1983 Legislative Session: 1st

Session, 33rd 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 )

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2771

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill

23). Second reading.

Hon. A. Fraser –– 2771

Mr. Lockstead –– 2771

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 2775

Mr. Passarell –– 2775

Mr. Davis –– 2780

Mrs. Dailly –– 2781

Mr. Kempf –– 2784

Mr. Mitchell –– 2785

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1983

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to

public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23,

Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. A. FRASER: I take pleasure in

introducing this small

bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide the necessary authority to

allow the establishment of a new inspection program by regulation, in

the form desired by the government. In essence, the Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act, 1983, would make provision for new vehicle inspection

programs that could be implemented by inspectors in inspection stations

in the private sector as an alternative to the provincially operated

facilities.

The administration of such private sector inspection programs

by the

superintendent would require that he possess a degree of authority

appropriate to the responsibility. Thus the authorization of persons as

inspectors and the designation of inspection facilities would be by the

superintendent, thereby avoiding the necessity of proceeding by

order-in-council. Provisions will be made for the suspension or

cancellation of these appointments of inspectors and inspection

facilities. The new program being designed proposes the establishment

of a commercial vehicle inspection program operated by the private

sector and monitored by government; the expansion of the government

inspection program provincewide for taxicabs and buses, and the

continuation of the school bus inspection program; and an enhanced

random and critical-item commercial vehicle inspection program.

Details of a new provincewide inspection program, and how and

when

the program will be introduced, will be finalized after the report of

the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications has

been received. You will know, Mr. Speaker and members, that this

committee has already been struck and, as a matter of fact, has had two

or three meetings. Just for the information of the House, I'll read its

guidelines:

"That this House authorize the Select

Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to consider

methods for providing for the inspection as to safety and repair of

prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing for different types of

inspections for different classes of vehicles by the private sector;

and this committee shall be empowered to sit during sittings of the

House during this session of the thirty-third parliament; and further,

to report its findings and recommendations to the House from time to

time, and make its final report and recommendations not later than

December 16, 1983."

I'd just like to comment, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of the

presence of the mandatory inspection program, the privilege of driving

or owning a motor vehicle carries the responsibility that a person must

ensure that his or her motor vehicle is maintained in a safe mechanical

condition. A driver of a vehicle is required by the Motor Vehicle Act

to have his or her vehicle equipped in all aspects as required by

regulations, as a condition of driving on a highway. Not only must a

vehicle be properly equipped, the equipment must be adjusted and

functioning properly as required by the regulations.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of

Bill 23.

[10:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few remarks on this

bill. The House

may remember that there was some debate on this bill during the course

of the minister moving the motion. The terms of reference of Motion 29,

to send the matter to committee.... The minister is probably aware that

the committee has met, I believe, three times. I'm sure that we'll hear

about this from some of the other committee members. As well as me, for

our party, our members on the committee are, just for the information

of the House, the member for Esquimalt—Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and

the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). As a matter of fact, the member

for Atlin, who is responsible for carrying this bill through the House,

will be along shortly. In the meantime, I'm not sure that what goes on

in committee can really be discussed in this House. As I understand the

rules, you can't really do that, but I may say that the very competent

Chairman of that committee has made arrangements to bring in witnesses,

and we've already had the director of the motor vehicle branch before

the committee and received some very valuable information.

However, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell the minister right now

that

we have decided to oppose this piece of legislation. Ordinarily,

knowing that, I could sit down, and we could have a vote, and you would

win it. However, I think that makes things just a little too easy. So I

think we should put forward some reasons and debate on why.... I'm sure

that we're going to hear from a number of government members on this

particular bill because of the interest in this House in this piece of

legislation and the interest in the community.

There is interest in the community in this piece of

legislation. It

was a bit of a surprise, certainly to our caucus and our party, after

the last election when the government decided to introduce this bill.

Now I know the minister will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't

recall, during or prior to the last election campaign, the government

telling us or the electorate that they were going to privatize motor

vehicle testing in this province. I don't recall that being a part of

the Social Credit Party policy. However, the reality is that

legislation was brought in in the form of Bill 23 as well as the

resolution that was brought before this House some time ago.

What's baffling to us and to a lot of people in the community

— and

in a short while I shall give the minister some quotes — is: why take

away this service from the communities affected when they were doing a

good job and enhancing motor vehicle safety on the road? We don't know,

and I'm sure the minister will tell us when he closes debate in second

reading of this bill sometime a month or two hence, or whenever. But

why would the government take away this much-needed service? It

couldn't have been costs, because we know very well, and it was stated

by the former director of the motor vehicle branch.... In fact, I'll

quote him,

[ Page 2772

because I have a quote before me

attributed to Mr. Whitlock from July 27, 1983, in the Vancouver

Sun .

He stated that for an increase in fees of 50 cents per motor vehicle,

the testing stations would have in fact broken even and required no

subsidy out of general revenues whatsoever.

MR. MOWAT: Not true.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The second member for

Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) interjects and says it's not true. Well, I've

known Mr. Whitlock for many, many years and, quite frankly, I am more

inclined to accept his version and his story than that of the second

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. No offence, but I don't think the

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain has been director of the

motor vehicle branch for many years; Mr. Whitlock has been in that

capacity from time immemorial — ever since I've been here in this House

— and I do believe he knows what he's talking about.

MR. MOWAT: It's $50 a car.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That is utterly ridiculous

for British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. It's quite

common for members to

be of contrary opinions, and perhaps if the second member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain is, he can join in debate after the member

for Mackenzie is finished.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, that member

only joins debate to move closure.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that's true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we

have the situation under control. To the bill, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But we get

along fine — that member and myself, Mr. Speaker. It's nothing personal.

We're discussing a very serious bill that is going to affect

the

lives of many people. We'll probably notice the increase in motor

vehicle accidents on our roads, and I am going to tell you right now —

I'm going to get back to the cost of the service here in a few minutes

— that we will notice the increase. It has been estimated, and this

figure was more or less confirmed during the course of our committee

meetings last week with the acting director of the motor vehicle

branch, Mr. Jackman, that approximately 7 percent of motor vehicle

accidents can be attributed to mechanical failure. He said there were

between 4 and 7 percent in studies done in the United States. However,

there were some qualifications to that figure.

That figure, by the way, is pretty well indicated in the

annual

report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. If you'll turn

to the back

section of that annual report you'll see lists and lists of

statistics. They pretty well confirm Mr. Jackman's statement about the

4 to 7 percent. However, the qualifications to that are that not all

accidents are investigated properly. In a serious accident, for

example, it may appear as if a driver inadvertently crossed the yellow

line or inadvertently tumbled over a bank or hit a bridge abutment, or

whatever, and that's often as far as the investigation goes. It would

appear that the cause of the accident was that the driver may have lost

control of the car for some reason — he was a poor driver, he may have

had a couple of beers on the way home, or whatever. Particularly if

there's alcohol involved, usually the investigation goes no further,

because if there's alcohol involved at all the cause of the accident is

usually put down to a drinking driver. But the fact is that because

many of these accidents are not properly investigated, we really don't

know how many accidents are really caused by mechanical failure —

oftentimes brakes. That vehicle may be smashed up and in such a

condition that it's absolutely impossible to tell after the accident

whether it was brake failure or problems with the system — for example,

the brakes. In fact, very often it's not even investigated. I would

guess, Mr. Speaker, that there are more motor vehicle accidents caused

by mechanical failure than the statistics could indicate, because of

improper investigation.

In any event, I want to get back to the cost of this service

and

then on to the provincewide situation as the government appears to be

planning it at the present time. And I might say at this point,

particularly since the Chairman of our committee is in the House at the

present time, that I hope I am sitting on a meaningful committee. I

really do.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, about this type of

committee, I almost

always have a bit of a problem — I'm suspicious, I guess is the word,

that the government has made up its mind even before they call the

committee. This is no reflection on the Chairmen or the committee

members. But the fact is, having been in politics for quite a number of

years — more than I care to admit to — that we often know that a

decision is made on these matters and then a committee is formed, or a

royal commission appointed, to substantiate and carry out precisely

what the government wanted in the first place. Should I find that

that's the case with this committee — and I haven't found that to be

the case yet — I'm going to raise merry heck in this House, I can tell

you that; and in committee, as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Briefly on that point, we

are in second

reading in the House. Reference to the findings of the committee might

be in order, but any reference to politics or the motivation of the

committee would not be in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no. It's just a little

remark in passing.

I want to get back for a moment to the costs involved and the

primary reason the government has given for terminating the work of the

motor vehicle inspection stations. An

article by Gillian Shaw in the Vancouver

Sun ,

July 27, 1983, is headlined: "Fifty-Cents-Per-Car Loss Cited in Test

Halt." I think this is significant to the debate we're putting forward

this morning.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The first member for Surrey

(Mrs. Johnston) happens to be Chairman of the committee I was referring

to earlier. She says the

article is insignificant. I really don't think

it is. You can't tell me.... I find it

[ Page 2773

difficult to believe that a person

like Mr. Robert Whitlock, who was the director of the motor vehicle

branch for I don't know how many years....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, he's a good man —

first-class. He is one of the senior public servants. In our ridings,

particularly large rural ridings, I've had a great deal to do with the

motor vehicle branch. Probably most MLAs do. A lot of people have

trouble with their driver's licences or whatever with that branch, and

he's always very cooperative. However, that is not the point.

