[ Page 7889 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982 (Bill 34). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 7889

Limitation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 48). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 7889

Ferry Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On section 1 –– 7889

Mr. Lockstead

On section 2 –– 7890

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. D'Arcy

Third reading –– 7891

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

On vote 5: ministers office (continued) –– 7891

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lockstead

   TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today we have a group of students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary. They are visiting the House today with their teachers, and I hope the House will join me in welcoming them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA)
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Limitation Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

FERRY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I won't take up too much of the committee's time. Yesterday, during the course of second reading, I think all of the points as to why we voted against the bill were made by my colleagues in the opposition.

There is one point on section 1 that I wish to ask the minister about. It refers to the explanatory note. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, it is as follows: "The amendment will permit the guarantee of lease payments in addition to the guarantee of securities referred to in section 18(l)." This means that the Ferry Corporation may have to borrow moneys to make payments on the leases that were entered into in or about 1977, when the government and the corporation sold some of the vessels to eastern financial firms on a leaseback arrangement over an 18-year period, as I recall. The reason for this was that the government could have cash right now for the sale of these vessels. The vessels, which cost approximately $46 million apiece to construct, will over an 18-year period cost the people of this province $96 million per vessel under this leaseback arrangement, in our view.

I know the minister of the day put forward the argument that this was a good financial transaction, and I'm sure I'm going to hear the same thing from the minister in a minute or two. The fact is that the leaseback arrangement is ultimately going to put us in a position where we will have paid for those vessels twice, under this section which allows for paying back or guaranteeing those lease fees.

In the minister's view, will it be necessary — in view of the government's reduced subsidy this year to the B.C. Ferry Corporation — for the corporation to borrow money on the money markets of the world which we will have to pay high interest rates on? Will the corporation have to borrow money to make lease payments on those ferries?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Mackenzie, I think we've had this debate in the Legislature before regarding vessels that were leased; I believe it was in 1977. The more I look at that arrangement the better it looks as the money markets change. I believe the rate they have on that is a little less than 11 percent. That certainly looks attractive in today's money market. I might say that in the subsidy payment this year of $47 million, it's my understanding that part of that subsidy pays the lease payments.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't know just how much of the $47 million, and I don't know whether the government has to borrow any money to pay the subsidy, but I'm sure they don't. That's the anticipation. As for any future borrowings by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, it would be up to the board of directors to recommend to the government any future borrowings, and it could be a possibility that they would recommend that. Whether the government would accept that I don't know. I refer not to the original leased vessels, but to the vessels under construction now, or under modification, which are not out of the shipyard yet. For instance, there's one coming out, I believe, this month, and one came out

[ Page 7890 ]

recently. There is a fair amount of money there. Whether the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be able to fund that out of the current cash flow I don't know. Therefore they would have to analyze and see if they had to ask the government to go to longer-term financing in the case of leasing or whatever.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll be very brief. I think we made our point, in terms of the financial arrangements, under section 1, but I did want to place this on the record because it deals directly with the subsidy paid by the government to the Ferry Corporation to allow it to operate.

The main point, and it's one the minister is very much aware of, is that the operations of those ferries serving the coast of British Columbia will have to be expanded. We'll cover this under estimates so I won't get into it here, but there are parts of British Columbia where the operations will have to be expanded. Portions of British Columbia which currently are not being served. Under the current subsidy arrangement there is no way that that corporation, in spite of what I consider to be reasonable good management at the present time.... The problem lies not with management but with the government. With the reduced subsidies, there is no way that corporation can expand or increase its service to the coast, to the people of British Columbia who live there. As I said before, some areas of this coast have no water transportation, freight or passenger at the present time, under any arrangement — private, through the corporation or through Highways.

One other matter, just so it's on record. There is no doubt in my mind, particularly in view of the minister's answer a few minutes ago, that the corporation will have to borrow money on the open money markets of the world, and one way or another, through increased fares or increased subsidies, whichever way it happens, the bottom line is that the people of this province will have to pay the high interest rates on the borrowings that the B.C. Ferry Corporation enters into in the future.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's observations, but as I observed earlier, government policy was to lease the vessels back in 1977 to provide funds, and the rate today is very attractive on those leases — around 11 percent. That is all total cost; the funds were derived and reinvested, I imagine, so it reduces the cost to government and the Ferry Corporation to some degree.

Regarding the expansion of the fleet, I think it can take place, but I point out to you that we have expanded the fleet quite maturely in the last four years. I believe around $150 million for docks and new vessels has been spent. We have also expanded service in other ways, such as a larger capacity on all the runs, particularly from Port Hardy. There's a new terminal, plus twice the capacity of the vessel on that route, the Queen of the North. We built a new dock of our own at Prince Rupert because we got into difficulty in sharing with the good landlord we had. We expanded to the Queen Charlotte Islands, where they've never had service since Northland Navigation pulled out of the Pacific coast in, I believe, 1976. We will deal with expansion as it comes.

Yesterday I said — and I repeat this — that as far as capital is concerned the government feels they should use the credit line of $250 million they're provided with by the Legislature only if and when necessary. That's the way we would get expanded service in the future. So I don't think it's as bleak as you point out, Mr. Member. I'm sure we'll continue to upgrade this fine service for the public of British Columbia.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't want to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, and I won't. I just want to correct the minister on two items.

The minister did say yesterday during the course of the vote and as a response in second reading that this side of the House was voting against the B.C. Ferry Corporation and, in effect, the people working for that corporation. That is not correct. I want it on the record that what we were opposing was the method of financing, the reduction in subsidies. The minister was talking about increased capacity. I wasn't going to discuss this under this section, but the minister did raise the topic. The fact is that we have reduced service on most parts of the coast this summer. I know the minister raised this topic, and we'll get into details on this matter during estimates. Just so it's on the record, the fact is that we have reduced service this summer to Vancouver Island and parts of the coast. We will pay the price this summer for that reduced service.

MR. D'ARCY: This section is really the guts of this bill. It makes a fatuous statement here in the explanatory notes when it says it makes the calculation of the annual highway equivalent subsidy more flexible. Mr. Chairman, when this government wants to make something more flexible, it means only one thing: less money than there used to be and higher taxes for the individual user in British Columbia. In fact, this bill should not be called the Ferry Amendment Act, 1982; it should be called the Ferry Rate Increase and Reduced Service Social Credit Act, 1982.

