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 )

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1301 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Purchase of pensionable service. Mr. Hanson –– 1301

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 1301

Federal grant to Solidarity. Mr. Mowat –– 1301

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Reynolds

Highgrading by MacMillan Bloedel. Mr. Lea –– 1302

Motion 28.

Mr. Rose –– 1303

Mr. Nicolson –– 1304

Mr. Cocke –– 1305

Mr. Howard –– 1305

Motion 29.

Mr. Kempf –– 1306

Mr. Cocke –– 1307

Mrs. Johnston –– 1308

Mr. Rose –– 1308

Mr. Lea –– 1310

Mrs. Wallace –– 1311

Mr. Mitchell –– 1312

Ms. Sanford –– 1315

Mr. Skelly –– 1317

Mr. Passarell –– 1320

Municipal Amendment Act –– 1983 (Bill 9). Second reading.

On the amendment

Mr. Parks –– 1321

Mr. Lockstead –– 1322

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, situated in the gallery this

afternoon is a good friend of British Columbia, and despite his tender

years he has served many years in municipal government in this

province. I would like the House to welcome Alderman Vic Stusiak from

the municipality of Burnaby.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF PENSIONABLE SERVICE

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial

Secretary which relates to senior employees purchasing pensionable time

for work done outside government service. Will the minister advise the

House when the policy of permitting senior employees to purchase

pensionable service for work done in the private sector was first put

in place?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was a few years ago, Mr. Speaker. I'll get the more precise date and bring it back to the House.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary question. Would the minister

explain who is eligible to purchase pensionable service for work done

outside any government agency? I believe that in the past workers could

apply military and university service and so on. My question refers to

employment in the private sector.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The most senior managers of government.

MR. HANSON: Will the minister advise who has applied recently

to purchase pensionable service for work performed outside any

government agency, and which of these applications have been approved,

particularly for work done years ago in law firms or large development

corporations?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question in itself would be better placed on the order paper. It is a very detailed question.

MR. HANSON: Perhaps I could pare it down, Mr. Speaker. Will

the minister advise who has applied to purchase pensionable service for

work performed outside any government agency and been granted

permission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would have to take that question as notice

and bring the information back to be precise on the thing. There is a

maximum time-frame for which they can get credit for work outside of

the public service. I explained a little earlier that senior managers

of government have that privilege; however, there are limitations to

the privilege.

MR. HANSON: I have one final supplementary, I heard the minister state

that a certain time would be purchasable into the superannuation plan. Would

eight years of service outside of government service be regarded as a reasonable

pensionable time to buy in?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. That would go beyond the guidelines.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to

that same minister. Four weeks ago today the minister began to

stonewall the question on whether McKim Advertising is presently the

agency of record for the provincial government's advertising program.

In view of this important milestone, has the minister decided to

provide the House with this information at this moment?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is there a limit to the number of times a

member can ask a question on the same issue that has been taken on

notice" The issue is becoming quite tedious and repetitious to me.

MR. BARRETT: Why don't you answer the question?

MR. COCKE: I will ask the same kind of rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. Is this not contempt of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we can ask questions, but we cannot insist on answers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the rules.

MR. COCKE: I would advise you to do the same.

FEDERAL GRANT TO SOLIDARITY

MR. MOWAT: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. I

understand that the federal government has given a grant of $600,000 to

the so-called Solidarity movement. I am wondering whether the

provincial government was consulted before $600,000 of the taxpayers'

money was given to a political organization.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I certainly thank the member for that

unexpected question. I have been out of town for the last two weeks and

have only had the opportunity to be brought up to date over the last

few days. No, the provincial government certainly wasn't consulted

about taxpayers' dollars being tunnelled through the federal government

into a very partisan political activity. I am reminded of the famous

old triple play in baseball that used to be known to all of us: the

famous Tinker to Evers to Chance play. We now, see the Kobe to Barrett

to Trudeau play and it's a triple play on the taxpayers of Canada. We

were not consulted% It is certainly a blatant abuse of taxpayers'

money, and again that's losership.

[2:15]

MR. BARRETT: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Was

the federal government informed that the provincial government intended

to spend taxpayers' money to hire a weatherman to boast about Social

Credit programs? Did you consult the federal government through Doug

Heal before you allocated that money?

Interjections.

[ Page 1302 ]

MR. BARRETT: I just like to boast about federal programs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. when we seek the

floor on a supplementary, it would be nice if the question somehow

referred to the previous question.

MR. BARRETT: The work-sharing program, which reporters found out later was not true.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a supplementary question for the

Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General advise this House whether

any police forces are investigating the spending of moneys received

from the federal government, how they're being spent and if they're

being spent legally?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member also for this unexpected

question. I would think that that is a matter of federal jurisdiction,

but I will be pleased to look into it.