I started to quote from the

article in the Vancouver

Sun but there was an interjection. If, as the members

opposite say, this

article in the Vancouver Sun is

inaccurate, I'm sure that one of the members over there will get up and

correct the

article or at least put forward their view of this

particular

article in the Vancouver Sun . It's a significant article.

"If mandatory motor vehicle inspection

fees were raised 50 cents to $5.50 a car, the government would break

even on the service, superintendent of motor vehicles Robert Whitlock

says. According to the latest Transportation and Highways ministry

report tabled in the Legislature, 590,921 inspections were carried out

at testing stations in Victoria, Nanaimo and the lower mainland in

1981. At a loss of 50 cents a car on a $5 charge, inspection stations

ran about $295,000 in the red in 1981...."

The figures for 1982 are not available

at the present time.

"When mandatory testing for vehicles and

light trucks was dropped by the government in its July 7 budget,

Highways Minister Alex Fraser said the move would save $2.6 million a

year. But Whitlock said Tuesday that the $2.6 million figure doesn't

take into account the money made by vehicle inspections and it doesn't

represent the net loss in providing inspections."

So there you have it. A 50-cent

increase per inspection and the inspection stations would not have

shown a loss.

Later I want to talk a bit about what is called the Ontario

one of the reasons the government has made....

Mr. Speaker, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has just

entered the House. I'm pleased to see him. He's got it made. I'm doing

all the work and he gets all the applause.

[10:30]

One of the reasons the government gave for abolishing motor

vehicle testing stations is that at some point they want to initiate

motor vehicle testing throughout the province by private means. The

government and the minister are quite correct when they tell us that

many — in fact, most — parts of British Columbia don't have motor

vehicle testing. However, I think the government could have

accomplished both without firing — or terminating, which is the term

used in this House — present employees, and still have initiated

private motor vehicle testing throughout the province. If that was the

way they wanted to go, they could have done both; however, they chose

not to. I think the last motor vehicle testing station will be

permanently closed this month. So no matter what we say, they are gone.

It wouldn't have been too much trouble, I don't think, if the

government had waited before closing these stations, at least until

this bill has gone through this House. But they decided to proceed

anyway, and here we are.

I presume that at some point we're going to have motor vehicle

testing throughout the province by private means and private

inspectors, which leads to a lot of interesting questions, Mr. Speaker.

I want the minister to answer some of these questions when he closes

second reading. How does the government intend to choose which private

garages in any given community will receive a licence?

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, the minister must have

some thoughts on this matter. In spite of the interjections from across

the floor, how.... The government is going to have to make the

decision, and I'm very suspicious about whether governments take

committee recommendations. I know some of the new members are

bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. They believe all this committee work is

very serious and meaningful. But I've been around long enough to be a

bit cynical. I've often found that in spite of committees and royal

commission recommendations, governments do what they heck they want to

do anyway in the final analysis. Even if they don't, the responsibility

is going to fall under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. My

question to the minister is very straightforward, and he can answer

when he closes debate on this bill in second reading: how do they

intend to pick and choose testing stations?

Do you know what bothers me about this, and the reason I ask

this question? Because it could be done on a political and patronage

basis.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, believe it or not, it's

quite possible. I've seen it happen before, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to

give the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) an

example right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think if we could avoid

comments about possible dishonourable motives, then we could avoid some

of the heckling.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I want to give

the minister of lands, parks, housing, the environment and the world a

prime example right now. He looks quite serious and says this will

never happen; there will be no political patronage. Let me give you a

couple of good examples of where we've seen this happen. It actually

happened in the motor vehicle branch, in our view; in fact, questions

were raised in this House about this activity not long ago. The

government decided at some point to take driving examinations and

registrations out of the government agent's office.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, they have and you know

that.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I don't think that what the member is bringing here has

anything at all to do with the bill before us. I think he's completely

out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good point. We are on the

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act and dealing with testing stations. Perhaps

the member could remember that.

[ Page 2774

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were

out of order, but I was attempting to make a point on how the private

garages around the province that are going to be licensed will be

chosen. The minister of lands, forests, environment, parks, housing and

whatever interjected and said that no way would these licences be given

out on a political basis. I was attempting to illustrate how very

recently — this year — the government has done exactly that with driver

examinations and licensing in this province. It's a fact. It may have

even happened in your own community; certainly it happened in several

of mine. the question was raised in this House; it's a valid point, but

not under this bill, you're right. I wanted to give one example.... I

can give you several if you're interested, but I know they're out of

order and I won't get away with it, so I won't dwell on it. But it

happens to be an absolute fact — direct political patronage.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would

advise the hon. member that if we can stick to the bill, then perhaps

some of the interjections might not be forthcoming. I would remind the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and Environment (Hon. Mr.

Brummet), that he'll have every opportunity to present his opinion on

this bill to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That was one question. How

do the minister and the ministry intend to license and pick and choose?

Once they have chosen, say, two or three garages or locations in a

small or a large community to inspect vehicles, what will the

qualifications be? How do they know that that particular garage has the

qualified mechanics or inspection...?

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's the committee's job.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The members keep hollering:

"Committee, committee." Is that the reason this bill was put into the

committee — to stifle debate? This bill allows us a wide range of

questions and topics that can be discussed relating directly to its

implementation. It's as simple as that. We could say that everything is

going to be discussed in committee, and presumably it will be. And

presumably the government will accept committee recommendations when

they come down. However, that's presumably; we don't know if that's

going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is on a sticky

point here because there is a committee which the Chair has been

advised of. Nevertheless, I do note in the bill that there are many

provisions which allow for exactly what the member is talking about.

Perhaps if we can avoid specific reference to the committee and some of

its meetings, but maybe bring information from that committee to the

assembly without mentioning the committee and also speak to the

principle of the bill, then we can delicately find our way through the

little icefield that we have here.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No problem at all, Mr.

Speaker. I am, in my view, attempting to speak directly to the

principle of the bill and asking legitimate questions. When there are

interjections across the floor which I can clearly hear and which are

probably picked up by Hansard , then I feel, as has

been the custom in this House, that I must respond. If I don't, what

comes out in Hansard is interjections across the

floor with no response, which, when you're reading Hansard ,

makes those interjections appear correct, but they're not necessarily

correct. Every member in this House, as you have pointed out, Mr.

Speaker, will have the opportunity to speak on this bill over the next

couple of weeks. I'm just making a little parliamentary point there,

Mr. Speaker.

I was asking this question of the minister: when he closes

debate on second reading, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure

that qualified people out there in the private sector can provide the

services that are being contracted for? How do we know that? How will

the minister police that situation? Will there be inspectors appointed

by the ministry and employed by the ministry going around to these

private garages checking up on them? Any of us who have owned or do own

a motor vehicle know from experience that there are good garages and

some that we don't care for very much; some where you receive

high-quality work for the money you pay and some where the work is very

shoddy. We all know that. After owning my vehicle for two years I had a

recall on it three weeks ago. Even during the course of manufacturing

automobiles there are sometimes built-in flaws within that automobile.

So how is the ministry going to inspect that service that will be

provided by the private sector?

I want to make it very clear to you that I'm not knocking the

private sector.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It sounds like you are.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's absolutely not true.

In fact, one of the proposals I would have put forward had the

government not dismantled motor vehicle testing in British Columbia as

it exists today is that in the large rural areas.... Private sector

inspections would have made absolute sense in many of those smaller

communities and rural areas. I wouldn't have been opposed to that. To

set up a motor vehicle testing branch in a community like Sechelt,

Bella Coola, Texada Island, or wherever.... I'm mentioning areas in my

own constituency, but all over the province in those types of

communities it simply would not make sense. It would be financially

prohibitive. I'm asking the minister question number two: how do they

intend to police the quality of the inspections?

[10:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to tell you one of the things that has happened in

other jurisdictions where they've had private motor vehicle testing.

One of the things that has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that one way or

another a certain garage owner or proprietor had received the licence

to test privately motor vehicles. Sometimes, in fact, no real testing

took place at all. Although the motor vehicle owner is paying for the

inspection, sometimes, as in Ontario, $50 — I believe it's $50 in

Ontario for a motor vehicle inspection — I think we can expect to see

that eventually in British Columbia; I don't know. Instead of the $5.50

that was proposed, I think we can expect to see it cost $50 somewhere

down the road, as they now pay in Ontario, to go and have your motor

vehicle tested. Mr. Speaker, what happens if the government doesn't

have in place a means of checking up on these establishments in all

these small communities if eventually — if I read the bill and the

government's policy statement correctly — they attempt to so-called

[ Page 2775

privatize motor vehicle inspections?

That is a question the minister is going to have to address himself to.

The third question I have is a question I mentioned in passing

just a few minutes ago. I wonder if the minister, when he's closing

debate in second reading, could explain to us how the ministry intends

to control costs of motor vehicle inspections. We know in other

jurisdictions — and I mentioned Ontario a few minutes ago — a motor

vehicle inspection once a year costs the motor vehicle owner $50.

According to Mr. Whitlock, we could have had the same service here in

British Columbia for $5.50 a day, at no cost to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You believe him.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why wouldn't I believe Mr.

Whitlock? What does Mr. Whitlock have to lose — the very respected

director of the motor vehicle branch?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) yells across the House that we

haven't got the brains to do our own research. I'm not going to ask him

to withdraw that statement. I'll just consider where it comes from.

