1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5047 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statements

B.C. Seniors Games. Hon. Mr. Reid –– 5047

Ms. Edwards

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 5047

Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act (Bill 43).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5047

Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 5047

Oral Questions

Government responsibility for hazardous wastes. Ms. Smallwood –– 5048

University Endowment Lands. Ms. Marzari –– 5048

New privatization review group. Mr. Lovick –– 5048

Recreational services budget. Ms. Edwards –– 5049

Pesticide control survey. Ms. Smallwood –– 5049

Landfill permits. Ms. Smallwood –– 5049

BCEC sale to Stolle Developments. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5050

Ministerial Statement

National mathematics contest. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 5050

ME Jones

Tabling Documents –– 5051

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 5051

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Marzari

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Ree

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Chalmers

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I have a couple of introductions I'd like to make. In the gallery today

is a good friend of mine from Prince George. Would you please welcome

John Brink, who operates a significant remanufacturing operation. On

behalf of my secretary, Gladys, would you please welcome a couple of

friends of hers from Winnipeg: Terry Derbach and Dr. Walker Shortill.

MR. MILLER :

A group of grade 9 and 10 students from the Alternate School in Prince

Rupert, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Paddy O'Neil, will shortly be

arriving, and I want the House to not only welcome them but also pay

special tribute, because I think it's much more difficult when students

have dropped out of regular schools and perhaps gone astray a little

bit to eventually get back into some form of schooling and stick to it.

These kids have done that, and I think that's a tribute to these kids.

I would ask the House to acknowledge that as well.

Ministerial Statements

B.C. SENIORS GAMES

HON. MR. REID :

Today the House should pay special tribute to Vernon, British Columbia,

which is the host of the first ever B.C. Seniors Games. This is the

first set of games of this type to be held, and they will be held

annually as an event for summer sports for persons aged 55 and over in

British Columbia. There will be 850 participants in 16 sports. Our

ministry's role is one of adviser, and the intention of the games and

its related activities is to stimulate interest and increase

participation in physical activity among the seniors population. This

would benefit the individuals and increase the fitness level of the

population of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS : I'd like to respond to the minister's statement, and thank him very much for making it while I was in the House.

I'm

also very happy to congratulate the seniors in British Columbia who are

going to the games in Vernon. I've spoken to a number of them, and they

were very enthusiastic about going. This kind of participation in

fitness and community exchange of not only competitive action, but also

of ideas and talk and thoughts about various things in the province is

very useful to the competitors in these games. I too offer my best

wishes to all the participants and wish them well in their proceedings,

and also in the years to come.

PREMIER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Today the government is releasing a report recommending the structure

and terms of reference for a Premier's Advisory Council for Persons

with Disabilities. We hope in the next day or so to file legislation in

that regard. The report comes from a six-member government steering

committee which recently completed an eleven-city tour of the province

as part of the process for establishing the council.

Included in the committee's report will be the following recommendations:

that the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities consist

of a chairman and up to 12 members; that the chairman be appointed by the Premier;

that the Premier, in consultation with the chairman, select the council members

from a pool of nominees; and that there be at least one representative on the

council from each of the eight development regions of the province.

The

committee says the mandate of the council should be: "to actively

encourage and promote greater participation of all persons with

disabilities in all aspects of social, economic and cultural life in

British Columbia." The council will maintain an awareness of concerns

of persons with various disabilities and advise the Premier on the most

effective and efficient means of addressing these concerns.

want to congratulate the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) on his work in chairing the committee that

prepared this report. He's done a great job, as he continues to do a

great job for people with disabilities in British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'm not rising to announce that the senior member for Vancouver Centre

is a grandfather again, but I would like to correct a couple of minor

items in my good news to the Legislature on March 17. The second member

has asked me to correct the record of Hansard ,

so I will do so by reading out as follows: "I have some very pleasant

news for the Legislature. On Tuesday, March 15, at 12:13 p.m.

precisely, James Roderick McCansh was born, ten and a half pounds — and

three feet long." It says, "Laughter," here. "He was born to Constance

Michelle Barnes-McCansh, daughter of the second and senior member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). and Roderick McCansh. The proud new

grandfather assures me that this is just the start of a new role for

him, because he has three other children, Beverli, Craig and Deborah,

who are going to be following suit. Congratulations."

Introduction of Bills

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT

DISTRICT HOME OWNER GRANT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 43 contains measures to make Indian and non-Indian occupiers of

native lands in the region eligible for the provincial homeowner grant.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

43 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.

[2:15]

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The amendments in the miscellaneous statutes cover

a number of areas. The Bee Act, which is

[ Page 5048 ]

the

power to prescribe a registration fee, provides that conflicts

respecting locations of apiaries and honey-extracting operations will

be resolved when necessary by arbitration. The Livestock Disease

Control Act amends the definition of an animal-infectious or

-contagious disease to expand the application of this act as it applies

to fish and marine vertebrates. The Livestock Protection Act gives

power to a commissioner or a person designated by same to give his

consent to the destruction of a dog where it is urgently required. The

Milk Industry Act permits the minister to designate persons to perform

tests under this act. The Soil Conservation Act clarifies the power to

prescribe fees.

Bill 33 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.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY

FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES

MS. SMALLWOOD :

A question to the Minister of Environment. The waste management branch

was contacted by an employee of a Burnaby firm regarding oil from an

old transformer. When the employee contacted them, he was told there

were no staff available. Can the minister give us some information as

to why this happened?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Not right

now, but I will certainly endeavour to find that information out and

provide the answer to you as quickly as I can, Madam Member, and to the

assembly. I will take it on notice.

MS. SMALLWOOD : A

new question. The minister has told us frequently that hazardous

chemicals are of great concern to him. Will he make the commitment to

ensure that all calls to the waste management branch are dealt with

quickly and effectively?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

A supplementary. We are concerned that the minister is passing the buck

by establishing a private facility for hazardous wastes while not

having his own house in order. In light of the minister's statements

regarding a hazardous waste facility in the province, will the minister

now accept his responsibility and provide adequate emergency service

within his own ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : First of

all, there is no connection between someone answering a phone call and

the selection of a company to run a hazardous waste facility. I can't

make that connection, and I don't think anyone can, really.

Secondly, there are throughout the province — as a matter of fact, along the lines of the eight economic regions — Ministry of Environment staff responsible for hazardous waste spill cleanup and other action on behalf of the government.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LANDS

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Speaker, the University Endowment Lands have been a

political football for about 15 years, Now we have a new report from the member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), supposedly to be made to cabinet, but now we find

out that it's going to the Provincial Secretary in his role as minister — or paraminister or underminister — of the regional mainland. Has the minister

decided yet what to do with this report, since it's been on his desk now

for a week and a half? It was my impression that it was to be shipped directly

to cabinet.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes.

MS. MARZARI :

Has the minister decided what he is going to recommend to cabinet?

Would he inform this House as to the gist of that recommendation, given

the fact that over 50 submissions were made to the member for

Chilliwack's commission, and not one of them was pro-development by the

university on those lands?

HON. MR. VEITCH : As the hon. member is quite aware, a report prepared for cabinet ought to go to cabinet.

MR. MILLER : What about the people?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Yes, the people will also know about it, and the people will generally

be pleased, I'm sure, at the deliberations when the final decision is

made by cabinet. However, at this point in time, hon. member, I have

not yet completed the executive

summary for the report, and it will be

going forward to cabinet very shortly.

MS. MARZARI : Would the minister indicate to this House whether or not in his short report to the cabinet — we have no idea when it's going to go to cabinet — he's

considering offering the University of British Columbia lands other

than the University Endowment Lands in order to make up its shortfall?

Or is the minister going to make other comments about appropriate

funding for universities in this province?

HON. MR. VEITCH : No, I won't make any comments whatsoever until after cabinet deals with the report.

NEW PRIVATIZATION REVIEW GROUP

MR. LOVICK :

I have a question directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources in his capacity as minister in charge of

privatization. The latest glossy pamphlet to emanate from government

under the heading Executive Link announces the formation of a new

privatization review group. This group is to be headed by real estate

magnate, Mr. Peter Thomas. It is a review group composed of technocrats

and major players in the private sector. Why has the government not

made the group responsible for reviewing the course and the success or

failure of privatization a representative group'? Why is it that the

ministry has apparently carefully avoided using ordinary men and women

as part of the review group and instead restricted it to a very special

and select constituency?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Members of

these groups which focus on particular matters for privatization are

specialists in matters of finance, accounting, sometimes engineering,

and they merely make recommendations. They don't make the final

decisions.

MR. LOVICK : A supplementary to the minister. I won't debate whether

real estate is indeed a special and unique

[ Page

5049 ]

interest that must be represented on that group; rather, I would pose this

question: given the track record of your government, and given the predicament

that the Premier got involved in with his friend and suggestions of conflict

of interest, will the minister now give us some assurances that conflict-of-interest

legislation will be brought before this chamber and that we will protect the

Peter Thomases of the world and the other representatives of the private sector,

as well as the people, by removing any suggestion of conflict of interest, insider

trading and the like? Will you give us the assurance, Mr. Minister, that you

will indeed make that representation to the Premier?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Representations along those lines have already been made on several occasions, and action has been taken.

MR. LOVICK :

I must confess I'm surprised by the answer. I'm delighted that

representations have been made. Would the minister be kind enough to

tell us, then, whether conflict-of-interest legislation is going to

come before this House?

HON. MR. DAVIS : As you well

know, when it comes to legislation, that's a matter for the entire

government to decide. It will be announced in due course.

RECREATIONAL SERVICES BUDGET

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is to the Minister of Forests. As the minister knows, the

provisional budgets for recreation programs in your ministry were

substantially cut this year, and many district offices are now either

postponing letting contracts for some recreational services, or they're

cancelling some contracts before the work begins. Now that your budget

has been approved, can the minister tell this House whether the final

budget for the recreational

section of the ministry will increase from

the provisional budget sent out to the district offices?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and bring a written reply.

MS. EDWARDS :

A new question to the minister. An informal survey of the district

offices in the province reveals a good deal of uncertainty about the

final budget figures, and several districts have postponed advertising

for contract work. In my riding there's a case where a constituent bid

for a contract, was given the contract, which was to begin in May, and

after being put off for several weeks was told that the contract was

cancelled. This was a university student. Will the minister let the

districts know today what their final budgets for recreational projects

will be for this year so that they can begin the process of arranging

for the maintenance and development of the recreational sites in the

province?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I'll check with my staff and advise.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, indications are that if the final budget

figure is not substantially greater than the provisional figures sent out, the

garbage won't be taken away as often, the outhouses will not be attended

to as they should and, in fact, failure to maintain the fire rings may increase

the risk of forest fires. Does the minister believe that the maintenance work

on these sites is important and an integral part of his ministry, and will he

see that he attends to this function and gives it the full support it was promised

and should be promised, with an increase from the provisional budget?

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, we'll check on the earlier questions the member had and

give her a written reply. It's not my intention to attend to outhouses

and garbage cans personally, but we will certainly look after that from

the ministry standpoint.