HIGHGRADING BY MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

MR. LEA: Just think how quick they would be if they had had notice.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. On August 81 asked the

minister about MacMillan Bloedel cutting on the Queen Charlotte

Islands, near Alliford Bay, and about reported waste on the ground, At

that time the minister said it would be decided whether MacMillan

Bloedel would be ordered to go back and clean up or pay a penalty

stumpage 1nstead. Since then I have found out that there is no penalty

stumpage. Has the minister decided to order MacMillan Bloedel to go

back and clean up the area to which I refer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Prince Rupert seems to be

assuming that the waste assessment has demonstrated in fact that excess

waste was left on the floor. Waste assessment work has been done, but

the information has not yet been compiled. So I cannot assume that

MacMillan Bloedel is guilty of exceeding utilization standards until I

see the numbers. When I have those numbers I'll be very happy to share

them with the member.

MR. LEA: I thank the minister for that. I understand MacMillan Bloedel are going to have those numbers to you shortly.

The second question is this: has the minister decided to stop the

burn order which has been ordered for that area until both he and I get

a chance to go over those waste assessment sheets? I understand some

contractors have made some bids to go in there and utilize some of the

wood on the floor. Has he decided to stop the burn order until that

information is in?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I certainly have not, Mr. Speaker. My understanding

is that MacMillan Bloedel in that area.... I think it's cutting permit TFL

39 in the Alliford Bay area. My understanding is that Misty Mountain Cedar have

an ongoing arrangement with MacMillan Bloedel to recover unused cedar material

from the area. If it is possible to conduct a satisfactory burn — and these

opportunities don't come along too often on the rather rainy Queen Charlotte

Islands — it will be done. No, I don't intend to order the cancellation

of an opportunity to use that very important silvicultural tool, the broadcast

burn, on that particular area.

The member for Prince Rupert seems awfully anxious. I understand

that there have been other people approaching MacMillan Bloedel to see

about the possible salvage of some of the cedar material. MacMillan

Bloedel don't feel they should do that, because they do have this

ongoing arrangement with Misty Mountain Cedar. I believe Mr. Jim Abbott

wanted to get in there. There are areas closer to his small sawmill

which can be made available for salvage. I understand that he and

MacMillan Bloedel are talking about that.

This business of burning, Mr. Speaker. Burning or broadcast burning

is an important silvicultural tool. One of my colleagues disagrees with

that from time to time. In an area like the Queen Charlottes where it

is wet, the opportunity to conduct a successful burn is only rarely

presented. We do have to take advantage of that when it happens.

Through advice given me by the ministry, by MacMillan Bloedel and by

some of the salvers, it does not preclude salvaging some of the cedar,

because it can be salvaged after a light broadcast burn has been

conducted.

MR. LEA: Yes, I also understand that with the cedar, but it's

not only cedar that we're questioning — it's hemlock and spruce

sawlogs. I've been into that site recently and witnessed it even on the

landings; it doesn't even have to be pulled out of the bush. It would

seem a shame to me to go in there and burn rather than try to salvage

all we can from that cut. Would the minister make himself aware of

whether there are spruce and hemlock sawlogs in there too? If that's

the case, would he reverse the decision to have the burn order go ahead?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure that the member for Prince

Rupert is an expert at determining what is a usable sawlog, what is a

pulp log, what is economically usable and what is not. That information

will be available to me as soon as the waste assessment data is

compiled, as I mentioned to the member. There's no way that we will

burn economically usable material. I'm sure that member, as soon as he

sees a piece of wood that tends to be rather round in shape, will

assume automatically that it's a sawlog and it's of value to someone.

In fact, if it costs more to recover that log to manufacture something

out of it than can be recovered in value from the product sold, it is

not a commercial log at all.

I would hope that the member would team something about what is and

what is not commercial wood in the forest before he makes assumptions.

Like I say, Mr. Speaker, I'll be very happy to share that information

on the waste assessment and the compilation of that data once I have it

in hand. I'm sure the member will be very happy to receive that

information.

MR. LEA: Yes, I would. I also, Mr. Speaker, would like to

mention that I had a qualified scaler and grader with me when I made

that tour.

Would the minister answer this: does he think there may be some

credence to the fact that the major companies will not let smaller

companies into those areas to log because, if it were proved to be

economical, those major companies would have to answer to the people of

this province as to why they're leaving that waste on the floor of the

forest?

[ Page 1303 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if the member would please repeat that question. I heard a statement, but I didn't hear a question.

MR. LEA: Would the minister say whether he believes or

doesn't believe that the major companies may, in fact, not be allowing

small operators into areas such as Alliford Bay because they would

prove that it is economical to go after that timber? The next question

that would be asked is: why didn't MacMillan Bloedel and the majors do

it in the first place when it would have been even more economical?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't agree with

that at all. In the forest sector in British Columbia, members of the

opposition automatically assume that because a company is large it is

necessarily inefficient and a bad company. They assume that because a

company is small, it must be a good company. I'll have that member know

that there are good, efficient operators in both the large and the

small category, and there are inefficient and poor operators in both

the large and the small category. Being large does not necessarily mean

the company is bad and inefficient, nor is it a guarantee that they are

efficient and good operators. Similarly, being small is no assurance

that a company is good. So I would hope the member does not categorize

all companies in that manner, and will really assess each on its

individual operating merits.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Leave to proceed to adjourned debate on Motion 28.

Leave granted.