Imagine having a member with loose lips and a fried brain like that in

this House as a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. No wonder

the people of this province are in trouble when we've got ministers

like that. He hasn't yelled an interjection across the floor that makes

any sense or that has anything to do with this bill. He just says:

"You've got no brains." Mr. Speaker, that's all he can say. Well, he's

got as much brains as he's got hair — neither of each.

Mr. Speaker, back to the bill. I really don't have a great

deal more to say at this time on the bill, except to express the hope

and wish that the committee, in its deliberations and its

recommendations, when they are eventually brought in...that the

minister will in fact take those recommendations seriously. I just have

this feeling at the back of my mind that the government has in fact

made up its mind on this bill. They have in fact determined already

what they're going to do and how they're going to do it. I hope I'm

wrong. But I strongly suspect, knowing the way this government

operates, that they have already made that decision and that they're

going to do exactly what they want to do when this bill passes, which

it will.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just a charade.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As my colleague says, it's

just a charade. I hope I'm wrong. I know this is going to come up time

and time again during the course of this debate. If it's allowed to do

its work seriously, they'll get no trouble from me. But if it's not,

they're going to get a great deal of trouble from me on this bill, Mr.

Speaker.

Anyway, in closing my remarks, I want to inform the minister

once again that we will be opposing this bill. We don't think it's in

the best interest of the people of British Columbia. We don't think

it's a restraint bill at all. It's going to lead to more motor vehicle

accidents in the province, as it probably already has, because some of

the stations have closed. I'll be interested to hear what the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has to say on this bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will be very brief, as

I'm sure that many of my colleagues would like to say a few words on

this particular bill. No doubt I will be supporting this bill. However,

we can only expect this sort of opposition that we've just heard to it,

because that's the role of the opposition. It would seem that the only

way that they have been able to come up with some argument against this

bill is on a question of costs. I think that if they look deeply into

this bill and the needs of vehicle testing in this province, they will

realized that it's not a question of costs, but rather a question of

greater safety in the province. How can anyone claim that we would be

weakening that particular situation when we have a testing program now

that does not cover the entire province?

Mr. Speaker, I live in the Central Fraser Valley, where we

don't have testing facilities, and I miss that. I believe we should

have it. But the horrendous costs of providing total vehicle testing

for the whole province I think would be going beyond the ability of the

taxpayer to pay for under the present system.

I have much occasion to use the streets of Vancouver and

Victoria, and I have never been instructed to have my car go through

the testing facilities. So we have a hit-and-miss situation now that is

not satisfactory. This bill is long overdue.

As I mentioned, it's not a question of costs, but rather a

question of greater safety on our roads.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's why you're closing

down testing stations: for greater safety. It's incredible.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I just want

to convey my wishes to those who are serving on that committee, because

I believe that that committee has an opportunity to come up with some

very excellent recommendations to the minister responsible that will

indeed give this province well-supervised and total vehicle inspection

for the safety of all of us. I'm suggesting to the committee that as

they discuss the question of how we go about testing vehicles they

discard any thought of this going into any one major company to carry

out the function, because that would be wrong. It's done in other

countries and it can and should be done here. There should be licensed,

qualified mechanics to carry out this function throughout this

province. I'm quite sure that not only would that give us total vehicle

testing coverage, but it would also stimulate something out there in

the local communities where we do have some highly qualified mechanics

who really know their business and would do a good job of the testing

at a cost that would be fair.

Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill wholeheartedly, and no

doubt all of my colleagues will. I think that if some of those members

over there get thinking of this seriously they too may change their

minds and come in and support this worthwhile bill. My closing remark

is my very deep wish that the committee will indeed come in with

recommendations that will turn the responsibility for the testing of

our vehicles over to the private sector by way of licensing highly

qualified mechanics throughout this province in all the small

communities to give us total vehicle coverage.

MR. PASSARELL: Good morning, Mr. Speaker,

and good morning to the hon. minister. I'm glad to see him back in this

Legislature. It's always a pleasure to see the hon. member and I hope

that he's over with his illness and we'll get over with this bill.

[ Page 2776

I have a couple of items here as the Transportation and

Highways critic for the party — just a few thoughts on what the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) says. He says the

opposition is only opposed to the bill because of its cost. I wouldn't

go as far as to say that. I would say more safety would probably come

first, costs second, and then the aspect of having vehicle testing

stations across this province. We have to be realistic. There's no way

that you could put vehicle testing stations across this province. Prior

to this bill coming in, if I'm not mistaken, there were five vehicle

testing branch stations in the mainland and lower Vancouver Island —

Nanaimo, Victoria and three over in Vancouver, which hit approximately

65 percent to 75 percent of all vehicle registrations in the province.

The other aspect the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked

about was having highly trained mechanics throughout the province. Just

at the very end of his speech he said "in all the communities." That's

pretty difficult, because as my hon. friend from North Peace knows, you

can go into many communities in the Great White North and there are not

even gas stations, let alone highly qualified mechanics able to do this

work, so that also is a little unrealistic.

But onto the bill itself, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. The

first aspect of the bill says it gives a definition of a taxi in the

first section. This is welcome information for the public, particularly

here in Victoria where there is a major problem coming out with the

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, in which we've seen major taxi

companies in Victoria not complying with the regulations of the Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act. I think the minister's quite aware of it from

the correspondence that's been coming across. As a matter of fact, just

to touch on it quickly, this matter is going in front of city council

this evening to have them make some decisions under the Motor Vehicle

Amendment Act about taxis that don't comply with ICBC regulations about

paying off their bills year after year.

The second

section aspect of the vehicle amendment act is that

a definition of "school bus" is repealed. This is welcome information,

I'm sure, for school children, particularly if the kid misses the bus,

as in a lot of regards this government has missed the bus for a number

of years here.

The next

section that I'd like to talk about is the note here

that says: "strengthens the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's powers to regulate vehicle equipment, buses and

school buses and empowers him to regulate taxis." I don't think the

government's gone quite far enough. I agree that you have to regulate

vehicle equipment, buses and school buses and empower him to regulate

taxis. One of the problems that has come up is the aspect of bicycles

in the motor vehicle amendment, and I think we should have an aspect

covering bicycles on this too. And if we go into bicycles, we could get

into rickshaws too.

[11:00]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Tricycles and

one-wheelers and roller skates and dogsleds and skateboards. If you are

going to start giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council these kinds of

authorities, you might as well give the Premier — whoever the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is that day — total power to cover

everything that moves under this vehicle amendment act.

The next explanatory note says: "extends the application of a

power to exempt, classify and treat different vehicles differently."

I'm glad, to a certain extent, that the Social Credit government wants

to treat vehicles differently. It's nice to treat different vehicles

differently. It depends on how you're treating them and what you want

to do with them, but back onto Bill

Section 4(

e) says: "empowering

a person who is employed by the ministry to exercise the powers and

duties of a constable or peace officer for the purpose of enforcing

prescribed provisions of this act...." I don't really feel that grader

operators out on the highway should have this responsibility or this

threat of a responsibility to become a traffic cop. I'd rather see a

grader operator out there grading the highway than exercising the

powers and the duties of a police officer or a constable. I really

don't feel that this

section needs to be put into the bill. It's too

wide-ranging to say that any employee of the Ministry of Highways can

be deputized to become a police officer or a constable. I mean, that

would be a tremendous movie, I think: "The Wyatt Earp of Highway 37."

We could see this aspect being — once this bill is passed

today — a new work-sharing program by the government, in which

construction workers for the Ministry of Highways, grader operators,

truck drivers, or whatever would work half the day on road construction

and for the second part of the day, the next four hours, they could be

personnel to enforce the motor vehicle regulations. I would certainly

hope that the minister, before this bill is passed, would have a second

look at empowering an employee of the ministry to become a constable or

police officer.

The next

section of the bill can be stated in certain terms as

the most draconian here. It says that it allows private inspection

programs. A few weeks ago.... And it's already been discussed: Mr.

Whitlock, the 50 cents per car. I don't particularly believe that 50

cents is going to cover the cost. I really don't. If we're going to be

realistic, I really do not believe that 50 cents upon the $5 is going

to cover the cost to the motor vehicle inspection branch. By the same

token, I have to be fair and say that I don't think $50, if it goes

into private hands, is correct either. We have to look at a medium in

here somewhere. I think the 50 cents going into the $5.... Just to set

the record straight, previously it was $5 to get your vehicle

inspected. When you received the citation through the mail you would

take your vehicle into the motor vehicle inspection branch and it would

cost you $5. I think all individuals in the Legislature here who know

anything about it would agree that it's pretty difficult to get

something done in a garage for $5. You're lucky enough....

I remember when I used to own an old Volkswagen, and for $5 I

could get enough gasoline to spend the whole evening out in it. Now in

my truck to try to get $5, I don't even think....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Member, that's

when I was younger. That's right. When you get to be my age, as one of

the senior members of the Legislature, you start thinking twice about

that stuff. But for $5, really, what can you get done at a garage? I

don't even think you can get a windshield wiper for $5 any longer.

So what we're talking about — and I know the hon. Chairman of

the committee wants to know about this $5 aspect — is that it's very

difficult to get work done for $5, and

[ Page 2777

I know she agrees with me. So saying

50 cents is kind of pushing it. By the same token, I think the figures

that have been thrown around by the minister himself, talking about $18

or $19 or $20, or as high as $30.... The media reports $50, using the

example from Ontario, which is a little bit too far out of reach. I

think the duty of the committee is to find something that isn't going

to be super expensive. By the same token, I think we need to have some

kind of inspection by the private sector to a certain extent. The $5

fee for the motor vehicle inspection branches, which will no longer be

in existence, has cost the government a certain amount of money, and if

the government can save some money on it as well as protect people out

on the roads, it will be worthwhile.

