[ Page 5205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 21). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 5205

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

On vote 10: minister's office –– 5205

Mr. Howard

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Ree

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

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

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 12: finance and administration –– 5221

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 12 –– 5222

Mrs. Wallace

Division on the amendment

Ministerial Statement

Residential rental property of rentalsman.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5222

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report 1980.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5223

Appendix –– 5224

FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, this is a very special time in British Columbia. While we have had superb airline service from our two Canadian airlines and a number of other countries' airlines, on April 23 we will be inaugurating British Airways flights to British Columbia. They will be commencing with four flights a week from London to British Columbia. While Robert Morley has been suggesting that he doesn't really know why anyone would come from London to British Columbia, we're convinced that after the visit of the inaugural guests today and over the weekend, and the number of British overseas passengers that will be coming to see us, his question will be answered.

I'm sure everyone will welcome this new service to British Columbia, and I would ask you all to join me in welcoming our special guests in the visitors' gallery today: Mr. Gerald Draper, who is director of commercial operations, British Airways, London; Mr. Andrew Matin, manager for Canada, Toronto; and Mr. Ossie Cochrane, general manager of western division. With their guests and our assistant deputy minister of marketing, Mr. John Plul, they are in Victoria today. Would you please give them, their guests, Mr. Plul and British Airways a very warm welcome to British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: The House is indeed fortunate today, because one of British Columbia's most distinguished teachers, from the Okanagan area, is in the gallery with a group of students. Would the House welcome Mr. John Powell and the students to the chamber. On behalf of the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), I also extend welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was standing to introduce them. I'm glad that you are very generous in the way you choose members in this House, by alternating sides. I can only join in by saying that we're pleased to have a group of students from the Okanagan, an area which has provided a lot of enjoyment for the people of this province during their vacations and has given us much produce. Above all, our greatest product is our students. I'd like to welcome them here this morning.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to welcome some old friends from Coquitlam who are visiting us today. Their names are Ann and Henry Hensel. I ask the House to bid them welcome to the Legislature.

I'd also like to welcome a friend from both Ottawa and Winnipeg who is a large businessman, masquerading as a small one, Mr. Michael Decter.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 21, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1981, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a question posed last night by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I also want to pose a question to the opposition in order that we can make best use of public servants' time. If we are going to proceed with ICBC issues this morning, hon. members, and if you could give me some guidance, I could allow my Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food and other staff members to carry on the business of the ministry, and we could proceed with ICBC issues. However, if the opposition members wish to question me on items of Agriculture and Food, Land Commission and ICBC, I'm quite prepared for that. After I respond to the member for Coquitlam-Moody on ICBC, the Leader of the Opposition might say that they want to cover a multitude of issues under my ministry's vote; that would be fine with me. I'm quite prepared to be guided by their desires.

Now I would like to go on to the issue raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody. He was reading from a memo which he said — I haven't been able to check the Blues yet, but I believe he said this — was distributed to all ICBC insurance adjusters. I asked him at the end of the session last night, Mr. Chairman, if he would provide me with a copy of the memo and the date of the memo; unfortunately he could not and did not. This morning I did get a copy of a newsletter which he was quoting from — not the original memo, but a newsletter. The newsletter is entitled The Verdict; it's issue number 5, January 15, 1981. The member was kind enough to present this to all the press gallery, I guess last night, and never got it to me, but I did get a copy from the press gallery this morning.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this in regard to the newsletter. It is entitled "ICBC Memo," and says: "The following is a copy of a memo distributed to the ICBC adjusters." This newsletter, The Verdict, is published by the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, and I understand also that the same memo is referred to in the newsletter called the Advocate, which is also a lawyers' publication, on April 24, 1981 — no, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that's the date of the transcript that has come over to me. The point I make is that it's not just in the newsletter called The Verdict, but it's also in a newsletter called the Advocate. Well, the truth is, Mr. Chairman, that this was a proposal put forward by a new ICBC employee who was hired a few years ago, and it was just that — a proposal. The proposal was rejected by management and was never — I repeat, Mr. Chairman — was never sent to the adjusters, as stated in the lawyers' publication.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I have to take to task the legal profession of this province, when they send out two newsletters — one called The Verdict and the other called the Advocate — indicating a policy that they say has been adopted by ICBC, when actually the proposal was made by an employee putting forward a suggestion which was rejected. Nevertheless it still shows up in lawyers' newsletters as company

[ Page 5206 ]

policy. I find that very regrettable, and I would ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody to contact whoever is the publisher and editor of the newsletter for the law profession in this province and ask them if they would correct the statements that they made which I'm sure he would agree are very misleading to a tremendous number of dedicated lawyers in this province who would take offence to that type of approach that was being proposed by the employee.

I might also mention, Mr. Chairman, that that memo, which was dealt with and rejected by the company, has been in circulation with the lawyers and used by lawyers for two years. We don't have the date of the memo, but it was proposed about two years ago and rejected and is still being published in newsletters as company policy, and that is most unfortunate. I hope that answers the member's concern. I would just ask him to work with me, as the minister responsible for ICBC, and correct the erroneous statement made by the publisher of the newsletter called The Verdict.

In regard to rehabilitation — the member also touched on that — I was concerned about some of his statements. He said that funds were being reduced and that there is a reduction of activity in the rehabilitation division of ICBC. I have checked with the corporation. There is no reduction in the budget for that division. In response to the member for Coquitlam-Moody with those comments, I would now be prepared to answer questions regarding any activity of my ministry. I would pose the question to the members opposite: do they wish to proceed with ICBC or will they deal with all of my responsibilities?

MR. HOWARD: It's very refreshing to have a cabinet minister finally indicate that he doesn't know what's going on in his own ranks and to ask the opposition to give him a list of the ways in which he'd like things to be dealt with. We'll gladly accommodate the minister. In fact, ever since the Committee of Supply started, we've been trying to find out from the government House Leader what business is to be laid before the committee. The government House Leader has been blind, deaf and dumb to those requests. We want a list of what to deal with so the minister can organize his department. We'll tell him what to deal with.

Firstly, put aside the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates and call the Ministry of Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As the member knows, we may discuss the administrative action of a department. The administrative actions which we may discuss presently in this committee are those under the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We may not enter into discussions on administrative actions that are not his responsibility. I would ask the member to continue addressing his remarks to those specific areas.

MR. HOWARD: I'll gladly deal with those specific areas, Mr. Chairman, noting in passing that the Chair permitted the Minister of Agriculture and Food on two occasions when he was on his feet just a minute ago to divert from the administrative function of his department. He started off asking the opposition to tell him what business we'd like to deal with. He wound up with that. The Chair didn't stop him then. Now I'm just trying to put forward to the minister what it is we would like to have dealt with.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I just want to rise to, I guess, support the Chair in trying to advise these....

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify the point of order for that noisy Leader of the Opposition, my responsibilities are under debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed on my point of order, my responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture are agriculture and food, the Agricultural Land Commission, ICBC, and as a minister of the Crown I've offered the opposition the choice of which they want to discuss — any or all. That is my point of order. We're not talking about the Ministry of Education estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The member for Skeena continues, if he wishes.

MR. HOWARD: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order. The minister gained the floor improperly. We were trying to put forward to him some alternatives as to the conduct of business in this House, and all we get is this specious argument of his — illegally and improperly put forward.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Jim, sit down, please. You need the advice of Doug Heal more than anybody.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, the conduct of business in this House is not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is the responsibility of the House Leader. The member is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will again read — and this should be almost second nature to all of us now — from the sixteenth edition of May, "General Restrictions on Debate in Committee of Supply," page 739: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply...nor action for which a minister is not responsible...." Hon. members, we have all heard this numerous times, and I would ask all members to bear in mind the restrictions that apply to us in Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you read that last part from May that talked about the responsibility of the minister. This minister has no responsibility for anything. He is completely irresponsible in the conduct of the affairs of his departments, and I'm pleased that you draw that to his attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask the member to withdraw any imputation if he impugned the minister at all.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I didn't.

[ Page 5207 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister would like to know what affairs of state should be dealt with in the list of the opposition, after we get through with the Ministry of Education I suggest we go to the Provincial Secretary. We can deal with his relationship with Doug Heal under this minister's responsibility. What's wrong with that? It's under his administrative responsibility. He needs the advice of people like Heal more than anybody else. So if the minister wants to have suggestions as to the conduct and orderly progress of business in this House, I suggest that he sit down with his own government House Leader and try to work it out on a rational and sensible basis and not start off in an accusatory tone as he did this morning, accusing the opposition of not paying attention to the affairs of his department. That's what we're doing. If you want to start things off on an orderly basis, then start right from the beginning and deal through the proper channels. Don't make it look like you're a Messiah of some nature.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, would the Chair instruct the House and its members that when a member is on his feet a point of order to gain the floor must be related to standing orders or to some abuse of the rules rather than a means to enter the debate. I would appreciate that clarification at this time, as a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it is the responsibility of the Chair to listen to all points of order and to recognize members who rise on points of order to first determine if there is a point of order. Nevertheless, the comments by the Leader of the Opposition are most appropriate to all members of this House. I would ask that we now return to vote 10.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister has indicated first of all that the document referred to yesterday is a valid document. He hasn't denied its validity. He's obviously checked with ICBC and has found that in fact this instruction was prepared. He's also said to the chamber that it was prepared.... I think he used the words, "a proposal put forward by a new ICBC employee." I don't know whether his name was Foot, but it sounded like he had his foot way up in his mouth somewhere when he issued this. But in fact that isn't my information. My information is that it was distributed; but my latest information is that it was withdrawn. That's something I'd like the minister to check out. I don't know how it got into the hands of this organization if it wasn't distributed to adjusters in the province of British Columbia. Of course I accept the minister's word, but I do think it's worthwhile for both of us to check as to whether that particular memorandum was actually distributed to the adjusters of the province of British Columbia.

[ML Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: Which means it was approved.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, which means that it was approved. That's what I'm interested in knowing. Was it a policy of ICBC that these adjusters would be instructed to do nothing less than deliberately hoodwink and con legitimate claimants for personal injuries so that they would receive far less than the law would permit?

The minister dealt very cursorily with another point that I raised, which was the question of what's happening in the rehabilitation division of ICBC. Rumours are rife; I won't deal with rumours. We know that the best personnel have been lost from that department. There's a reason why that happens. I say that the reason is that there is a deliberate policy on the part of ICBC to downgrade the rehabilitation section. They are downgrading rehabilitation for the agonizingly injured people in the province, particularly the paraplegics and quadriplegics. They are on the horns of a terrible dilemma, because when they go to court the award to those seriously injured people is reduced by the cost of the ICBC rehabilitation service. Then they go to the rehabilitation service and find that they're being cut off from rehabilitation. They're getting hosed at both ends.

