't seem to be warranted. In its practical application I have seen the difference. We instituted that proposition, and I suggest to you that despite the fact that we've had high claims rates in this province it would have been worse had it not been for that driver training program. I have gone around and checked with driver training schools, and what do they say? They say that they are down anywhere from 25 to 50 percent in the number of students they have compared to comparable months a year ago or before the program ended.

I think that it's absolutely ridiculous. Our biggest problem is the fact that there are too many people not driving defensively. When they take that driver training, at least they have some modicum of knowledge of how to drive defensively. We're turning out people now who get behind the wheel of a car with inadequate training. One way or the other, either through making it attractive or making it almost imperative, we should not send people on the road driving that lethal weapon called a car without adequate knowledge of what they're doing.

The minister gets up, does a little pontificating and sits down. That's what he always does, of course. He gets up and blames everything on a government that was in power for three years and four months, five years and some months ago, in a province where we've had Socred administration since 1952, except for that three years and four months. I suggest that it's time that this whole question was rethought.

I notice in the second to the last paragraph in the report from the board of directors in the Insurance Corporation's eighth annual report it says: "Construction of a new headquarters building for the corporation in the Lonsdale Quay area in North Vancouver is underway and on schedule. The

[ Page 5195 ]

corporation expects to complete the move in 1982." It's going to be across the harbour from where they are now. Mr. Chairman, that headquarters would have been and should have been completed in 1978. Instead of that, we've been paying high rent in one of the highest-rent buildings in Vancouver, renting floor after floor for ICBC headquarters. There are 1,200 people working in that headquarters facility, rented at one of the highest rents paid in Vancouver. This is all because of a stubborn government who decided that they wouldn't build where it was originally planned, who tore up the functional program and the original sketch plans and went back to the drawing-board. It has taken them five years and five or six months to come to this place. It's a shocking performance, again indicating a corporation that has not been given decent leadership at all. I presume they were paying back what they considered to be political debts, and on the other hand, they admonish New Westminster for having had the good sense to vote either CCF or NDP since 1952.

I also would like to put forward a question, and I notice that the minister has no one with him to assist him. I noticed when we were dealing with agriculture, he had two of his officials in the Agriculture ministry with him. I notice now that we're dealing with ICBC, he has no one. Heaven knows, he needs the help. I'd like to ask him a question about the policy with respect to insurance for motorcycles over 750 cubic centimetres. I recognize that there's a certain feeling with respect to that size of a motorbike, and should one ever aspire to a Harley-Davidson and so on.... I received a letter just the other day from one of my constituents who feels it's absolutely discriminatory. Here's a person with a safe driving record. By virtue of the fact that he has a large bike he's confronted with rates of this magnitude. His basic rate is $307; fire, theft and all perils is an additional $720, giving him a total premium of $1,027. In his case he is very fortunate in having a safe driving record which reduces it $334 to $693 plus his licence plate, bringing it up to well over $700. I asked him if he asked whether or not he could get the policy without comprehensive — just theft plus the basic. The basic isn't all that bad at $307 — a mite high. He was told that he could not get anything except the total comprehensive; that is $720.

I suggested to him that there is the possibility of people stealing bikes, dismantling them and so on, and that's why his theft is so high and why they insist on having fire. theft and all perils together. Then it struck me that I have talked to people who have told me that that sort of thing also goes on in other areas. Corvettes are particularly attractive to that type of person. Yet when you consider the disparity and the difference in the value, it strikes me that these people are getting hit hard. I really agree on the liability side, the basic rate side, to sock it to them if they're having accidents, creating problems for others, damaging other people's persons or property, but I don't really think that we should be socking it to people to the extent that I see here unless there's a very, very good reason. Maybe the minister has some answer to that question.

To very quickly review, we've had the old myth again, we've listened to it with interest, we wonder how often it's going to be told and whether or not our grandchildren will still be listening to that Alice in Wonderland story about the deficit. We've also listened to the fact that ICBC is not being subsidized and never will be subsidized; yet the minister is subsidizing it in his own vote. We haven't had an answer on the driver training — certainly not one that is acceptable in my view. I don't except an answer on the headquarters. As far as I was concerned, that was an inexcusable, expensive mistake, but then they've made so many of them that taxes have had to go up — taxes that they promised not to increase again — mainly because this government has just burnbled along and has now gotten to the point where they're dipping even deeper into the taxpayers' pockets.

My last question is with respect to those rates. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) went over comparable rates in other jurisdictions. I would just like to know why this particular rate is so extremely high.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal first with the questions of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). because he's in the House. Maybe by the time I'm finished the second member for Surrey will be back.

I want to take a minute to give a little accounting lesson to the member for New Westminster. He may talk all he wants about the fact that the money was paid to ICBC and the money came back. He may not want to recognize that the auditors of ICBC identified the loss that was left as a legacy by that party when they were responsible for ICBC. Let me just say that at the end of the 1975 insurance year — the last year that party was in office — the Autoplan fund had accumulated a deficit of $178.4 million, comprising a $34.2 million deficit in 1974 and $144.2 million in 1975. That's a deficit from one year and an operating loss in 1975. The argument that the member puts up is that we have these premiums and therefore we weren't broke. He knows as well as I do that when you collect the premiums for the year 1976 — between January 1, 1976, and February 28, 1976 — you are getting premiums into the corporation to cover losses due to claims for the fiscal year 1976. He wants you to believe that you can take those premiums that are paid and apply them to the previous year's losses. Then what happens when you go through the year? You have your premiums in place and each month there are claims. Slowly that $400 million or $500 million in premiums collected is reduced because of ongoing claims. You have no more revenue coming in. You have none at all because all premiums were due by February 28.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can explain that, Mr. Member. That little fellow from Prince Rupert wouldn't know how to add two and two if somebody gave him four blocks to push around.