On this very day, June 1, service on the Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen route has been reduced by three sailings. I don't want any specious argument from the minister that there is increased capacity on the existing boats, because that's not correct. There have been nine of what I shall call mega-ferry sailings a day on that run for the past several months, and three truck ferry sailings. As of today — as we get into the summer season — there are still nine mega-ferry sailings, but there are no longer any truck ferry sailings. The amount of service has been effectively reduced by three sailings a day. That capacity is going to have to be absorbed by the existing ferries on the routes. In addition, there is no longer a 6:15 a.m. sailing from Swartz Bay or 6:30 sailing from Tsawwassen. This is a particular inconvenience to business and commercial travellers who need those early sailings to do their business across the water.

To give another example, between 6:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. — a period of two and a half hours — as of yesterday there were four sailings from Swartz Bay. Between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. this morning there were only two sailings. We are getting into the summer season. It is as a direct result of this government's policy that this is taking place. This bill is a reflection of this government's policy. I mention only one route, but as my colleague from Mackenzie has indicated, this is endemic throughout the entire system.

There is only one reason that this bill and this section is even before the House. That is that the minister in charge of these matters in 1976 made a mistake because they established by statute a specified formula for setting up an annual

[ Page 7891 ]

ferry subsidy. If they hadn't made that mistake, they wouldn't need this bill. They could have had these rate increases the way they've done all the other rate increases over the past few months — in the secrecy of the cabinet chambers. They could do with a stroke of a pen, an order-in-council, what they are doing by bringing a bill before the Legislature to allow them the flexibility to reduce the provincial ferry subsidy by an amount in excess of $20 million. This $20 million, which they call flexibility in this section, can only be made up by increased ferry fares to the travelling public throughout the entire B.C. ferry system. I thought it absolutely strange yesterday — literally off-the-wall crazy — that government members could say that anybody who opposes this bill is against the ferry system. I talked to a number of ferry employees yesterday morning. They all said that the government was nuts and that the new schedule was crazy. Anybody who is not against this bill is against the ferry system. It is that party over there who is against the ferry system, and that is why we're voting against it.

HON. MR. FRASER: That was a fine speech from the member for Rossland-Trail. I have a suspicion that it was all politics. That is a terrible thing to happen in this Legislature — the thing the Leader of the Opposition is always scolding us for. I wouldn't get involved in that in any way, but I want to correct some of the statements he made.

The facts of life are that we have increased capacity in the water in 1982 because of the foresight of the Ferry Corporation in building new vessels and stretching and lifting the vessels we have. Yes, there might be a cutback in the runs, but overall there is an increased capacity. They are changing schedules today, June 1; that is correct. What you didn't mention is that the schedule will change again on June 24 for the summer schedule. You might properly criticize that maybe that should have gone in on June 1, but it changes again on June 24 to try to grapple with the wish of the users of the system.

I might say that what we are also trying to achieve.... I don't know if the socialists would do it this way or not, but we don't want to run empty boats. That is what could well happen with what you're suggesting. We're trying to save some public money, and save the day that we might have to increase rates. I said yesterday that when that might happen, if necessary.... We have taken it away from the tourist season; it will not be dealt with until the fall. We have increased capacity there. The doubletalk from the socialists over there....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: You are against B.C. Ferries. You voted against B.C. Ferries yesterday. That's on the record. That's a fact of life.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just to remind you, hon. members, we are in committee and we must first pass section 2. Before we pass section 2, we will vote.

I also remind hon. members that this is not the appropriate section to be discussing the ferry-sailings schedule. We must be relevant to the section before us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I promise the Chair that I will not exceed the scope that the minister has had under this section.

We are on record as voting against this bill. I want to point out very clearly to the minister and the government benches that this side did not vote against the workers or the people in the B.C. Ferry Corporation. What we're voting against here is the government's ability now, when this bill passes....

It will, with that heavy-handed majority they have over there. They pass whatever they want. They haven't even read the bills, but they pass them — and the sections of this act. What we're voting against is this continuous increase in the powers of the government to allow these borrowings in cabinet secrecy. without bringing these matters to the Legislature. That's what we're voting against in this section — just so the minister understands,

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief comments, through the Chair. The attempt by the minister not to be political, but to force closure on this House through that motion will not go by unnoticed. Let the House have recorded in Hansard that absent from the House were the Social Credit cabinet ministers who should be fighting for increased ferry service. That's why the attempt to move the motion — when they weren't here in this House. You were just protecting other cabinet ministers — the members from Oak Bay and Saanich. We know what's going on. That's why we're voting against this bill. It's an attempt at closure that we will not contemplate.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $164, 608.

MRS. DAILLY: Just as the House adjourned last night, I had posed three questions to the minister. I believe he was just getting up to answer when the former minister in charge, the member for Point Grey, felt it necessary to get up and do his usual speech that we've heard about a hundred times in this House. Perhaps we can get back to some rational discussion from the minister in charge. That's not likely, but we'll try in hope. Did the minister make note of a couple of those questions? I'd like to hear the answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, there is an annual management survey done by the management of ICBC to identify problems of service and to review the image of the corporation. In this particular year that management survey was done by the Delphi people.

[ Page 7892 ]

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) mentioned somebody who wished to go in and pay next year's insurance because he was going to be away for several months. I would assume the ICBC agent could not accept payment for next year's insurance because the rates had not yet been set; they would therefore not be in a position to write a contract for the next year. A person going away for that length of time could, I'm sure, at the appropriate time communicate with the agent, have a policy developed and the amount of premium determined, and then pay it by mail.

The member mentioned concerns about moral judgments and fire insurance on homes. I can only say to you that insurance premiums are based on risk. You mentioned the use of marijuana. You mentioned, I believe, the attempt by people involved in prostitution to get home insurance. The determination would be by the Insurance Corporation with regard to risk in the event of fire and not on matters of moral judgment.

MRS. DAILLY: The question I asked the minister regarding the political survey done by ICBC was not answered. I didn't ask who did it; the question was: what terms of reference were given to the survey firm by ICBC? No answer was given to that question. I wonder if the minister could answer that.