There's another aspect to this whole problem that I didn't deal with yesterday. It's the general law of the province of British Columbia now, following the decision of the chief justice in Blackstock v. Patterson, which follows three Supreme Court of Canada decisions which I won't read in great detail. Their principle is this: regardless of the amount of pain, agony and suffering that any individual may have, the general rule is that he can never receive more than $100,000 for that pain and suffering.

That's not the fault of the government; that is a Supreme Court of Canada decision. It will result in some substantial savings for ICBC. But that's not where ICBC should be saving money. People who have those kinds of injuries deserve fair, adequate and proper compensation from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. What we should be doing is giving a jury the freedom to tell us what the standard of the community should be for those kinds of injuries, and not allowing Supreme Court of Canada judges, who haven't been in the general community for so long that they forget what it looks like, to make those kinds of decisions which override the decisions of the ordinary people of the province about what is fair compensation.

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

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, I am. I'm very surprised that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications would be shocked by that.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to get back to the point at hand, which is that the present court system is now depriving grossly injured people of adequate and proper compensation because of an unrealistic decision in the Supreme Court of Canada — a decision which our court of appeal had very little alternative but to follow. What I'm urging upon the minister is to recommend changes in the statute law of British Columbia so that this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada will not bind the courts of the province of British Columbia, so juries will be free to award what is fair, and not have this imposed upon them.

[ Page 5208 ]

The people who are now being injured by the automobile as a result of a probably deliberate policy on the part of ICBC and an unrealistic, elitist decision by the Supreme Court of Canada are now in a position of not receiving adequate and proper compensation for their injuries. Having been faced with that, they are then faced with the third arrow in the quiver of attack on these poor, unfortunate people, which is this now infamous ICBC memo. The minister says it was never policy. He says it was proposed and rejected. First of all, I don't know how this particular organization got hold of this. Secondly, my information is that it was distributed but withdrawn; therefore it must have been approved at some point. The minister may wish to add something to that, or if he has some more specific information I'd certainly be glad to receive it. I just want to again briefly remind the Legislature of the importance of this particular document which the minister has verified.

Dealing with the first page of this memo, it says this: "When the adjuster has completed the statement" — that would be a statement from a seriously injured individual — "he should close the file and put down his pen to give the claimant the impression that this is an off-the-record discussion." That's a deliberate attempt to hoodwink, to mislead. That kind of statement couldn't be admitted in a criminal court. That kind of deliberate misrepresentation is surely not what people who are employed in the business of being fair to claimants should engage in.

The next one: "Should the adjuster determine that the claimant has or is contemplating retaining counsel, the adjuster should attempt to discourage the claimant from retaining one, or consider waiving the solicitor, should he be represented, for the following reasons." Before you get into the details, what this memo is recommending is: don't let that person get any advice, information or clue as to what is a fair settlement; leave it all up to this adjuster whose one purpose in life is to get as low a settlement as he possibly can.

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

MR. LEGGATT: The lawyer is to get as much as possible for the claimant. And the judge, if they can't come to some agreement, sets it out.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: You're still sitting on it. My God, here's a guy who is on the public tit for his whole life, and he's worried about somebody in the free enterprise world. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has never gone out and actually soiled his hands to earn any money. Come, come!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has allowed some latitude and some levity. However, I would think at this point it's about time we returned to the administrative acts.

MR. LEGGATT: I'll go through this fairly quickly, Mr. Chairman. The second item is: "The adjuster is directed to tell the claimant that the claimant's solicitor can't guarantee a settlement figure in writing" — that's correct — "and neither can the adjuster" — that's a lie.

Third: "The involvement of a solicitor may mean unnecessary delays in settlement of his claim, as traditionally solicitors are extremely slow." That's true, they are slow. The reason they're slow is that they want some fairness for the client from those vultures who are working for ICBC. "A solicitor cannot do any more for the claimant than what we are doing right now; in fact, probably less, as we control the purse strings." I've never seen a case yet where a claimant has received less because he went to a lawyer, which only confirms what those adjusters are all about.

"If liability is clear and coverage confirmed, advise the claimant, if in fact he is totally or partially disabled, he in all probability shall qualify for our PIA program once medical and wage verifications are at hand." That's the personal injury assistance program, which the minister's corporation, I submit, seems to be phasing out and downgrading. That again, therefore, is clearly a misrepresentation to the claimant.

The minister has said that it's not policy. I accept the fact that it has clearly been withdrawn. But I can't yet accept the question of whether in fact it had actually been distributed and was once a policy of this corporation. I think the public are entitled to a guarantee that this kind of sleazy instruction to adjusters is not out there now and they're not acting under these kinds of instructions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the member for Coquitlam-Moody....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: On a point of order, I rise as a member of the bar of British Columbia and as a barrister and solicitor, but as one who in the days of his practice was primarily a solicitor. If I heard the previous speaker correctly, the member inferred that it was solicitors in this province who were slow. He may care to speak for barristers, but as a practising solicitor of this province I want to make the point that the solicitors of the bar of B.C. are always on time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. You will be allowed your turn in debate in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: As I say, I'm somewhat surprised that the member for Coquitlam-Moody carried on attempting in his debate to indicate a proposal in memo form was policy. In my opening remarks this morning I advised him that I did have an opportunity to check, and I've now had an opportunity to double-check. While you were talking I sent a message out and further checked with the corporation. I can advise you that it was a proposal, that the memo was never company policy, and the memo was never issued. You did make the admission, Mr. Member, that in your understanding it was issued and then withdrawn. Even in the member's own opinion, being withdrawn would mean it was not, therefore, company policy. But I'm saying to him — after checking and double-checking — that the memo was a proposal, was never accepted as company policy and was never issued. As the minister responsible for ICBC, I will be writing to the publishers and editors of The Verdict and the Advocate asking them to retract what they've stated — that a memo distributed to adjusters of ICBC was company policy. It is not and has not

[ Page 5209 ]

been company policy at any time. They should be sued, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, the discussion brought out by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody merely points out the fallacy of having a Crown corporation of the nature of ICBC the sole arbiter of automobile insurance in British Columbia. When this corporation was first envisaged, we out in the field were very distressed, and today we're pointing out the dangers of monopoly. A monopoly of this kind is bound to have its inconsistencies, is bound to work against the public interest, and it does. I believe there's nothing wrong with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia being just one of the insurance companies in the province; but to have it the only one is the problem. On many occasions I have attempted to invite insurance companies to come into this province, but they were afraid to do so because of the high cost of establishing a business and the threat of being thrown out again. That is the problem.

I also disagree with the system of claims centres. I would tell the minister that the situation in which a person has an accident and is then bound to approach a claims centre with cap in hand to ask for an adjuster to please see his car has problems. It should be the other way around. Although I'm not asking for the closure of the claims centres, I believe the government should institute a system of private adjusters in the field as we had before, where an insurance agent can send his client to an adjuster in the field and not necessarily to the claim centre. These claims centres are becoming too large, too difficult to manage and a considerable problem to the motorist when he has difficulties. We must realize that when an accident happens the customer is not being done a favour by having an adjuster. The customer paid a fee for that insurance and he's a customer of the insurance company. That's the way it should be. He's the only reason they're in business. If there were no accidents there'd be no business. But to go in there cap in hand is not the way to run any insurance company. I will say this in defence of the Insurance Corporation: I have never found them unreasonable with their clients. I must say that on every occasion I've had to be in touch for a constituent they've been very fair and honourable in every way. But the principle of having to go to one place and one place only is wrong,

I think the government could set up a system of competition to the claims centres by private adjusters throughout British Columbia. Let the private sector have a hand in these settlements. It would be cheaper for the government and better for our clients. I know that it costs an individual a great deal of money and time to take a day off from work to go to a claims centre and have the adjustment made. In many cases it's very costly and takes more than one day. I just feel that this tremendous Insurance Corporation, while there is nothing wrong with the principle of government insurance, should have competition. I urge the government to bring in competition somehow to this large corporation that's got too big by itself.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody was talking about claims. Here is the case of a man in Dewdney who had received a settlement of $80,000 for an accident that happened in New Brunswick. By the time the deductions were made for his costs to his lawyers, hospitals and all these matters together, he had nothing left — nothing at all. I think that the system of insurance must first consider the individual — not necessarily how much, but the individual's needs and requirements. The private sector was able to do this, and you could deal with somebody on the level of one to one. This gigantic corporation is too large, and it must be dismantled to some degree so the public can have the opportunity of going elsewhere, if they so wish.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the memorandum that was published in the Advocate and The Verdict newsletters, I think the hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) shouted across, "This publication should be sued for libel," and I certainly would invite such a lawsuit. I would suggest — although I don't really know who's behind the publication of The Verdict and I have not seen the publication in the Advocate — that the editor of the Advocate is one of the most distinguished barristers in British Columbia, and I'm sure if he didn't investigate the authenticity of this memorandum and its widespread circulation, he would invite such a lawsuit. I reject out of hand the minister's contention that it was not policy and I want to state to this committee why.

To concentrate heavily on this memorandum may be, for the purposes of this discussion, Mr. Chairman, a mistake. The fact is that plaintiff s counsel.... And let me explain to the minister: "plaintiff's counsel" means lawyers who act on behalf of injured parties who are suing, let's say, guilty drivers or would-be guilty drivers who are insured by ICBC — in other words, the injured person who goes to a lawyer sometimes. The lawyer who acts for that injured person is called plaintiff's counsel. The reason that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) knows little or nothing about this is because he's not only not a counsel but a solicitor. His firm acts primarily for ICBC as defence. Now I'm not suggesting that's because of his Social Credit connections, but the amount of work that that firm gets as defence counsel for ICBC is quite substantial.

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

MR. LAUK: It's irrelevant to the debate, but the reason why he's not standing in defence of plaintiff's counsel is because his firm is seldom plaintiff's counsel.

The point that I want to make is this: since this memorandum has come to the attention of the Bar Association, plaintiff's counsel, lawyers that act very often for injured parties in automobile accidents, have kept a record when interviewing new clients. I just want to.... Perhaps the minister can receive this deft legal advice a little later, because I want the minister to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will remind the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that we are in committee.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations would have to be taken by the hand and led to the courtroom, Mr. Chairman; I'm not sure that he should be advising the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We can discuss the Blackstock case in a moment, Mr. Chairman, and I'll advise the minister about the Blackstock case. Or maybe I should move that the Chairman

[ Page 5210 ]

leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, unless the ministers....

Are you paying attention? Good. Yes, I'm aware of the chief justice's decision in Blackstock and the inflationary factors and so on, and we can deal with that in due course.