PESTICIDE CONTROL SURVEY

MS. SMALLWOOD :

A question to the Minister of Environment. The minister has undertaken

a project to prepare a comprehensive survey of pesticide use and

possible misuse on farms in B.C. In fact the pesticide control branch

went so far as to tender contracts for this work. Can the minister

explain why this project was cancelled?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We thought we had a better plan and I think we have a better plan, which will be introduced in the fullness of time.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I think it's fair to say that the minister's policies on pesticides

have changed and changed again. We have a contract here that recognized

that there's a serious problem and the minister needed information. Can

the minister tell us what his intent is in gathering this information

to be able to address the problems?

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The question was: can the minister tell us what his intent is to gather

information to address the problem? That's the answer as well: to

gather information to address the problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Perhaps the minister is prepared to make little of this concern, but the safety of all of us — not solely the people working on the farms but the consumers of the farm products — is

at risk. The minister has cancelled the work that was supposed to be

done to identify the problems, and now the minister is not prepared to

share with the House and assure the consumers of this province what his

plans are to deal with this problem. I look forward to the minister

enlightening the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : This was

discussed at some length during my estimates, because the program has

been changed since then. But I'll give the assembly an answer again. We

do have a concern with pesticide use on farms. In conjunction with the

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, we are putting resources to work

to identify the problem. We're particularly concerned about

groundwater. We're particularly concerned about levels of application,

volumes and amounts, and residual pesticides in the ground. We're

working on it to some degree to the best of our ability and resources.

don't know what more I can say. The plans are developed in conjunction

with another ministry. If it's a detailed answer the member wants, I'll

be more than happy to provide that to her.

LANDFILL PERMITS

MS. SMALLWOOD :

New question to the minister. People near Koster siding fought and won

an appeal to prevent the dumping of Vancouver garbage in their back

[ Page 5050 ]

yard.

Now another company wants to dump industrial trash in the same area.

How many times do local citizens have to use their own time, energy and

money to fight the same battle over and over again before the minister

simply says no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The Koster siding decision was made some time ago on the basis that the local authority — that is, the MLAs of the area and the regional district — were

not in favour of it. On that basis, I made the decision to approve the

GVRD landfill at Cache Creek, where the project had been politically

and technically approved.

There is a second application now

by a company for a permit to use Koster siding again as a landfill site

for garbage from the other areas along the BCR site. That permit is

currently before the Ministry of Environment staff for technical

appraisal. Until they make a decision, there is not much more I can say

about that. Further, after the Ministry of Environment has made a

technical decision, there is — as the member knows — an avenue for appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. So there are a couple of things that can take place.

I don't see — and I will tell you this publicly — why

my opinion is going to change on how this is handled politically. If it

is brought to my attention by the Members of the Legislative Assembly

representing the area and also by the locally elected people of the

regional district that they are not in favour of this site, then I will

have another political decision to make, and no doubt it will be the

same type of political decision I made earlier.

BCEC SALE TO STOLLE DEVELOPMENTS

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Yesterday I took a question as notice, and I would be pleased to make

that reply today. The hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) asked a question regarding the Stolle sale on Songhees. The

price paid by Stolle Developments for lot 1 and phase 1 of the Songhees

development in Victoria was a reflection of appropriate market value

given two key factors.

The first — the value — was

established in negotiations between Stolle and the Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing which took place some three years ago. This was the

price we were required to honour once the agreement, based on that

negotiation, was completed. Land values have increased considerably in

the interim, and a comparison of current values with those at the time

of negotiation is not appropriate. BCEC reviewed with the lawyers

whether it was required to proceed with the agreement and consequently

required strict conformance by Stolle to its terms. We had legal

counsel to ensure that.

Secondly, the sale was not an

unrestricted one, which would have obtained maximum value. In the

interests of both the overall future of the development and the

economic potential for the city of Victoria, this particular site is

under restrictive covenant that required a hotel to be built and

operated as part of the overall development. This restriction reduces

the value of the land over that of a comparable unrestricted site, but

produces wider benefits to the economy of the community. Hotel property

does not fetch as great a return to the land as residential property

with the same density in today's markets.

The claim

referred to by the member relates to a hotel and condominium project

proposed by Stolle, and not the sale of the land from BCEC. It is an

allegation by Stolle's previous partner, and has nothing to do with the

B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL MATHEMATICS CONTEST

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I rise to make a ministerial statement.

am indebted to Phyllis Beastall from Fairburn Elementary School in

Victoria for some information that she passed on to me about their

school competing in the 1987-88 National Mathematics League Annual

Contest for grade 6 students.

I think it's worthy to note

that of 1,203 elementary schools across Canada that competed, 12

British Columbia schools placed in the top 25, and ten of the top 17

schools were from British Columbia. The students from grade 6 or below

had 30 minutes to answer 40 questions, which ranged from simple to

complex problems, and they were not allowed to use calculators.

the individual student category 12 British Columbia students placed in

the top 15 across Canada, and in a four-way tie for first place, with a

score of 38 out of 40, three of the students were from British

Columbia. They are: Joanna MacNamara from White Rock Elementary School,

Farid Zamani from Fairburn Elementary School in Victoria and David

Mikulec from L'Ecole Bilingue in Vancouver. I think we can be proud of

the achievements of these students and of their schools. It speaks well

for their teachers and our provincial mathematic curriculum committee

for what they have provided in the curriculum.

Besides the

schools in White Rock, Vancouver and Victoria, schools and students

from these other districts placed in the top 25: Kamloops, Prince

George, Surrey, Richmond and Nelson.

I'm tempted to give

you some idea of the complexity of the questions these grade 6 students

had to answer. I'll give this example for the second member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick): "The sum of the areas of two congruent circles tightly

bounded by a rectangle is 72-pi. What is the area of the rectangle?"

MR. LOVICK : Just a second.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : And for the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — to show how the students are asked to study relationships — question 25: "If one bleep equals 6 peeps, then 600 peeps equals how many bleeps?"

MR. JONES :

I understand the Minister of Education is going to administer that test

to some of his colleagues to persuade them of the great success of our

students in British Columbia schools.

We too would like to

take this opportunity to recognize the success of the grade 6 students

in the mathematics contest. I think it does speak well for the

students, their teachers and all the support system that goes with

them: the parents, the administration, the trustees, the school boards

and the ministry people. It's too seldom that we take the opportunity

to recognize the achievement of our young people, to pay tribute to

them when they do show the kind of success that we always hope they

will have. It's a refreshing change from the history of this province,

where we've seen

[ Page 5051 ]

attacks, financial and verbal. I've very pleased that we do see that refreshing change.

We're

very pleased that these young people have found success in the

mathematics contest, and appreciate the opportunity to recognize them

in that achievement.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the 1987 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 67: minister's office, $280,361.

MR. LOVICK :

It's been rather a long time since the minister and I left off this

discussion, Mr. Chairman, and I'm wondering if there were some

questions left pending. I'm prepared to defer to the minister if he

wishes to start that way. I'm not sure if there are some questions from

before. I think there may be. Is that the case?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Yes, there were some questions. However, I'm having some notes brought

up to me. If we can go on with the next items, I'll endeavour to get to

them when the time comes.

I'm a little loaded up with

antibiotics this afternoon, so you'll have to excuse me; I'm not

feeling quite 100 percent, but we will proceed with it anyway.

MR. LOVICK : I'm sorry to hear that, and I promise the minister, as the saying goes, that I will be gentle.

want to begin the discussion today on the subject of motor vehicle

inspections and spend a little bit of time posing a number of questions

about that. Certainly it seems clear to me that many people outside

this chamber throughout the province have many questions about the

plans for the privatized mandatory vehicle inspection service that was

introduced in the throne speech. Like most, I am sure, I was delighted

to team that there was a plan announced to reintroduce mandatory basic

safety inspection.

I note, however, that we are talking

about the reintroduction of a plan. We're not talking about something

necessarily new; we're talking about the reintroduction. I think it's

worth reminding ourselves of what it was we had and to perhaps put a

little question on why we lost that system that served us, I think,

rather well.

Until 1983, British Columbia had a system that

was considered to be cost-effective and reliable. The fee was $5. I

don't think there were too many complaints against that system. The

program was eliminated despite the fact that increasing the fee by a

mere token sum — namely from $5 to $5.50 — would apparently, according to the superintendent of motor vehicles at the time, have made the service selfsupporting.

There was — and I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) paying attention to this, and I am sure he will recall — a

great outcry at the time concerning why we were scrapping this

particular program that had served us very well for a mere 50 cents per

visit. Why, for that small amount of money, did we decide to scrap the

program'? I am still waiting for answers, as I am sure many are. I

don't think those questions were ever answered to anyone's satisfaction.

The

only criticism that I think in all honesty can be made of the service

that operated at the time was that it was not available to 100 percent

of the vehicles in the province. The rather perverse logic that was

invoked at that point was to say that it's a good thing for some but we

can't give it to everybody, so we'll take the good thing away from the

few. The logic of that escapes me, but perhaps somebody from the other

side can explain and point out to me the errors of my ways.

HON. MR. REID : Check the parking lot....

MR. LOVICK :

If there are certain people who aren't following up on a good

government proposal. you don't scrap the proposal because those

individuals don't respond. I accept the charge: indeed. I recall the

story that all kinds of people weren't taking advantage of the service.

The fault, however, is with those individuals who weren't taking

advantage of the service. not with the service itself. That's all.

I say, the only argument we heard was that it wasn't available to 100

percent of the vehicles in the province. The reason for that is simply

a function of geography; that's the way the province is built. There is

nothing much we can do about that. The point that I think is worth

remembering is that some 75 percent of all vehicles had stations — namely,

the lower mainland, Nanaimo and Victoria areas. It's a rough figure, I

grant, by my calculations. In other words, we had a system in place

that did indeed cover the great majority of the population, and did so

reliably and cost-effectively.

Though I would praise the

government for its decision to reintroduce mandatory vehicle

inspection, I nevertheless can't resist the temptation to remind the

government that the reason we're in the situation of having to

reintroduce is because apparently for not very good reasons they took

away the original system.

[2:45]

The

question then becomes: why has the government decided to reintroduce

the program? What is the case to be presented for reintroducing the

program? To judge from the statements emanating from the minister's

office and to judge moreover from the statement made in the throne

speech, we can see that apparently what government is doing is

reintroducing the mandatory basic safety inspection program partly at

least because of public demand. Indeed, the statement, the press

release....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

There's nothing wrong with that, as the first member for Vancouver

South (Mr. R. Fraser) points out. But let's see whether government is

prepared to be consistent; in other words. not to listen to public

opinion only in certain cases and peremptorily reject it in others, but

rather to listen to it consistently.