It's as simple as this. He knows it full well — he's not that ignorant. He knows full well that if you did not maintain the funds to cover those claims during the 1976 year and apply it against the loss, by the ninth or tenth month in your fiscal year 1976 you'd be out of money again. Come the end of the year you'd be right back into not just the deficit carried over again and again, but the loss incurred because you didn't recognize the cost of claims and you didn't adjust your premiums accordingly. He knows that, Mr. Chairman. We've expressed this to that opposition many times. One issue they can't avoid and they can't deny is the fact that the auditors for the corporation identified the losses and the deficit that the auditor-general has. They want to act up and make political comments. We're not that naive on this side of the House; nor is the public. They know that they ran that corporation into the ground and that we had to clean up the mess they left in 1976.

[ Page 5196 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

To go on to other matters I think should be dealt with here, I'll respond to the member for New Westminster, because he's in the House. He makes a comparison that the senior citizen discount and the funds in my budget subsidize ICBC. That is absolutely ridiculous. The budget figure I have in my estimates is approximately $6 million to be paid to ICBC because they have reduced the billings to senior citizens. I could do it another way. I could have the senior citizens pay the full amount to ICBC and then I could send out a cheque to all the senior citizens that are due that driver's discount. That is not subsidy.

MR. COCKE: Why is that not subsidizing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Because it's not subsidizing.

MR. COCKE: What the hell is it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, bring the member to order.

To explain it fully to him, ICBC charges any driver who's a good driver, regardless of age, the same premium. That's what ICBC does. The government of the province of British Columbia provides a grant to the driver who is over age 65. If he can work that into a subsidy from ICBC, he's sillier than I thought he was.

I must say, Mr. Member, that I cannot answer your question regarding the 750 cc motorcycle that you talk about. I will assure you that I will investigate that and respond to your question. Maybe there's an error in the billing. I can't answer that. I would appreciate, though, if the member for New Westminster, instead of leaving the hall, might wish to send me a copy of the billing that the driver of the motorcycle received so that I could maybe use it to carry out my investigation. It would make my job a little easier.

Maybe I can proceed to some of the questions that were raised by the second member for Surrey, who raised a number of issues here. He asked the question: "Are we having a bodily injury claims centre?" The corporation is in the process of establishing four regional centres. The basic reason for that approach is that bodily injury adjusters do a substantial amount of travelling and do not need space in the vehicle claims centres which are primarily designed for cars. So it's a change in corporate strategy to provide a more efficient service to the driving public where there are bodily injuries involved.

The windshield repair industry. I believe he mentioned Klemar Industries. I'm not familiar with that firm, but we did do some research by a process that was provided to us at the Autoplan Autobody Shop where we would use this. I guess you'd call it liquid glass, and it would be able to repair a windshield rather than having it replaced because it was stone bruised or had a small chip. We carried out studies for the past two years, and the results haven't proved to be satisfactory. In some cases the crack would continue or there would be a distortion of vision in that particular area, and if it happened to be right in front of the driver or in his vision it could cause a problem for him.

With regard to the driver school assistance grant of $50 per student, I want to take a moment on that because both members have mentioned that it should have been continued. I stated in this House in previous debate that statistics and investigation proved that we weren't getting results for those dollars spent. When we took a study of the claims we found that there were an equal number of claims charged against drivers who had participated in a driver school program and those who had not. There was no difference or reduction in the number of accidents.

So we approached the problem by saying: what is a better alternative so we spend those dollars where we can get better results? And I'm pleased to say we've come up with a pretty good approach and a good effort to get the message out there and educate the driving public of all ages. We have set up a drivers' safety education department whose terms of reference are based on educating, guiding and involving the citizens of the province, especially the young people. We are cooperating with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We now have programs put into place like the road-users safety program. It deals with young people between kindergarten and grade 7, and gives them audio-visual aids in regard to automobiles and safety on the roads. Young people of those age brackets, of course, ride bicycles, etc. We have a seatbelt program and we're carrying out education programs on that.

We have produced films which will be shown on local TV at service clubs and schools and will be shown to every grade 11 and 12 class in every high school in the province of British Columbia by the end of 1981. It's fully financed by ICBC, and when I say fully financed by ICBC I'm really saying fully financed by driver premiums. But I think it's money well spent, because with good education we can possibly stop some of the irresponsible driving on the highways of this province, and therefore cut down claims costs and as a result cut down premiums. I would say to the members here today that it is an excellent film. I say to the NDP caucus that if you people want to see it I'll be quite happy to have an ICBC official show it to your caucus. There is a pamphlet which goes with it. The pamphlet and the film are entitled "A Matter of Time." It is an excellent publication, and we're attempting to get that in front of as many people as possible to educate all of them as to the responsibility they have in safe driving, as opposed to just allocating $50 to those students who participate in driver schools. We are, of course, involved in the Counterattack school program and a number of other programs.

The point I make really is that we evaluated a program we had in place. We didn't appear to be getting the results we thought we should get with the dollars spent, and as a result we moved to a new approach. I think that new approach will give us better results in driver education in this province, and I think it's an excellent effort on the part of ICBC in attempting to educate the driving public.