The gist of this memorandum, whether or not the minister now claims it's the policy of the corporation, is quite irrelevant, because plaintiff's counsel have kept a close record of questions and answers of new clients who have dealt with adjusters prior to those clients coming into the office. It would make this memorandum look like child's play. ICBC officially, I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, is on a deliberate policy of cheating the public of British Columbia. They deliberately deceive people who have been injured or are making claims under their insurance. Adjusters have a designed and effective policy of avoiding private adjusters. Private adjusters are infinitely superior to the ICBC adjusters. I'll tell you why. They do not come under the direct supervision of ICBC and they are told to carry out this practice, whether you say it's come out through an official document or not. This is child's play compared to the statements made by adjusters from ICBC to people who have been seriously injured and who are tied to by adjusters across this province. I don't believe for one moment that because you withdrew this memorandum after it got out embarrassingly to the British Columbia Bar Association it changes one iota the deliberate policy of deception of ordinary people in the province. I have had people come and see me with serious claims who are offered less than a fifth of what courts across the country have been offering them in terms of rehabilitation cost and future medical cost.

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

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

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

MR. LAUK: Will the minister withdraw that accusation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order and withdraw any comment he made personally alluding to another member of the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't make a statement that he did. I said he probably did, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, that is still an imputation. I would ask the minister to withdraw any imputation against another hon. member. Will the minister withdraw, please?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I will ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw.

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

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

MR. LAUK: To clarify the point, all plaintiff's counsel take contingency fee agreements. I have never charged more than 20 or 25 percent on any contingency fee, depending upon its liability and the amount involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're arguing about the high cost of mortgages and you're taking 25 percent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the minister again that we're not discussing something that might happen outside of this committee. Could we get back to vote 10 — the administrative actions of the minister?

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

What is very important is that in Vancouver at least — I'll check with some good friends in Victoria and in other places — an injured person who has a claim against ICBC will in 80 to 90 percent of the cases receive the first interview without charge from a lawyer. In other words — and this is the practice of the bar in Vancouver and in other areas — they will come to a lawyer, and the lawyer will say: "The adjuster's offer is fair. Take it." Quite often that's done. If you don't have a case, there's no charge. The lawyer will say: "Here are my costs. Here are your percentage chances of winning this case against ICBC," etc. If you don't take it, you walk away without paying one dime to that lawyer. That's the practice which ICBC adjusters know better than any other person in the province. Yet they say that it will cost the client much more than it will.

I have had people come to see me claiming adjusters have told them that some people have gone to lawyers and come away owing the lawyer money after the settlement. It's alleged that adjusters at ICBC have said that to people to frighten them away from going to see counsel and getting proper advice. I think this is scandalous. It's got to be changed. I argue very strongly for the minister's intercession with the board of directors and the administration of ICBC. From a broad point of view it's always attractive to try to lower costs and balance your books at the expense of injured persons in the cold black and white atmosphere of a boardroom or an office. When you have to live with these people who are making their claims and see how badly they are injured, how much they're suffering, how much they will suffer and how much cost they will experience for future medical care and so on, it takes the heart right out of trying to cheat them of a proper settlement. I would urge the minister, in all sympathy to these people, to intervene and bring some justice and fair play to this massive corporation. I don't want to support the approach of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) because of the efficiencies involved and the costs in ICBC. If it were just it is a tremendous idea. But it's got to be just and fair-minded.

I should point out that from the annual report and from inquiries I've made of ICBC, the cost of paying adjusters, both private and in-house, is at least four times as great as ICBC pays to lawyers. That should tell you something about the kind of money ICBC is saving. Adjusters settle well before a writ is issued, before court starts, before any action is taken. They settle these cases without these people receiving advice. The cost to ICBC for that is at least four times as great as the cost of counsel brought in to take cases to court.

As the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out, I have not seen one case — and I defy anyone to

[ Page 5211 ]

show me a case — where once a lawyer is involved on behalf of the injured party that injured party receives less. In fact, in 99.9 percent of the cases they receive many times more than the final offer. Anyone who is practising law knows that. Some lawyers are ripoff artists and so on, as are some plumbers. But the majority of people in this field do an excellent job for injured parties and receive justice for them. They receive many times more the amount they would have gotten had they taken the final offer from the adjusters. Sometimes private adjusters do much better, because they seem to have more freedom to offer more. I know that in our practice we settle before going to court more often with private adjusters than with adjusters who work for ICBC, simply because they seem to be a lot more sensible about what to offer. I wouldn't argue for private adjusters either. I'm arguing for a change in ICBC policy.

The percentage of the total amount paid by ICBC for injury claims is fractional compared to the millions of dollars paid out for property damage — that is, to automobiles. We can afford to be generous to people who are injured. Maybe we should be more cautious about property damage. I don't know. Maybe we should tighten up there. If you're looking at the relative costs, certainly it's more productive to tighten them up rather than the personal injury claims. The nickel and-diming and cheating and lying that goes on for poor....

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

MR. LAUK: I'm not attacking the minister; I know he would not be a party to that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're attacking the employees; I don't think that's fair either. If you've got names, name them, but don't attack the general employee who works for ICBC. Shame!

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

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

MR. LAUK: But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, this minister would be a lot better off if he took a realistic view of people who have been injured and who are seeking redress at the hands of an Insurance Corporation that is on a deliberate policy of cheating them out of what is rightfully theirs.

As for the cases mentioned by the member for Coquitlam-Moody, I should point out to you that these are real curtailments saving money for ICBC. They are curtailments in benefits that should flow to injured parties.

The rehabilitation problem with ICBC is more than just scandalous, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my support for the minister taking quick action to bring up the rehabilitation section of ICBC as quickly as possible; the people and the facilities are available, and it should be done. I don't think there is any conceivable excuse for seriously injured persons not receiving the very best care in the world at the hands of the Insurance Corporation rehabilitation section. There's no conceivable excuse. Having been put on notice, this government will stand condemned for not bringing that up to the standards which we all expect for people who through no fault of their own have been injured in automobile accidents.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I will clarify for the record, as I will do as each member of the opposition refers to the memo that they keep attacking as company policy. Again I would advise them, first, that that was a proposal; secondly, that it was rejected as company policy by senior management; thirdly, that it was never distributed to the adjusters. That's all I'll say about that, Mr. Chairman. But I will continue to say it, because if I'm going to hear political diatribe from the other side of the House constantly referring to this memo, it's only right and proper that I respond setting the record straight after each member refers to that memo.

With regard to other issues that the member for Vancouver Centre raised.... I notice that right after he finished his comments he left the House; therefore he's not interested in my response. He mentioned that adjusters get paid four or five times as much as lawyers. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but I would assume that that is possibly quite correct. There are 400,000 to 500,000 accidents in this province each year, and the majority of them, of course, fall within the property damage or slight injury area, and many of them are settled by adjusters. Only when you get to the severe accident or where there is some debate as to who is responsible for the accident, do you finally end up engaging a lawyer and going to court. Who else do you turn to but a lawyer to represent you if it goes that far down the road? So it's not that the lawyers are being underpaid or that we're overpaying adjusters. It means that most settlements can be handled in an expeditious, fair and honourable manner by the adjusters involved, whether private or company adjusters.

If the member for Vancouver Centre has got claims that he says have caused major problems to the individual, then I would ask him to bring them forward to the minister responsible for ICBC. I can assure him I will go to ICBC and have the matter thoroughly reviewed to ensure that people who suffer bodily injury are fairly treated. He has stated — and I believe I got his quotation correctly — that adjusters have said to him that people have come away from lawyers owing lawyers money. I'm not sure just what he was getting at, but if he's got specifics I'd appreciate receiving the information from him. I would certainly follow up to ensure that there isn't personal hardship on people who have not been treated fairly, as he seems to imply.

He did say that some lawyers are rip-off artists, but in most cases the lawyers are fair and dedicated individuals and work on behalf of their clients. I agree with that 100 percent, but I would apply that same rationale to the fact that many adjusters are fair, dedicated and concerned about the wellbeing of the claimant. In making the decisions and recommendations to ICBC with regard to the amount of settlement, they take into consideration the personal suffering and the injury of the claimant. That is why, in many instances, lawyers are not required.

Those were the items that the member raised. But for the benefit of the House I will give some information to the members. Bodily injury claims last year totalled $158.8 million or 35 percent of the total claims expense. Property damage claims totalled $116 million or 26 percent; $110 million or 24 percent went for collision; there was 6 percent for accident benefits; 8 percent comprehensive, and 1 percent in miscellaneous. The total claims incurred last year by the corporation were $449 million, and 35 percent of that went for bodily injury. I think if there is anything that we could accomplish, it would be encouraging and educating drivers to be more responsible on the highways, so that we don't have

[ Page 5212 ]

not just the cost of this suffering but the human suffering that results from bodily injuries and paralyzed people because of accidents that could have been avoided.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted to respond briefly to an item that my friend the member for Dewdney raised, which is the problem of a person receiving a settlement and winding up with nothing from the settlement. This can happen where there is no contingency fee agreement. One of the things that has been thrown across the floor of this Legislature is, "Are you charging 40 percent?" which I heard the minister say. I am quite prepared to say that like doctors, car dealers or anybody, we have some apples in the barrel that aren't perfect; they do charge too much. I can tell you from experience that the general rate on contingency fees is from 20 to 25 percent. It happens to be my view that those contingency fees should be regulated by the bar association right now, so that we should not be allowing members of the legal profession to rip off seriously injured claimants for any more than a modest percentage.

I want to deal with the principle of the contingency fee. One of the problems the public has in dealing with lawyers is that they don't know what it's going to cost. They come in with what seems to them to be a modest problem but what seems to the lawyer to be a complicated problem. The lawyer charges out at a rate that he has to to pay for his overhead in his office, and the poor client winds up with nothing except a very large legal bill. There is a very substantial advantage to the public on the contingency fee agreement basis. It permits them to know what they get at the end of the road on a settlement. For example, if you were dealing with an offer and the person representing the injured claimant considered that to be fair, he can work that out very quickly to tell the client exactly what he's going to receive. That's a very big advantage.

In the contingency fee arrangement, at least the person knows what he's going to get. He knows what his bill is going to be. It's all agreed on beforehand, and in writing. There is some benefit to the public in the contingency fee arrangement. I agree with the minister when he says he's heard of 40 percent. I haven't seen it specifically, but I've heard of it, and I say that's wrong. I say those contingency fees should be regulated by the bar association, or the government's going to have to do it. We should keep those contingency fees modest. Now 20 percent to 25 percent is not an immodest amount considering that there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into the care, preparation, presentation and the argument of a personal injury case, particularly a serious one.