I still cannot accept the answer on the kind of judgments made by ICBC on who is a risk. Speaking on behalf of people who don't get fire insurance from ICBC, I am simply taking it from a human rights point of view. I'm trying to point out to the minister that to date he has not explained to me, any more than could the board of directors, why someone who has been charged with but not convicted of a marijuana offence should be refused. You say it's done on the basis of risk. I wonder if you could explain to the House why that person would be more at risk than somebody who smokes cigarettes constantly. I'm not here to judge the rights and wrongs of prostitution or the smoking of marijuana, but I am here to uphold the human rights, the civil rights, of any citizen in our province. I'm very concerned that neither you, as the minister in charge of ICBC, nor the board of directors have assured us that they have any right to use moral judgments in assigning risk.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll deal just briefly with those two items. In general, the terms of reference of that management survey, which is done on an annual basis, is to analyze the image of the corporation in the public eye, the efficiency of service, and whether or not the policies offered by the Insurance Corporation are those required or desired by the public. That's the intent of the annual survey. The board of directors would probably respond in a similar vein, in general terms. We can obtain for you the specific terms of reference given to the consultants, but in general that's what they would be. The survey is done each year by management as part of their management responsibility.

With regard to marijuana, you're asking a question that I think relates to individual situations. In insurance principles, the coverage and the premiums involved are determined by risk. If you have individual cases where you feel somebody's rights have been abused, I'd be quite happy to see that individual instance and get you a specific response. I don't think we should be getting into moral aspects with regard to insurance. We look at the exposure of risk involved. I can only say to you that ICBC has in the past provided, and will continue to provide, insurance throughout the province. I'm sure the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) could advise you that in the past some of the private insurers did not want insurance in certain parts of the province. ICBC, upon coming into existence, attempted to ensure that those homeowners throughout the province who desired fire insurance had the ability to get it. ICBC is probably far more flexible with their policies than are private insurers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I want to change the course of debate completely and get back to what I was saying when we adjourned last Friday in regard to the minister's responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture, when I was showing these most horrible pictures in living colour of predator kills in my constituency of Omineca and in other neighbouring constituencies in the north. As I was saying then, thousands of dollars in losses are being incurred by individuals in the ranching industry because of predation. I want to talk a little about that this morning, and I want to ask the minister some questions in regard to what his ministry intends to do to convince the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the people in the fish and wildlife branch of the very grave problem.

Regardless of what certain wildlife biologists say in this province there is a very real problem and it's growing by leaps and bounds. I don't want to talk about the wildlife side of that problem, because I'll be talking at length about that subject during the estimates of the Minister of Environment. This morning I want only to talk about the ranchers' side of that problem and the very definite losses they're having because of wolf predation. Mr. Chairman, I give two examples: a rancher in my constituency who in the last year has lost 71 head of cattle to wolves, and another rancher in the constituency of Skeena. It's too bad that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) isn't here this morning to agree with me and to take his place and make his stand known in regard to the predator problem.

MR. SKELLY: He's here.

MR. KEMPF: Well, send him in so that he can talk on the subject, Mr. Member. I have documented evidence here that a rancher in the Kispiox Valley in his constituency has lost $105,000 plus to wolf predation in the last year.

MR. SKELLY: Why did he go to you?

MR. KEMPF: He went to me because his member wouldn't do anything about it. He wouldn't speak about it or support him in this Legislature in regard to predator control. That's why he went to me, Mr. Member. His MLA isn't interested in the ranching industry, isn't interested in standing and supporting those ranchers in his constituency in this chamber.

Mr. Chairman, I have several letters from ranchers in the Kispiox Valley, not the least of which was the one I received this morning. It talks about the Livestock Protection Act, an act that I believe the minister whose estimates we're talking about this morning has jurisdiction over. First I'm going to ask the minister to explain that section of the Livestock Protection Act dealing with canines and ask him whether in fact the definition of "canine" includes wolf. If so, is he going to make restitution through that act to this rancher in

[ Page 7893 ]

the Kispiox Valley who lost $105,000 through wolf predation? There have been losses reported by many ranchers throughout the north-central interior. It's true that a very small percentage do in fact report their losses to the ministry concerned, the Ministry of Environment, because they know full well that in the last 10 or 15 years that has been an exercise in futility in this province. The very real problem of wolf predation in this province is not one that can be simply rectified, because it's a political problem. It's a shame that it is, Mr. Chairman. Because it is a political problem, those ranchers out there are reluctant to report all of their losses from wolf predation. Rather than going through the useless exercise of reporting those losses — and I think this is the nub of the real problem — they have in many cases taken the law into their own hands, as I said one year ago in this chamber in the same debate. Again, I don't subscribe to breaking the law, but with most of those ranchers out there it's a question of economic survival.

They know that the politicians.... I talk about politicians here this morning on both sides of this floor who don't have the nerve to stand up in here and state what the real problem is with regard to those kinds of losses through wolf predation and suggest what this Legislature should be doing about it. Mr. Chairman, there are thousands of dollars of losses, and that's not the total of the whole problem. I'll talk about the wildlife aspect of that problem during another estimate, because the ranchers are having this problem ignored at another level.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Those wolves are coming into the corrals and the farmyards of the ranchers of the northern central part of this province, because they've run out of wildlife and depleted the ungulate herds to the point they're almost nonexistent. That's another very real problem in this province, not the least of which is tourism. There are thousands of dollars of losses.

Mr. Chairman, thousands of dollars have been spent in an attempt to band-aid the problem by not facing reality. There has been some feeble attempt to patch up the problem, but nothing has been done to meet it head-on. Thousands of dollars have been spent in helicopter hunting. It's been costly and ineffective.

I talked earlier about restitution, although I don't believe that we should be into restitution in any way, shape or form in this province. Rather we should be applying ourselves to the real problem, and then there wouldn't be any need for restitution. It's purely band-aid — money down the drain for further studies, as the instance where $75,000 was spent on a two-year wolf-control study. We don't have to study the problem; we've known what it is for many, many years, We used to address this problem in this province, and we don't anymore. Earlier I spoke of a rancher who lost 71 head of cattle in the last year, even though $75,000 of the taxpayers' hard-earned money was spent on this. So that isn't the answer.