Let's look at the argument. You see, the throne speech said very clearly — I'm

quoting now: "In response to hundreds of petitions and letters from the

public, ICBC and BCAA expressing concern about the number of vehicles on

[ Page 5052 ]

the

road with visible mechanical defects, the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways will be reintroducing the concept of mandatory vehicle

inspections." Excellent stuff, again in response — at least in part — to public opinion.

be consistent then, if government is going to reintroduce this largely

because of public opinion, will government not take the next logical

step and respond to what else public opinion has to say about mandatory

vehicle inspection? I would refer the minister to certain things the

public has said about mandatory vehicle inspection in a number of polls

that have been commissioned and undertaken, The public, I think it is

safe to say, has overwhelmingly registered its concerns about — if not its downright opposition to — privatized

vehicle testing. They don't like the concept; they're fearful of the

concept. They wonder, in fact, whether it is in any way workable.

can table that kind of information, Mr. Minister; I don't think I need

to. Instead, I'll simply remind you that BCTV also conducted polls on

April 7, 1988. We similarly had various talk show programs. My

colleague the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) filled in for

me on a CBC radio program on this subject. I listened for half an hour,

driving to my constituency, and I heard nothing but opposition to the

privatized vehicle testing program. I heard no support whatsoever. That

audience also involved people like spokespersons from the B.C. Auto

Association, if my memory serves me correctly.

The obvious question then — I ask rhetorically — is

that if public opinion says we want vehicle testing but we don't want

privatized testing, and if the government says it is reintroducing the

scheme in response to public opinion, why doesn't the government, for a

great change of pace, decide to be consistent? Why don't they say we

will be guided by the same principle in situation X as in situation Y?

I think that would be a marvellous leap forward, and I would be

delighted if that were the case.

The other reason that I want to touch on — and again I praise the ministry for this — is

that the minister is apparently responding to some evidence that

suggests there is demonstrable need for a vehicle inspection system. To

quote from the press release again — it will serve as well as any other

document: "Random spot checks over the past two years have indicated

that 40 percent to 60 percent of all vehicles have safety-related

mechanical defects." If that is the case, the government is clearly

doing what is responsible and right: doing something about introducing

mandatory vehicle inspections. No argument with that part of the

argument. No disagreement with the ministry.

I want to turn

now to the other piece of the question that I began with: why the

switch to privatize? Why the transfer? Why the movement from a public

system to a private one?

MR. R. FRASER : Access.

MR. LOVICK : I'll perhaps deal with the question of access as we go along. Perhaps in our questioning we'll find that answer.

The other question was costs. The minister suggested in his statement that

we would go with a privatized system because the costs would apparently — we

are to assume — be cheaper. I say that rather tentatively, because the statement

doesn't make that direct claim, but I think you'll agree that it is

implicit in what I'm about to read to you. The minister is quoted as saying:

"We are looking at private sector involvement in this" — i.e. the

inspection program — "to keep the costs down." Clearly embedded in

that, it seems to me, is an assumption that the private sector will do it more

cheaply, will somehow keep the costs down. I don't think that's a leap

of faith; I think that's pure ratiocination — logic on my part — and I think

nobody would challenge that.

we're going to make the claim about it being cheaper, we surely have to

pose some questions. Why do we think it will be cheaper? What will we

get for the service?

I have some difficulty, because I

recall a ballpark figure of $25 given by the minister as what was

envisaged. But you know, Mr. Speaker, what's curious about that figure,

and I don't fault the minister for it, is that his predecessor, another

Minister of Transportation and Highways — as a matter of fact, a man who still has a seat in this chamber; I'm referring to the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) — said that he anticipated the cost of a privatized testing facility to be some $50. That, I would remind members, was in 1983 — $50 estimated in 1983.

One

has to wonder, lo, these five and one half years later, how we can

possibly be talking about 50 percent less cost despite the fact that

the dollar has depreciated by a factor of about 20 percent over that

period — maybe not that high; maybe 12 or 14 percent. So there are obviously questions about cost.

More

to the point, though, are the larger questions of the efficacy of

inspections and their reliability. In other words, are we going to do

the job well? Are we going to protect the public safety? I am sure the

minister has precisely the same concerns I have about that; we don't

believe that only one side of this chamber is concerned with public

safety. But I think it's fair for us — indeed I think it's my responsibility — to

pose questions about the program as envisaged and see if it does indeed

satisfy the criteria that I would certainly pose, and I think

fair-minded persons would pose, regarding efficacy and reliability.

The

minister said in his opening comments to introduce the estimates that

the plan was to make it relatively easy for the service facility to get

the ticket to inspect vehicles. The assumption — and the minister elaborated on the point — was that we make it relatively easy for a facility to get the inspection ticket, but what we would do — our means of solving the problem — would

be to make sure we had the capacity to punish in very serious and

severe ways those facilities proven or found not to be doing the job

well. Needless to say, that amounts to after-the-fact enforcement, Mr.

Chairman, and one has some difficulty with that.

I have a

greater concern, however, because some information has come to my

notice about the proposed inspection facility and training for

inspectors, and it causes me real concern. I want to tell the minister

what I've heard and give him an opportunity to clarify or answer the

questions about what I've heard — because I hope I'm quite wrong.

information, Mr. Minister, is that there is indeed a plan at least

being toyed with that suggests that we're going to have a special

inspectors' course of some kind, whereby individuals — probably those

people who have been almost hard-core-unemployed for a period of time;

namely, individuals we used to associate with programs like JobTrac,

while that still existed — would be taking a course of some 30 hours. At the completion of that 30-hour course, they would become certified inspectors.

My information, further, is that we are talking about individuals who do not have to demonstrate either any

[ Page 5053 ]

aptitude or specific qualification to take that course, and that the course really would amount to — certainly from the perspective of people I know who have experience in teaching such courses and others....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, hon. member, your time expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to hear what the member for Nanaimo has to say on this crucial estimates debate.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm really shocked to discover that the second member for Kamloops (Mr.

S.D. Smith) wasn't leaping up and asking me to be granted more time to

carry on. I know how he loves to listen to everything I have to say in

the chamber.

The point I was making before I ran out of time — albeit temporarily — was

that my information from experts in the field is that a 30-hour course,

quite frankly, given the technology of motor vehicles today, would by

no stretch of the imagination be adequate to guarantee that those

people could indeed do the kind of work that we envisage in the

inspection program, the kind of work that was outlined briefly in the

minister's opening comments.

For example, brakes. Braking

systems have become complicated, I understand. Indeed, there are

computer systems now on certain models of cars that also have to be

taken into consideration by inspectors. If anything, the conclusion

seems to be that what we need now is people with much more rigorous

qualifications in order to perform inspections than might have been the

case in the past.

I also heard that there is even talk

apparently.... Again I'm posing this to the minister, and I'm sure

he'll wish to respond. There is talk I think somewhat stronger than

rumour — in answer to the muffled sound that came from across the way — that

what's envisaged is establishing some kind of salary-plus-commission

arrangement and that individuals who work in this inspection program

might do it on the basis of a salary, but would also get some

commission payment.

I would love to perhaps stop at this point and give the minister an opportunity to respond. I think that would be wise.

[3:00]

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Motor vehicle inspection. Approximately 2 to 4 percent of motor vehicle

accidents taking place in this province can, on occasion, be attributed

to mechanical defects. ICBC advises me that the number of motor vehicle

accidents that are due to mechanical failure would be only 2 percent on

a firm number, and that they weren't just a contributing factor.

When

we talk about motor vehicle safety, the biggest problem still remains

and will remain for some time to come abuse of substances such as

alcohol and drugs and whatever else people take that affects their

ability to drive an automobile.

AN HON. MEMBER : And antibiotics.

HON. MR. ROGERS : Yes, antibiotics.

However,

let's talk about the 4 percent and what we can do about it. That's what

we're interested in doing, and we are reintroducing the motor vehicle

testing program. Despite the fact that you have stated that 75 percent

of the vehicles in the province were covered in areas being serviced,

just for the record, in 1981 only 34 percent of vehicles in the

province went through motor vehicle inspection, despite the fact that

75 percent could or should have gone. That dropped down in the

following year, in 1982. Pardon me, it was 33 percent in '81, 34

percent in '82 and 19 percent in '83.

The problem was that

there was no check and balance for people. It was a bit of an honour

system, and many members of this Legislature, during the great hallowed

debates when they were so full of their own self-importance about how

they tested their vehicles, caused one of the members of the press

gallery to go out to the parking lot and find out that a whole bunch of

cars had expired. Nobody drives around without the ICBC sticker on it,

because that means you're driving without insurance, and that's the new

program. You're not going to be able to get that sticker for your

vehicle to have insurance on your car until you've had a motor vehicle

inspection.

I don't think we'll get 100 percent, but we'll

get awfully close to 100 percent. I've seen a few junkets on the road

that I'll be perfectly delighted to see going off to the happy hunting

ground — or wherever they go — and be converted into reinforcing steel

or whatever they make out of old cars these days. Although, as my car

approaches its fifty-ninth year this year and will be soon turning 60, I

can tell you that if you look after them, they'll last you a long time.

They're remarkably easy to maintain if you get one that's of the

correct vintage.

MR. CASHORE : What kind is it?

HON. MR. ROGERS : You'll see; I'll bring it over next week. It's nice weather, so it's time to let it out.

The

private sector.... Oh yes, I forgot to tell you about cost. The numbers

you quoted, of course.... I forgot about the fact there's a thing

called B.C. Buildings Corporation. That was strictly a bottom-line

cost. There were no costs built into that. The real cost in 1988

dollars would be closer to $20 to run that facility, except that we

planned a group of tests that would be more extensive than were

previously carried out by motor vehicle inspection stations.

the present time, we are hammering out the details as to what will be

inspected. It is our proposal to remove both a front wheel and a rear

wheel to inspect the brakes. You're quite correct that on a technical

basis, automobiles have become different than they were seven or eight

years ago, but technically they are not that difficult to inspect,

provided you know what you're doing and what you're looking for.

When

I said I wanted to have the availability of becoming a service centre

that could test motor vehicles, I mean that to this extent we don't

want to limit the number of facilities in a particular community. We

don't want to have a licence that trades or that has any value. In

fact, we'd like to see it the other way around where the vehicle

service industry and business that doesn't have a motor vehicle

inspection certification will be questioned by the very customers that

they deal with as to why they don't have an inspection. I would like to

see it be available as much as possible.

We foresee that when people go in for their bi-annual automotive maintenance that needs to be done — oil filters, lubes, all the usual things — when

it's appropriate, they'll go through an appropriate private sector

station which has, if the customer purchased the vehicle there and it's

being regularly

[ Page 5054 ]

serviced there, records of it and some kind of continuity, rather like we do in the aviation industryv — not

nearly to the same extent as in the aviation industry, but that's the

way it's done. I could draw some parallels there. I would certainly not

want to fly in an aircraft that had been inspected by the federal

Ministry of Transport, because they haven't had a wrench in their hand

for an awfully long time. I'd rather it be signed out by the man who

actually did the work, who is required to sign it out, which is

precisely the way it goes. That's served us very well in that industry.

To the same extent, it could work well in this industry.

The

other thing to know is that the automotive service industry has changed

a great deal in the last four or five years. Most of the garages, as we

used to call them, or facilities that have these services, have the

technical equipment necessary to test vehicles. Those that don't, of

course, won't meet our qualifications for being able to do the testing.