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

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, unless it's settled right away. There again there should perhaps be some regulation around the contingency fee so that there's a reduced contingency fee when there's a very early settlement. If, in fact, ICBC initially operates very fairly and has done a very good background job of analyzing the value of the injury, then the lawyer has very little to do. It seems to me that the lawyer should cooperate. That way, of course, you would be improving the ICBC balance sheet. I think you'd get the cooperation of the legal profession in doing so.

The idea that's sort of been scattered about is that there's something wrong with the contingency fee arrangement. The contingency fee is a way for impecunious clients, who have no way of going through the very expensive legal process, to get their matters resolved by a court. It seems to me that to look askance at the principle is very wrong. But to look askance at outrageous percentage fee rates, I agree, is right. I think we can come to some agreement across this floor when we're dealing with this, that that's an area that should be regulated.

I also had a good deal to say about the memo. I'm not attacking adjusters. What I'm attacking is a large, monolithic corporation which now appears on the surface to have a deliberate policy of instructing its adjusters. I used to be a private adjuster. Before I got involved in politics, law and all other things I did some private adjustment. There is an advantage of the principle of the independent adjuster using some discretion in terms of how he handles a case and how he handles a file — that he's not under total direction of a board of directors who are looking at a balance sheet and trying to keep the costs down.

It's a policy question for ICBC. It's not a question of the principle of ICBC being wrong. I believe that in that corporation you can solve these problems, and not by instructing your adjusters to be ruthless and to use every technique in the book to con the claimant. The current technique is to take a film of everybody who happens to have an injury so that the film can be presented in court. They deliberately try to get the claimant to say that he can't do something. Then they produce a film showing that in fact he could. A good deal of that is only a subterfuge by the corporation to get a lower settlement. In fact the claimant has not been exaggerating, defrauding or trying to take advantage of the corporation at all. The use of film casts a kind of fear into the claimant. In a number of cases where film has been used and the claimant has done nothing wrong whatsoever, it has worried him so much that he felt he had to settle for some miserable amount. You have to explain to them very carefully that it's simply a technique.

Again it's not used as a fair technique. I've seen it used as a lever against people rather than simply another device for presenting evidence to the court.

MR. MACDONALD: We should get our Hollywood crew.

MR. LEGGATT: That would be an idea. Of course they're getting quite good at that now. I wonder if Cecil B. DeHeal might be called in for ICBC. You're paying them $62,000 a year. Why don't you get some use out of the man by using him throughout the Crown corporation system? It might be interesting.

Those were the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister understands the position we've taken. I think he will have a pretty serious look. Even though you've heard a couple of lawyers talking about it, I've heard this complaint from a broad cross-section of people. There is very much concern now that the attitude of ICBC in dealing with claimants is some kind of organized attack by the board of directors to get those settlements down. They're given these firm instructions. All of us who have had some experience find that the treatment that adjusters have been giving claimants now is far less sensitive, far less humane, than it used to be.

[ Page 5213 ]

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to listen to the two legal representatives from across the floor with respect to their support of using more private adjusters for ICBC. It has certainly been a contention of mine that this would add considerable economy. The NDP created ICBC, that monolithic monster, to quote my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody. When such a monopoly is created, it leads to and allows the breeding of a mentality where we may get such memos as they are talking about, I'm assured by the minister that this memo is not policy and I'm quite confident that it did not become policy of ICBC, but it is a mentality which grows where there is a monopoly. The staff of such a corporation can adopt this mentality. We do have this monopoly, and I think the corporation has to be on guard at all time against this mentality's growth.

As far as the attitude of the adjusters is concerned, I think we could improve it considerably by utilizing the private sector adjusters. I have dealt with a number of ICBC adjusters from time to time and, like my colleagues, have had no great difficulty with them. I've always found them very courteous and helpful, but when I have dealt with outside adjusters I have sometimes received the impression of more equity for my client. The outside adjusters have not had the same degree of direction and regulation as the in-house adjusters because they are free agents, they are part of the private sector and they are individual entrepreneurs not as subject to being fired if they do something contrary to the monolithic monster.

There is one aspect of our adjusting centres and the adjusting setup of ICBC with respect to collision damage to vehicles: I think that with the creation of these centres the public lost a great deal of service. In the past, prior to the creation of ICBC by the NDP, when you had an accident and your car was damaged, you phoned your agent — the agent no longer has a role to play; the client doesn't get service from the agent now with ICBC — and your agent would get hold of an adjuster or something. Your agent would follow the accident and try to obtain service for his client. The agent would get an adjuster; the adjuster would get hold of the client to see what the problem was. If necessary, he would go out to see the client at his house to get a statement. Today you go to the claims centre. Nobody comes to your house; you have to line up with everybody else at a claims centre.

In addition, if it was reasonably minor and your car was still mobile, the adjuster would probably suggest to the claimant to get three estimates and take it to the repair shop with the lowest of the three estimates. Or the adjuster would ask where you wished it to be repaired and the car would be towed to that location; the adjuster would go to that location to visit the car, check out the damage and probably enter into some negotiations with the repair shop on the cost of repairing the car.

The ex-adjuster over there can probably confirm that this is what happened in the private sector. The client received service from the private adjuster. He didn't line up at a claims centre like a herd of cows waiting to go through a door. Sometimes there were in-house adjusters in the competitive field, but it was serving a client, not serving ICBC.

Today when you have an accident.... Say it's on a Sunday; the claims centre is obviously closed. You used to be able to get your agent on a Sunday. He could sometimes get an adjuster. He could give advice on Sunday but today you can't get it because ICBC is closed Saturdays too in a lot of instances. Adjusters work a four-day week, so one day out of every five when you call for an adjuster at a claims centre you're not going to get that person, so it cuts down the availability of adjusters. With private adjusters we used to be able to get them all the time.

You have your accident, the tow truck comes and tows your car down to a storage place on the weekend — not into the repair shop of your choice where an adjuster can come and visit it next week. It's got to be towed into a storage place. So there's one tow paid by ICBC. Then when ICBC gets around to it and you've gone down.... You have gone down; the claims adjuster hasn't got in touch with you. You've had to go down during normal business hours; you've had to take time off work to get there and see the claims centre. You go in and make your claim, and when ICBC gets around to it they arrange to have your car towed to the ICBC centre — two tows. From there, after viewing your car, they make an arrangement to tow your car out to the repair shop — three tows. That's expensive. I don't know what the cost of towing cars is today — $20 a lift? Possibly it's that, or $25. On every collision claim where the car cannot be driven you're possibly running up at least a $60 bill plus storage of the car for a number of days until ICBC is able to see it, and I think there's a great waste here compared to, in the past, where it would be towed right to one repair shop for a $20 bill. If we were able to institute a further system whereby the agent could obtain or provide more service and private adjusters could be utilized, I think a great saving could be made in such situations.

We have not received any better service from this socialistic monopoly created by the NDP; we have lost service. The public does not receive any service whenever there is a monopoly. We have to pay for it. We're paying because we receive less service than we used to.

[Mr. Ritchie in the chair.]

I find it interesting, because, like my colleague across here, I used to be in the insurance business — not as an adjuster, but as an insurance agent. I recall a client coming in tome, and he, unfortunately, had apolitical philosophy much the same as those across the hall here. He was telling me of all the freedoms they would have when the NDP were elected in this province. He said: "You know, they'll bring in an insurance scheme and all the rest of it, and we'll have a lot of freedoms." I said: "Yes, you'll have a lot of freedoms. They will tell you what insurance company you can go to. They'll tell you which one you have to go to. You'll have that freedom." And that is what has happened. We are told we don't have any choice, that we go to one insurance company. I support my friend the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) in that we should not get rid of ICBC, but bring in some competition, because with competition you're going to get much more effective and much better service for the people of this province.

I might mention something here about contingency fees, which some of my friends have been talking about, almost giving the impression that they're doing their clients great services with contingency fees because immediately an offer is made, the injured party, or the client, will know exactly what his fee will be. It has always been my practice, and the practice of a great many of what I would consider very responsible and ethical members of the bar, that at all times you should be in a position to advise your client what his fees incurred to date are and what anticipated fees should be for the future. I think most responsible counsel would at all times

[ Page 5214 ]

encourage clients to ask what the costs are. So this is available whether you're on a contingency fee basis or not. I'm a great believer in a person being paid for service and time incurred, and I guess I don't greatly support the contingency fee system, because there are many instances where a matter can be settled fairly simply. I think a counsel can be overpaid on a contingency fee. Likewise, sometimes he may be underpaid too, but it has always been my experience that, as a counsel, in most cases you know in advance roughly how much time and what might be involved in settling a case, and I think you have a pretty good idea of advising your client what the cost is going to be at that time. I can not support the use of the contingency fee in the majority of cases. Maybe there is an instance where somebody cannot afford to pay your fees in the event of a loss, but I don't like to gamble with my clients. I ran a business when I was practising law.

MRS. WALLACE: Yesterday I asked the minister a question relative to ICBC and the Lake Cowichan road. I pointed out to him that there have been two practices used by ICBC in cases of accidents occurring as a result of the flying rock which was a result of the seal-coating that was done improperly by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the first instance, those claims were settled as one claim for the broken glass and the complete paint damage. More latterly the ICBC adjusters have been saying that each portion of the car that has paint damage is a separate claim, as is the broken windshield, meaning that there will be four, five or more deductibles which cover the total cost, in effect. I asked the minister to assure the House that he would advise ICBC to return to the original policy, which is general practice throughout the province with ICBC. I have had no answer, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister is prepared to answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has communicated with me. I believe at one point I had a question on the order paper which I responded to. I made a note here yesterday that I would check this out because of the comment she has made where I assume the one accident report went in. They basically said that windshields have a $50 deductible and paint has a $50 deductible. Yet it's only one claim at a specific point in time, not a claim three or four days or weeks later. I wanted to have an opportunity to check that out with the ICBC officials. Those questions were put to me late yesterday afternoon, so I haven't had the opportunity to get a response.

The member may wish to correct me, but it seems to me that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had accepted some responsibility with regard to the quality of work that was done on the road. Therefore they were prepared to pick up the deductible portion of the accident claim. Of course ICBC would pay anything over and above the deductible. Maybe the member could advise whether it be one deductible per claim or five deductibles per claim. Would not the Ministry of Transportation and Highways pick up that deductible portion or are you saying that some of the individuals involved were left having to pay four or five deductible portions? Maybe you'd just like to give me some more information.

MRS. WALLACE: The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has agreed to pick up the deductible for glass, but is still refusing to pick up the deductible for paint damage. He has now said that if people will resubmit their claims for paint damage, he will send them on to the government's insurer and let them make a decision. The people are in limbo because of this, particularly in cases where the glass and paint damage have been simultaneous. In order to get the deductible portion for the glass damage returned, they have to sign a waiver which absolves the Minister of Transportation and Highways from all responsibility for an accident that occurred on that date. Therefore they're automatically losing any possibility of picking up their paint damage.