Mr. Chairman, there are people out there in the ranching industry who I represent and other members of this chamber represent, and they are hurting badly. They're hurting financially because of the lack of a proper predator-control program in the province of British Columbia. They're hurting because of the unwillingness of politicians to say it the way it is, to meet the problem head-on and to even admit that there is a problem. I'll tell you there is a problem. We see it every day in letters to the editor and in letters that I get from cattlemen's associations all over this province. There is a very real problem, and there is an unwillingness.... Because of the lack of intestinal fortitude on behalf of many politicians in this chamber, that problem persists. Tax money is being wasted on band-aid programs when we know the answers already. We need only go out into the field and ask the people who really know. Ask the ranchers, trappers and guide outfitters. They'll tell us. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. They'll tell us what the problems are. We don't have to spend $75,000 on studies. We only need the guts to really face the problem.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) smiles. I understand that the wolves are heading in his direction. I guess the problem will really culminate when we see the wolves on the steps of the parliament buildings. Then some of the politicians in here will realize that they are a fact of life. In fact, the people of this province — the ranchers, guide outfitters, hunters, trappers and people in the tourist industry — all have a problem in regard to wolf predation in this province. Maybe then they'll understand.

I want to know from the minister this morning what he has done, in representing the agricultural industry in this province, to convince the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and other politicians on this side of the floor what has to be done in regard to wolf predation, and that there is a real wolf predation problem in the agricultural community he represents.

I will read a news item which appeared in the Interior News, a weekly paper published in Smithers, dated February 10, 1982. This news item alludes to the fact that nothing can be done:

"There is nothing that can be legally done to rid ranching areas in the Kispiox Valley and the Topley area of cattle-killing wolves, says the district agriculturalist, Graham Johnson. Johnson said the fish and wildlife branch has done everything legally possible to solve the wolf problem plaguing the Kispiox Kattle Co. and the George Gibbs ranch in Topley. The Kispiox Kattle Co. and George Gibbs claim they have lost 76 and 71 animals respectively to wolves."

I was talking about that earlier. There is something that can be done. Again, I say that we don't have to reinvent the wheel; we just have to have a little intestinal fortitude.

There is a very real program that can be entered into, but it's not going to happen unless everyone in this chamber, representing people who have problems, will get up and say so and not fear the little old ladies living up on the third floor in West Vancouver who have never seen a wolf in their lives and write big, long letters to the editor talking about Farley Mowat, the love of the wolves and the whole ball of wax, not understanding what the real problem is. There is something that can be done. I call upon the minister on whose estimates we're speaking now to urge the Minister of Environment and his colleagues in cabinet to stop this useless waste that's going on out there because we haven't got nerve enough to enter into a proper predator control program in this province. We used to have it.

I’m not talking about wiping out the wolf population in the province of British Columbia, because you can't do that, because the wolf is smart. Nobody would want to do it anyway. All we're talking about here is control. All we want to do is control that wolf. Before man came along MotherNature looked after that control, The wolf would be on the

[ Page 7894 ]

increase, and as it increased the ungulate herds and wildlife of the province would decrease because of predation. But then, all of a sudden, man came on the scene with domestic herds of cattle, sheep and what have you. That's why the rancher is having this problem, because the ungulate herds are depleted. That's a problem as well, and I'll talk about that at length in the proper form. Man came on the scene and provided the wolf with food when the ungulate herds were depleted. So now the wolf needs only to move into the pastures and farmyards. The wolf population continues to increase, and so we have the problem with the ranchers. My question is: what are you going to do to convince the Minister of Environment that we need a proper predator-control program?

In closing, I want to say that dog control is under the minister's jurisdiction. We have a very strange situation in the province of British Columbia. If there were a pack of dogs out there attacking domestic herds or wildlife, we would have a hue and cry from the public, saying: "We've got to do something about those dogs." The minister would do something, because he has dog control in the province of British Columbia under his control.

MRS. WALLACE: He doesn't have it anymore.

MR. KEMPF: Well, if dogs were a problem they'd be taken care of, but not wolves. I call upon the Minister of Agriculture this morning to stand and tell this chamber that he is going to seriously support a proper predator-control program in the province of British Columbia, to protect the people he represents — the ranchers of this province — from the terrible predation problem they have.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to deal with the member for Omineca's comments — which he has raised in this House for the past several years — there is no question that the ranchers in the farm community are suffering from predation by the wolf population in this province. On the predator management committee, under the Ministry of Environment, we have Ministry of Agriculture staff. I recognize that does not answer your problem, but it does indicate that we are attempting, through that committee, to work with the Ministry of Environment to deal with the issue.

In regard to the Livestock Protection Act, you will notice that under the definitions in that act dogs are defined as the canine species. Therefore they are the ones that are identified — domestic dogs that are at large and not under the control of their owners — and that is why we have that program, which is administered by regional districts. I might add that the dog licensing by them is what provides the funds to compensate the farmer for loss of domestic animals.

You made the comment that you are not in favour of a restitution or compensation program. You don't think that is the answer. You feel it should be better management. I don't disagree with you. I feel that if there is a problem with the management of wildlife — in this particular case, wolves — then that problem should be addressed and the population should be managed. I guess the issue really is who determines what is fair management of a species of animal. The members of the fish and wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment, as I understand it, feel strongly that they have a proper management program. As you well know, their argument on many occasions has been to say that the activity of man — the farm or ranch operation — is encroaching further and further into areas that used to be the wolf's domain. As a result there is conflict. I can't accept that answer and I know you won't accept that answer. We have to address the question with better management. I know you will be canvassing these questions under the Ministry of Environment's estimates where, as you can appreciate, they probably could be addressed more properly than here. From the rancher's point of view and from the Ministry of Agriculture's point of view, first, there is a problem, and second, my ministry's staff are working with the Ministry of Environment in giving our input to how we can see the problem being addressed. We will continue to do so. Hopefully we will achieve a program that will meet with your satisfaction and, of course, the satisfaction of the ranchers involved. That is about all I can say on that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: I just want to comment very briefly on the minister's comment in regard to the program now being carried out by the fish and wildlife branch. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that in the area I represent — it is administered there out of the fish and wildlife office in Smithers — it is not being done properly in any way, shape or form.

I would like to read into the record this morning a couple of paragraphs from a letter which appeared, again, in the Interior News of March 24, 1982. This is a letter from a former predator-control officer with the fish and wildlife branch in the province of British Columbia, when we had a proper program.

"I feel that the present poison program is totally inadequate. Much of the information sought in the costly studies undertaken could have been gleaned from local residents — ranchers, prospectors, trappers, guides and some of the older wildlife officers. Too many times it is assumed these people 'don't know anything about it' because they don't have a piece of paper to show they do. That piece of paper is fine, but without the practical experience in the field, that piece of paper is only good enough to accommodate that cow Al was talking about."