MR. LEA: I have just one question to the minister. As I understand it, before the minister came into politics he worked in a credit union. I would assume that in that kind of work he would have had something to do with numbers — adding, subtracting, multiplying and all that sort of thing. And he yells across the floor: "You NDPers obviously can't add because you're so stupid."

I'd like to have the minister answer one question for me. The minister said that when they came to office they found $180 million in a deficit position. The government at the time said that they were going to make a grant of $180 million to ICBC so they wouldn't be in trouble any longer from the

[ Page 5197 ]

horrendous deficit position that the NDP left ICBC in. Is that right?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It was $144 million in one year. Shame on you!

MR. LEA: So it's $180 million. Was it $144 million?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In 1975.

MR. LEA: It was $180 million in, though, eh?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, yes, because you had bad news in 1974.

MR. LEA: It was $180 million in, the minister says. So on a Tuesday in 1976 the government wrote out a cheque to ICBC for that deficit amount, because they needed it, the minister says, in order to carry on business. Can the minister tell me why, then, on Thursday of that same week ICBC wrote a cheque for the same amount of $180 million and loaned the money out?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd be glad to. The member opposite doesn't recognize that one of the sources of revenue to any insurance company is to take the premium dollar they receive and get a return on investment, which cuts down the premium cost to those people who buy insurance. All insurance companies have investment revenue. What you are now saying to me is that by paying back that grant to the government.... It went to them and they paid it back. Had they not done that or had they not had the opportunity to cover their losses.... If they had had to cover their losses out of the 1976 revenue, they would have gotten no interest income. So it was good management to turn it back and invest it. It's very simple.

MR. LEA: Let's make it a little simpler so I can understand.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Well, we'll try. We'll even make it so simple, you'll get a glimmer.

So this was premium money, as I understand it — the $180 million grant. I thought it was to pick up a deficit.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: He says that's right. So the $180 million was given as a grant from the government to ICBC to make up for the deficit. We're not talking about premiums.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, that's not right.

So $180 million went to ICBC on Tuesday, because they needed the money. We're not talking about the short-term loan or the short-term investment made from premium money during the year. We're not talking about that at all. That's not what you talked about at the time. What you said, and you said it again today, is that ICBC was $180 million in the deficit position. In order to put ICBC back into a sound financial position, the government was going to not loan but grant $180 million to ICBC so they wouldn't be in this financial bind. But obviously ICBC didn't need the money. ICBC loaned the money to the province of British Columbia at 10 percent interest. which means that $180 million times 10 percent....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're having trouble figuring that out.

MR. LEA: There's no problem at all, I'll tell you; you weren't even here. If the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) can understand what the Minister of Agriculture is saying, then I defy him to get up and explain it. The only way you can explain it is politically, not with numbers that mean anything. I defy the Minister of Labour to take his place in this House and try to explain it. Now he's gotten busy; no more yelling across the floor, eh? Are you going to get up and explain it? Do you understand it, Minister of Labour?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I wasn't here.

MR. LEA: You weren't here, that's right. Now we get the admission: he wasn't here; he doesn't understand it. I'll tell you, it's pretty simple to understand. A cheque in the form of a grant for $180 million went on a Tuesday to ICBC; on the Thursday ICBC wrote out a cheque back to the government as a loan. Either they needed the money or they didn't need the money. The only thing that ICBC gets out of that is interest on the $180 million they loaned to the government. Right? That's all they get.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: How do you make out on your tax returns?

MR. LEA: I defy you to put ICBC tax returns up. I'll bet there isn't one person over there who can answer the question. You can't, but the Minister of Labour says: "By God, they're stupid over there. Can't they understand?" So I say to the Minister of Labour: if it's so simple, do you understand it? Give us your understanding of what happened and how it works. You can't do it.

Every time this lie is told from that side of the House, I feel that on behalf of the people of this province, it's mandatory that we get up and say that was a lie. It was a political lie. There's no way around it, because every time you people tell that story in public, you fail to tell the people of this province that you only kept the money in ICBC for two days. You never tell them that. If that's part of your story, why don't you level and tell them everything? Those new members who came in after — the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) — you know in your heart of hearts, when you hear the figures, what happened. You know that a big, whopping political lie was told to the people of this province, and there is no way you can deny it. That accumulates 20 percent in the Gallup poll. If you want people to believe you, you better start telling them the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister. I must again caution members that when we refer to matters of fact that are in dispute, that is the way to which they should be referred and not by that other word that has become somewhat too commonplace in the chamber.

[ Page 5198 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I recognize that the member made comments that are normally unparliamentary in this House, but I was enjoying him so much I didn't want to bring him to order. I'm not sure whether or not he does understand it, and I just want to go through it one more time to explain it to him.

When you collect premiums for an insurance year — and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) know this; they sat on the board of ICBC; they did a terrible job, but they evidently sat there — you allocate those premiums to those claims you incur in that insurance year. If you did what you advocate.... I have lots of money in the bank at ICBC at the first of the insurance year of 1976. There should be no problem. I'll just take that $180 million and pay off the deficit in 1975, which was $144 million — which they agreed to, because they were going to take it out of gasoline tax; they admit that themselves — and I'll go back and pay the deficit of $40 million from 1974. They also know that. Now what happens? Well, it's very simple. You get part way through your insurance year of 1976, and you come up to October or November — whenever it is, whenever the crunch comes — and you go to the bank to pay the claim, and there ain't no money.