A question I have to the minister, which I asked in committee

at one stage, is: what about the motor vehicle inspection buildings?

After October 31 they'll no longer be in use. What plans does the

government have for the five motor vehicle inspection buildings? Are

they going to sell them? I would like to know that. Those motor vehicle

inspection branches now are full of tools and hoists and that kind of

stuff. There's quite a capital inside the motor vehicle inspection

branches today, and I'd just like the minister's response regarding

what's going to happen to the branches themselves, to the

superstructures. Maybe there's going to be an auction of tools or

something. I'd like to know about the auction. I could tell some

friends who need some tools that maybe if they came down to the motor

vehicle inspection branches they might be able to....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: It'll be advertised; I'm

sure it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look after your

constituents, Al.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, you've got to.

Especially when it comes to tools. It's really expensive for tools up

north. When I went up there this weekend I had to go to Whitehorse to

buy some screws. As the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways

knows, because he did not come to the opening of the Atlin

International Airport three weeks ago when he was supposed to, the way

you go to Atlin on a commercial jet is the way....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I know that; that was when

you weren't feeling well. But the fact still remains that.... Just for

the clarification of the minister, when you go to Atlin you fly

commercially by CP Air to Whitehorse, capital of the Yukon, population

15,397.

Back onto Bill 23. One of the problems with the....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What's in that glass?

MR. PASSARELL: What are you wearing that

pink shirt again for? Every time you come in this House, you wear that

pink shirt.

Now what are you doing?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's what happens when you

become the senior member of the Legislature; you look at things through

rose-coloured glasses.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: You mean I'm not the oldest

member of this House? Sitting here all night, I would think so at times.

Back onto Bill 23. One of the problems with the Ontario.... It

would certainly help if the government didn't use the Ontario

legislation — the privatization of motor vehicle inspection branches —

because of the increase of the fee from $5 to $50. A few months ago CTV

did a program concerning vehicle inspection in Ontario, and it came out

that in a lot of situations there was some kind of skulduggery going on

between the garage owners and the motor vehicle owners, whereby money

was transacted to get their decal. You have to have the decal. And as

the CTV program said, it came....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. I share the

sentiments of the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet): when

you have the mandatory aspect, the decal is more important than the

safety of the vehicle. The intent of the bill in Ontario was.... People

were just giving $50 or $25, or whatever the fee was, to the licensee

to get a decal in place on their vehicle, even though it had not gone

through any kind of testing. Really, the only way you're going to keep

a car safe when it's in that kind of situation is take it right off the

road, pull the plates off it and not allow it to go back onto the road

until it has passed some kind of safety inspection.

The cost to the taxpayers, as this Vancouver Sun

article said, was that it would take an additional $3.3 million to

continue the program. That's how they got the figure of 50 cents. I

really do not believe that the 50 cents increase would, as I said

earlier, make up the cost of breaking even, and I would like to see

some kind of costs being instilled so that there would be a break-even

point for the government. I don't believe the government should be

operating the motor vehicle inspection branches — which they're not now

because they are basically closed — at a loss. You just can't do that.

That's my own opinion; I'm sure there'll be other hon. members in this

House who'll be standing up and saying that. By the same token, if it's

going to cost an additional $5 or $10 or $15 to keep the motor vehicle

inspection branches open, I'd rather see that happen than close them

right down and turn them into a new program of private motor vehicle

inspection in this province.

I asked the minister what was going to happen to the

superstructures. Are they going to be turned over to private

entrepreneurs, or what?

Another aspect is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Ritchie) talked about having licensed qualified mechanics

throughout the province. Under this legislation, which is more or less

retroactive because the vehicle inspection branches are already closed

down, I'd like to ask the minister: have the people who were working

the motor vehicle inspection branches and who are not working there any

longer been transferred to other jobs, or have they just been laid off?

We're talking about qualified, skilled mechanics, individuals trained

to work with motor vehicles. They're certainly not paper-pushers. I

would like to know from the

[ Page 2778

minister what has happened to these

mechanics who worked in the motor vehicle inspection branches. Have

they been transferred to other positions?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Listen, the more grader

operators you want to send up north, the more we'll take. We sure can

use them. I know the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) knows

the area and would sacrifice.... As a matter of fact, he'd get up

publicly and say that North Peace River does not need as many grader

operators, and he'd send them over to Atlin.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Who deserves more?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: North Peace.

MR. PASSARELL: Why?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Nice guys always get more

graders, is that it? Oh, I see, it's a new rule. If you're a nice guy,

you get more grader operators.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no grader love in

the Legislature.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. A poet.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We don't want bear-track

stories yet, do we? It's so early. I'll wait. I've got some real beauts

here, but this is too serious a thing to start talking about the cougar

facts yet.

When we come to the aspect of using Mr. Whitlock's statement,

I would like to read an

article from the Automotive Retailer ,

which is a magazine that I think many members of the House are familiar

with. This is by Ron Baldwin, the ARA executive director, and it's

called "Point of View"; it's an editorial. This is from the August 1983

edition.

I have just two quotes here. One is the last paragraph of the

editorial, and it says: "One of the most significant pieces of

legislation being introduced by the government is the elimination of

mandatory safety inspection for all non-commercial vehicles." I think

that one thing we have to say is that this bill does not take away

commercial safety inspection, let's say, of school buses; that's

something that has to be said for it. It's for private motor vehicles,

the ones that you and I would own to drive back and forth to work.

The other quote says:

"The closure of the government testing

stations, along with the announcement that the private sector will be

asked to consider taking over testing, is cause for a great deal of

speculation among garage owners. The ARA has strongly supported the

need for compulsory safety testing, and members will now have to

determine the amount of support they can offer to this new proposal.

The Minister of Highways has invited suggestions from the ARA as to

what type of alternative program for testing would be feasible, and a

series of meetings with the motor vehicle department is being arranged

so that industry views can be heard. These meetings should prove to be

most interesting!"

Now I respect the minister's judgment,

and from what I hear from ARA executive members, the minister has

started the process of dealing with private industry to find the best

ways of getting around the closing of the motor vehicle inspection

branches and turning them over to private enterprise.

I went on earlier about the recent television program on CTV

which showed the Ontario program as being, in many regards, dishonest

because of the problem where people find that the decal is more

important than the safety of their vehicle, and would rather, at times,

instead of having the vehicle inspected in Ontario, simply pay for it

under the counter to get the decal onto their car. In this television

program you found a very few dishonest garage owners who were charging

higher fees. Instead of performing the work on the motor vehicle, they

would simply charge a higher fee, pass the money across the counter,

and get the decal put on the vehicle windshield.

Secondly, one of the problems that came out in this program

was the aspect of bogus safety work that was being performed on the

vehicle. Even using the figure of $50 in Ontario, if you look at a

mechanic's hourly fee and the cost involved with doing a total motor

vehicle inspection, sometimes the cost can be much higher. One of the

problems with the Ontario program is that once you take your vehicle to

a garage for the $50 inspection, if the mechanic finds a problem with

the car, that car cannot leave that garage until the problem is fixed.

Sometimes what has happened, as pointed out in this program, is that a

garage owner will tell a little old lady from Pasadena: "You've got

some problems on your car; it's going to cost you $150; this vehicle

can't leave until the work is performed." In a lot of regards, bogus

work has been performed on vehicles in Ontario because of this little

section of their act that says the car can't leave until that work is

performed.

I think an individual in any type of private enterprise system

should have the opportunity to take their vehicle to another dealership

to see if they can have the work performed more cheaply. I would

certainly hope that when we pass our legislation in this province we

put that regulation in, so that you have the right to take your vehicle

to another dealership to have the work performed, even if it has to be

towed. If you're not driving it.... Let's say, for instance, that you

pull your vehicle into a garage and three wheels have fallen off, it's

got no lights on it, and every time it hits a bump part of the body

falls off onto the highway. I don't believe that that kind of vehicle

should be just driven out of the dealership, but by the same token you

should have the right to get a tow-truck, pull it out and take it to a

friend, another dealership, or whatever the case may be, to have the

work performed if it would be cheaper. In a competitive market, you

have the right to do this. In Ontario there have been some problems

with motor vehicle inspections, where you can't take it out once you

bring it in; they say there's a problem.

I think all of us in the Legislature know why we're debating

this bill, and that's for safety on our roads. I think all of us are in

agreement on that.

Another

section I'd like to deal with on this bill — it's

quite a long bill — is

section 7 on "notification to present the

vehicle for inspection." The present system didn't work. You

[ Page 2779

sent letters out to individuals who

often would just ignore them. And after sending three letters to the

individual, who might have moved ten times in that six-month period,

the sheriff could come and take the plates off if the vehicle hadn't

come for an inspection. That was extra cost. The new assistant motor

vehicle superintendent has said that less than 5 percent of all cars on

the road had their plates pulled off for not having been brought in for

an inspection.

A problem I see with this bill is that it says: "notification

to present the vehicle for inspection." Does the minister believe that

once this bill is passed you're going to send letters to residents

right across this province to turn their vehicles in for an inspection?