He's referring here to a previous letter in a paper he had written that I was talking about.

"The results we see today, in comparison with the results obtained in the period 1951 to 1960, bear that out."

He's talking about the day when he was in charge of a proper program out of the Fish and Wildlife office in Smithers. But in those days, the high-priced, fresh-out-of-college wildlife biologists weren't calling the shots. They were asking the people in the field where the problems were. They were attacking those problems. Hundreds of wolves were taken every year in the lakes district and Smithers areas, partially in my constituency. That doesn't happen anymore. They run uncontrolled. There is no control of the predator wolf through the Fish and Wildlife office in Smithers — none whatsoever. All you need to do is ask your district agriculturalist there, and he'll bear out what I'm saying.

MRS. WALLACE: We on this side of the House always attempt, in estimates, to deal with the subjects under the purview of any minister in a topic-by-topic manner. It makes for orderly debate, and I'm sure it makes it much easier for the minister involved. It's also for the benefit of those people who read Hansard; I'm sure it's much easier to deal with the topics they're interested in reading about. So, for the benefit

[ Page 7895 ]

of those people, I'd like to say that the previous interruption occurred through circumstances beyond the control of the opposition, and I'd like to return to ICBC.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, that's a clear indication of what some members of this House consider the predator problem to be. They care not for the agriculturalists in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: It's a very valid subject, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But it is not a point of order. You'll be allowed, as every other member is, to continue in the committee debate.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sure we will be dealing with agriculture in due course, when we get back to the agricultural section of the minister's responsibilities. We on this side of the House have been dealing with ICBC for some time and are going to continue until we finish that debate.

I have here the ninth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The minister will recall that in his estimates there is a vote — it was a much-contested vote at the time it was put in — for some $6 million for refunds relative to senior citizens' rebate. I wonder if he could tell me where that shows up in this report. I would assume that the payment was made to ICBC. I'm wondering whether or not it was made, and if so, where it is shown in the report.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If it has been made — I don't have the detailed financial statements in front of me — then of course it would go in as revenue to offset the reduced premiums paid by the senior citizens. If it hadn't been paid, it would probably show up as an accounts receivable on the financial statements of the corporation.

MRS. WALLACE: You're telling me then that it would show as a separate item.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If you're looking at the financial statements, it would probably show in other receivables in the year 1981.

MRS. WALLACE: What page is that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: This would be page 18 and 19. You're looking at $47 million on that page. It's probably in there. I'm sure you can appreciate that on the financial statements of the corporation — the balance sheet — they can't give all the independent detail. They put together a number of receivables under "other."

MRS. WALLACE: I hate to tell the minister, but he is wrong again. When I saw that this was not identified, and being very concerned about that particular amount, I made inquiries of the Insurance Corporation and found that that $6 million has just been included holus-bolus on page 16 in the $591,841,000 for vehicle premiums written. I think that is a very sloppy way to do it. The minister doesn't even know whether it's been done, and he doesn't know where it is. There was another instance when the member for Point Grey got up and, after six years, still referred to a cheque that was written, a deficit. Here this government transfers $6 million from public funds without even showing the amount, just burying it in premiums. That is a double standard, in my opinion. It is just one more example of how that insurance corporation is being run. I am convinced that there is a deliberate attempt to run that insurance corporation into the ground.

My file on people who have problems with ICBC is the largest file — maybe with the exception of WCB — that I have. I just brought one or two examples that I want to talk to the minister about today. One of them was a letter written to the Insurance Corporation from a woman who moved to Lake Cowichan from North Vancouver and Langley. She had a deficit showing up of some $76 — an unpaid premium which was not her responsibility. Eventually, because they would not reissue her insurance, she paid the amount, even though she felt she didn't owe it. She had no record of any such outstanding amount. Even after paying it she was still told that that was standing against her account and she could not receive a new policy until that was paid. At that point she became very concerned, because this was February 3, and licences were coming up. She wrote to the Insurance Corporation.

She has outlined the story. These were her involvements with ICBC: she had a glass claim to replace her windshield on Highway 18 in 1980. That is another story. "...then there was action and settlement of a general damages claim resulting from an accident in North Vancouver in March of 1980." She gives the claim number. Her policy carried no liability whatever in that accident. "This matter was handled by the Langley ICBC claim centre. Then in 1981 it was transferred to the Duncan centre. It has been suggested to me that perhaps a concluding report, called a CL90, may not have been processed at the Langley claim centre, and that this may have somehow resulted in a claim against my policy." Then she goes on to say:

"Since 1976 there has been in your computer printout a record of $70.26 owing by me to ICBC. This was also an error, but at one point, because an Autoplan agent declared he was unable to provide me with my current coverage for that year unless I did so, I paid the amount. This information has never reflected that payment, which, as you can see by the attached photocopy of my receipt was made in February 1, 1979 by certified cheque. Each year since then, upon renewing my coverage, I've had to produce this 1979 receipt in order to purchase my insurance. On occasion I have been denied the option of financing the premium on the basis of this out-of-date information. As recently as December 1981 I went to an Autoplan agent to transfer mv coverage to a new vehicle, and this $70.26 was still outstanding.

"As you requested in your letter of December 23, I have made numerous attempts to contact your customer service department by telephone and have not once been able to get past a busy signal. Hopefully this letter will meet with greater success. Since it is now insurance renewal time we have very little time to correct this matter before I must again confront an unfortunate local Autoplan agent who will be required to deal with what will undoubtedly be a most unwelcome and perplexing situation."

[ Page 7896 ]

She got no answer to that letter. I eventually contacted the customer services people in Vancouver, who were quite unaware of it. I don't know where the letter had been. We got a call back and we eventually got the thing resolved, but these are the kinds of problems that — just as the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has indicated — are causing people to get fed up with ICBC. That is why I think it is a deliberate attempt by management to discredit the corporation. I can't read anything else into it.

I have a copy of a letter from a woman in Duncan. She just received her bank statement with cancelled cheques. She says: "I wish to register the strongest protest over your withdrawing the amount of $6.69 in interest charges, due no doubt to the so-called late payment. Two of the three personally approved payments from ICBC were in the agreed amount of $73.88 and a third for $80.57." She goes on to detail the agreement, and then she says: "What gives your corporation the right to have additional moneys withdrawn from an account without prior permission?" She then says: "No other amounts are to be taken from my account without my written permission. Should subsequent problems arise I'm prepared to take the matter as high as possible." That letter was dated February 23; I received it March 3. On April 5, after some lengthy dealings with ICBC, I wrote to the woman again and she replied April 10 to say that the interest payment had been reinstated in her bank account. Those are the kinds of things that are happening.