The whole thing is just so bogged down. This has gone back two years. There is real concern that they're not going to get any kind of settlement out of the Minister of Transportation and Highways because of the delays. In his most recent letter of March 31, which I have read to you, he indicated that it was his understanding that damage that occurred to a vehicle at one time would be one claim. Therefore there was no problem in the deductible portion for both paint and glass. Obviously you and the Minister of Transportation and Highways are not talking to each other, it would seem.

As I said yesterday, I have some sympathy with ICBC because of the extraordinary costs and workload that has been placed on the Duncan claims centre as a result of this particular problem. Yet I don't like to see these kind of extortionist tactics that ICBC is using affecting my constituents. If there's a problem, it should be worked out between yourself and the Minister of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. That's the assurance that I would like to have on the legislative floor today. To say that you haven't had time to check it out and you will.... As you well know, I have been writing you and the Minister of Transportation and Highways for well over a year on this matter. I raised it in the budget debate because of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is the chief financial officer of this province, and asked that he get the two of you together and do something about it, but nothing is happening. I can tell you that the people are getting pretty concerned up there, and it's not just one, two or three; it's dozens of them, as you well know, Mr. Minister. I would like some kind of assurance today that this thing will be resolved, and that ICBC will treat those accidents on the same basis they treat accidents in other parts of the province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on the inquiries that the member has made, I thought that I, as minister responsible for ICBC, had responded to her and given her all the information regarding the questions she has posed to me. She now has brought up an issue, which I don't believe she's brought up before, with regard to this multiplicity of deductibles — this deductible $50 for glass and paint and whatever else. From what the member advises me, I will be quite happy to give assurance to her and to this House that if she could send me any documentation on what she referred to yesterday in her debate — which she hasn't done — I would most certainly take it upon myself to get some explanation. Now I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether or not deductible clauses for glass do only apply to glass as a separate coverage with further deducibility on the vehicle. So I don't want to make commitments where I know that the regular insurance in place is valid and correct. But I will take the information from her, and I will discuss it with the ICBC people to ensure that the motorist whose vehicle has been damaged is fairly treated.

[ Page 5215 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for his assurance. I'm surprised that he hasn't seen the correspondence or been aware of what's been going on, because I am sure I have sent him copies of everything that I've sent to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Yesterday I quoted two instances where both windshield and paint damage were included on one deductible, and I'll be happy to send him copies of those. They both have $50 deductible for both paint and glass damage — and those were early on, when this damage first started. Now, more recently, we've gone to this other thing of five and six claims for each one. So I'll be happy to send you this, and I appreciate your assurance and I hope that you will recognize that there is some urgency on this matter because of the delays that have already occurred.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a brief question for the minister, and this is the appropriate vote to pose this question. I'll give you just a bit of background, Mr. Chairman. This deals with people who have damaged vehicles while boarding, on board or disembarking from either B.C. Ferries or Highways-operated ferries. I raised this question last year under this vote and under the Minister of Transportation and Highways' vote. On both occasions last year I was told something would be done; everybody agreed there was something wrong, there was an anomaly here, it would be looked into and this whole thing would be corrected.

Very briefly, the problem is that if people sustain damage on board one of these vessels and if the Ferry Corporation or Highways, whichever operate the ferry, accepts responsibility, then ICBC does not become involved. But as a rule neither the Highways people nor the Ferry Corporation accepts the responsibility for damage to these vehicles, They just tell the people who have sustained this damage that ICBC is responsible. If they go to ICBC, they say: "No, we're not responsible; it's either the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the B.C. Ferry Corporation which is responsible." So as a result of all this bureaucratic shuffling these people — and I have numerous cases.... In this last fiscal year alone I have, I would guess, 25 to 30 cases where no settlement was reached, where people have paid up to $1,000 to have their vehicles repaired. In one case, an elderly lady here on a minimum income had to pay $192, which she couldn't afford; she was never paid by anyone — neither by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, in this case, nor ICBC.

What I'm concerned about is that I was promised last year this situation would be rectified, and it was not. It's still going on and is worse than ever. What kind of a government do we have over there? I'm going to raise this again under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as well, at the appropriate time, because nobody over there will accept responsibility for this. In the meantime this is continuing to happen. I have a case before me now where a gentleman had to sustain the costs of repairs on his vehicle in the amount of four hundred and some odd dollars. As a matter of principle, since neither ICBC nor the Ministry of Transportation and Highways would accept responsibility, he's been to lawyers and the whole thing. It has cost him more money for legal fees and the whole thing than the actual damage to his vehicle. And he's still nowhere; this has been dragging on for several months.

I want to tell that minister something else. As a result of this bureaucratic bungling, I forwarded a number of the examples that I have before me here to the ombudsman of British Columbia. I know the ombudsman can only recommend, but I have indications from his office that there is indeed something wrong with the operation of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, ICBC, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation in this case. So I would like assurances from the minister now, before this vote goes through, that this situation will be corrected.

I see the minister from Calgary is getting to his feet. I'd like to hear from him, but.... Go up to Hardy Island.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Shameful! I want to talk to this minister about Hardy Island, Mr. Chairman, while I have the floor. This government is prepared to let that island go down the tube. I cannot believe that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please. Will the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) please take his seat.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sit down, Jim.

Anyway, I think I've outlined the case very briefly. I was going to cite numerous examples: letters from people in ICBC saying "no," letter; from the B.C. Ferry Corporation, letters from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — and the minister from Calgary is still at it. So I wonder if the minister would be good enough to give me the assurances now. I know he is familiar with this matter, because I've written to the minister and ICBC on numerous occasions. All I'm asking for now is assurance that this particular situation will be rectified and that the citizens from outside our province who travel on our vessels on the coast of British Columbia will be protected — or on the free vessels in the interior. There is the same problem there, by the way.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought this matter up before. He now states he has 25 cases in 1981. I'm concerned about that.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Within the last fiscal year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Within the last fiscal year. I'm concerned about that number of claims that are not being proceeded with in regard to a decision being made. But I would just like to point out that he also stated that neither party will accept responsibility. Well, I think he would agree that if neither party is responsible, they also shouldn't pay a claim. In other words, if the Insurance Corporation is not responsible, good management deems that a claim should not be paid, because they're not paying funds out of the management's pockets or the government's. They're paying funds out that are collected through premiums paid for by the drivers of this province.

So, number one, if the company is not found to be liable, they shouldn't accept responsibility, nor should they pay the claim. Equally, if it is deemed that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is not responsible, then it shouldn't pay a claim. Now I don't know what accident — and I must be honest with the member that the insurance company insuring a vehicle that is damaged.... Let's say that the person has collision and it's comprehensive, and he damages his vehicle in whatever manner on the ferry, then it seems to me that automatically there should be a claim honoured by the insurance company. It seems to me that should be the logical way to handle it.

[ Page 5216 ]

Now the insurance company, if there's damage, I guess, turns to the B.C. Ferry Corporation and says: "It's your fault, because you jiggled the boat or you didn't get up to the dock right, or whatever happened, and you should pay it." I agree 100 percent with the member that if there is a case of liability on either party, then they should make that determination and fight it out. If the motorist — the individual who got caught in the middle, which is what I'm sure the member is referring to — doesn't get any settlement, I'm upset about it.

So if you want my assurance, Mr. Member, give me those 25 claims — the names of them — and I'll start to work Monday morning with the corporation to get a decision made. I have to say that if what's happening — you call it bureaucratic bungling and that may be the case — is that innocent people out there who pay insurance premiums or ride on our ferries are caught in the middle because of no final determination or decision being made, then I can assure you that I'll do my best to get the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister has given me assurances that this will take place. I don't mind forwarding all of these cases over to the minister's office. For the minister's information, copies of every single case I have with me at the present time have been forwarded to either the minister's office, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the B.C. Ferry Corporation or the Ministry of Highways if it involved highways. All that information is available. I'm going to take the minister at his word now without further debate. He has given me the assurance that this situation will be rectified. Next year at this time we will know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to respond for the record. You say that copies have come to my office, have gone to the corporation and have gone to Highways or the B.C. Ferry Corporation — where they're involved. That is not the issue. I'm sure you've had responses from my office acknowledging receipt and passing it on to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I'm sure the Ministry of Highways has done the same thing, as has the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The issue we're talking about, Mr. Member, as you well know, is: let's get a decision on this. Your role in this House is to speak up for your constituents. My role in this House is to make sure that the insurance corporation operates properly. I'll give you my assurance that we'll get some answers if you give me the material to work with.

MS. BROWN: Yesterday I raised a couple of questions with the minister. I guess either he forgot to respond or maybe he was doing some research on them last night. Just to jog his mind a bit, I brought to his attention the problem of the impact of the microchip technology on clerical workers in the insurance industry. I asked whether the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had developed any kind of program to deal with either the retraining of the clerical workers who are going to be losing their jobs as a result of the extensive use of word processing and other technological improvements in that particular field or whether he had done anything at all about seeing that they would be transferred to other Jobs.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's quite possible that the minister does not see this as a very serious consideration for him to deal with, so I'd like to give him one or two more statistics. A study done by the government of France has discovered that within the next couple of years there are going to be 800,000 secretarial jobs in their country which are going to disappear as a result of this technological revolution. A study done by the government of Germany discovered that by 1990, 40 percent of the office work presently being done by clerical workers is going to be done by computerized equipment and there will be an increase in unemployment in that particular group of our society. Bell Canada, for example, has reduced its staff from 13,600 in 1970 to 7,400 in 1979. The report which I brought to his attention yesterday done by the Institute for Research on Public Policy indicates that unless policy makers move ahead of the current trend, up to one million Canadian women are going to be unemployed by 1990.

I also brought to his attention the fact that insurance companies are certainly in the forefront of transferring their work to computers. It's going to have a very serious impact on the clerical ghetto.

I also assured the minister that I was not opposed to technological change. I just wanted some kind of information from him as to what will be happening to these women who are presently employed by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in this particular field.

The second issue which I raised with him was car seats for children. I brought out the anomaly of British Columbia as a province in which adults have to buckle up because we are so concerned about the safety of adults in cars, but that children have no kind of protection at all. The government keeps talking about research that's being done in the field, but to date no decision has been made as to making it compulsory for a safe car seat to be used when a child below a certain age is travelling as a passenger in an automobile.

I would appreciate it if the minister would respond to these two questions at this time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I didn't respond to the member yesterday. I think two or three speakers got up, one after the other, and I did miss responding to the questions she raised.