They also have much higher capital investment than they had in the past

because of the very technical nature of the new vehicles.

don't see it as a problem. You have this great big bugbear about the

private sector doing work and whether or not the private sector would

do the work properly. Let them bear the capital costs of the physical

plant. Let's be honest about what it costs to run the system.

The

system, when it's in place, will ensure that every vehicle in the

province is tested so that when an RCMP or Vancouver city police

officer has reason to stop and discuss the condition of a motor vehicle

with its driver, he doesn't have to say, as he used: "Oh, this is

registered at my aunt's farm in Sardis, and just because I'm living in

Vancouver Centre doesn't mean the car has to be inspected." Now he's

going to be able to do it wherever he is in the province. That's the

consistency we'd like to have. We know from motor vehicle registrations

that many people whose vehicles were becoming elderly and who were

getting past the point of wanting to care for them did in fact register

them at somebody else's place. I did it myself. I registered my car at

a perfectly good, legitimate family mailbox, but it didn't happen to be

where the car was. That's part of the way I managed to get through

college. But we don't want to do that anymore. There are many more

vehicles on the road. Some of us know some of the tricks, and that

helps us write the legislation a little better.

I don't

think it's going to be a big burden on the motoring public. I think it

will be an asset to those who have vehicles that continue to operate on

the roads when we remove some of these unsafe vehicles. Coincidentally,

the unsafe vehicles are usually operated in an unsafe manner. That's

just a sort of addendum, although I don't think there are any direct

numbers on that, because lots of people with a tested auto also manage

to exceed the speed limit from time to time. Certainly those who drive

on the highway between Horseshoe Bay and Whistler seem to be testing

the engineering curves of the road on our behalf, or else seem to be in

an awful rush to get there. Sometimes their equipment is of the finest

quality, and age seems to have nothing to do with it. So the program is

going to be put in place. I see absolutely no problem.

You

talked about a training course. We are interested in young people who

have taken automotive courses and some of the industrial arts courses,

who find themselves at a time in their life when they're having to make

decisions, who want to take a course to be able to add to the skills

they have and work as an understudy with other people. We think that

will be a good thing. It will create jobs. There has been no suggestion

whatsoever that anyone will be on a salary plus commission. I have

absolutely no idea where that proposal came from. It's certainly not

proposed that we have people with no previous mechanical experience

take a short course and be able to test motor vehicles. On the other

hand, neither will you have to spend 40 years under the hood of a car

with overalls on to learn how to do it. I would suggest that if you and

I were to take the course, it might take us a little longer than

someone who has a little more mechanical aptitude or more recent

mechanical experience. We don't anticipate any difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, that rests my case on motor vehicle testing.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK :

Just a brief response to a couple of those observations and answers,

and then a few specific questions. I'm intrigued by the fact that the

minister starts his response by making reference to the fact that only

some 2 percent of all accidents can be attributed to mechanical

failures or mechanical condition. It would seem to me that that kind of

answer tends to minimize the problem, because if we make too much of

that argument, surely we're saying that maybe we really don't need this

thing in any event. I wonder what we're supposed to make of that

argument. It seems to me that the relevance of saying you must remember

that only a very small percentage are actually connected with accidents

in any event — does that cash out to mean that we really shouldn't

really worry about testing in any event? I just don't see the point of

that response. Okay, let's share information.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

It's purely statistics for you. If you want to talk about motor vehicle

safety and eliminating the number of people who are injured in

accidents, we had better talk about alcohol and drugs. The problem is

speed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

That's true. This is only 2 percent and I just wanted to bring it into

focus, for no other reason than if we can prevent 2 percent of

accidents.... Again, we don't know if these ones are necessarily

involved in accidents which injure people. In any event, real property

damage is involved where a motor vehicle fails, and it can easily be a

third party. I think you protest too much about the statistics. I bring

it up as a matter of interest for you.

MR. LOVICK : Let's deal with these individually, or seriatim. Notice also the figure — and

the minister made, dare I say, quite an event of the fact that the

usage of the facility was apparently going down in a rather significant

curve, from 31 to 34 to 19 percent. Then, wonder of wonders, he came up

at the end of that particular answer with a suggestion: here's a way to

more or less guarantee maximum coverage, namely ICBC. We connect the

two stickers together. Surely, if we want to talk about the weakness of

the program being that we didn't have sufficient clout or means to

enforce the program, we have found the mechanism, haven't we? That's

not an important enough point for you and I to exchange words back and

forth on, but again, I wonder what that argument means. I'll let you

respond after if you wish.

The business of real costs. We both know that the question of what something actually costs depends very

[ Page 5055 ]

much

on the accounting mechanism we are using. You can argue about all kinds

of externalities that the private sector isn't paying for and should

be, so those cancel out.

I'm intrigued when you talk about

the fact that you don't want a licence that trades because everybody

should have one. Surely what follows from that is that if we say that

we want a licence that doesn't trade, that everybody can have one, then

the value of the licence probably doesn't have much value. The value of

the licence is suspect, isn't it, if we say that? All right, I'll leave

that one with you too.

I'm intrigued also when you say that

the industry has changed and we are talking about higher capital

investment, that the equipment that one would think you would require

in order to perform the test would represent sufficient capital

investment to discourage a number of people from entry. There would be

barriers to entry, to use classic economic terms. The question is:

given the test we are talking about, what frankly seems to be a pretty — let's use construction work talk — Mickey

Mouse operation, what kind of equipment are we talking about? How much

do we really need if the test is apparently going to be significantly

simpler than the current tests that are now being operated for

commercial vehicles and so forth?

I have a number of

questions about the actual testing programs, some specific ones. Do you

want to respond to those other ones first?

[3:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS :

When I said testing equipment, I never said to you that it would be any

less complicated; I think it will be more extensive than tests done

previously, but it will require equipment. The motor vehicle test

before was probably a ten-minute or 12-minute test on a drive-through

basis, depending on what the traffic was like at the time. In fact, one

hindrance of the system was the bottleneck; the other was the fact that

the RCMP and the city police weren't particularly interested in

pursuing and ticketing those people who had failed to display the

appropriate sticker, so that's not a problem.

You talk

about the licence. It's going to be a detriment for someone in the

automobile service industry not to have one of these licences, and they

are going to have great difficulty being able to convince their

customers as to why they are unable to get their motor vehicle

inspection done at their place of business. From that point of view,

when I say make it relatively easy.... Let's pick a place like Nanaimo.

I don't want to have just one business in Nanaimo able to do this. I'd

like to see most of the major automotive repair and service people — people who sell cars — be

able to give you this testing. Should one of them be delinquent and

certify a vehicle that's not safe and therefore lose their

certification privileges, they are going to have some explanation due

to their customers, saying: "You can get your car serviced here, but

you'd better take it somewhere else if you need to have it inspected,

because we have lost the right to do that." I just think that's a very

simple way to do it. Again, it's still at the discussion stage, but

that's the way we should do it.

I talked to the

superintendent of motor vehicles about the things they were planning on

doing. We talked about the removal and inspection of one front and one

rear wheel to look at brakes. That was not done before. Headlight

testing is infinitely easier than it was 15 years ago because they are

much easier to adjust now. There's a whole host of things that have

gone on there. It will not be as extensive as we currently do on

commercial vehicles, but some commercial vehicles put 150,000

kilometres on the vehicle a year. It's important that we have very

specific inspections. Of course, some of them are running at the fine

edge of their financial ability to make those massive repairs on those

big vehicles. That's why we have a very extensive inspection on

vehicles that run commercially.

You made a thing about the

percentage of compliance. Your government brought ICBC in. They could

have easily rolled the two together, but they didn't have a

provincewide basis. I'm saying that if we have a provincewide testing

system and tie it in with ICBC, we do have 100 percent compliance.

Quite frankly, in the last instances you had 30 percent to 35 percent

of the people in that area, so perhaps 50 percent of the people in

total in the province would say: "I'll comply" and the other 50 percent

would say: "Well, quite frankly, I'm busy; it's long lineups, and I

probably won't get ticketed for it anyway." We allowed compliance,

whether it was done by the police.... It certainly wasn't done by a

decision of the House, but quite frankly, the police have better things

to do than going around ticketing people who hadn't got the sticker in

their window. I think we've got a better way of doing it. but I'll wait

for debate on the matter.

MR. LOVICK : I want to

pursue a couple of specific questions. Is it the case that to complete

an inspection as envisaged by the ministry now, one has to have a

significant amount of equipment? Or is it the case that somebody can

simply do so with a couple of hydraulic jacks, a garage and a good

tool-box?

HON. MR. ROGERS : We anticipate that you

will need to have some significant amount of equipment. However, there

are people such as myself who do their own maintenance, and we want to

put a provision in so that they can go some place and have that

inspection done. In order to be able to do it, we expect it will take

approximately half an hour per vehicle. If you want to remove a wheel,

you can remove it by the old-style jack or by a hydraulic jack. I

haven't got to that point in the negotiations with the Automotive

Retailers' Association and all the people in the service sector. I

don't see gypsies traveling around with a licence on the back of a

pick-up truck saying: "I can certify your car for you, and I'll just be

here for a little bit and get you done." I don't see it being as simple

as that. I think it will become a regular function of normal automotive

maintenance. So when you normally take your vehicle in, it will be done

as part of that process. That's the way I envisage it, but it will be

up to the licensee to see if they can comply under those conditions.

MR. LOVICK :

Then we are probably talking about a licence that will be held by the

individual who has demonstrated competence and a certain amount of

training. We are assuming that the individual will not practise out of

his or her basement, but rather be connected with some kind of

facility. At the moment, all of that is indeterminate; we don't know.

Is that the case?

HON. MR. ROGERS : We're going

through a process of discussing it with industry. I envision that what

we will have is certified stations where the whole station is

certified, and they will have persons on staff who have taken the

appropriate training to be able to sign it out. That's a relatively

simple term of how it will work. In your community of Nanaimo, I

[ Page 5056 ]

would anticipate there would be 20 to 25 places where you could have your vehicle tested — and

maybe more. But a place that specializes in mufflers or just in brakes

probably doesn't have the equipment or the trained personnel to be able

to do it. So it may be that someone sets up an individual shop that

just does motor vehicle testing, if people choose to do that.

I would also anticipate that people wanting to buy a used vehicle will insist that it be tested and on and on — the

kinds of services now run by the automobile association. We're in

negotiation with these people, but the men and women who are actually

on the shop floor doing these things are giving us some input. It's

been a long time since I've opened my toolbox to make a living and,

quite frankly, I haven't got the expertise to put the regulations

together, so those are the people we're asking. I think we'll get some

decent input from them, and we'll have a good system. I'm sure we will.

MR. LOVICK : I'm pleased to hear that, and I would be horrified to think that anything else would unfold.

I am basing some of my questions on people who work in the industry and have these kinds of concerns — people

with that kind of expertise. Who do we anticipate doing the training?

Is this the kind of thing where there are going to be some brand-new

enterprises that crop up, or are we talking about existing vocational

or community college facilities? Have we yet determined that, or is

that also in the air?