I mean, it's going to be pretty difficult for residents in Iskut or

Telegraph Creek to present their vehicles for inspection under

section

7(1)(b).

MR. KEMPF: It would be a long trip.

MR. PASSARELL: It would be a long trip, as

the member for Omineca says. What would you do? It's too wide-ranging

to say here that the ministry could send a letter to any individual in

this province that they would have to take it to the nearest private

inspection branch, which could be hundreds and hundreds of miles away

from their home. Up north we pay 64 cents, in some places close to 70

cents per litre of gas, and to drive your vehicle, for instance, from

Telegraph Creek to Terrace, which would be the next major centre to

have a motor vehicle inspection done.... You're talking a few hundred

dollars that the individual would have to put out just to go down and

have his vehicle tested.

Safety standards will be taken from the cabinet and given to

the superintendent of motor vehicles. Why? I think we as the duly

elected representatives of this province should have some say in what

the safety standards should be for vehicles on the roads.

Section 8 asks the municipalities, as worded in 215.1(1)(b),

to carry out inspections. I could see in some regards why the five

empty motor vehicle inspection branches are now asking, in some kind of

selling of superstructures, or whatever the case is, to have the

municipalities do this. In my riding I have only one municipality, and

that is Stewart. I can't see what the saving would be to Stewart if

you're asking the municipalities to carry out vehicle inspections. I

don't really see how the municipality of Stewart could handle a

situation like that without increasing taxes, and I certainly hope this

section won't raise the taxes of people in Stewart.

Penalties fall under the Offence Act,

chapter 305. The general

penalty under

section 4 of the Offence Act is that a person is liable

to a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or

both. Another question to the minister is: why have you included this

section in the bill? I think that's pretty steep that individuals can

be fined $2,000 or put in jail for six months for failing to comply

with this regulation, especially with this act not being that specific

on what you're going to do outside the mainland regarding vehicle

inspection. That's pretty heavy-handed to put $2,000 over people if

they're living in areas where there aren't gas stations or garages and

you have to bring in 50-gallon drums to get your gas in isolated areas.

I would certainly hope this would not be used as an offensive against

people who wouldn't be supportive of you. I wouldn't want to say that

the minister would want to put his critics in jail using

section 4. I

know the minister is quite a jovial individual and would never go to

that extreme of saying, if anybody opposed him: "Use

section 4 and put

that gentleman into jail."

Superintendent's standards and approval, 215.2(a): "prescribe

safety standards for a vehicle...that is offered for sale, exposed, or

displayed for sale." I don't really understand, Mr. Minister, what you

mean when you say a vehicle is exposed. Maybe you could clarify that

section. I could see safety standards for vehicles that are sold.

Whether it's a private transaction or is done commercially, safety

standards should be applicable. But I don't understand what exposed

means in this

section about vehicles.

The next

section I would like to discuss is

section 9. Why

have a police officer inspect a vehicle? I said earlier that under this

act the ministry has the right to deputize grader operators to carry

out vehicle inspection on the road. I hope that will be amended somehow

to make it a little clearer what you are talking about. By the same

token, you can't expect police officers to spend the majority of their

day inspecting vehicles. As most of us know, most police officers are

pretty hard-working, dedicated servants, and I really can't see them

spending their time standing out on the Trans-Canada Highway doing

motor vehicle inspections. That is an extra cost to the taxpayers of

this province and I don't think it is needed. If this

section passes

and the act passes whereby police officers are supposed to go out and

inspect motor vehicles, which they are not really qualified to do in

the first place, do they receive a stipend from the government? Do you

receive a little payment every time you go out and...?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, the member for Atlin in making some excellent comments on

this bill, I must admit, but he is moving from

section to section....

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, not this one. I did

about five minutes ago but not this one.

[11:30]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I may,

he has moved through several different sections. Each time he starts a

new line he refers to another section. Good comments, no doubt, but I

think better made during committee. Second reading, as I understand it,

is to discuss the general principles of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I

would ask the member to go ahead, please.

MR. PASSARELL: That was the nicest thing

the Minister of Forests has ever said. I have to take his judgment

there and thank him.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't know if we're going

to go that far. We need you back here in the next election.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, don't change. We

really want you back now.

Bill 23 allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, often the Premier,

to make regulations on the installation of components in a motor

vehicle or trailer. Now, I really don't believe

[ Page 2780

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has

the expertise to make regulations regarding the installment of

components in motor vehicles or trailers. I would rather see this

aspect taken out as a general principle of the bill and referred to the

superintendent of motor vehicles, instead of allowing the Lieutenant-

Governor-in-Council to make these kinds of decisions. I really don't

understand why you need that kind of power and that authority.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What

section is that

under?

MR. PASSARELL: We are not supposed to talk

about sections, Mr. Minister of Forests, as you know. If you started

doing that I would have to stand up on a point of order and say we need

to be in committee to do that. But the principle of the bill states

that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who is often the Premier, can

make regulations concerning the installment of components in motor

vehicles. I really don't think that's needed in this bill. Somebody who

has the technical expertise should do this, whether it's the

superintendent of motor vehicles or someone in that ministry. I don't

think the executive council needs that kind of regulation.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: When that light comes on

I've got three minutes. All right? You've been quiet, Mr. Member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). You've sat there and listened to

my speech. You're going to follow me in debate here as usual, and I've

got three minutes.

There is so much more here that I have to say. If I said I was

the designated speaker right now, would that light go off?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I have so

much more to say on this, and I know the time is running out. A couple

of things. First, as a recommendation to the minister, when you get

these decals from the private companies, once this bill is passed, to

be put on for safety inspection, please don't make them those "B.C.

spirit" things. Okay? Find something else. Put a B.C. flag on it, but

not the "B.C. spirit."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Expo 86? I don't really

care, but not that spirit stuff. That's bad.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Sure, I see a lot of spirit

around here in the evenings. I know you would, Mr. Minister. Don't use

those "B.C. spirit" things on it, because that gets too cheap. We're

talking about safety of vehicles. We don't need the "B.C. spirit" on

it. As a matter of fact, what I would really like is a picture — you

could get a nice little decal — of the minister, maybe with some moose

horns behind him. It would really be something unique for British

Columbia, instead of this decal that you found down in Georgia or

wherever it is you stick around....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Ontario.

Put the picture of the minister on it with some moose horns

and a sun coming down behind him, and I think that would....

HON. A. FRASER: How about a grizzly bear?

MR. PASSARELL: A grizzly bear would be

fine, or one of those cats that the minister came down 18,000 feet

yesterday to pick up.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: The B.C. Lions are doing so

well now that we don't want to — as the Premier did to the Vancouver

Canucks one time when he jinxed them.... We want the B.C. Lions.... I

thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It has been a slice. Have a good day.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I

did, however, want to speak on this bill, because this is a very

important subject. We are talking essentially about people's lives,

we're talking about accident prevention, and I think the government is

proceeding in the right direction. The general drift of this bill, in

other words, is right. We have inspection in this province, but it is

inspection in certain areas only. It is inspection which is focused

only on non-commercial passenger-car vehicles, and it is confined to

parts of the lower mainland and the lower half of Vancouver Island.

What we have is incomplete coverage as far as inspection is concerned,

and also non-compliance.

I gather that roughly half of the population of the province

is covered as far as inspection is concerned. At least the inspection

facilities have been available to roughly half of the population. But

the compliance has been in the order of 50 percent. In other words, in

Vancouver city, for example, only half of the passenger cars will have

been inspected in the last 12 months; only half carry valid decals. So

half of the population has access to automobile inspection, and roughly

half of those who have access comply. To me that adds up to one

passenger vehicle out of four in this province carrying a valid decal.

In other words, we really have only, on a provincewide basis, something

in the order of 25 percent effective coverage. So one of the challenges

facing the government and members of this Legislature is how to

increase the coverage, how to increase the compliance. I believe this

can be done in one of several ways. One, of course, is to make

facilities for inspection generally available throughout the province.

The other, of course, is to police the compliance where those

facilities are available.

As the hon. member for Atlin has said, the circumstances vary

considerably from one part of the province to another — from the highly

populated, relatively dense area in Vancouver to the far north. So we

cannot possibly have government-built, elaborate, well-manned, publicly

owned inspection stations all over the province — inspection stations

of the type that we've had since the 1930s in Vancouver, taken over

postwar by the province, and increased in the sense that there is an

inspection station in Burnaby, one in Victoria and one in Nanaimo. We

have some inspection stations. They are relatively expensive to man. We

have no better than 50 percent compliance. We have stations in

existence — they are now being wound up, Mr. Speaker — which cannot

possibly be

[ Page 2781

copied in other parts of the province,

certainly not in the more thinly populated parts. So it is logical to

go to the private sector to recruit the help of competent mechanics in

existing garages scattered across the province. Admittedly there are

only some 2,500 of them, but they are much more out where the people

are than the government stations that have existed are and than some

additional stations which might make sense manned by the government

could possibly be. So coverage dictates privatization, and going out

and using the private facilities.