In August last year I applied for insurance for our recreational vehicle. I paid the insurance and went on holidays. When I came back from holidays there was a note to contact my agent. I contacted him, and they asked me to come around and see them as there was an error in my insurance. I went around and they went through the policy again, and when they finished they said I owed them an additional $5. I paid the $5, as I thought this was fair game. In January I received a letter from ICBC, and I was quite surprised. It says: "Autoplan premium overpayment refund. Enclosed is a cheque resulting from an overpayment on your Autoplan premium. This refund represents the difference between the premium amount calculated when you renewed your insurance and the amount which actually should have been paid."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Was it an independent agent?

MRS. WALLACE: No, it was a government agent.

Included with it was a cheque, and the cheque was for $5.15 — the five dollars I had been told I had overpaid, and the 15 cents was an inconvenience payment included. The amount of paperwork involved in that on behalf of the agent, myself and ICBC, in issuing this cheque, is utterly ridiculous. Surely we can get our stories straight better than that. Surely ICBC can do a better job of serving the public. I don't know what the problem is, but I suspect the problem is with the direction that company is receiving from this minister.

While I'm on my feet, I just want to deal very briefly with a subject that I have raised many times in this House, and that's the situation with the Lake Cowichan road. In the first instances ICBC covered glass and paint damage that occurred as a result of flying gravel on that road, with one deductible, and then when the cost was perceived to be fairly high they came up with the decision that glass was one accident and paint damage — front, back, left side and right side — were all separate accidents with a deductible. That meant that as far as paint went you might as well just have your vehicle painted, because the cost was less than the four or five deductibles.

This is an intolerable situation, and it is now apparently going to court in another jurisdiction between another minister, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and the company who did the paving. When that decision is reached, as to who is responsible for the condition of that road, be it the paving company, Highways or both, any restitution that's made is only going to be made on the basis of the ICBC claims that were actually filed for paint damage. The glass is covered, at least for most people but if they signed a release in order to get their windshield repaired, it meant that you signed a release as far as your paint damage was concerned.

I'm pointing out to the minister that there were a great many people who didn't actually file a claim, because they held back on that; or, if they did file, the company was released from the paint damage repair. When a settlement is reached between the paving company and Highways, and payments are forthcoming, it is not going to reflect the real costs to the people who drove there, because of this strange policy of ICBC's that every bit of paint damage was four or five different deductibles and glass was a separate deductible.

I have proof positive — and I have filed it in this House — that in the initial stages it was considered as one accident, and then the policy changed. I think that is a very unfair way to treat the people who have to drive that road because of their work.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First, I guess it shows you the frustration of a minister when a person comes into this House and says: "Where is the $6 million discount given to senior citizens?" The minister says: "To the best of my ability — because I don't have the detailed financial statements or the auditors' working papers in front of me — it's either a receivable or it's in the revenues of the particular year." Then, after responding in that way, to find members getting up, feeling quite satisfied that they have caught a minister out of step, so to speak.... As a result, they answer their own question and say: "Well, we phoned the Insurance Corporation, and they told us exactly where it is." And it's where this minister said it should be: either in revenues or as a receivable. Since they received it, it showed in the revenues, under the heading "Premiums Received." Therefore I find it somewhat humorous, to say the least, that a member would stand up and ask a question to which they already have the answer.

To repeat what the Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer) mentioned yesterday, this corporation is not run as a deficit. It's not subsidized by the taxpayer, but is run on sound actuarial principles whereby we determine the anticipated cost for claims in the coming year, and we set the premiums accordingly. Where there are increases in premiums it's not because of ICBC but because of the driving record of the people of this province. We have to pick up that claim and those damages — and they're substantial, Madam Member: you're looking at $600 million a year in claims paid. But at least we say that the user will pay — the driving public will pay premiums — and the taxpayer who does not drive doesn't have to subsidize the driving public.

In regard to our surveys, we do those in an attempt to find out what the public wants and to find out where we fail. Where our image is not up to par we attempt to correct that.

[ Page 7897 ]

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of evidences, I think, that can be quoted, and I'd like to touch just on a few, because members opposite like to read the horror stories: those issues that weren't solved to the satisfaction of the driving public in a particular case. Well, there are some good stories, and I'd like to refer to a few.

First of all, I'd like to refer to a survey done, not by ICBC but in a report released by the Ontario department of insurance, which showed that premium rates in that province were significantly higher than those paid by B.C. motorists. It was a national survey, and it indicated that, for example, if you compare premiums, you'll find that ICBC in Vancouver charged $448 for comparable coverage and if you look at Montreal the prices ranged from $935 to $1,061 or in Toronto from $640 to $793.

I know the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) will be making copious notes to tell me you can't compare Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal in one fell swoop. Well, let's look at the smaller communities: ICBC in Victoria, similar coverage, $368; Halifax, premiums ranged from $368 to $672 through other insurance companies; Ottawa, from $622 to $816 for similar coverage; Edmonton, from $499 to $790. So I think we've got not a perfect story but a good story to tell in the management that has been carried out on ICBC since 1975, because before that it was a horror story. You can't make political promises that say: "We're going to give you $25 insurance in trying to buy a boat." The public didn't accept that in 1975 and they turned you out, because they recognized that insurance is based on sound actuarial principles, that those people who drive cars should pay the premium and it shouldn't be subsidized by other taxpayers.

I can quote some pretty interesting positive letters on services rendered by ICBC. I'd like to quote a few in response to the Agriculture critic, who spends more time talking about ICBC than she does talking about the farmers in this province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) spoke up more for the farmers of this province than that Agriculture critic across the room.

Let me quote some positive responses. One is from Dr. Judith Hornung, MD, to a member of the Insurance Corporation staff: "I just want to say thank you very much for your help with solving my seemingly insoluble problems with my truck. I was grateful for the kind and courteous treatment I received from you and all the staff at ICBC." Another is from Mr. Bill Cosgrave to the president of the corporation.

"Today I had a most enjoyable encounter with your company. I was in a hostile mood as I dialed ICBC to express my anger and frustration at the relentless increases in vehicle insurance. I was so disarmed by the courteous, informative and helpful manner in which I was handled that my beef has been transformed into a bouquet.