HON. MR. ROGERS : We anticipate

working through the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training. So

this sort of thing would be done by the very college that I think you

used to work at, where they teach automotive maintenance. Now they're

going to teach them that at least once a year they actually have the

right to say: "It's got to be done this way." The customer is going to

have to meet those compliances set down in the specifications. We'll

have specifications that will be drawn up, and in many cases the

manufacturer has specifications, so it's relatively easy to comply with

those. We anticipate using the college system to train the people,

which should give us provincewide coverage.

MR. MILLER :

I hate to interrupt the flow here, but I just wanted to take the

opportunity to introduce to the House the group I mentioned earlier

today.

Leave granted.

MR. MILLER : I want

to introduce the group that I mentioned earlier, the 20 students from

the Alternate School in Prince Rupert and their teacher Mr. Paddy

O'Neil, and ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity too to welcome two guests to the Legislature.

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN : Would the House please welcome Jim and Rita Cunningham from Langley.

MR. LOVICK :

Before resuming, probably on behalf of the minister I should

acknowledge all those people who have stayed up there for the last 45

minutes. I'm quite surprised. Welcome.

I want to turn

now to the larger set of questions about privatized vehicle testing,

for the record and also to give the minister an opportunity to respond.

Clearly the minister knows as I do that thus far government has not

succeeded in setting to rest the fears of the public concerning the

scheme for privatized vehicle testing. There are perceived to be a

number of problems with the privatized testing system. I think it's

therefore entirely fair to say that the ministry and the minister need

to place on the record just how the plan will control for the

reliability of inspections. I think we need to do that. There are three

major reasons, certainly in the public's perception, for thinking that

private sector motor vehicle tests will not be reliable. Whether they

are or not only experience will indicate to us, and that is as it must

be. But we need to take some steps to try and allay the fears of the

people.

The first problem has to do with the fact that when

the testing system is apparently connected to some degree with self

interest, with gain, we aren't always sure whether the reliability can

be taken for granted. I'll refer the minister to an old test in the

literature that I'm sure he's well and truly familiar with, the

American Enterprise Institute study that was done some years ago now; I

think it was almost ten years ago. I believe it was Crain's work. What

Crain did, you recall, was look at how effectively the privatized

system worked by using vehicles in which were implanted various

defects. Then they took them, you recall, to various inspection

stations to see if those defects were spotted. I understand that the

results Crain came up with were that only 50 percent of the stations in

fact found those defects. So that's obviously one problem.

Moreover, the other problem Crain's study found — and I'm saying this from memory; it's been a while since I looked at this — was

that there were a significant number of stations that found defects

that did not exist, and therefore obviously the consumer was charged

accordingly. Apparently the new car dealers are found to be the worst

offenders; I don't know why that's the case. Some of them found three

or more nonexistent defects that they said would require correction

before they would be passed.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

There

is also, of course, a more recent experience, one closer to home, of

the local media. BCTV conducted its own poll. I believe it was Harvey

Oberfeld from Ottawa who toured testing stations and came up with very

similar results to what Crain had found.

There is also the

problem.... I can't emphasize this too much, given my own background as

one who spent a lot of time writing and talking about the problem with

perception: that people perceive something to be true, and whatever the

evidence may be, the perception is what counts and the perception

becomes a reality. I want to address that point by referring the

minister to what I think is a widely held perception about a problem

with privatized testing facilities. I would just quote, if I might,

from a paper in the hinterland of this province, the Prince George Citizen ,

and an editorial dated 1982 talking about the plan that was kicked

around at that time about privatized testing stations and the response

of the editorial staff from that paper. If one knows anything about the

political culture of this province, the fact that this came from Prince

George, it strikes me, is important. Let me just quote a little bit of

this editorial. I think it's worth noting. Again, Mr. Minister, I quote

it to emphasize that this is the

[ Page 5057 ]

perception

that you have an obligation and a responsibility to deal with, and a

fear that emanates from these folks that I think you also have an

obligation to allay and otherwise assuage.

"Putting private enterprise in control of testing is like putting a wolf out to guard sheep. "

It sounds a little inflammatory, and it could be said from various members in this House. Prince George Citizen . I think we should all listen to this:

"Government

is supposed to govern. Will we next be expected to have electricians in

charge of electrical installation standards, fireplace sales outlets in

charge of fire standards and pulp mills in charge of air and water

pollution standards? No, Mr..." — name of the former minister — "it

won't work. Testing stations from the beginning have demonstrated their

worth, finding such faults as cracked frames in brand-new automobiles.

Would the distributor's service centre have found them? Obviously not

before the sale."

I think that's the point. "Did

the auto industry discover dangerous flaws like exploding gas tanks or

dangerous steering characteristics? No."

[3:30]

Let me emphasize that nobody is for a moment suggesting that

everybody in the business is a would-be crook. That's not the issue.

Nobody wants to suggest that for a moment. But there is a perception — it is widespread and indeed endemic — that

this private sector operation is intrinsically flawed and causes

problems. I think, as I say, we have an obligation to allay those fears.

Third,

on a lighter note, to make the same point, I'll give you another

example of the same kind of problem that we have with perception. The

minister has probably heard of, if he isn't a fan of, a British soap

opera now playing in British Columbia called "The East Enders." This is

a top-rated soap opera that I gather has a viewing audience of millions

in England — understandably, given the nature of that society and privatization initiatives — and is also acquiring a fairly wide listenership, if there's such a word, in B.C.

The

show is set, predictably enough, in the east end of London. It's a

tightly scripted thing. It's obviously social comment. It depicts a

range of problems found in Margaret Thatcher's Britain: things like

poverty, racism, crises in health care, fear of the socialist hordes.

These are all the items that constantly come before the audience.

Recent

episodes have focused on one character's operation. This is a guy

called Ali, who runs a taxi-cab. Ali has a little cab business,

apparently. He has been struggling to make ends meet, to keep his cab

running and also to keep his other enterprise afloat, namely his greasy

spoon cafe. Ali has a bad problem: he doesn't have enough money to take

his car and get it properly repaired according to the ministry's

standards. This is his predicament; this is the dilemma; this is the

situation in this drama.

What he does, of course, is this.

He finds that a simple bribe to the operator of a testing station will

be sufficient to get him the certificate that he requires, in turn

enabling him to insure his cab even if it is not safe to drive it.

Clearly,

this is in the realm of speculation. This is theatre; it is a soap

opera. But if we know anything about mass media, we know that the

program is tailored to a widely held perception that that's what

happens with the so-called privatized vehicle testing.

MR. BLENCOE : That's an issue.

MR. LOVICK :

As my colleague says, that's an issue in Great Britain. Clearly then,

we have to do something to allay the fears of motorists and to make

adequate provision somehow that the tests are indeed reliable. We have

trouble understanding how that's going to happen. I have tried to

address that before, and the minister, I think, has made some effort to

answer my questions, but I'm afraid the problem remains. The minister's

solution, when we talk about ensuring reliability, is to say that we

will provide after-the-fact enforcement. Would that that were good

enough! Unfortunately, in this province we have some pretty good

evidence that after-the-fact enforcement doesn't work. The Vancouver

Stock Exchange comes to mind: something that we have recently spent a

little time discussing in this legislative chamber.

I wonder if I might pause at that point and give the minister an opportunity to respond to any of that, if he wishes.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

The member is grappling with perception, and after the fact, I imposed

a set of suggestions on him the other day and again today as to how we

would go about putting in the motor vehicle inspection process.

I would suggest to you that if you are prepared — and you must be — to

have the vehicle that drives your family and your friends serviced by a

reliable dealer, then surely you expect the same dealer to perform the

same service in qualifying for a government inspection. I would hardly

expect that people who had enough faith in a particular establishment

to have their vehicle serviced for their own purposes would all of a

sudden find that that very same establishment had somehow turned a

cropper on them and come up somewhat less than honest. I take a very

different opinion from yours. I'm not surprised that the CBC doesn't

like anything. They don't like anything that isn't run by the state.

They’re a state-owned organization; that's their very mandate. They

constantly defend everything except for the navy's nuclear submarines,

which is the first thing I think we found common ground on in a long

time.

I'm sorry about your soap opera. I told you the other

day that my television set doesn't work, and I'm not sure if this

program you're watching is a television or radio program. I recommend

generic soap, and then you don't have to go through the commercials.

inspect taxis in British Columbia. Some are inspected by municipalities

and some by our ministry, depending on where they are. In the city of

Vancouver, some aspects of inspection are carried on under the local

municipal government, and I am not sure that that doesn't take place in

other municipalities where they have the services available. Otherwise,

they are done by the motor vehicle inspection branch.

You

and I are going to labour on this perception problem for some time. I

take it that you would like to have the state do everything for us, on

the assumption that someone working for the state would certainly never

be subject to a bribe and would always enforce the regulations

absolutely to the letter. I trust the private sector to do that. I

think it has done it and demonstrated it in the shipping industry, the

aviation industry and the commercial trucking industry, and I see no

reason why it can't demonstrate it in the passenger vehicle and light

duty truck business.

The perception problem is, in the

minds of a few people, a major issue, but I don't think it's going to

be a problem. Nonetheless, I am sure we will be discussing it — maybe this

[ Page 5058 ]

time next year, or maybe you will be discussing it with somebody else next year, whatever the case may be.

MR. LOVICK : The Times-Colonist , eh?

HON. MR. ROGERS : There you go; it could be. You never know about these things. In any event, the program is underway.

MR. LOVICK :

I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I have no intention whatsoever of

belabouring everything to be said about motor vehicle testing, ad

nauseam and ad infinitum. That's not my intention.

But you

know, I am shocked. Perhaps the antibiotics are working their mischief

on my friend the minister, but I just can't understand this reference

out of the blue to the CBC, the biased perception and how we on this

side would have the state do and own everything. I really expected

better of you, Mr. Minister. It's so totally erroneous and such a

lovely image to conjure with and play games with on the stump and all

of that, but it doesn't — as we both know — have a heck of lot to do

with reality. I hope we can forget about that for the moment and carry

on talking about the intrinsic merits or demerits of this plan.

understand that the ministry, given that the thing is still in motion

and everything is very fluid, has not yet decided whether there will be

a fixed inspection fee or not. Is that the case, that it's still

indeterminate?

We don't know. Okay. The predicament, of

course, is that if it's a fixed inspection fee.... I don't think I need

to worry too much. If it's a minimum, then there is no longer the

incentive for choice to the consumer. I noticed already the problem

with fees, because in my own community in Nanaimo, having spoken with a

couple of dealers, people in the business, one already pointed out to

me that another place had already decided, based on what he had heard

thus far from the ministry, that he was going to charge significantly

less than the other dealer thought he could do, given the charge-out

rate in his shop the cost of labour.

He said to his colleague: "How can you do that? How can you charge" — let's pick a figure out of the air — "$25

if your charge-out rate is really going to cost you $40 to do that

job?" The answer came back: "It will be a loss leader." This is from

somebody in the industry. I would just pose the question: is that in

any way compatible with a good and reliable inspection service that

people are going to offer it on a loss-leader basis? Because surely

what inevitably follows from that is: "Unless I think I can find enough

to do on your vehicle, I'm not going to be offering that service very

darned long." I wonder if the minister would like to respond to that.