That's the accounting ability of those people over on that other side. They just can't understand how you keep a set of books. They couldn't do it from 1972 to 1975. They ran this province into the ground, because they didn't know how to keep books. The Minister of Human Resources lost $100 million and said it was a clerical error. You guys have got such a terrible record, you don't know which way is up when it comes to keeping track of public funds. It's a silly argument.

MR. LEA: I have one more question. The minister has now explained it. The reason they needed the $180 million is that during the course of the year 1976 they would need the money to pay out the claims that were incurred during the year. Right? Where did you get the money? You loaned the money to the province. You didn't have it any longer. So when the time came that you did need the money — silly little me wants to know — were did you get the money? It was gone. All you had was the interest. Where did you get the other money?

HON. MR. HEWITT: One more time, Mr. Chairman. Let us now identify the $180 million that comes from the government to ICBC, which is in turn returned to the government and interest is earned. Now that takes care of the deficit and the loss that was there. Now when you talk....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please. We have one member speaking at a time in this debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: When you talk about the insurance year — which is what they ran into, and which they just can't grasp — when the premiums come in for 1976, you pay 1976 claims. Where did we get the money? We had the money, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, because we didn't take out of this year's premium dollars to pay for last year's losses. Do you understand now?

MS. BROWN: You didn't pay the bill. You gave it back to the government in two days.

MR. LEA: What did you pay it out of? You phonied the books.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, I keep trying but I guess it just doesn't come through.

I'd like to mention the policy on motorcycles over 750 cc, if I could.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Maybe we should attempt to look at this one more time. How do you establish a loss that doesn't exist in your mind, and yet the corporation's auditors identify a loss on the books of the corporation and the auditor-general of the province of British Columbia identifies the loss that existed at that time? I appreciate your trying to defend the incompetence of the management and directorship that you had at ICBC, but what you're telling me is that the auditor of the corporation was in error, was wrong, was manipulated. You're telling me that the auditor-general doesn't know how to investigate the Crown corporations. Is that what you're saying?

MR. LEA: There was no auditor-general.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The auditor-general has been in place for a period of time now, because I happen to be the chairman of the committee that appointed the auditor-general.

MR. LEA: She never looked at those books.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You have a Crown corporations committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Isn't that interesting? First of all, the auditor-general didn't exist when you had the loss. To try to straighten you out again, the auditor-general can and is able at any time to look at the Crown corporation's balance sheets.

MR. LEA: But didn't.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're overly concerned that the auditors for the corporation are wrong and that we have a problem here. I would suggest that you write to the auditor-general and ask for her opinion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time that we returned to some semblance of orderly debate in this chamber. While the odd interjection has always been allowed, when the speaker is barely audible because of interjections on both sides of the House, then it is time to return to order. I would ask the minister to continue in his debate. All members will have an opportunity to be recognized and take their place in debate in this chamber. The minister continues.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in one final comment I want to deal with the deficit carried over at the end of

[ Page 5199 ]

the NDP administration of ICBC. If they're saying that there was no deficit on the books of ICBC, then make them put forth their case. They're attempting to say that because you have an inflow of cash, therefore you can cover up past sins. I say that in the accounting world it just doesn't work that way. If you want to rob this year to cover last year's losses, in the end, I'm afraid, it will catch up with you and you'll find out that you have created a major problem for yourself in that you don't have the proper cash flow to meet the demands of your corporation — whatever corporation it is — in the current year.

If I may proceed to respond to a question on motorcycles, I understand that the larger motorcycles are rated solely on the basis of claims experience. The high premium for fire, theft, comprehensive, etc., results from large numbers of thefts and the claims costs being high. The costs of those claims are paid out of that pool and are not subsidized by other motor vehicles. So it's a class in kind, Mr. Second Member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), that is identified in a separate pool. I guess the ease of motorcycle theft, because they cannot be easily locked or protected, is why the premium for fire, theft, comprehensive, etc., is as high as it is. That's the report I have from the corporation. If you wish to ask any other questions I'll attempt to respond.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly wish that when I went shopping and found that I didn't have quite enough money in my purse to pay for the purchase, and I ran out to the front of the store and borrowed $20 from my husband, I would somehow be able to cover that purchase and still have that $20 to lend to somebody.

MS. BROWN: It's the old black magic; that's what that is.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it's magic; it's quite a formula.

I always thought that when I had ICBC insurance or any kind of car insurance — but let's talk about ICBC, seeing that's what we're talking about today — and I had an accident, and if I had $50 deductible, that would be my cost and ICBC would pay the balance of the cost of the accident. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking that. I have a letter here from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), dated March 31, 1981. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is always accusing me of selective reading, so I'm going to read this whole letter. It's not very long.

"Dear Mrs. Wallace,

"Re vehicle damage, Lake Cowichan Highway.

"Referring to your letter of March 4, 1981, if in fact paint damage did occur simultaneously with glass breakage, then I do not know why the Insurance Corporation should not treat the loss as one claim, one deductible. It is a matter of record that the Insurance Corporation have reimbursed some vehicle owners for paint damage allegedly incurred on Highway 18. How they differentiated between these claims and others which they refused, I do not know.

"Any payments made by the Insurance Corporation were made under the insurance contract between the corporation and the claimants. There is no contractual relationship between the claimants and this ministry, and the ministry is not prepared to offer restitution for paint damage."