"I learned that the name of your employee who impressed me with her knowledgeable responses delivered in a pleasant, polite manner is Linda Martin in your public information department."

That's the public information department that is often criticized by those people who say that they can't get through. Here's one lady in that department who provided a service to an individual, so much so that he felt he should express his appreciation for her service by letter.

Here's another bouquet — to the president — from Mr. Terry Bogyo of Delta: "I had the unfortunate experience of having an accident during your strike of last summer." I repeat, not quoting from the letter, that that corporation went through five months of labour dispute last year. I defy any corporation, whether it be insurance or otherwise, to go through a five-month labour dispute and come up to scratch within several months thereafter. The staff, management and board of ICBC, in my opinion, should be complimented for the all-out effort they went through to bring that corporation back up to scratch.

To get back to the letter: "While it took several months to resolve my claim, I had the pleasure of dealing with a Mrs. Bellamy of your Richmond office. Throughout our dealings she presented herself in a very professional and understanding manner." To end the letter, he states: "While I have few accolades for the Insurance Corporation, this individual deserves credit for her presentation of your organization. Similar attitudes and performance by other staff members could go a long way in improving ICBC's public image."

I have others here, which I will read from time to time as those members get up and give me horror stories on individual claims. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there are 600,000 claims per year opened in ICBC. If we have 90 percent success, that means we have 6,000 claims that are in dispute. That means that MLAs, I and other cabinet ministers will get the reaction from the motoring public who are not satisfied with their claims. We're bound to get those. As the second member for Surrey said yesterday, although I don't often agree with him — I may not be quoting you correctly, Mr. Member — ICBC does create a problem for government because behind ICBC is the shareholder, and that happens to the government of British Columbia.

We can do all we can. We can answer the questions that are asked. We can deal with the ombudsman. We can do public surveys. We will never be 100 percent perfect. I defy any corporation or individual in this world to be 100 percent perfect, because if they were they'd walk on water. I'm saying that that corporation, management, staff and board does the best in its ability to achieve the goal of trying to provide reasonable-cost insurance to the motoring public of this province.

We do an effort in education to the motoring public of this province, to tell them to drive safely and drive defensively. "When you drink don't drive. Then we can provide you with the lowest-cost insurance in the world." We can tell them that. We can try to educate them to that. We can lead them to water, but we can't make them drink. If they want to drink alcohol and drive, they know what the problems are.

We attempt to educate the young people and the old people. We attempt to educate the motorist who comes in for his licence. He gets a booklet, and the booklet tells him more than any other insurance company in the world would tell him. It even goes so far as to give him an accident report form that he can fill out, if he keeps it in the glove compartment of his car, which he probably doesn't. It tells him about hit-and-run. The second member for Surrey says: "What about hit-and-run?" It's all in the book. If they'd read the book they might understand what the corporation services are.

I am just saying that we must recognize — I will include my colleagues with the members opposite — that we will not ever solve all the problems of the Insurance Corporation. But I can tell you that under the administration on this side of the House we will solve far more than what they solved over there between 1973 and 1975. We will not subsidize the Insurance Corporation, nor will we run it into a deficit position, like the one in which it was almost bankrupt by 1975, as the Minister

[ Page 7898 ]

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said yesterday — $187 million. They make fun of that comment. The two former directors over there try to indicate that it was a cheque that was paid and then paid back. They don't even understand about claims incurred, claims not settled and liabilities. They talk about the liabilities of Crown corporations. There are liabilities of that Crown corporation, behind which stand the premiums paid by drivers. As a result, you have to provide those funds to meet those claims. Just because you've got "money in the bank" today.... Had that money not been made available by the end of the year 1975-76, ICBC would, in effect, have been bankrupt.

The former directors of that corporation sit over there and make comments about it. They know full well that that is exactly the case. You can't fiddle with the books of a corporation like ICBC and say that everything was rosy because the cash flow on one particular day — a few days after the insurance renewable premiums came in — was rosy. It wasn't. They left a total disaster in 1975.

I would be quite prepared to read some other letters if members opposite want to quote from NDP horror stories. I think the only research they ever do is to look at either newspaper columns or a few selected letters and then sort of quote disaster, doom and gloom, instead of doing some research and coming in here and asking some questions with regard to the service, or asking questions related to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Chairman, I'm well aware of the concern of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) about the traffic on the highway and the damage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And she's gone from the room, that's right. But was that ICBC's fault? She attacked ICBC, but she's also aware of how ICBC went a long way in trying to resolve some of the problems with that particular road. Who was at fault? It wasn't ICBC. I understand it was the quality of the road covering which caused the problem of paint damage to cars, etc. As the member mentioned, that matter is before another court and will be dealt with there.

I'm quite prepared to debate the issue of ICBC, but I hope the record will show that under this administration we've attempted — and succeeded — to run that corporation in a sound and businesslike manner, and that's 110 percent better than what they ever did up to 1975.

MS. SANFORD: The minister is very agitated this morning. He seems to be very much on the defensive about this corporation. I do hope he will take a deep breath and pay attention to this particular case that I want to raise. But I feel that in this one instance a serious injustice has been done to a constituent of mine, not because of the actions of the corporation but rather because of the fact that the provision.... I assume this would require legislative change, which I know I'm not supposed to talk about under the estimated expenditures of the minister. But we must make some changes so that the kind of serious injustice that has taken place in this one particular case will not be repeated.

Mr. Chairman, I would really like the minister's attention in this particular instance. I'm not critical of the corporation as such; I'm more critical of the legislators responsible for various statutes which, in this case, have been of absolutely no assistance to my constituent. Her name is Ivy, and she lives north of Courtenay in the Black Creek area. In 1978 she had a visit from her sister from Britain and her sister's friend. While out driving north of the Courtenay area on July 15, 1978 they were struck by a person who had no insurance and was under the influence of alcohol. Ivy, who had lived in the Courtenay area for a number of years with her common-law husband of ten years, was injured in the accident; her husband was killed. Her sister was injured to the extent of being in a coma for several weeks in Vancouver and she now has the mind of a child, requiring constant care in Britain. Ivy had broken ribs and has also suffered concussion and other problems.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

All these years later, Ivy still has not received any payment from ICBC because that case is still going on. I assume it will be resolved this fall. But because of the inadequacy of ICBC coverage in instances like this, and because she was in a common-law relationship, she apparently stands to gain a maximum of $1,000. This is following the loss of her husband, who was the sole breadwinner. This is following the serious injury of her sister which she feels somewhat responsible for, in that her sister was visiting her in Canada at the time of the accident. The sister requires constant care in Britain; she requires a kind of assistance that most people would not need, because she now has the mind of a child and has no memory whatsoever.