That is, as I say, from a dealer — somebody in the business.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

I anticipate that there will be people offering it as a loss leader. I

would anticipate that everybody who buys a second-hand vehicle will

insist that the vehicle be inspected prior to purchase; I think that

will be part of the cost. There will be dealerships that offer loss

leaders, as they do on a whole range of things. When someone offers you

a tune-up now for a discounted rate from what you would buy the spark

plugs, points and condenser for yourself — or if your vehicle doesn't require those, whatever bits and pieces you do require — and

you say, "Well, I can't even go and buy those things myself; I'll try

it," perhaps you're going to go in there and get some other things

fixed at the same time.

I think there's a certain

level of caveat emptor that the public can handle, and if someone is

prepared to offer them this as a loss leader, as an incentive to get

the rest of their vehicle service done at that place, that's fine. I've

dealt with the same dealer for the last — I don't know — 23 or 24

years. I've found him to be honest and reliable, and I tend to go back

there regardless of his price, because I find in the long run you're

just as well off.

But the public has that choice, and if

someone wants to offer something as a loss leader.... I can assure you

that all the retail food outlets that offer loss leaders seem to stay

in business. They do things to attract certain people to come, whatever

it is they're trying to do. If someone wants to offer this as a loss

leader, your next suggestion will be that of course they're doing that

because they're going to get you in there and trap you to do a whole

bunch of other work. Well, part of the regulations will be that the

work need not necessarily be performed at the facility doing the

testing. If that's the case, and that will be the case, then they must

consider the offer of the loss leader at their peril.

I'm

delighted to know that there are people in your community who have been

able to read the mind of the superintendent of motor vehicles and

establish the rate. They may find that crow is difficult to eat unless

you've predigested it and cooked it a little bit ahead of time, because

the regulations may be such that the rates they're offering aren't

appropriate. However, they don't have to be fixed. We are going to set

a maximum; we're not going to set a minimum.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm intrigued, Mr. Chairman, whenever I hear anybody say that caveat

emptor is a principle we all ought to live by. If there was ever such a

thing as a downside to a free enterprise economy, it's caveat emptor,

because we know demonstrably that all kinds of folks are simply not

able to take the caveat. Unfortunately, all kinds of purchasers are

gullible and are taken. It seems to be what government ought to do. I'm

not suggesting they're going to clamp down entirely and say that nobody

will buy anything, but I think consumer protection is also a

responsibility of government.

I think further, Mr.

Minister, that we have a little evidence to suggest that the privatized

testing operation has a track record, based on the Crain study I

referred to earlier, of some gouging in prices; namely, that the cost

of parts and repair work, when performed by the testing station, was

higher than in a competing dealership. The credulous individual, the

credulous consumer, worked on the assumption, of course, that: "Well,

if these are the folks that have told me what repair I need to my

vehicle, obviously what I will do is trust them to charge me a fair

amount." Ideally, that's the way the system ought to operate. However,

as I say, the evidence is that those testing facilities were also

charging across the board.... The Crain study of 1975 says that "there

was a $22 difference between the testing station price and an

independent garage for similar work."

[3:45]

So caveat emptor, let the buyer beware — I

wonder, Mr. Minister. I wonder whether that is in fact sufficient to

guide our policies as government, or whether we ought to be looking a

little more carefully at the whole area of consumer protection.

I want to pose some questions very briefly about one other area regarding the testing thing —

again, I don't want to engage in some kind of elaborate debate. I don't

think our purposes are served by that. Obviously the predicament we

[ Page 5059 ]

have

with any kind of testing facility, whoever operates it, is the question

of monitoring, of regulation. Is it determined yet whether there will

be any kind of monitoring done at all, or is it simply a case of some

kind of spot-testing being done in order to discover if the work is

done satisfactorily; some kind of vigilante express or something that

will go around to find out who isn't doing the work properly, and that

particular station will get its ticket lifted, ideally in some public

forum so that everybody knows, rather like public hanging or something — to

be a disincentive, to say that you shan't get away with this sort of

activity? Are we looking at some kind of elaborate inspection proposal?

Do we have a whole bunch of inspectors? If so, do you have any idea how

many, and how much it will cost for monitoring?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Those people currently testing commercial trucks and buses have a

system they have worked out that allows them to inspect the facilities

involved. I would imagine that we would use the same type of process.

So there will be spot checks on the people in this testing business.

I elaborated earlier, when we were discussing a previous time, we have

a very easy out for those vehicles that arrive with a new sticker and

are clearly unsafe. Someone can backtrack the system so that we can not

only catch — if that's the word you like to use — someone who turns up

with an unsafe vehicle, but also monitor the inspection process through

our commercial system, through the regular system, as we do now with

commercial trucks. If a commercial truck is picked up at a weigh

station and has a certification saying it's perfectly fit to be on the

road, the person who said that vehicle was fit is called into question.

have a process we go through. Of course, the public doesn't know very

much about it, because, after all, while commercial vehicles take up a

lot of space, they are not terribly newsworthy, unless it's a bus

involved in a tragedy or something like that. But we catch trucks all

the time going through our process that don't comply.

have some of the tougher regulations. But our tack and the new

regulations across Canada are going to see that all commercial vehicles

across Canada fall in line with the same kind of testing. They don't

make up much of the traffic in the metropolitan areas, but certainly in

the rural areas and in the highways system, commercial transport makes

up a lot of traffic volume. Therefore we'll probably follow along those

lines.

MR. LOVICK : No argument at all. My

information regarding the commercial inspection system is that it is

very good indeed, and we can take some pride in that. The predicament,

though, is simply whether we are in fact prepared to put up the money

to have some kind of adequate regulatory or monitoring mechanism. You

and I both know, Mr. Minister, that the predicament traditionally is

that whenever we have to cut back on something, we do it in what is

considered non-productive labour — i.e., guard labour, regulatory

labour. That's always been a problem in public policy. We both know it.

I guess I'm simply stating here that I'm apprehensive about a policy

that looks like taking it farther away from any kind of control

mechanism on the part of government, and I wonder if we're going to be

able to come up with the kinds of facilities or resources that will

surely be required to make sure the system functions as it ought.

One final question on this subject — again,

just to make sure I have it straight: will you clarify for me, if

you're able, whether it is the case that what is now being talked about

is a training program consisting of some 30 hours' instruction time in

total? Supplemental to that, is that length of time for the course

based on advice and input from professionals in the field of teaching

auto mechanics and other kinds of automotive courses?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

We have not yet made that determination, but clearly there may have

been some discussion about the proposed training time. The

determination has not yet been made by staff, and we're looking forward

to seeing what comes from that.

In terms of the testing

staff, we have some redundancies in this ministry as a result of a

number of other changes recommended by the MacKay report. Some of the

FTEs will be freed up and used for this very kind of work.

MR. LOVICK :

I want to turn now, if I might, to another area under the heading of

testing, but something I haven't yet heard referred to in the plans for

the new privatized testing system. I wonder if the minister can give us

any information on the possibility of expanding the testing program to

do something that wasn't done in the earlier incarnation but that many

people think ought to be done. I am referring specifically to motor

vehicle emissions testing. I know the minister has commented on that;

so has his deputy, as I recall, suggesting that they are aware of the

problem and that something might indeed be done. Can he bring us up to

date on that? Has any thought been given to ordering any plans at all

to do something of that sort?

HON. MR. ROGERS : Not

specifically now. But having been in this government in a number of

other capacities.... Actually, the base problem is tetraethyl lead. A

taxation decision taken two years ago to balance the price of leaded

and unleaded fuel has probably done the most to reduce leaded fuel

emissions. That doesn't deal with the automobile whose exhaust system

or pollution control valve system, or any of the various systems

involved, is functioning incorrectly. We have not gotten to the point

in our recommendations as to whether or not that testing will be done,

save and except to say it is done in certain areas by other ministries.

It is something we will consider.

MR. LOVICK : The

reference then is that under review, as with so many other things....

It is essentially the same point as that made by Bob Flitton, deputy

minister, who said the government is considering some kind of

emission-control program primarily for the lower mainland. We have

nothing more specific at this point, Mr. Minister. It's simply a

problem we recognize which we are hoping to do something about. I'm

certainly not intending to be assertive or overly aggressive or

anything, but obviously there are people who are saying: "Wait a

minute. This was bruited about in 1983. Are we any closer?"

you say, changing the tax system has proven a tremendous incentive, but

we still have a problem. I don't need to recite

chapter and verse the

kinds of problems; I'm sure the minister is aware of them. I'm

wondering whether we can be any more specific than that. Is a task

force established? Are we looking at setting up particular facilities

within the lower mainland? I understand that the city of Vancouver was

singled out in 1985 in a federal government report as a problem area

for reasons of geography, traffic and

[ Page 5060 ]

whole bunch of other things. I'm wondering whether there is anything

more specific or concrete that the minister might give us apropos this

subject.

HON. MR. ROGERS : No, Mr. Member. You must

remember that as the automotive calendar ticks by, more and more

vehicles are coming onto the market which bum lead-free gasoline, and

the proportion of leaded gasoline burned continues to drop. That will

address part of the problem. That's just the lead problem. It won't

necessarily address the problem of noxious fumes. That's partly a

question of volume. Perhaps the Minister of Environment is a better

person to direct this particular question at.

Certainly the

equipment involved in testing for those emissions is very expensive and

elaborate. Some commercial vehicles have chosen to run on methane and

some have chosen to run on propane, and they are even more advantageous

from an environmental standpoint. But the real determination of that

was the matter of price in urban settings for vehicles that put a lot

of miles on. Natural gas is by far the cheapest fuel; it's about half

the price of gasoline. Of course, it has a lot of added advantages:

less oil breakdown, spark plug life, all those other good things. It is

somewhat inconvenient to have to refill your vehicle every three days

approximately, but for a while I had a vehicle powered on natural gas,

and it worked very well.

I'm not up to date on the

environmental question in terms of the lower mainland, but I recall at

the time pleading with the Minister of Finance to change that minor

taxation rate so that people would be discouraged from putting the one

cent a litre fuel — which was cheaper but contained tetraethyl lead — in their tank. I gather it's been successful — that

and some enforcement by the Ministry of Environment in terms of nozzle

size, which has caused some inconvenience for people who tried to put

the wrong size nozzle in the tank. So technologically I think it's

coming that way.

In terms of noxious emissions, I look

forward to seeing what kind of recommendations come from the industry,

but I'm not up to date enough on it to be able to speak on it at any

great length.

MR. LOVICK : Just to pursue this matter

for a moment, I hasten to point out that I certainly wasn't intending

to trap the minister or anything. That's not my intention. Rather, I

attribute this to my memory of this story. I asked the question simply

for clarification. The story I'm quoting is from the Vancouver Sun ,

March 1988. The headline is: "Fumes Test for Autos Sought." The

minister is quoted in that story as follows: the Highways minister

"replied that ministry staff had 'developed a number of different

compulsory testing program concepts. These concepts include both

high-tech and low-tech solutions, plus exhaust-emission testing. These

concepts are now being studied prior to making a final presentation to

my colleagues in the very near future."'