She talked about driver education and the concern about the loss of the $50 per student driver. That was a program we had in place, and we've discontinued it. What we have attempted to do, which I think is proving to be more effective, is to bring in a different approach to driver education and get better results for those dollars expended. As opposed to helping X number of people by giving them a $50 grant for driver education, we are using this money to go out and educate the population of British Columbia in various age sectors, with educational programs in the public schools from kindergarten to grade 7 and in the high schools. We're getting out there and telling the message to a lot more people. I think it's an effective program and one that will have better results than the statistics indicated on the $50 grant program that we had.

There are a number of new designs of car seats for children, as the member is probably aware. There are some that actually put the child's back to the front windshield so that instead of flying forward the infant is protected because the back of the car seat is there to hold him from hitting the dashboard, windshield or whatever. If the member will recall — I attempted to get the legislation while she was talking — I

[ Page 5217 ]

believe the seatbelt legislation said that those persons under the age of six were not bound to use the seatbelt. There were valid reasons for that, as I'm sure the member knows; a small infant in a seatbelt could become entangled and the seatbelt could cause more damage than not having the seatbelt.

The responsibility of the parent to have a structure or car seat to protect those small infants is certainly a serious one. I would think that the majority of parents with infants under age six have those car seats. The member shakes her head. I guess I find it somewhat hard to believe that they wouldn't. I think it's fair to say that 99.9 percent of the parents with infants who are driving cars want to make sure that those children are not subject to serious injury, and would do everything in their power to protect them, as good parents should.

I know statistics indicate the number of head injuries etc. I've mentioned the type of car seat available now. I've asked my staff to see if we can get some information on the statistics you mentioned with regard to head injuries of small children.

Moving on to the microtechnology change and the clerical worker — I believe that's what you mentioned yesterday — I can tell you that at ICBC, in the short term, our staff has grown from 2,250 employees in 1977 to 2,387 at the present time, so you're not seeing an immediate drop in numbers.

MS. BROWN: Is that clerical staff?

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's total staff, Madam Member.

The technological revolution, as you mentioned, can cause concern in the long term to the employee and to governments in regard to what to do when the machine continually takes over from the individual. I think history has proven through the Industrial Revolution and the computer age that we've been facing since the Second World War.... As computers have done more things for people, it opens up an avenue of new activity. The use of computers in schools and in the home allows for opening up a broader spectrum of activity. You just have to look at the space technology we have today and the type of employment available to people because of this tremendous expansion of knowledge in computer technology. I think that's an area you have to look at.

I can refer to my trip to China: a billion people's hands do in China what machines do in Canada. They don't have the technology, and the concern they expressed in moving from the hand to the machine is what you are expressing going from the industrial and machine age into the computer age. What do you do in China when you take all those workers from the field because you put in three tractors or automatic harvesters? The concern of government that was stated to us then is the same as what you state. We must provide for that new activity, that different occupation, and endeavour to take those employees and put them into a different type of workforce. That's going to be an ongoing thing. It's been ongoing from the industrial revolution right up to now. So there will be an adjustment in workforce and the work place, and I guess you could look at adjustment in hours of work. The numbers of people working as opposed to the number of computers may result in less hours of work. We work a lot less now. The average number of hours worked in a week is 35 to 37½. Our fathers worked anywhere from 44 hours to 60 hours a week. You can see what happened because of technology: the numbers of hours of labour has been reduced. Productivity has increased considerably because of the use of those machines and the computers that are available to us today.

As I say, in the short term our numbers in ICBC are static or increasing. But I appreciate your comment, and I would only say that management and governments, not just in ICBC but throughout British- Columbia, Canada and the world, have to address themselves to the new activity. If you don't you're going to have unrest on your hands, because I think everybody would prefer to have their mind working rather than sitting idle.

MS. BROWN: Just very quickly Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that time does not permit us to discuss this issue of the microchip technology in greater detail. I'm hoping I'll get another opportunity to raise it under the other ministers' estimates. But what I would like, if the minister can get it for me, is a breakdown, because I'm suspicious of the increase in the workload, and I would like a breakdown as to what's happening to your clerical pool as opposed to your other group of workers.

I was just speaking with a teacher from Vernon who brought a group of students down to the House today, and he was saying that the only people registered for the computer program which is being given by the high school, because it's not compulsory, are boys. This is what I was talking about earlier when I said that unless we deliberately make an attempt to train women to go on to these new jobs they're going to end up being unemployed.

I think you missed the point about the car seat for children. I cannot understand it. We do not trust adults to buckle up — we bring in legislation making it mandatory for adults to buckle up when they're travelling in a car — but we think they're going to buckle their kids up. In fact it doesn't happen that way. I think I mentioned yesterday my own experience as a social worker working on a ward with brain-damaged children, and that 90 percent of those children were there as a result of automobile accidents. The younger ones were passengers in cars that were involved in an accident, and the older ones were driving the cars and were the cause of the accident themselves in many instances. What I'm asking the minister to do is to bring in an amendment to the present seatbelt legislation, now that he's agreed that there are car seats which his government is willing to endorse, making it mandatory. Even though it may be true that 99 percent of parents will see to it that the child is in a safe car seat, the children of the 1 percent of parents who don't do this are in jeopardy. I think the government has to assume some responsibility.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. We're dealing with children below the age of six, and I was asking the minister for an amendment to the seatbelt legislation, making the use of safe car seats mandatory in the same way that we make the use of seatbelts mandatory in British Columbia.

Finally, I would be interested in seeing some real research done on the driver education statistics. What happens with this new program, where instead of using the $50 incentive to encourage young people to take the driver education program — recognizing it as a preventive measure — they are showing films in the school? I would like to see some research done on that so we can accurately assess which of the two programs work better rather than have the minister saying "thinks."

[ Page 5218 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to the education program, the member knows that we just stopped the $50 incentive in 1980. We will be carrying out an ongoing review — as we do with all of our programs — to ensure that we get the best results for the dollars expended. As I mentioned earlier, those dollars are provided for by the driving public.

MR. COCKE: I listened to the minister indicating what his position was vis-à-vis driver training. I asked that question yesterday, along with the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and others. They suspended driver training and said that there were better ways of doing it. I think that what the minister gave us was just a bunch of poppycock. He told us about this audio-visual training program that's going around the province. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that was a make-work program for Andy Stephens. Andy is going around to the schools — here, there and everywhere — telling everybody that this is the way one should drive. If that's a good program, fair enough. But I think taking away the incentive to go to driving school is crazy — shortsighted beyond words. I have had it reported to me that driving schools have now been cut to probably around 50 percent in terms of the number of students taking driver training. That means that there are as many drivers going onto the roads, but that a significant and very large proportion of that number will now be untrained. They will not be trained in defensive driving and not trained to drive carefully and safely.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the member for Windermere, for Calgary and points around there....

AN HON. MEMBER: No sales tax.

MR. COCKE: No sales tax. Diamond Jim they call him. Mr. Chairman, that member says: "So what?" I'll tell you so what, Mr. Chairman — through you to that irresponsible minister: it's death and carnage on the road. That's so what.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will come to order. The member for New Westminster will deal with vote 10, please.

MR. COCKE: Vote 10 is what we're on. We're talking about driver training. Up until just recently, ICBC gave a discount of $50 for anybody that had taken driver training. Now they have discontinued that program. I'm suggesting very strongly here that the minister has not given us one argument in favour of his position for dispensing with that program — no statistical argument, no nothing. I suggest that there will be statistics very soon that will indicate that ICBC, through that minister, have made a tragic mistake. I believe that it's in the best interests of the province if we have well trained drivers on the road. We're not going to have well trained drivers on the road if the majority of them do not go to driving school. Any parent will tell you that a driving school will do a better job of training his or her. children to drive than that parent himself or herself, and the same thing with the husband-wife situation. It's far better to go to a driving school. I think there should be an incentive for driving school.

Mr. Chairman, at the door I see a person who would be very much affected by this proposition. This is another subject altogether: clergy and ICBC rates. This last year under the FAIR program clergymen were increased some 95.8 percent.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Bad driving record.

MR. COCKE: Again, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing suggests that the average clergymen ha's a bad driving record. I suggest that he should be called to task by the Speaker of this House when we go back into the House.

I suggest that to have an entire about-turn.... Remember that for a number of years now they were allowed class 002, which was the rate class that could be dubbed the clergy rate. That rate gave them a relatively low premium, as with people driving for pleasure.

The minister, as usual, in his arrogant way is wandering around the House, not listening. He doesn't really care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: So far, we have not had one official from ICBC advising the minister. He's been getting up and giving us totally inadequate answers. Now he talks to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and doesn't even listen to a very important plea on behalf of all the clergymen in this province. I think that's disgraceful behaviour, don't you, Mr. Chairman? He's not going to go to heaven for this, I'll tell you.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'll quote from a letter: "Up to 1980 there was a special classification for clergy when insuring a vehicle through ICBC. It seems that for 1981 this category has been dropped because FAIR is fair." That FAIR program was surely not fair to everybody, was it? "Consequently, for a 1976 Volvo sedan I must insure the vehicle for business use. The resulting figures follow." He gives the figures. And the difference is that he once paid $287, and now he has an increase of 95.82 percent. FAIR is fair.

If ICBC could have presented statistics indicating that it was warranted, that would be one thing. I believe that it goes without saying that a significant number of very careful people out there have been denied access to FAIR is fair.

What did that government do about senior citizens? The senior citizens put a lot of electoral heat on that government. They said: "For years we have been driving safely." That was quite correct. Nonetheless, their rates increased. So what did the government do? They turned around because they saw a significant number of votes, and they gave a grant and subsidized the rates for senior citizens. But clergymen are fewer in number, and their votes don't count to the extent this government feels is warranted. Therefore what do they do? They throw a left hook at them, and that left hook costs them 95.82 percent.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) calls them "godless Socreds." I don't know whether that's entirely fair, but it sounds like a statement I've heard before around this place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I feel, and I'm sure other members of this house also

[ Page 5219 ]

feel, that the remark made by the member opposite — I believe it was "godless Socreds" — impugns members on this side of the House and is not called for in the Legislature of the province of British Columbia. I find that shameful, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask the member to withdraw, if he would be so kind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in our rules that unless a personal attack is delivered upon an individual member there is nothing to be withdrawn. However, the member for New Westminster is reminded that parliamentary language is always a feature of the committee.