Of course, this is a long-standing problem that we've had in Cowichan-Malahat. I raised this matter during the budget debate, I shall raise it again when the Highways estimates are up and I certainly have to raise it with the minister responsible for ICBC, because what the Minister of Transportation and Highways says is absolutely true.

I have in my hand here a claim for one Mr. Schliekelman of Youbou, dated March 4. There was a windshield, tinted, and 11 hours of painting, and the total bill came to $638.39 with $50 deductible, for a net repair cost of $588.39. There is another one to a Mr. Walter Henley, Box 182, Lake Cowichan. This was July 6, 1980. There was one clear windshield with an aerial and repair of rock chips on the left fender. the left door, one side panel, the front of the roof — it's very difficult to read — and some spotting. Anyway, that one too had a $50 deductible, all on one bill, for $507.37 net.

That's what we would expect to happen. Later on down the road we found that ICBC said no, every rock that hits your car is a separate accident. If you have a broken windshield, that's one accident and one deductible. If you have a pockmark on your left-hand door, that's one accident and a separate deductible. It's the same thing on the right-hand door. I have in my hand a claim from a Mrs. Yvonne Green of Lake Cowichan. ICBC requested that each panel must be regarded as a separate claim, and each subject to a $100 deductible. There are five panels. Thus the cost would be $500, which would be the total cost of repainting the Volkswagen.

This is what's been happening in my constituency. I suggest that ICBC, because of the expense involved, is using extortionist methods on the residents that have to use that Lake Cowichan road and trying to get that money out of them and causing the kind of road-block that's occurring here. There are problems between the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and the minister responsible for ICBC in trying to settle the just and due claims that have been incurred by these people who have to use that road, which was in such a disastrous situation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair].

I have some sympathy for the ICBC people. They expended a terrific amount of money in repairing cars damaged on the highway. To use that method of switching from one claim for both windshield and paint damage all around the car with one deductible, to the method of the windshield and each piece of the vehicle damaged being a separate deductible, for $500 deductible in that one particular instance, is simply, utterly and totally unfair to the people involved. If you've got a quarrel, Mr. Minister, your quarrel is with the Minister of Highways, not with the residents of Lake Cowichan, Duncan and Youbou who have to use that road.

I would ask the minister to stand on the floor of the House and give a commitment to those people that he will change that policy and ensure that the repairs will be made as they were in the first instance under one deductible, because that's completely unjust. There's no natural justice — that's a term that that minister likes to use — about that kind of approach to the people using that road and having those exorbitant costs put upon them and relieving ICBC of its just responsibility for repairing a vehicle that's involved in an accident.

MS. BROWN: I just want to touch on a couple of issues and ask the minister some questions. I want to add my voice to that of the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and other members in expressing some concern about the decision to wipe out the incentive for driver education for young people. I

[ Page 5200 ]

think that part of the problem is that the ministry probably sees this only in terms of employment for people who give this course in driver education. Driver education is part of the preventive process. In the International Year of the Disabled when so many of the members of the disabled community are there as a result of traffic accidents — some of which they contributed to and some of which they were just the victims of — it seems almost macabre that this should be the time chosen by the government to wipe out this preventive program.

Part of my work experience before coming into politics was at the Montreal Children's Hospital, primarily as a social worker with families of young people who had brain damage. Ninety percent of the kids on that ward were there for one of two reasons: either they were injured in a car accident — these are small children who were injured as a result of a car accident — or they were young adults who were injured while driving the car themselves. I don't know what the statistics are for British Columbia. I know that for Montreal, if we could have wiped out the automobile accident impact on small children, as well as young people who drove themselves, we could have wiped out 90 percent of the brain damaged kids on that ward.

There is no coordination in terms of services to people in the province. This is the problem we are running into. At the same time as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education are embarking on an education program to cut down on disabilities, we have ICBC as administered by the Minister of Agriculture wiping out a program which would be a very important component in cutting down disability among young people. I think that maybe the minister should think of it in those terms — as a preventive service rather than in terms of creating jobs for people who give the program. Although I agree that for the people who teach this program it's an important source of income, and I support that, I feel much more strongly about this program in terms of its importance as a preventive component. It's not worth a saving of $500,000, because we pay for it in the long run when we have to pay for the rehabilitation programs and the support for these disabled people for the rest of their lives. In the long run it's much more expensive than if we paid for the program in the beginning.

This brings me to my second topic, and that is that the ministry is still not dealing with safe car seats for children. I've been listening carefully, but I may have missed whether the minister had dealt with this before. So much research is happening and so many studies are being done. In the meantime it's now required that adults in British Columbia have to buckle up, but children are still not covered by any kind of protective legislation. If the parents feel like buying a safe car seat and buckling them into it that's fine, but if the parents would prefer not to do that it doesn't happen. Children can't make those decisions for themselves. A baby cannot say to its parent: "I want a safe car seat. I don't just want to sit beside you on the seat of the car." Surely part of the responsibility of the ministry is to decide now that we have done all the studies and looked at all the options, it's that time to make some kind of decision about safe car seats for children. Maybe the minister in responding would give me the statistics, because I'd like to have that kind of information. I'd like the statistics on the number of children in British Columbia who have suffered brain damage, death or some form of disability as a result of being passengers in cars when they were not securely buckled in or there was no restraining device for them.