Did I misunderstand something, or is there another process to your cabinet colleagues — cross-ministry activity as opposed to a highways decision? I'm sorry if I didn't express it clearly the first time.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

No, I don't think so. This will just be one of the things that come

forward. Again, part of that discussion is on whether or not we have

specific area problems. Vancouver or the lower mainland — the so-called lower mainland air shed — has

a much different problem than other areas, and therefore you might find

more extensive testing. The people in Port Hardy needn't be subjected

to the same rigorous test as would be done elsewhere.

It's

coming through the system and it's taking some time. We are having

extensive consultation with industry to find out what it is that we

should be looking at. Perhaps the testing that was discontinued some

years ago wasn't quite up to date with the modem technology in the

automobile. It's changed quite dramatically, even in the last five

years. I have some difficulty now when I look under the hood

identifying anything, as I'm sure anybody who has been out of it for a

while has that difficulty. So that's about all I can comment on. I

don't recall that particular

article in the newspaper, but then I don't

recall all of them either.

MR. LOVICK : I am sorry the minister isn't feeling better.

want to pose another couple of specific questions, and then I'll move

away from the subject fairly soon. These are very specific ones, coming

from a rather different perspective. I have also had some

correspondence on the subject of motor vehicle inspection testing, as

I'm sure the minister has, from those individuals who are saying: "Wait

a minute, is this program going to mean that I, a person with, let's

say, a relatively low income, am going to have to be confronted with a

brand-new expense, not so much for safety purposes but rather just

because of the fact that the testing program is there?" In other words,

so the question goes: is this merely a ploy to make sure that we create

some business for those who are in the business? I'm wondering if the

minister would love to take this opportunity to provide reassurances to

those individuals that this will not happen.

[4:00]

HON. MR. ROGERS :

It was not a lobby from the industry to ask that motor vehicle testing

be reinstated. It's not our intention to do this to necessarily benefit

anybody in that industry. We are looking at it as a vehicle safety

program, and safety does cost money. Every time one gets involved in

making vehicles safer, there is an expense. In fact, I believe the

other day in the House there was a lobby group here to discuss head

injuries. For those people who bicycle on a regular basis, the cost of

bicycle clothing has gone up substantially, and we're now really

recommending that most people who bicycle at any speed wear a helmet.

I'm going to have to buy myself one, because I have been bicycling for

some time without one, as I used to motorcycle without one, and I'm now

seeing the wisdom of the process. But safety costs money. It costs

money to have the best safety equipment. The WCB has been explaining to

people in the industry that it saves you money in the long run. With

the right equipment, it's amazing the amount of money you can save, but

it costs you money to make that saving; seatbelts are a good example of

that.

Motorcycle crash helmets are a good example of that

up to a certain speed; after that speed, they really are not that

useful, but, nonetheless, since many accidents happen at a speed where

a motorcycle helmet is a major safety factor, we have continued to do

battle in the courts on this particular piece of legislation. My

colleague the Attorney-General does. We're not going to make bicycle

helmets mandatory, but we're going to see more and more people taking

that choice. And you see more people exercising the option to go with

safety, and it does cost money. Safety equipment has

[ Page 5061 ]

gotten much better. Some of the new fabrics and materials have gotten much better, but it's not free.

MR. LOVICK :

I must confess, Mr. Chairman, I love these forays into autobiography,

because I am beginning to feel that by the end of this I am going to

know everything about it, and that's pleasant.

Regarding

safety, I'm surprised actually that the answer to the question wasn't

something more like the lines that "we the ministry have tried very

hard to ensure that it is only the absolute basic safety requisite

items that will be inspected, to ensure that we aren't in any way

creating some extra repair work and extra cosmetic things be done to

vehicles." I am sure that that is perhaps the intention, and the

minister may choose to say that at another opportunity,

have one last question regarding this matter before we move to other

things. The other day the government members were visited, as we in the

opposition were visited, by a delegation from the National Farmers'

Union. They presented a rather elaborate brief to government and shared

it with us. One of the items I chanced to note in their brief had to do

with vehicle inspections. It's a very short specific citation, and I'd

like to quote it and then simply ask the minister if he'd like to

respond to it. They say: "Vehicle Inspection. While we do not quarrel

with the concept" — I've cut off the margin, Mr. Minister, so I have to struggle with what that word will be on the left — "of

vehicle inspections, some farm vehicles do not travel distances which

would warrant the cost of annual inspections. We request that farm

trucks under 17,300 pounds and which travel less than 25,000

kilometres" — I suspect; the "I suspect" was because I can't read that on the page, Mr. Minister —

"annually be required to undergo inspection every three years.

Insurance premiums should be reduced for inspected vehicles in order to

encourage inspection." I'm wondering if the minister would care to

respond to that submission from the National Farmers' Union, a group

that I understand came from the area where the Chairman lives.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

We're taking that under advisement, because of the number of vehicles.

There are going to be all sorts of people who are going to want all

sorts of exemptions, and they all have very good causes. I can just see

the Gulf Islanders who don't have an inspection station on one of their

islands saying: "Oh, heavens, you'll have to give us a free ferry pass

for the day we have to get inspected."

The program is

called basic safety inspection program. We're not going to get involved

with cosmetic work, but I can assure you that depending on how bad the

bodywork is.... If it looks like the kind of car you see in eastern

Canada that's had a little too much salt on it and not enough

maintenance — we get a few of them here — I'm not interested

in the bodywork on it, but where it becomes a safety factor that will

be there. It is a basic vehicle inspection program.

MR. LOVICK :

I thank the minister for that. That concludes the questions I have to

pose regarding vehicle inspection. I now want to turn to the large area

of the Coquihalla.

The minister's opening statement when he

introduced his estimates made reference to the Coquihalla in precisely

the context I want to use, when he said: "There are a number of

post-Coquihalla changes that have been made in this ministry that I

hope reflect those lessons which have been learned in the process of

constructing that major project." This is certainly good news. We on

this side of the House will certainly not argue that point. Indeed, the

memory of that project is still fresh; it's still warm; it is vivid.

Pre-eminently,

for the record, I want to simply establish again what is at issue there

so that we can then talk about the changes that ought to flow and the

assurances that people ought to have that certain things that happened

will not happen again.

We all recall that the MacKay

commission was established in the summer of 1987 and that evidence

heard during the course of those public hearings presented a rather

unpleasant and unflattering portrait of the Ministry of Highways.

Highways appeared as a free-spending operation that also employed very

questionable accounting and operations and planning procedures. I'm

sure that the minister is not going to disagree with that. Indeed, the

whole point of talking about the new — I think he called it the post-Coquihalla — operation

of his ministry will attempt to address that. And rightly so, because

MacKay's report was certainly a scathing review of planning and

cost-estimating procedures used by the ministry. It was also — lest we forget — very critical of the government's handling of the project.

Let

me quote a few examples. MacKay said: "...the commission finds the

financial reporting of the Coquihalla...project to be tainted with an

atmosphere of deceit and prevarication by both politicians and public

servants." He also said that the Bennett government deliberately misled

the Legislature and the public about the true costs of the Coquihalla

project and did so for political gain. To quote again: "These

deliberate and planned actions were politically motivated and were

designed to give the impression" — the impression, note, Mr. Chairman — "of

good overall budgeting, and, specifically, that the Coquihalla Highway

was on budget." MacKay said that in the matter of the Coquihalla

Highway, the Legislature lost effective control of the public purse.

Pretty damning stuff, I'm sure we would all agree. The report also said

that as early as the fall of 1985, the government knew that its

original estimate of $375 million for the first two phases of the

project was wrong, yet it continued to use that figure publicly.

summarize, the problems identified were: (1) the Legislature was

avoided; (2) the Legislature was misled by documents presented to it;

(3) the true costs were not reported in a forthright way; (4) the

project was redefined part-way through and expenses transferred from

one vote to another — i.e. from vote 74 to vote 69. Let's

translate that. That means that the members of the Legislature and the

people of British Columbia had, in effect, been lied to about the true

costs of the Coquihalla.

That's history; that's the public

record. That's what we all know; that's what I am sure we lament;

that's what I am sure we deplore. The issue is: what did we learn? What

have we learned? What are we going to do differently now than we did

before? That's the question I want to address in this course of

discussion with the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

The

Transportation minister at the time MacKay's recommendations and report

were released was the current minister, and to that minister's

everlasting credit, he said that MacKay's recommendations would be

quickly adopted and that all major highway projects would be reviewed.

In fact, the minister said that many of the recommendations were

already in place. I note that in the MacKay report there are 22

specific recommendations. Unfortunately, to the best of my

[ Page 5062 ]

knowledge

and understanding, the government has pointedly not told us thus far

which recommendations have been reviewed or indeed implemented, if any.

be sure, we have had some assurances that, yes, we are going to do

something by way of establishing a plan; that yes, indeed, we are going

to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. We have,

moreover, had certain indications or suggestions about minor matters

that will be addressed, but thus far we don't have a clear answer

regarding which specific recommendations have been reviewed, which ones

will be implemented, and when and how.

Let me pause for

just a moment to give the minister an opportunity to respond to some

quite specific questions. There are lots of others, but to begin with:

is there presently a specific group in the ministry now looking at

MacKay's recommendations? Is there a group that has been assigned that

task? If so, would the minister please share with us what progress has

been made on that review? Specifically, I would like to know which

recommendations have been adopted or implemented, which ones have been

rejected and why, and — I hope this is a question that is entirely unnecessary — why we can't be provided with this information.

hope today that epiphany will strike, light will shine, and we will

have all this information presented to us. I give the minister that

opportunity now.

[4:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS :

You talked earlier about the Coquihalla, and you quoted at length from

this particular document, the report of the commissioner of inquiry, in

terms of the intent to mislead the House. Your colleague, who sometimes

is known as the Leader of the Opposition by some of our people, but who

is in fact the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), went

some lengths to write a letter to the auditor-general. You have a copy

of this report and he has one, and they disagree with this statement of

your colleague. I won't read it into the record; it's far too long for

that. But perhaps you might find it interesting reading, because he

disagrees with some of the points made by the commissioner.

terms of the recommendations, however, I think it's fair to say that

all of them have been implemented or are in the process of being

implemented at the present time. The executive committee of the

ministry meets weekly, and I guess I make it to about 50 or 60 percent

of their meetings. We discuss a number of issues, but clearly the

recommendations.... I read from page xvii of the recommendations: "That

the ministry develop and systematically update short and long-term

capital plans to a greater level of detail and accuracy of cost

estimation than now exist." I've got to tell you that that's precisely

the process we're involved in.