MR. COCKE: That was a paraphrase of former Premier W.A.C. Bennett, who quite often used to stand in his place and talk about godless socialists. If that former Liberal member finds that that's an uncomfortable situation, why did he ever join that party over there in the first place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister again rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I find that remark offensive. In good conscience, I would ask the member to consider what he has said. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw the remark very, very happily, if it offends the minister. I gather he didn't get the humour of the situation. I don't imagine he gets very much humour. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I don't get very much humour out of seeing him walking around the House when people are making a plea for a particular group of people. He's walking around discussing questions with other ministers and not doing his job. That's not an unusual situation, but I find his behaviour reprehensible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we are verging on a personal attack. I will remind all members that we are in committee in the Legislative Assembly of the province of B.C., and we should make our remarks parliamentary.

MR. COCKE: Anyway, what this Father X.... I'm not going to give his name. The minister can have it; as a matter of fact, he has a copy of the letter. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to quote the last part of the letter:

"What I would dearly love to know is what is the philosophy behind the change which forces me to pay $562 for the business rate. I do not drive my car to work, and even if my home were not next door to the church, I would be driving it within a small area, as 90 percent of the clergy live in their own parish area and do their work in the same small area.

"When I phone ICBC in Vancouver, all I get is, 'That's the way it is now,' the kind of statement which is less than helpful. The FAIR program may very well be: 'That is the way it is.' But I would like some reasoning for something that seems less than fair.

"Thank you for your concern."

AN HON. MEMBER: Signed Peter Rolston.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's true. It's signed by Father Donald L. Mullins. I wonder if we might find that he's in the Columbia River constituency. He's not, but it would be interesting if he were. I'll tell you, if he were, that Minister Of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would be absolutely shivering in his shoes. He's so close to defeat now that just one more vote is the end of him.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that if ICBC cannot give a reason why the clergy were not treated the same way as the senior citizens.... If they can give us some statistics that warrant a 92.8 percent increase in rates, fair enough; but if they can't, I believe that they should have been handled exactly the same way. Most of them, as I suggest, live within 40 feet of their church and drive very little within their diocese or within their area. I think that they're being handled very unfairly. Another thing: this is a group of people who, for the most part, live on a relatively low income. I think that they've been handled unjustly by ICBC.

MRS. WALLACE: Apparently the minister is not going to answer the member for New Westminster.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, yes, I will.

MRS. WALLACE: I will yield the floor to you if you want to answer him, because I'm going to move on to something else.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go ahead; I'll respond after you've finished.

MRS. WALLACE: I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the minister seemed to be in a snarky mood this morning when he came into the House and asked what we were going to do. I think the opposition has been very explicit and very consistent in what it has done. We dealt with the Agricultural Land Commission and agriculture, and then we dealt with ICBC. The minister might know full well that we have to finish ICBC under his ministerial vote we can't move on to anything else.

As I recall, when we finished agriculture the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) stood up and said: "We're now going to move into another phase, ICBC." I can't predict how long we're going to be.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you back in agriculture or are you still with ICBC?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's what I tried to tell you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, I'm sorry, you've finished ICBC. I'll just respond then to the....

MRS. WALLACE: Again, you see, he wanders around talking to other people instead of listening to what the argument is and what's going on. It's no wonder his estimate is taking so long. He doesn't answer the questions that are asked.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the member for New Westminster with regard to the clergy and the fact that the person he refers to had approximately a 95 percent increase. There was an increase, as we all know, because of high claims experience, and that increase was passed along to all drivers in the province. It was a substantial one because our claims experience was much

[ Page 5220 ]

higher, and inflation of course was a factor. Therefore we have to raise premiums to cover the cost of claims.

Now with regard to the clergy, who were a separate category and were allowed a discount, if you want to call it that, or a special rate under the Insurance Corporation's policy: when we passed the Automobile Insurance Nondiscrimination Act in 1979, that automatically identified certain areas which could no longer be company policy, and all drivers would be treated as equal. What it meant was that you were in a classification — you drove your car for pleasure or you drove it to and from work or you drove it for business — and you would all be treated as equal. No special consideration would be given for age, sex or marital status. With that passing of the legislation that I just mentioned, ICBC had its instruction. It was government policy. Therefore they couldn't grant senior citizens a discount for being over the age of 65. They had to take the stance that all drivers, regardless of age, were treated as equals. We brought in a senior citizens discount similar to the senior citizens' homeowner grant.

People of the clergy lost their classification because of that legislation. They are driving cars and are carrying out the business that they are involved in — visiting people, going to hospitals and going to weddings and funerals. They are on the road and are no different than any other drivers. As a result they are put into the same class: good drivers pay the same premium and bad drivers are assessed a driver-accident premium.

On July 30, 1979, I believe it was, the bill passed and the House divided. The motion was nemine contradicente, which I understand means that we were all in favour of the legislation, including — if I can look at the list here.... I'm looking for the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke's) name, and maybe, he wasn't in the House at the time. I was going to say that he automatically would have been part of the yeas, but I guess he was absent on that day, because I don't see his name here on the list. Mr. Hall, the second member for Surrey, was here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point, alluding to or briefly reflecting upon a vote like this could be allowed, I guess, but any long, involved reflection on a vote or past legislation is not allowed in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Chairman, I just mentioned that the legislation put the ICBC in a position whereby they have to address the question of there being no discrimination regardless of age, sex or marital status. They felt that to carry that concept, they couldn't maintain the policy that was in place before. I have to agree with that, because there are many drivers who live next door or down the street from work who leave their car at home all week and go to work, and just use it on the weekend. There are some drivers who drive 5,000 miles a year and some that drive 20,000 miles a year. Those members of the clergy who live close to their premises may not expose their cars to the possibility of accident, because they only go to and from their home to the church, but there are other members of the clergy who drive more miles per year, possibly, than I do. Therefore I feel that they should be looking at the same rates for insurance coverage that I do, or that any other member of society does, taking into consideration the Automobile Insurance Non-Discrimination Act.

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, I understand that we do have a rule that one should not reflect upon a vote that is taken in this session of the Legislature. You can reflect all you want, I understand, on votes that have gone in the past. But anyhow, that's neither here nor there. I'm not going to defend the minister. Whenever I want to reflect upon a vote, we'll have that argument at that time.

I just want to say that I really think that when that legislation was brought in, it was brought in in terms of, "this is going to be staged in." There was certainly no indication that some of the things that would be done would have been done the way they have been. I'm just suggesting that to recategorize a whole group of people was clearly and simply wrong.

Just one other word before I sit down, and that is with respect to handicapped seniors who receive a special deduction from Autoplan. They get that 25 percent off for handicapped people if they show proof that they're eligible for elimination of the gas tax. However, it's my understanding that although seniors receive a 20 percent deduction for fire insurance, the same does not apply to the handicapped. As a suggestion, it might be worthwhile to extend this program to handicapped persons as well. I just wonder what the minister's comment would be on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion put forward by the member for New Westminster is something that can be researched and investigated. I have no comment at this time as to whether or not it would be something that would be acceptable.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's a long time since we started to discuss vote 10. I think it's three weeks today, as a matter of fact. Of course, a lot of that time was spent in Easter recess.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

When we first began the estimates, discussing agriculture, I raised the point that the figures in the budget which showed an increase of 11.2 percent were really quite incorrect because, in fact, if you deduced the 6.1 percent ICBC rebate you were down to something like 1.9 percent. It's interesting to note too, based on that figure with the ICBC money out, that last year the agriculture industry had 1.3 percent of the total budget and this year it's down to 1 percent. I think that gives some credence to the arguments that I have been making, while we have been discussing agriculture, that agriculture is really not getting its fair shake. As we get into the votes I intend to point out some of the specific reasons.

Dealing specifically with vote 10, I have a specific question. Again, the minister is joshing away with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and not listening to what I'm saying. I note in vote 10 the addition of one salaried position; the minister's office is going from six to seven persons. I'm wondering what that particular job is to be, whether or not the position is filled and at what salary.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The additional position in my office is for an administrative assistant whose responsibility primarily deals with ICBC and Agricultural Land Commission issues. The member will recall that at the end of 1979, when I was reappointed Minister of Agriculture and Food and gave up my responsibilities as Minister of Energy, I accepted

[ Page 5221 ]

two additional responsibilities. One was as the minister responsible for the land reserves which came from the Ministry of Environment, find the other was as the minister responsible for ICBC. As a result, in order to give proper attention to them I expanded the staff in my office by one individual. Yes, the position is filled and the member is on staff.

MRS. WALLACE: What is his salary?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe his salary is — if I'm incorrect I'm sure I'll get a memo down to advise me — $19,200 or $19,800.

MRS. WALLACE: Is that two executive assistants that you have in total?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe the proper classification of one is executive assistant, and I believe that the other title is administrative assistant.

Vote 10 approved.

On vote 11: deputy minister's office, $1,091,714.

MRS. WALLACE: Vote 11 is the vote that includes the program that covers aid to developing countries. The minister knows that this is a program I'm very interested in.

I note that he has increased the amount slightly this year from $393,000 to $428,000. I congratulate him for that, but I point out that had that government retained the fund of $5 million which was established by W.A.C. Bennett — the interest of which was to be used for this purpose — the interest at today's interest rates would have been between $.5 million and $1 million as a result of investment of that fund. I would encourage the minister to keep putting money into this fund, because it's a very worthwhile and needed program. Every day that we pick up a paper and on every television program we look at we see more and more problems of people who need assistance to produce the food they require to stay alive. That's what that program is all about. It's an excellent program and one that really needs expanding.

I would like to ask the minister two specific questions apart from asking for his assurance that he will continue to upgrade the program. Firstly, when will the report for the aid to developing countries program be ready? I haven't seen that filed yet. I'm wondering how soon that will be available. Does the minister know whether the $393,000 was expended in full last year? If not, why not? Has he any idea of the countries which were aided under that program?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: As the member said, the $393,000 that was allocated last year has been increased this year to approximately $427,000. The member refers to the $5 million fund that was in there some time ago and what interest could be earned. That's quite right, Madam Member, although we're going over old ground. You recall that fund was transferred back in 1976 or 1977 — maybe my figure is a bit more correct. It was done to allocate funds to cover some of the losses that we inherited in 1975-76. Be that as it may, the funds of $393,000 have been expended. The report will be filed in the near future. The member can understand that our fiscal year ends March 31, 1981. It takes time to compile those reports. As the member knows, in our report we specifically identify each of the activities and the various countries.