The third topic I'd like to deal with — and this is quite different — is the whole impact of technological change on the clerical worker. The reason I'm raising this issue at this time is because the insurance corporations are one of the major corporations involved in the elimination of the clerical worker as a result of the revolution in micro technology. I'm curious to know whether the minister has looked at this phenomenon and what the corporation is doing. I'm talking about the impact of microtechnological change on the clerical worker.

A report was recently done by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in Toronto. I don't know whether the minister has seen it or not; if not, I'd be very happy to share my copy with him. If I can quote from some of the findings of the report, it says the evidence is rapidly mounting that the two areas — the office and the assembly line — where most women work are the areas that are most feeling the impact of the whole development of micro technological revolution on the workforce. For example, just look at what is happening to the typewriter. Today's word processing machines, specialized computers driven by microprocessors, are estimated to increase the productivity of a typist twofold. What that means is that you need half a typist now where you used to need a typist before. If you look at what that is doing in terms of the employment of this particular group of the community.... This report goes on to say that by 1983 we will in fact have voice-actuated typewriters, which means that you won't even have to know how to read, write or spell, much less type. If you want information to go out, you say to your typewriter rather than to your typist what you want done, and it gets done.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, the insurance industry is one of the industries being most affected by this revolution in micro technology. I wonder whether the minister has looked into it and what kinds of programs he's developed to deal with it. The Canadian report says that unless policy-makers move ahead of the current trend, up to one million Canadian women could be unemployed by the year 1990. The trends include the automation of clerical and related information work, which is consistently and substantially reducing labour requirements in areas where women are most heavily concentrated. What usually happens in an instance like this is that when a worker is thrown out of a job as a result of technological changes, that worker is retrained to do something else. However, the studies that have been done find that that is not what happens. The old workers who have been doing all the typing before are moved aside and new younger workers come in who can run the computers. Two things happen to the old workers: either they become unemployed — that's it — because they don't fit into the system anywhere else, or they just move on to the same kind of dull and uninteresting work that they were doing before.

What is the Insurance Corporation doing about this? This report says that in insurance companies, for example, the clerical work is a major component. They are the ones who are leading, along with the banks. They are in the forefront of this microtechnological change. Insurance companies and banks are moving faster than any other companies in our society to change the work done by the clerical ghetto, where the women all work, and put it into computers. What is the Insurance Corporation of B.C. doing about this? The statistics are pretty horrendous in terms of what it means in unemployment for the older women. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, what happens is that the younger women coming

[ Page 5201 ]

out of the secretarial schools are being taught how to use those new computer typewriters. They move into the workforce with the skills. The women who have been there for a number of years become redundant and obsolete. Is the Insurance Corporation of B.C. addressing itself to this fact? What we're finding is that it's a different type of skill that's needed. Are these women being retrained? Is there any attempt being made to fit them into other kinds of jobs or to develop new kinds of skills so that they can keep up with this kind of industrial revolution which is taking place? Is it just being left to chance? They're being wiped out, and nothing is being done on their behalf.

In that regard, I want to bring one statistic to the minister's attention and that is a result of the report done by the National Council of Welfare, which said that 60 percent of women who work do so because they have no choice; they're either single, single parents, widowed, or married to someone whose income is below the poverty line. It goes on to say: "It has been estimated that in these instances if wives were to lose their jobs, the number of Canadian families living below the poverty line would be increased by 50 percent." What I would like the minister to do is give me an idea of the training programs that have been developed by the Insurance Corporation of B.C. to help these women who now make up the body of the clerical workforce develop computer skills and basic computer concepts. What kinds of programs have been developed to deal with the occupational bridging which is necessary and the mobility strategies which have to be developed so that these women are not just discarded once the corporation really does move into more and more technology?

I want to make it very clear that I am not opposed to technological advances. A number of the jobs that are being wiped out are boring jobs, there isn't any question about that — boring, dull and demeaning jobs. I recognize that, but what I do not want to see happen is people being replaced by machines, and no kind of program or plan being made to either fit them into work with these machines or somewhere else within the corporation.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to deal with one aspect around the ICBC estimate question, which is the question of how we go about compensating the victims of personal injuries as a result of accidents on the road. First of all, I think it's significant that when you look at the annual report of ICBC.... I'm quoting from the opening paragraph from the chairman of the board:

"The corporation recorded a total of 477,000 claims during the year — 59,000, or 14 percent, more than the previous 12 months. The number of property-related claims rose 18 percent. Injury-related claims rose 7 percent. In addition, the cost of each claim rose significantly. Property-related claim costs increased by 24 percent; injury-related claim costs increased by 9 percent."

In fact, what the chairman has confirmed in his report is that the major additional cost in the operation of ICBC has been in the property damage area, rather than the area of compensation for personal injuries in terms of the victims of the automobile. Having that in mind, it's passing strange that when you look at the operation of ICBC — and I do want to ask the minister some questions around this area — there seems to have been a very concerted drive on the part of ICBC to cut down the amount of personal injury settlements and awards.

Also, a very serious attack has been made upon the rehabilitation section of ICBC. I'm just dealing with those two aspects. Certainly one of the most valuable contributions that the whole concept of ICBC has made is in the area of rehabilitation for the seriously injured — the quadriplegics and the paraplegics, who have an agony of pain and suffering for the rest of their lives. To understand the significance of this, you have to understand that when a seriously injured person — a quadriplegic or paraplegic — goes to court, the present rule is that the court will deduct the cost of rehabilitation through ICBC from the total amount of the award. That would be fair if the activities of the rehabilitation section of ICBC were guaranteed and fair.