I could go down through

every other recommendation. We have virtually used Mr. MacKay's

recommendations as a manual for operations in the way the ministry is

going to operate. Clearly many of the things you said in your

preamble

were correct, although I don't believe I would go along with the

deliberate misleading of the House. I think that suggests intent by a

member whose reputation.... I think he has spoken for himself. I needn't comment further on that.

the

summary of the recommendations, I think it's fair to say that we

have put or are in the process of putting each of them in. I could go

down his general recommendations. He said to develop a short-term and

long-term plan: we're into that. Projects in the capital plans to be

fully scoped: we're now involved in that process. We have separated

those projects to exceed $50 million. We've developed a process for

establishing priorities within the plan; it involves not only the

ministry but Treasury Board and cabinet. Develop an explicit approval

process for projects exceeding $50 million, detailed scope and final

costs: that's already completed. I could go on, but frankly we have, as

I said earlier, used this as a guidepost in order to restructure the

ministry.

I look forward to your further comments on the matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN :

I thank you for allowing me to make this introduction. We have a group

of grade 6 students visiting us from Windebank Elementary School in

Mission. They're a very enthusiastic group in Victoria today, here in

the Legislature to see the workings of their parliament. They're

accompanied by Mr. Goosen and Mr. van Tilborg, two teachers, and a

group of escorting parents. I'd like the House to give them a good

round of applause, show them a warm welcome to commemorate their visit.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my few words of welcome to the group

of students and their instructors, and to inform them that they are

seeing the Minister of Highways and me on our absolutely best behaviour

today — I want them to know that — characteristically so.

Perhaps

I can pose a few more specific questions about the recommendations.

First, though, I want to say for the record and nothing else that when

the minister begins his response to my opening comments about

Coquihalla by suggesting that it's all a matter of perception, all a

matter of "how ya views it" or some such thing, and does so by means of

reference to the auditor-general's report, I would remind the minister

that we had a rather lengthy and elaborate discussion in this chamber,

and I think we did a good, effective and thorough job of demonstrating

that the conclusions come to by the auditor-general were at least

questionable if not downright wrong. I want to say just as clearly for

the public record that I do not think what the auditor-general said

about the letter the minister made reference to by any means puts an

end to that debate — far from it. That's a point we made on

numerous earlier occasions, and given the opportunity we would

certainly make it again. To borrow a horrible clich, that is again

water under the bridge, but if the minister wants to have that debate,

perhaps we could rekindle that flame.

Let's talk about

specific recommendations in MacKay's report. As you know full well, Mr.

Minister, there were seven major categories. The most important of the

recommendations had to do with the first category, major capital

project development. The central point made by MacKay there was: "A

document should be developed that identifies major capital projects in

an objective way, listed in order of technical need over a period of at

least ten years." To be sure, the minister has said that there is going

to be a ten-year plan. But what's really at issue in MacKay's

statement, it seems to me, is not the ten-year framework but the nature

of that: an objective way prioritized on the basis of technical need.

The minister and I shared some brief discussion about this subject a few days ago, but that question is fundamental,

[ Page 5063 ]

is the crux of MacKay's recommendations, and I wonder if the minister

could elaborate on the other parts of the plan that his ministry now

envisages beyond just the fact that we have a plan and ten years is

roughly the time-frame we're looking at.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Mr. Member, we're looking at both a five-year and a ten-year horizon.

At this point, before we get into the detail that Mr. MacKay

recommended, we want to ascertain a priority listing of these various

projects and where you draw the line on a project. You're a little

ahead of the game. We are coming up at least with a list of things that

need to be done. Where the costing is going to come.... The next thing

you'll want to talk about is the Island Highway, I'm sure, which is of

more specific interest to you. Of course, even the finest of technical

arguments tends to get a tiny bit political in terms of where these

things get located. We're at least putting it together at the technical

stage, and we'll have a look at it.

I hope to have that

completed by the end of August so that cabinet and the staff in the

ministry can have a good look at the long-term plan. Then they can make

some decisions as to the amount of spending they want to make and the

time they want to make it in. Having determined that, then we can

follow on with his next recommendations. I think it's putting the cart

before the horse.

I know it is tradition in this ministry's

estimates that there is a long dissertation about which is the highest

priority. Of course, the MLA who professes that the road or highway in

his constituency is not of the highest priority is doomed to have his

name appear on the front page of local papers saying he doesn't care

about the highways. I think it's fair to say that almost everybody has

contacted me about them.

We have to look at a bigger plan than that. We have to deal with not just the local issues because....

MR. LOVICK : Everybody needs to be from Vancouver South.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

There are some advantages to being from Vancouver South. However, I am

reminded that there is the butt end of a couple of bridges in my

riding, and that's about the end of it. But we do want to look at it on

a larger basis. That's where we're going.

You mentioned my

constituency, and I might say that one of the criticisms I get from my

own political colleagues in the interior is that it's inappropriate

that the Highways minister should be from the city. That leads me to

think that perhaps the Agriculture minister must necessarily come from

the country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS : You're not allowed to speak, because you are not in your seat now. You know the rules; you've been here long enough.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm glad that the I minister decided to administer that ever so gentle

rebuke to some of his colleagues from the hinterland who believe that

only if you live in the north do you know what a road and a highway is.

I'm happy to note that the minister has blasted that fallacy of

argument that appeals to sentimentality into the smithereens it ought

to be in. I appreciate that. I hope that all the members from the north

and the hinterland who, throughout the Coquihalla debate, said, "You

guys can't talk about roads and highways because you're from the city,"

will be suitably chastised and will never engage in such absolutely

platitudinous nonsense as they did before. That's nice to hear, and I

thank the minister for doing that on our behalf.

I quoted

one brief excerpt from the MacKay report, and I appreciated the

minister's comments about that report. To put it in yet more direct and

concise terms, as MacKay does so well, he talks about the need "to

develop and publish a rational highway capital planning document." I'm

pleased that the minister shares the view that it is important.

However, I'm a little disturbed because in answer to a previous

question the minister made some reference to the fact that this is

difficult to do; you can't do this kind of thing overnight, and you

have to be wary of putting carts before horses, and all those kinds of

interesting constructs.

He also made reference to the fact

that there are some politics involved. My reading of the MacKay report

tells me clearly that what ought to happen, and what ought to be the

policy governing highways capital construction in this province, is

something that takes it out of the realm of crass politics. That means

we make use of some kind of objective study and some means to evaluate

the legitimacy of a particular project and the advisability of one

project occurring before another.

Mr. Minister, I hasten to

point out that I'm not totally politically naive. To some degree I am,

but not totally. I recognize that if a Highways minister were to say

that politics will no longer enter into the deliberations concerning

where highways projects begin and do not begin or which one comes

first, that individual would be scorned and repudiated by his own

caucus forever after. I also am intelligent and political enough to

know that a considerable amount of the minister's power in caucus and

in cabinet has to do directly with the fact that he has some

discretionary ability in terms of deciding where projects should be

done.

Having said that, however, I think it is still the case....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

I would hope that the minister's colleague from Vancouver South would

restrain himself somewhat or at least ensure that his interruptions are

loud and articulate enough so that I might hear them and respond

accordingly.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would ask the hon. member not to bait other members of the House. [Laughter.]

MR. LOVICK : Bait! Mr. Chairman, I think you're fishing for a comment when you suggest that I am baiting the members.

What I wanted to get to is.... Notwithstanding that there must be some politics — we know that —

surely we must have learned by now, in the history of capital

construction in this province, that we ought to try to do something to

remove the process of highway construction from the realm of crass

politics. Surely that ought to be the case. Surely that's what MacKay's

recommendations, especially under item 1, major capital project

development, cash out to mean. Is that not the case? Would the minister

care to respond to at least that proposition?

[4:30]

[ Page 5064 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS : Maybe one day you'll have the opportunity of being the Minister of Highways and you'll understand what I mean — but I doubt it.

talked about the politics of highways. It isn't laid down in stone

anywhere where they're supposed to go. You must talk to engineers to

find out the politics of bridge-building versus the politics of

tunnelling. You want to talk to local people about location of highways

and how they get involved, and what the local regional district has to

say. Not only that, we even hear from the occasional Member of

Parliament who has something to say about location of highways.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

All parties, yes. Well, no, that's not correct. I haven't heard from

the Liberals, but I have heard from the others. However, since the only

Liberal....

MR. R. FRASER : They're too busy knifing Turner.

HON. MR. ROGERS : That's right. It looks like he's been used as a testing-board for somebody in the culinary equipment business.

Nonetheless,

when I talk about the politics of it, I mean it. We have every single

level of it. In terms of the level of engineering, we get excellent

engineering arguments for why any new project should be four-lane; why

it should all be separated versus divided; why there should be limited

access; why there should not be limited access; where the access points

should be. It's not all pure engineering. If this ministry were run as

a line function, just like the Queen's Printer, virtually without

influence from the House, they would be terribly confused, and come

back and say to us: "You've got to make the decision, because there are

some decisions to be made as to the quality and the size of it." If we

were to build all the highways in the province to the same standard as

we built the Coquihalla Highway, we would have to reassign the budget,

I think, from other ministries. I think that's the politest way of

putting it.

There are lots of questions to be asked and

lots of problems to deal with in these matters. So we are trying to

come up with something that will please most of the people most of the

time in terms of the technical aspects of it.

Let me talk

to you about the crossing of the Fraser River. Decisions on pure

engineering might tell you one thing, but we have sociological things

to consider. Where is the housing going to go? Where are people going

to live? We have an awful lot of influence on where communities grow

and how communities grow, as to how they're located, all of which is

political; it's not purely engineering. You don't need an iron ring to

do that. Designing and doing the excavation and the gravel, the

sublevels and the various paving levels, the dividers and the signs,

that's pretty simple stuff to do from a purely applied engineering

point of view. But the other decisions you make after that.... I don't

think Mr. MacKay ever suggested that we just ask somebody to come along

and do a purely engineering overview of where a highway is going to go.

Your

community is a perfectly good example. Somehow the highway is going to

get from Cassidy to what I call north of the shopping centre world — I'm

sorry I don't know the exact name of it, but there's a nice little lake

up there. Somewhere that has to happen. Clearly those decisions aren't

just engineering ones. If it was just engineering, and I said, "Give me

the lowest cost, the least amount of rock we've got to blow, and go out

and do it," that would be a simple way to do it, but not the simple

answer. There are lots of local considerations to be taken into

consideration, including the thoughts of the regional district, the

thoughts of the mayor and, to a certain extent, the thoughts of other

interest groups within the community.

More remote

communities, when the Ministry of Highways arrives, are delighted to

have them there. They don't mind where we put the road, as long as the

road goes in. But as communities begin to develop, and more and more

people choose to live there, of course they are more restrictive as to

where we go. I think that answers your question.

In terms

of the recommendations we have, we expect to have the first of our

three-year plans in place by the 1989-90 estimates, which was one of

his recommendations. We are seeking input from a number of other

agencies: local governments, ministers of state, MLAs and others, who

have influence and who want to give us their considered opinion on

where these things should be located. And we are going to have a

Treasury Board review for a much more integrated capital planning

budget on a government-wide basis. But since we're the largest....

I see the member for Prince George North wants to get up. Is it an