What I have before me is a breakdown of the projects. I don't have all the countries, Madam Member, but there were 44 projects, with a total commitment of $393,000. The agencies we assisted were the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, Canadian Lutheran World Relief, the Canadian Red Cross, Canadian University Services Overseas, CARE of Canada, Food for the Hungry, Operation Eyesight Universal, the Tibetan Refugee Aid Society, World Literacy of Canada, World University Service of Canada and the YMCA of greater Vancouver. All these agencies had ongoing projects — in many cases jointly funded — in various parts of the world, but mainly in the Third World countries. For the benefit of the members of the House, the funds that go there are basically aimed at trying to improve the lifestyle and wellbeing of the people involved. Although we call it agricultural aid to developing countries, in some cases it is also used for relief as a result of a disaster, and in many cases it's used for putting in an irrigation system, a drainage system, developing wells so the people have potable water to drink, etc. I'm pleased with the results we've had, and yes, Madam Member, each year I will continue to get the budget amount increased, because I think it's dollars well expended.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister has any idea how many applications from participating organizations had to be turned down because of lack of funds.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not at this time, but I'll have my staff give me that information and advise the member.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: finance and administration, $1,736,900.

MRS. WALLACE: I've talked a lot about this ministry's votes being cut back and depleted. That's certainly true in relation to votes where the programs relate to expenditures in the field. This particular vote, finance and administration, "provides for the accounting and personnel programs of the ministry as well as administrative support and other services to the operational programs of the ministry." I note that in this particular vote "professional and special services" has jumped from $13,000 to $68,000 — a 500 percent increase. I'm wondering if this is a little bit of hidden money that's going into Hollywood North. Then looking down the line to advertising and publications, there is another jump of $10,000.

What we have been saying on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, is that when a government decides that they are going to levy some $625 million worth of additional taxes on the people of this province, the time has also come for governments to tighten their belts. When I see a 500 percent increase in this vote for professional services, plus a $10,000 increase in advertising and publications, then I am prompted to move that vote 12 be reduced by $65,000.

My reasons, Mr. Chairman, are very clear. If the farmers of this province are asked to take cutbacks, as they have been asked to take in other votes in this ministry in the programs that relate to field operations, then I think the ministry should at least be prepared to hold the line. That's all we're asking.

[ Page 5222 ]

We're not asking that he doesn't spend what was budgeted last year — and you must remember that the figure we're looking at is what was budgeted, not what the revised budget was or what was actually spent — we're saying, "Okay, you can spend that amount," but on programs dealing with things like professional services and advertising and publicity, we're suggesting that the minister should at least hold the line. That's the purpose of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member may withdraw the amendment after my explanation. Let me deal with the advertising and publications. The 1979-80 actual expenditures were $106,000. In the last fiscal year of 1980-81, the actual expenditures were $125,000. The amount increased between 1979-80 and 1980-81 was $19,000, and the amount increased from 1981 to 1982 is $10,000. That is less than a 10 percent increase. It doesn't even cover the inflationary costs, and here she is saying that we're overexpending. I suggest that the arguments she uses for putting forward the amendment are in error.

Professional services. She'd be interested to know that the majority of those funds to be spent on professional services are basically for enhanced staff training, to upgrade our staff to give the best service possible to the agricultural community. I don't think I need to say any more. That is a plus for agriculture and for the farmers of this province. With that explanation I suggest the member might wish to withdraw the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister can say what he likes about the intents and purposes of that particular program. I'm suggesting that he should hold the line, as he's asking the citizens of the province to do. He's asking them to hold the line on their expenditures because he's draining it off by mandatory taxation; he's not even giving them a choice. If he can expect the citizens of British Columbia to take that stand, then I think it's incumbent upon the minister to take the same stand and hold the line on things like staff training and advertising. Therefore the amendment stands.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 26

Vote 12 approved.

On vote 13: field operations, $10,809,073.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial statements require no leave. Please proceed.

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY
OF RENTALSMAN

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Last week I was concerned to receive press reports alleging that the rentalsman of British Columbia, Mr. Jim Patterson, held an interest as a landlord in residential rental property in Victoria, and further questioning whether the office of the rentalsman or this ministry had been involved in the exercise of special influence in terminating a tenancy agreement involving tenants at one of the rental properties of which the rentalsman was alleged to be the owner. Upon learning of the content of the media reports, I asked my acting deputy minister, Thomas Cantell, QC, to conduct a full investigation into the matter.

I have now received and studied Mr. Cantell's very comprehensive report, and I have also interviewed the rentalsman, Mr. Patterson. May I say that Mr. Patterson has been fully open, frank and cooperative in providing any information requested.

May I stress the reason why I, as minister responsible for the office of the rentalsman, was so gravely concerned about these reports, even though they were reports and required verification. The office of the rentalsman in British Columbia is very much a quasi-judicial office, having as it does the power and capacity to adjudicate the economic rights and property rights of citizens, be they tenants or landlords. The fact that the office of the rentalsman frequently conducts hearings into matters of rent review or the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under tenancy agreements means, as a practical fact, that the daily functionings of that office across the province are very much an integral part of the justice system which serves the citizens of British Columbia. For that reason it is not only important that in fact and action the office of the rentalsman operate with independence and complete fairness, but also that it be seen to operate with complete independence and fairness. It must be the case that for tenants and landlords alike the office of the rentalsman and its regular functionings are perceived to be independent and without any bias, actual or perceived, in favour of landlords or tenants.

[ Page 5223 ]

It has been my experience, Mr. Speaker, since being appointed to this portfolio several months ago, that on a day-to-day basis the officers and staff of the office of rentalsmen throughout the province are keenly conscious of the need to be independent, unbiased and fair in the exercise of their duties, and work extremely hard to be in fact independent, without bias and fair. In my discussions with Mr. Patterson concerning this particular matter he has at all times displayed his continuing recognition of and insistence upon the fact that he and his office at all times reflect independence, fairness and a complete absence of bias.

As a result of my investigation I am fully satisfied that at the time of Mr. Patterson's appointment as rentalsman in 1978 he disclosed his then interest in a rental duplex in the Whistler area. At the time this holding was not deemed to be an investment that would create any bias or apprehension of bias. In late 1980, Mr. Patterson, having disposed of his interest in the Whistler duplex, sought to maintain some investment as a hedge against inflation, and acquired a one-half interest in two separate residential properties in the Victoria area. Although he did not disclose this change of investment to the then minister I am satisfied that he honestly believed that the nature of the continuing investment was one permitted under the general terms of reference approved at the time of his original appointment as rentalsman. Further, Mr. Patterson — being extremely mindful of the need to show not only independence but the absence of bias — took what he deemed to be further precautions by acquiring only a half-interest in two properties, as opposed to a full interest in one property. Moreover, he assigned to a person not employed in the office of the rentalsman the capacity to act as a blind trustee and manage the property, such management to be specifically without reference back to Mr. Patterson.

Notwithstanding these precautions, Mr. Patterson's interest in these two properties has now become a matter of public record. As a result of my investigation I am satisfied that the tenants in the subject rental house left as a consequence of agreement between themselves and the managing landlord. Further, my investigation reveals no evidence of any special treatment, or effort at special treatment, on the part of Mr. Patterson or his managing landlord. Moreover, on the evidence I have reviewed, it appears that Mr. Patterson's managing landlord went to considerable lengths to avoid the necessity of any involvement by the office of the rentalsman, and attempted to be extremely understanding of the need for the departing tenants to have some time to relocate themselves.

However, the fact remains that as of this morning the rentalsman does have a partial interest in residential rental property in a highly populated urban area with an extremely low vacancy rate. It is of continuing and the utmost concern to both the rentalsman and myself that his office not only act, at all times, in a manner that is independent, fair and without bias, or the apprehension of bias, and that the approach be clearly seen to be continuing. In particular, given the extremely tight rental situation and low vacancy rates now prevailing in Vancouver, Victoria and other areas of British Columbia it is, I think, especially important to reassure all tenants in British Columbia of my desire that the office of the rentalsman operate in a manner in respect of tenants that is fair, independent and absolutely free of bias. For those reasons the rentalsman has this morning agreed to dispose of his personal interest in these two residential rental properties, and has further agreed that during the balance of his terms as rentalsman he will not invest in residential rental properties in British Columbia.

I should add that in my judgment the rentalsman holds one of the most difficult of all offices in British Columbia, being an inevitable combination of public service, judicial and public affairs duties. I want to add, Mr. Speaker, that during my time as minister I've been impressed by the energy and conscientiousness which Mr. Patterson has brought to his duties as rentalsman. He has had and continues to hold my full confidence.

Mr. Speaker. as part of my investigation into this matter I've also reviewed the extent to which other senior officials in the office of the rentalsman may hold residential rental investments in British Columbia. I'm advised that apart from Mr. Patterson there are seven other senior positions in the office of the rentalsman, and these are excluded positions, not being part of any union. I'm advised that none of the other seven positions are held by persons holding any investment interest in residential rental properties in British Columbia.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I'm advised that there are approximately 43 rentalsman officers throughout British Columbia, and only three hold or may hold a modest investment interest in some form of residential rental property. I propose to pursue with the staff of the office of the rentalsman and with their union a discussion which, I hope, will lead to the establishment of a new and fair set of rules which will clarify permitted personal investments by employees of the office of the rentalsman and yet at the same time ensure a continuing and clearly perceived policy of independence, fairness and non-bias by that office.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I again assure members of this House of the complete and open cooperation I have received in the course of looking into this matter. May I assure hon. members that in my judgment the staff of the office of the rentalsman are working hard to be completely independent and fair in their approach to difficult duties during a very difficult rental situation in British Columbia. May I particularly assure the tenants of British Columbia of my personal concern at all times that their interests and concerns be dealt with fairly, independently and impartially.

Hon. ML Chabot tabled an answer to a question standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled an answer to a question standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

[ Page 5224 ]

Appendix

25 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing the following questions:

1. What has been the estimated budget of the ecological reserves unit for each year from 1971-72 to 1981-82?

2. What has been the amount expended from the budget for the ecological reserves unit for each year from 1971-72 to 1980-81 (to date) ?

3. How many ecological reserves have been created in each calendar year, and what area of reserves was added in each calendar year 1971 to 1981?

The Hon. J. R. Chabot replied as follows:

"1. Budgets for the years 1971-72 to 1975-76 were part of the Policy and Planning Division in the former Land Management Branch and can only be estimated between $30,000 and $48,000 annually. The Ecological Reserves Unit was established in 1974. Available information on past budgets is as follows: 1976-77, $122,507; 1977-78, $122,856; 1978-79, $57,000; 1979-80, $75,756; 1980-81, $127,225.

"2. All budgets close to fully spent.

"2. New reserves:

¹ > ½ subtidal.

² Mostly subtidal."

26 The Hon. Jack Davis asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

For each of the fiscal year ends March 31, 1976 and March 31, 1981 —

1. How many people were employed, full-time, in the various Provincial ministries?

2. How many people were employed, full-time, in all Provincial Crown corporations?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1. and 2. The number of people employed full-time in various Provincial ministries and in all Provincial Crown corporations is as follows: March 31, 1976, 39,139; March 31, 1981, 39,863; and March 31, 1976, 17,966; March 31, 1981, 21,787."