It's a costly operation to inspect; certainly it costs more

than $5

or $7.50, the kind of price that's been charged latterly by the

government. One report which has been circulating suggests $15. Surveys

of various private garage organizations, chains and so on suggests

something in the order of $30 is the cost of a thorough inspection of a

vehicle. So we are talking about fees of an order of magnitude several

times those which have been charged in the few government-owned and

government-operated stations in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I am one of those who believe that the owners of motor

vehicles,

especially automobiles — but I would also include commercial vehicles

operated for profit — should not be subsidized. I don't believe that

the taxpayer should pay for the insurance on that vehicle or for the

inspection of that vehicle. Therefore, in the case of

government-operated stations, I believe that they should have long

since raised the charge to something like $15 so that the operation

could break even. I believe that if the cost out there is $20, $25 or

$30, that is what the owner of the vehicle must pay and that there

should be no element of subsidy whatsoever from the treasury, from the

taxpayer, from people who don't own cars or who look after their own

vehicles. They shouldn't be subsidizing those who need that kind of

assistance in any way whatsoever. So: one, privatize; two, allow the

private sector to charge a rate which is reasonably compensatory.

There is the obvious problem of policing the adequacy of the

inspection to make sure that there isn't any skulduggery — to use the

term employed by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). That is a

challenge. That is one of the difficulties which we face as a

committee. We have to come up with recommendations as to how the

inspection in private garages can be properly administered so that

those whose vehicles are inspected will get value for their money and

will drive away with a safe vehicle, so that their lives and the lives

of others on the highway are safe as a result of that inspection.

I think one of the obvious checks — and that is contained in

this legislation — is giving police officers the power to stop vehicles

and, if necessary, take to some properly authorized garage nearby for

an inspection those vehicles which they may be unable to inspect

properly themselves. Those spot checks, as long as they are frequent

enough out there, will exert a kind of discipline and cause people to

get their cars inspected. I gather this is the process which has been

used for years in respect to many commercial vehicles. That operation

has to be intensified, because, as I understand it, the number of

commercial vehicles — trucks etc. — which have been found faulty on the

highways by these spot checks is as high as one in four; 25 percent of

the commercial vehicles out there, some of them massive vehicles on our

highways, are unsafe at any speed, so to speak. So I think the

spot-check approach, together with the licensing of private garages

with competent staff, is the best way to get coverage across the whole,

or most, of the province. Extremely remote areas will always present a

great difficulty.

[11:45]

As to the frequency of inspection, there have been various

recommendations. Some have recommended an annual inspection, others

have said that a brand-new vehicle need not be inspected for the first

three years, and then for the next few years every second year — this

kind of thing. I gather we have in the order of 1.7 million or 1.8

million vehicles in the province. If we include privately owned

passenger cars, taxis, school buses, trucks and heavy vehicles on the

highways there is something in the order of 1.8 million vehicles, and

if every one had to be inspected annually that would be 1.8 million

inspections — that is, if there is 100 percent compliance. That's too

many. That is far too big an effort. It has never been achieved in

other jurisdictions. That is one of the reasons why I certainly would

want to adopt the idea that the brand-new vehicle does not require

inspection for a period of several years.

In the United Kingdom, I gather that all vehicles must be

inspected

prior to the third anniversary — that is before they become three years

old — and every year thereafter. If we followed that system we would

still have to inspect something like 1.5 million vehicles a year. If we

went to the Ontario system, which is essentially inspection on sale —

whenever the vehicle changes hands but not otherwise — if everyone was

complying we'd be inspecting something like 400,000. Roughly, that's

one-quarter as many per year as would be the case if we followed the

British system.

Presumably, Mr. Speaker, the committee will be addressing

these

questions. How frequent should the inspections be? What should be their

nature?

Again, the main thrust of this legislation is to have more

extensive

coverage as far as inspection is concerned and to have more thorough

coverage, especially in the area of commercial vehicles. I agree with

both of those objectives. I think they're correct. The challenge is how

to do this reasonably, not only in the densely populated areas of the

province such as the lower mainland, but throughout most or all of the

province, and how to do it without imposing costs on people —

especially outside the lower mainland — which they would find

burdensome and to which they would object.

So, I think privatization to give the more extensive coverage

is the

route to go; indeed, it is the only route to go. I believe that the

individual commercial and non-commercial vehicle owners should pay the

full shot. The government should set a price or limit on the fee which

is reasonable and sufficient to attract the garages. The government

must have a flying squad to check up on these garages and certainly to

check up on the condition of vehicles on the highway, regardless of

ownership and regardless of whether they're commercial or

non-commercial.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this legislation. I know

that it's

a step in the right direction. I know that we have a long way to go in

terms of extensive coverage throughout the province and in terms of

compliance. We have to have a reasonable system before we can expect

people to comply; that's one of the challenges facing our committee.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I realize that

many of the points were made in this debate when we discussed the

[ Page 2782

motion to send it to a committee. But

as it is such

an important debate — as far as I'm concerned it is one of our major

debates that will face this House — I would like you to bear with me,

Mr. Speaker, as I repeat a couple of the arguments I brought up before.

First of all, I am only going to deal with one aspect when

debating

this bill; that is, the aspect of the privatization of the motor

vehicle testing. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) spoke in detail

on the other aspects for us. The reason I say that this is such an

important piece of legislation is that in all fairness.... I'm going to

try to be fair to the government members; they have the same concerns

as the members of the official opposition with the tremendous traffic

fatalities. I don't think there is anyone over there who hasn't been

touched one way or the other, directly or indirectly.

I am not up here to accuse members of the government of not

being

concerned with traffic deaths. What I am here for is to try to convince

the government that the new route they're going to take in moving from

mandatory government automobile testing to privatization is going to do

exactly the opposite of what they hope it will. It will cause an

increase in traffic deaths. That is why the members of the opposition

are so concerned with this move, and that is why I am going to

attempt.... I know it will be difficult, because I feel that the

government, unfortunately, have made up their minds on this. But our

duty is to try to bring up a few more points, hoping that the

government will take a second look at what I consider to be a very

regressive and almost, shall I say, stupid move in the light of

statistics. I will point out why I say that.

I realize that the committee will go into details of how this

is to

come about. First of all, I would like to say that we're all aware of

the tremendous problem of traffic safety. Without going through all the

details, I would hope that the government members would read the ICBC

traffic safety report which was brought out by an all-party committee

of the House. Instead of going through it all with you, I would like to

mention a couple of facts in starting my debate. First, 859 people were

killed in traffic accidents last year in British Columbia. Over 44,000

were injured. One in seven vehicles were damaged in accidents. When you

think of it, that would be equivalent to two huge jumbo jets colliding

over the city of Victoria. You can imagine the uproar and the write-ups

in the papers about the injuries from those deaths in a jumbo aircraft

collision. Yet we have this tremendous number of people being killed

every day in the province. Unfortunately it does not seem to arouse the

public to the same degree.

I do not contend, in any way, that the mechanical failure of a

motor

vehicle is the major cause of traffic accident deaths. I've studied

that enough with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who was on our

committee. I know that it is not, but the point is that it is a factor.

Mechanical failure is a strong factor in the cause of traffic deaths.

Frankly I personally question the percentage as being somewhat low,

because many traffic accidents, once the accident has occurred....

Really detailed checks are seldom made on whether the cause was truly

mechanical failure. I know it is not always possible.

So, therefore, what are we going to do about it? We accept the

fact

that mechanical failures do cause many of our accidents. The NDP

contend that the best way to solve this aspect of traffic deaths is to

ensure that we have mandatory testing and that it be done at the least

possible expense to the citizen, who is already overburdened. Of course

it cannot put the government in the red; we understand that. But I

contend that all those things can be taken care of best through the

motor vehicle testing stations. If we start moving to privatization,

we're going to juggle figures. There is no question about it. It is

going to cost more money once it goes into the hands of private

testing. Even the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who

just took his seat, said that we had a problem in setting a fee that

won't be too onerous because, after all, we have to set it high enough

to attract the garage owners. You see, there is our basic difference in

philosophy. We put traffic safety on a level where we say that there

should be no profit made out of our moves to bring down traffic

accidents. Yet this government is so obsessed with privatization that

they're taking one of the most important areas that we face, the whole

area of traffic accidents, and they're going to risk increasing them by

turning them over to privatization. They admit themselves that they'll

have to raise the cost because of it.

We hear all but the advantages. In the long run we're going to

able, perhaps, to test more. If the government had been serious about

maintaining government testing, they could have expanded testing to a

certain degree in other parts of the province, with some ingenuity. One

of our members who spoke on the problems of testing in remote areas

admitted that even with the move to privatization, it was going to be

very difficult to bring cars down from very remote areas for testing. I

contend that you're going to have many of the same problems in the

rural areas.

But one of the things that really concerns me is that if

testing is

turned over to the private sector, we are going to have increased

costs. What does that mean today? In my opinion, if it gets to the

point where it is almost mandatory or semi-mandatory by spot checks, we

are going to be putting a tax on the citizens of British Columbia —

another tax for having their cars tested. The benefits will not go into

public revenue, as they would have done if we had been able to increase

our profit in the others. But do you know what is going to happen? That

money that is going to go to the private sector will not go back into

general revenue. It is going there strictly to benefit the private

sector, at the expense of increased taxes on our citizens, who are

already burdened with increased taxation,

As far as whether we break even or not in government, my

feeling is

that government should simply break even on that matter. It could be

done, and even if there is a slight increase in the cost to the

citizen, I can assure you that the average B.C. citizen would rather

carry on with government motor vehicle inspection at a reasonable rate

than be forced into paying up to $50 or maybe more to an individual

garage owner. They know that that money is going.... Under compulsion,

they are being forced to pay a private owner to have their car tested.