MR. LAUK: And if they were for life.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, and if they were for life. But in fact what has occurred is that the best people out of the rehabilitation division have left that division, because the board of directors has failed to provide the proper funding, emphasis and direction to their rehabilitation division to give the kind of help that quadriplegics and paraplegics require. You can ask anyone in the business about this and they will confirm it. The shame is that they have been attempting to cut their budgets on the backs of quadriplegics and paraplegics in the province of British Columbia. That is a tragedy. That is something that is inconceivable in the humane operation of an automobile insurance scheme.

We are looking at, for example, something in the vicinity of 525 active files for quadriplegics and paraplegics under ICBC. I am now told that quadriplegics and paraplegics are being arbitrarily cut off from help with the good old philosophy that you can get alone by yourself. I hope the minister will respond. I'm raising this not as a carping critic. I think it's an area that needs some attention. In fact the board should have a very careful took at the present operation of the rehabilitation division of ICBC, particularly in respect to those no-fault benefits in respect to the good work that had been initiated and started under ICBC to help paraplegics and quadriplegics to rehabilitate themselves.

What I'm saying is that the evidence is now hard; the evidence is there that there has been an attempt to cut back on the cost of ICBC by cutting off paraplegics and quadriplegics from their rights to rehabilitation under the program. It is particularly unfair when you find someone who has had a disaster for a lifetime — losing one or four limbs — and he goes to court and finds out that the judge has to deduct the cost of the rehabilitation from the award. Because it's under the no-fault provision, you can't claim it, Then he goes to the rehabilitation division and he finds out that half the staff are gone and there's no effort in rehabilitation. In fact, the board of directors, if they know about it, seem to be downgrading that aspect of the automobile insurance program. So the poor paraplegic is getting hit from both sides. He can't get an award in court which will pay for his own rehabilitation, because the courts won't give it to him. They have to take it off the award. Then when he goes to get his rehabilitation, he finds a bunch of hard-nosed people saying: "You're okay, Jack. You just go out there and get yourself a job."

We can't have it both ways. If you prefer to go to the court system and say to the courts, "Since we're not going to rehabilitate under the no-fault provisions we will therefore award you sufficient funds to rehabilitate yourself privately," that would be one answer and one that I think fair-minded

[ Page 5202 ]

people would look at. Or if you use the other system, which is to use the services that are available for rehabilitation, those services must be generously given. Those services are very important, because remember that the rehabilitation of a person who is facing this kind of disaster is something that is not just a physical question. It's a question of the terrible mental depression and agony that these people must go through. When they're told by a rehabilitation officer, "We think you don't need to come here any more," it's demeaning. It's a terrible problem for a paraplegic, and he's not been given sufficient funds in a court by law to allow him to rehabilitate himself. He's got to go, cap in hand, to the nofault provisions under ICBC. There is certainly enough evidence now that the minister should have a very careful and intensive look at what's happening in the rehabilitation division of ICBC. Surely if there is one thing that we want to do and that all of us can agree on, it is that people who are severely injured in auto accidents shouldn't be dealt with penuriously, they should be dealt with fairly. That's a group of people in our society that surely together we are willing to pay for, help, keep in the mainstream, make all the adjustments to elevators and physical circumstances. The adjustment we mustn't allow to happen is an adjustment on the part of a narrow-minded board which says: "Let's save some money on the quadriplegics and paraplegics of the province." I don't think anybody in this Legislature wants to see that happening. I'm saying that it is now happening in the province of British Columbia and that's the kind of bottom-line mentality that no one in this chamber should support.

As I indicated, the second aspect of the personal injury question is: here they are, they've been trying to cut back in giving reasonable rehabilitation to quadriplegics and paraplegics, but they've also clearly made a decision to try to to cut down on personal injury awards by sucking injured people in so they can't get good advice from their solicitors about what is a fair and proper award. That's got to stop too. That's a scandal.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're on thin ice now.

MR. LEGGATT: I see the minister is interested. I want to deal with that "thin ice." I'm going to quote to the minister a memorandum that goes out from ICBC to each of its adjusters on how to deal with a person seriously injured in an automobile accident.

MR. LAUK: They're told to lie to them.

MR. LEGGATT: They're told to lie to them, that's right. I want to show you where the lies are in this particular memorandum that goes to every adjuster. On technique: "When the adjuster has completed the statement" — that's the statement from the poor claimant, the poor injured person — "he should close the file and put down his pen, giving the claimant the impression that everything else is an off-the-record discussion." That's a direct instruction to the adjuster. So the adjuster is plainly sitting there sucking in the poor claimant so they can use whatever information they can get, falsely obtained.

Here's another one. "Should the adjuster determine that the claimant has or is contemplating retaining counsel, the adjuster should attempt to discourage the claimant from retaining one or consider waiving the solicitor for the following reasons." These are the reasons that the adjuster is now being told by ICBC to tell the poor claimant how to get out of the hands of getting some advice as to what a fair settlement is:

(1) "The claimant's solicitor cannot guarantee him a settlement figure in writing." Neither can the adjuster. That's a lie.

(2) "Cost. His solicitor shall take a percentage of the total settlement figure." That's correct. They do. "Current range 25 to 40 percent." I have never seen a 40 percent contract in all the time I've practised since 1956. The range is 20 to 25 percent and has been for a long time. It is clearly a lie to the claimant to stay away from a lawyer to get some decent advice.