The maximum amount of money available through ICBC in cases like this is $75,000. The medical costs alone are probably $300,000. Her sister required medical treatment at a cost of over $200,000. Because the man who was driving the car was completely responsible for the accident and had no insurance on that day, the maximum amount of money available was $75,000. This woman, who is about 50 years old now, is unable to obtain employment. She has now used up the assets they had, has had to receive assistance from Human Resources and has gone through untold anguish herself through the loss of her husband and the very serious injury to her sister, as well as her own injuries she has had to suffer. She stands to receive no financial assistance as a result of this traumatic experience.

I don't think we have done our duty as legislators when people can have an experience like this and end up in the position that my constituent, Ivy, is in. She stands to lose her home; she has already lost her husband; and her sister will have the mind of a child for the rest of her life. Yet because of the fact that we have a maximum of $75,000 available through ICBC for cases like this, that is the position that my constituent, Ivy, finds herself in.

In this particular case, the person who was responsible for the accident was driving his son's car. The car had been insured for one day only — the day before the accident. It had been insured to move the vehicle from Courtenay to Victoria, yet the accident the following day took place some 15 to 20 miles north of Courtenay — nowhere near where the car was supposed to have been moved.

One other problem is that under the Family Compensation Act — a statute that I realize the minister is not responsible for — this woman has no recourse. Because she was in a common-law relationship for ten years, she apparently does not qualify under the definition of "wife" as far as the Family

[ Page 7899 ]

Compensation Act is concerned. Therefore she has no recourse through the courts to try to obtain some financial assistance through the person who was responsible for this accident and who behaved in such an irresponsible way.

She feels very badly treated by the legislation of this province, in that she and her husband were very careful about their driving habits. They never went on the road after they had a drink. They were fully insured. They took out all the insurance they were required to take out. They obeyed the traffic laws. They were in the process of taking her sister, who was here from Britain, and her friend for a drive in the evening, and in one short space of time the irresponsible behaviour of this particular man has put her in a completely untenable position. Yet she does not qualify for any financial assistance with the huge costs incurred through the medical expenses of her sister, most of which, of course, had to be paid directly. She was not covered by British Columbia hospital insurance or medicare premiums.

Ivy had to make arrangements to have her sister flown back to Britain, even though she herself was suffering because of the injuries she had sustained in the accident. She had to take her sister to Britain and try to make arrangements for permanent care for her there. The institutes there did not want to have anything to do with her sister because of the fact that she had been injured in Canada, and because they felt that there should be some obligation, through the Insurance Corporation, to ensure that some of her costs would be met in this 24-hour care she now requires. Eventually Ivy had to abandon her sister in Britain so that the institute itself would have to assume that responsibility, because Ivy could give them no guarantee that there would be any financial assistance for her.

This kind of thing, I think, points out that we have failed as legislators to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of money available, when an accident of this type occurs, so that someone who is completely innocent, someone who has obeyed the traffic laws, who has taken out insurance, who does not drink and drive, will not stand to lose her home and have to rely on Human Resources as her only source of income. She has lost enough without having the additional problems of trying to survive on the amount of money available through Human Resources assistance.

I would like the minister to comment on this case and to assure me that he will take this to the board meeting and discuss the problems of my constituent in terms of the overall money that's available; that he will try to see that the fund is sufficient so that people like Ivy will not have to suffer and go through what she has had to go through in the last four years.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the very carefully worded remarks of the hon. member for Comox (Mrs. Sanford) are indeed a litany of sadness. I'm sure the minister feels sad, as we all do in this House. However, there are many cases like this; I have an even worse one in my own constituency. I do not know what the solution is. If we change the regulations to suit a single case, I think we would open the floodgates and we would not be able to control it. However, I do appreciate what the member for Comox has said. I just want to say that I also have such a case, and we must be careful in this thing.

I never was an admirer of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. I always thought they were problem people. But having come to know them better as the years go on, I think the problem with ICBC is its gigantic size. Although I do not agree with it entirely, I must say that the people of ICBC are the most dedicated business individuals I have ever met, from the president down. We do have problems with some claim adjusters; we do have problems here and there. But my experience has been that they have been most generous, most kind and everyone is listened to. I have a lot of letters of appreciation for that corporation. However, they do suffer from size and I believe something should be done to alter this problem. Bringing new insurance companies into the province I think would be a help to ICBC. I recognize ICBC is here to stay, but I do believe it is far too large and almost overwhelms the insurance business of this province.

I believe one of the major troubles — I said this during the estimates of the minister last year and the year before, and I say it again — is the impersonal nature of the claims centres. I think we must get back to individual contact with the public, with individual adjusters outside of claims centres. I feel that is an urgent matter. I referred to them last year as adjustment mausoleums, where the masses go to be viewed as impersonal individuals coming in with a claim. Although they are sometimes treated with kindness, they are also sometimes treated in an offhand manner. That is where the trouble commences. I urge the minister to take a hard look at the claims centres. I believe it would be advantageous for the ministry to change the system of adjustment of automobiles, trucks or personal claims so that the claimant comes into contact with a peer in his own town, and adjustments are made on an individual to individual basis. Modify the gigantic nature of ICBC. If there is any problem with that corporation, it is its size and the nature of its operation in that regard.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought the minister might reply to the remarks made by the member for Dewdney. There must have been six or seven questions in that little presentation.

I have a couple of questions for the minister on ICBC. I have selected a few letters, correspondence I have received from constituents in regard to the activities of the corporation. I know we have only a few minutes so I will try to keep it short. I hope the minister is taking notes. I will wait until I have the attention of the minister, because this is really important.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) keeps telling me to hurry up. Could I kindly respond to that minister that I wish he would hurry up and do something about the high mortgage rates and the homes that are being repossessed in this province. Hurry up and do something about that and quit needling hon. members on the floor of this House.

Back to the estimates, Mr. Chairman. If I had the undivided attention of the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for ICBC, but I don't.... I therefore move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, until we have the minister's attention.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to withdraw question number 28 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.