Philosophically we are opposed to that. I think most of the citizens,

who may not be NDP or Social Credit, or may not see this as any

philosophical debate, don't care whether you privatize or not, but

would consider it somewhat unfair if they're going to be ordered into a

private garage for a test which may cost them double what it would

under the government.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You have a choice, Eileen.

[12:00]

MRS. DAILLY: I don't understand that,

according to the

minister's introduction of the bill. We were not told that the owner is

going to have a choice. Are we to understand, then,

[ Page 2783

that government testing stations are

going to be available if one wishes to use them?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, but you can choose the

private one you want.

MRS. DAILLY: Ah, you can choose the private

one! You see what we get down to, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe there is an

option contained in

section 7.

MRS. DAILLY: We're told that we're going to

have a choice between one private owner and another. What a specious

argument!

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: We are discussing traffic

safety. We're not discussing going out and buying gasoline.

There is a basic issue here. We want to ensure that we cut

down

traffic accidents, and I contend that this move to privatization is

going to increase traffic accidents, not decrease them. You know where

most of the accidents take place? With our teenagers. I want to bring

to your attention one of the other results that will take place when it

is moved, if it is, to privatization. Buying a car, as we know, is one

of the most important steps in most young people's lives. Often it is a

used car. Do I need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the young person who

manages to buy a car — gets his or her licence — is certainly hardly

ever in a position to keep that car up to mechanical standards? I think

we all know of people close to us who are in that position. At least

when we had mandatory government testing, we knew that those cars in

the lower mainland and Victoria area, where the bulk of the people

reside — I know there is a problem in the north and in the other areas,

and I am concerned about it — had to go in to be tested. But let's say

that it now is mandatory, and we find that you are being forced into a

private dealer to be tested.

What is going to happen? As usual, the teenager who happens to

have

money will be able to find the $50, but the one who doesn't have the

money won't be able to do it. There again we have the difference

between Social Credit and NDP. They are not concerned that this kind of

thing can work in favour of those who have the money over those who

don't. That's another problem. I don't think the government has even

considered the effect on the low-income person, who, up till now, could

take his car in and pay a reasonable amount for testing. Once it goes

into private hands, as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) said, we have to make it basically lucrative for the private

dealer. Once it happens, up goes the price. You know what we're going

to find? More and more people will be unable to go in and have their

cars tested. They're going to be driving around in cars that are

mechanically unsafe, and everyone is going to be at risk because of

this.

I don't think the government has thought this through. They

may be

concerned about traffic deaths — and, as I said in the beginning, I'm

sure they are. But I am positive that this obsession with privatizing

everything in British Columbia is going to produce some very serious

negative results in traffic accidents. These are my main concerns.

I found it interesting when the member for Central Fraser

Valley

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) spoke –– I know I was accused of being somewhat

inconsistent a few moments ago, but I want to give you the height of

inconsistency. He stated at the beginning of his brief remarks that he

was in favour of privatization and started off by saying: "It's been

hit and miss up to now with government testing. It's really too

costly." We always get the bottom line with the Social Credit

government: "It's really too costly." What price is there on human

lives? I am telling the government that if they want to see costs rise,

they're going to see them rise tremendously with this move to

privatization. Putting aside their concern over traffic deaths and

accidents on the highway, if this government is so desperate to save

money, I want to point out to them that they're not going to save money

by this move, because of the increased traffic accidents that will

follow. I notice that the Minister of Municipal Affairs continued to

say, after he had opened his speech, that it is really too costly, and

that was one reason we have to privatize. Then he said at the end of

his speech: "It's not really a matter of cost." If the Minister of

Municipal Affairs symbolizes the murky thinking of the government on

this bill, all I can say is that the province is in deep trouble if

this goes through.

This bill, to my mind, is indeed one of the most important,

because

if this bill goes through, I can say in all sincerity that the

government is going to find that some of the automobile statistics that

we have in front of us are going to be even more horrendous than what

we face today. I sincerely believe that. Privatization for the sake of

privatization is not the answer. Even when they go into their

committee, the government is going to find that in moving to

privatization they are going to create far more problems than they had

ever conceived of before.

I agree that the problem of government testing was a problem

when it

came to not servicing the other areas of the province, but why on earth

should that be the major reason for throwing out mandatory government

testing, which, by the way, was known right across Canada as being one

of our best programs? It was indeed successful, except for the areas

not serviced. But surely a government committee could sit down and work

out far more effective ways and means of extending mandatory government

testing to the out-of-reach areas. They could far better spend their

time doing that than trying to turn the whole system over to private

industry.

I think that this committee, which has been mentioned before,

will

really be a charade, because the government has already made up its

mind. But I say to them that in working out the details, they are going

to find themselves with a tremendous amount of problems. I don't

believe there is any way that it should have been done this way. This

government not only goes backward, but it continues to do everything in

a backward way. For an example, why did they not set up an all-party

committee first to look at the pros and cons, if they had to, of

privatization versus government? Instead, they brought a bill into the

House that, once passed, turns it over to privatization.

Here again this government does not have a mandate to

privatize

everything in this province. The public did not ask for the

privatization of motor vehicle testing. I don't believe that that was

discussed. It might have been brought up on an individual basis by a

Socred candidate who happened to feel committed to it, but I can tell

you that the majority of people in British Columbia are concerned about

making sure that when they go out in their car not only is their own

car safe but so is the car coming toward them. There were no great

complaints about the basic principle of government testing.

[ Page 2784

Everyone used to complain about

lineups, but surely that is not the reason that the government has

brought in this bill.

If any bill should be withdrawn and studied and given to the

public

to come to speak on it, it is this bill. I can almost guarantee that

the majority of B.C. citizens would say that they want protection and

they want it done through mandatory government testing. They are really

going to question why a government that professes to be concerned about

traffic accidents would indeed embark upon privatization, which

inevitably is not going to decrease but instead cause an increase in

accidents. I ask the government to stop this bill. If you want to

discuss it, put it into a committee, but do not push a bill like this

through the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the

next member the

Chair will observe to the House that we have an interesting timing

situation here with another forum that is discussing similar matters.

However, the Chair must observe — and I appreciate the delicacy and

finesse that must be observed by all members in debating second reading

on this bill — that it would be a discourtesy to that other forum to

anticipate some of its findings. I'm sure the members appreciate the

problem the Chair will have, and I sincerely appreciate the problems

the members will have in debating the bill before us now.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. It's interesting

that you should make those comments just prior to the member for

Omineca taking his place.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Hardly. I stand to support this

bill. I've

listened to much interesting debate this morning, and I find myself in

my usual position of disagreeing with both sides.

I stand, I believe, to speak on behalf of northerners, because

it is

northerners I represent in this House. I would like to say on their

behalf that we don't want any testing at all. It is on that basis that

I herald this bill and what it does — the shutting down of five testing

stations which exist only in the lower mainland at a cost of some $3

million a year plus. No one this morning has mentioned in this House

the rental that's paid for those five testing stations to the British

Columbia Buildings Corporation by the Ministry of Highways. They cost

$3 million a year plus that rental for a service of which no one in the

northern 80 percent of this province can partake. Besides that, I say

again — and I've had a lot of input from constituents in my riding —

that we don't want any testing at all, because we can take care of

ourselves, thank you very much. We have taken care of ourselves for

years, thank you very much. We have for years ensured that the vehicles

we drove on the roads in British Columbia were safe, thank you very

much, and we can continue without socialist schemes to do just that. We

don't have to have the old womb to tomb philosophy where Big Brother

government has to hold our hand. No one would agree with that more than

yourself, Mr. Speaker, being from the north.

[12:15]

Again I say we don't want any testing at all, and I would

caution the minister and the committee that has been set up in this

House to look into what should be done in the area of vehicle testing

in this province not to bring in anything that is mandatory as far as

vehicle inspection in this province is concerned. I seriously believe

that the drivers and vehicle owners of this province can and will look

after themselves in the area of vehicle testing. No way should

government be involved. Not only should government not be involved in

that, but government shouldn't be involved in a whole lot of other

things that government is involved in which affect the everyday lives

of the citizens of this province.

There's been a lot of talk here this morning about the cost.

One of

the comments was: "What price is human life?" That's a very valid

comment, but I don't think it should be made in the context of arguing

or debating this bill. The member that just took her place cited a

report brought into this House on July 21, 1982, called "Traffic Safety

in British Columbia." It was done by a committee of this House called

the Committee on Crown Corporations. I'll go further into speaking in

regard to that committee when and if — and I hope it will happen — Bill

21 is called in this Legislature, because I've got a whole lot to say

about that committee and the tragedy of it having been done away with

in this province. If you read that report — and I'll read parts of it

here this morning — on traffic safety in British Columbia, which,

incidentally, for those members who do not know, has been heralded as

one of the best safety reports in history, it points out very clearly

and did a great in-depth study into what it is that causes traffic

accidents, particularly in the province of British Columbia. It came up

quite conclusively with the information that it certainly isn't

equipment and the malfunctioning of equipment that causes traffic

accidents in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I'll

read just a little from this report: "While these major factors can

combine" — and they were talking about human factors, vehicle and

equipment factors; problems external from the driver — "in an accident,

the most significant is the human factor — errors of

recognition-perception, decision or performance...." Human performance

is implicated in over 90 percent of all vehicle crashes in the province

of British Columbia — not the condition of the vehicle at all. Of the

10 percent remaining, a very small percentage has to do with vehicle

failure itself.