(3) "The involvement of a solicitor may mean unnecessary delays in settlement of his claim, as traditionally solicitors are extremely slow." There's an element of truth there. But why is a solicitor slow? Because he says: "Don't take this $100 offer. Your case is worth $20,000." It's worth a little time to get good advice in order to arrive at a fair settlement.

Here we have on record the dirty tricks document of ICBC which says stay away from those terrible lawyers, because they're bound to take all of your money. I don't have any special brief for lawyers, other than being one. The other lawyers in this House will confirm this: I practised law since 1956, and I never saw a settlement go down after the guy walked into the hands of the lawyer. This document is a direct lie given to the poor claimant to suck him in to settle for something far less than he's entitled to.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you charge to take a case?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Can I see a copy of your statement?

MR. LEGGATT: Yes. I'll be happy to table it. I'm glad the Attorney-General mentioned that. We have a standard form, as I'm sure his office does. I'm sure the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has. I'd be very happy to table it. I'd also be happy to table the amount. I don't know whether you're charging 40 percent, but I don't....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're advertising.

MR. LEGGATT: No, I'm trying to protect the poor downtrodden claimant from the vicious activities of ICBC. That's what we're trying to do.

Get this instruction number 4; this one's a beauty. I want you to get this one: "A solicitor cannot do any more for the claimant than what we are doing right now; in fact, probably less, as we control the purse-strings." How do you like that for instructions? That's what they're telling somebody who is maybe maimed for life. This is a scandal.

Here's the next one: "If liability is clear and coverage confirmed, advise the claimant. If in fact he is totally or partially disabled, he in all probability shall qualify for our PIA program, once medical and wage verifications are at hand." I'm telling you, that's the program that they've been deliberately cutting back. It's another lie — under the instructions that have been directed to the adjuster. This is a scandal. It is wrong, wrong, wrong for ICBC to try to balance its books on the backs of paraplegics, quadriplegics and seriously injured people in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 5203 ]

I look forward to the minister directing his attention particularly to the question of what's happening in the rehabilitation division. The evidence is overwhelming that they are trying to balance their books in a most unjustified way.

HON. MR. HEWITT: At this time I would defer my answers till tomorrow because of the time. But before I do so, I would ask the member if he would be so kind as to supply me with a copy of the memorandum. I know that he can't file in committee, but if he would supply me with a copy of the memorandum, I'd like to read it over the evening.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

SURVEY OF MOTORISTS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief ministerial statement. I'd like you and members to be aware that during the months of May and June the Motor Vehicle Task Force will be conducting a province-wide survey of night-time drivers. Motorists will be asked to cooperate fully in this survey.

The study, which is being conducted for research purposes, continues the task force's work to achieve improved traffic safety through traffic safety programs in this province.

I wish to emphasize that participation in the study will be purely voluntary, and data collected will provide safety program planners with current statistical information about night-time driving,

The survey will take place in selected locations throughout the province between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. on four nights of each week during the two months. Motorists will be randomly chosen and interviewed on various topics. Including alcohol use.

Voluntary breathtests will be conducted, and I emphasize they will be voluntary. and the result will immediately be made available to the drivers. I wish to assure you and the members, Mr. Speaker, that the equipment which is used for these roadside breath tests is not equipment upon which impaired charges can be based,

The survey will be conducted by task force personnel. It is not a police activity, nor is it intended as a spot-check for impaired drivers. Police will be present to ensure safe traffic movement at the survey site. In the interests of traffic safety, if a driver exhibits diminished ability due to fatigue, alcohol etc., he or she will be invited to seek alternative methods of transport.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

Appendix

16 Mr. Macdonald asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

1. Has British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority sold a parcel of land at Lougheed and Boundary Road, Burnaby, British Columbia, in particular Lot 1, District Lot 118, Group 1, Plan 58642, in 1980, and in particular on or about October 31, 1980?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the sale price; (b) who was the purchaser, and if a company, who were its principals; (c) were public tenders called, and if so, when and how many were received and in what amounts and who were the tenderers; and (d) were there any appraisals made prior to the sale relating to this parcel and if so, by whom and what were the amounts?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"1. B.C. Hydro sold Lougheed and Boundary Road property in Burnaby, Lot 1, District Lot 118, Group 1, Plan 58624 (not Plan 58642 as noted). Date agreement entered into was June 27, 1979. Date of conveyance and adjustments was February 26, 1980 (delay caused by subdivision approval).

"2. (a) Sale price, $1,100,000; interest and compensation for servicing, $24, 515.15; total amount received on sale, $1,124, 515.15.

(b) Intercom Management Ltd., president, Lester Baker.

(c) Offers, not public tenders, were received from the following:

[ Page 5204 ]

(d) The subject property was appraised by Grover Elliott & Company Limited in October 1978 at a value of $1,000,000."

5 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

With reference to the number of social assistance recipients, what is the breakdown for the following categories: single males, single females, family heads, children, handicapped, and GAIN for people ages 60 to 64, for the years December 1978-79, 1979-80, and to date in 1980?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"NUMBER OF RECIPIENTS ON INCOME ASSISTANCE FOR

1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81

Fiscal Year 1978-79

Fiscal Year 1979-80

Fiscal Year 1980-81

Figures estimated prior to May 1980."