So, Mr. Speaker, what are we really arguing here this morning?

It's

a real fallacy to argue in this Legislature as to whether or not we

should be operating government vehicle testing stations. I believe that

given the facts of the matter, we shouldn't be arguing that question at

all. I'll be able to argue some of that when Bill 21 is called. What we

really need in this province, as this report points out quite

conclusively, is a proper, valid and working traffic safety committee.

That's what we need. We do not need to test the vehicles of this

province; we need to educate the drivers. If we can educate the drivers

of this province, we can cut down all of the vehicle accidents by at

least 90 percent. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, at the same time we can

save the $3 million plus that was being spent on the five testing

stations, which did the northern communities absolutely no good at all,

as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said. That's what we need to be

arguing in this chamber. To argue anything else in regard to traffic

safety is a complete waste of time of this Legislature.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I heard debate from both sides of the floor

talking

about the cost of testing stations, the costs of vehicle testing to the

people of this province. I have a great respect for the entrepreneur in

this province, and I have a great respect for the citizen — the vehicle

owner of this province. Given a

[ Page 2785

combination of those two, there is no

need for

mandatory inspection of vehicles. The member for Atlin talked about

distances. Mr. Speaker, we in the north look after our vehicles. If we

didn't, it wouldn't be a case of them being necessarily involved in

accidents; it would be a case of sitting out in the boondocks 100 miles

from nowhere freezing to death in the middle of January. If we didn't

take care of our vehicles, that's exactly what would happen to us. We

don't have those frills of the lower mainland to have even our very

minor roads and highways paved. So we look after them ourselves. I

would suggest that we must continue. I would not support any

recommendation that was brought into this House that would involve any

kind of mandatory vehicle inspection in this province, because I don't

think it's necessary and I don't think the people — certainly the

people of the north — want it. They do not.

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset I was going to be brief. I

will. I

think I've said all I want to say on this bill and on the motion which

set up the committee which is going to be looking into the

possibilities of doing something other than was done with the five

testing stations. I just want to leave this assembly with this point:

we don't need that "womb to tomb" philosophy, particularly where it

relates to vehicle testing. We don't even need vehicle testing, so why

are we arguing the point here in this Legislature? What we should

really be doing is putting our heads together and thinking seriously. I

would commend the reading of this report to all hon. members of this

House. This is what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker, not arguing as to

whether we should have government vehicle testing stations or not.

MR. MITCHELL: I always find it amusing when

I listen to my

official critic, the member for Omineca, when he ruins a good speech by

his rhetoric and political philosophy. Actually, a lot of what he did

say was reasonably intelligent, except that he goes off and has to make

some vicious attack on the welfare of people when you're dealing with

human resources and pensions and everything else. Testing cars has

nothing to do with the "womb to tomb" philosophy. This is where I think

the whole government attack on government services has been directed

from a politically motivated philosophy. When the cabinet was sitting

making up their hit list, the good member for Cariboo, the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), had to come up with

something that was going to attack something down in the government

services that are now being provided. So he came up with this

particular attack without giving it the reasonable thought that is

needed. If you're going to change something that you have established,

then you do it in a reasonable way with some long-range thoughts.

I would say the most positive part of this bill is that

they've

taken out of the hands of the cabinet and put in the hands of the

superintendent the power to make the decisions on where the testing

stations will be and what the requirements will be. In spite of what I

know the members of the government side will say, the superintendents

of the motor vehicle branch, because of their experience, their

day-to-day opportunity to see what is needed to correct some of the

faults of the driving public, are better prepared to make

recommendations than something pushed through the cabinet from a

political nature. I think we should review what the motor vehicle

stations have done in the past and where we're at now.

Vehicle inspections were started in Vancouver. They were

started

because somebody wanted to create a bureaucracy for his own particular

self or his family, or something of that nature. They were started

because back in the thirties a lot of vehicles — maybe because of the

Depression and lack of funds — that were being driven on the roads of

Vancouver were unsafe. It was just common sense that if we were going

to protect the other travelling public, we must have some safety

standards on those roads.

In those days the back roads of Omineca and the Fraser Valley

weren't as thick and crowded with cars. A lot of the back roads of

Dewdney and Surrey back in the thirties were farm roads. A lot of

vehicles that were reasonably safe on a quiet road were not necessarily

safe to drive in the city of Vancouver at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a double standard.

[12:30]

MR. MITCHELL: There is a double standard.

There's a standard

of safety. It's not so much a double standard; it's actually looking at

the facts as they really are. I think we have to look at the facts of

the situation that we have without trying to make one law that's going

to cover everything. When you do that, when you try and stamp out every

one of us in a mold, so that every situation can be answered by one

statement, it doesn't work. The safety standards as developed in

Vancouver were then adopted by other major cities as the traffic became

heavier and, with the types of vehicles that were on the road, the

speeds became more apparent. You must have some group or organization

that has the authorization to keep abreast of changing vehicle and

traffic patterns, vehicle construction and the economics of what is

happening out in the traffic world.

I think the evolution of the testing stations in the greater

Victoria area and out into Burnaby and Nanaimo was something that grew

from need. I think they recognized that the particular need for testing

was more apparent in the heavily populated cities than it was in the

rural areas. I believe that that philosophy was sound. I believe it was

something that developed.... I know that in the developing stage, for

political reasons, the government was not prepared to raise the rates,

so that the rates actually represented the cost of giving that service.

This has been one of our major problems in British Columbia. If it is

going to be a government service, then for political reasons we must

keep the rates down. So they were prepared to subsidize it. This is

what has happened. Now they are using that political philosophy of

subsidization to say: "Well, we are losing money."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know from the vast majority of people I have talked to on a

regular basis that as long as you are paying the cost of the inspection

the general public is not unhappy. I believe that if there is a need to

increase the inspection service, we should take the testing stations

out into Prince George and the other more urban rural areas with the

same traditions according to which the original inspections stations

were set up. I believe the original philosophy is sound, that cars in

the real rural areas.... It is not as necessary to have the more

sophisticated standards you have in the heavily populated cities. I

think that what is going to happen.... I know that the government and

members of the Social Credit caucus feel

[ Page 2786

that

private enterprise

is going to solve everything. But what is really going to happen

politically is that the greed of the garages, when they know that not

only do they have a monopoly to do an inspection but....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'll put it on the

record. What is going to happen is that once you get....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, what you are going to

have and these are the facts of political life.... Once you have the

power to give a....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this debate

has been so refined so far. Please, order.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not going to apologize.

He's my House Leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Other members who wish to

participate may do so when it is their turn.

MR. MITCHELL: You know what is going to

happen. As I say,

once a particular garage is appointed to do the inspection, you are

going to get the greed set in. It has happened in Ontario and in every

area where you have the government clout of making something mandatory.

Then you have an opportunity for a particular business to add $3, $5,

$10, or another 5 percent. It happens consistently. I think if you go

back, Mr. Speaker, to when car insurance was really competitive, when

you went out and bought your car insurance there was competition. But

once the government brought in mandatory car insurance, then the rates

started to escalate. The escalation of those rates paved the

way.... You know, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), that once the government brought in mandatory

insurance, you had to have a pink slip in those days....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it

would be improper for

me not to speak on the adjournment motion. As you know, the time motion

opens up the availability of debate. I can't help but remind the House

that for three weeks or more now we've worked virtually around the

clock. As a matter of fact, I recall a debate on a bill recently that

was 23½ hours in length. My feeling is that the government in their

haste — suddenly that haste has disappeared — provided the members of

this House with some situations where there could be health impairment;

the well-being of members was not being considered. I think that the

debate diminished in its usefulness by virtue of that, and then all of

a sudden we find ourselves in a position where we can disappear for

four days. I've heard a number of people in this House talking about

the objectionable expense for the public when we keep this Legislature

open. Yet we find now that that time is available for a four-day break.

I want to speak on behalf of the opposition to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that we find this objectionable in context.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: In context. It's not that we

feet the Socreds

shouldn't go to their convention. I think that's useful and proper. But

under the circumstances we feel that it's objectionable — putting it

into the context of the way that this Legislature has worked and the

way that we've been driven, I contend, by a person who seldom sets foot

in this House and certainly hasn't done so for some length of time. Mr.

Speaker, that's our objection to this whole situation.

We wish you well at your convention; we wish that you have the

success that you want. But we feel abused by virtue of the fact that we

have worked around the clock, and then suddenly there's time available

for a political convention. I think the facts are there before us all.

We all realize that somehow or other the members on both sides of this

House have been placed in a position of jeopardy by virtue of the fact

that the government, with its weight, has decided to push the

opposition right to the wall. We want that on the record. We wish you

well at your convention — depart in peace.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it

should not go

unnoticed that in speaking to this motion.... I understand that for

a good number of years — years before I arrived here — this tradition

has been fully and completely observed by both parties. That courtesy

was extended by the NDP when it was government between 1972 and 1975,

and it has been extended by this government on previous occasions.

[ Page 2787

The other aspect is that, lest anyone think that we will have

two-day convention and then two and a half days off, the work of

government goes on. It should be observed that there is to be a

full-day cabinet meeting next Monday — certainly lasting all day, if

not into the early evening — to review matters with respect to the

1984-85 fiscal year. So I wouldn't want interested observers of this

House to assume that we will now bustle off to a convention, have a

delightful couple of days and then not worry about British Columbia

until some time after noon on Tuesday.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria,

B.C., Canada