On Motion 28.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak at great

length on this matter, and I'm sure that that statement will be greeted

with some approval if not outright appreciation. I don't think there's

any really good reason this party could decide to oppose sending this

matter to a committee. I don't think it's a matter of tremendous

import, necessarily.

I had an opportunity once upon a time to serve on a municipal

council; I served there for two years and felt that two years was

reasonably adequate for a councillor or alderman to become — if he had

any interest, dedication or devotion to the job — reasonably

knowledgeable, proficient and efficient in his job. I've known, for

instance, people right here in this room who never served in public

office at all until they practically became a Premier. So it seems

quite obvious to me that if a person can learn on the job and learn

rapidly, probably in two years he can become pretty well briefed on the

various aspects of government of one kind or another.

So I don't think two or three or four or five years is really the

crucial matter. I think what it really amounts to is the kind of

dedication the person puts into it. Why was two chosen in the first

place? In the past we used to have people elected for two years, the

idea being that if you elected half your council for one half of those

two years and you had alternating elections, you would have that kind

of long-term experience overlapping on the council. We got rid of that

system because it was pointed out that legislatures do not have

overlapping elections, that somehow the experienced and the

inexperienced, the bright and the not-so-bright tend to get re-elected

sometimes, and that that doesn't make any particular difference to the

continuity of the legislation. I think that that has very little do do

with it, We can't oppose it just on some kind of principle. If it's two

years it would seem to be reasonable. The minister asked me whether I'm

in favour of it or against it. I don't know whether he means whether

I'm in favour of the two- or three- or four-year terms for municipal

councillors or whether I am in favour of the concept of sending it to

committee. Obviously, from the minister's questions, if he meant the

former it would mean that the minister feels that the answer is already

there. Therefore we wouldn't really need to send it to committee at

all. What the debate on Motion 28 is, Mr. Speaker. Is whether or not

this subject matter should be sent to the committee for study. I've

already said that I do not oppose that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then what are you filibustering for?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, if saying something about the

legislation means that I am obstructing or filibustering, I would ask

the minister to listen to his remarks next time he makes a speech,

because frequently — and I don't mean to be unkind, because I know he

is a gentle fellow and an eloquent orator — sometimes a mite of

repetition creeps into his remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. ROSE: Occasionally — not often. I think, in the main,

that the minister is the soul of brevity, if not wit, and very seldom

does he stray beyond the point — unless we're describing his head.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I was trying to make is that I don't

think a councillor or an alderman or any municipal official is going to

be that much smarter after a two-year term or a three-year term. It can

be said, though, I think, that if you don't have as many elections. It

is not going to be as costly for the government or for the people who

are electing the government. That's why I would suggest that maybe we

shouldn't have a three-year cycle: maybe we should go for a four-year

or five-year cycle municipally as well as provincially. I don't think

we should do it the next time, though. We might do that as a pattern

following that. I am a bit suspicious of this move. I think that there

are two or three things such as Bill 9 taking away the right to

planning on behalf of regional districts and a number of other moves

municipally, like the fear of perhaps not getting the grants so that

this particular....

[2:30]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Order, Mr. Speaker. He thinks he's in Ottawa supporting the Liberals.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker. you'll have to really try to protect

me from this minister, because he was up there singing the praises of

that Liberal. Jean-Luc Pepin, not two weeks ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Hon. member, the Chair has allowed a fair amount of digression from the motion....

[ Page 1304 ]

MR. ROSE: I'm told he's fond of Ron Basford as well.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether these interjections go into Hansard ,

but the Premier suggests that he was talking to me while I was riding

in first class and while he was showboating back in the Connoisseur

class. What I want to know is what he was doing up there without

permission. It's getting so that a person who buys a first-class ticket

has no protection from those who buy Connoisseur. [Laughter] How do I

know? He might have been back in Connoisseur and came up for a free

drink, for all I know. I don't know that. But since he mentioned it and

he was riding on his cheapie ticket on his way to his first-class hotel

suite, because nobody could see him in that one.... He raised the

issue, not me, and I treated him with the utmost civility and

hospitality when he came up there, even though he had no reason to be

up there in the first place.

There are two or three things that need to be said about this

particular resolution. I think that it's not necessarily true that we

need to have three years, but there's no point in not looking at it.

That's the position we take. Certainly it's going to be less costly,

but does it give people the same chance to stand for office? Does a

three-year term provide the population with the same opportunity to

throw out an alderman or a councillor of whom they don't approve? Of

course you can't say that, so in that sense it's anti-democratic. But I

know this government is all for democracy. They are real big on

democracy. They're so big on democracy that they've tossed out and

ignored two referenda on the ward system in Vancouver.

If we really want to do something for the municipalities, we won't

take away their planning function, we won't throw them a bone about

three-year councillor terms and we won't ignore the ward system in

Vancouver. We'll do the things that count, not just pass a little

resolution which allows and permits a possibility of a three-year term

over a four-year term. Somebody could argue that a ten-year term would

give the councillors even more experience; it would be cheaper, too,

because you wouldn't need any elections. Decennial elections — that

would be tremendous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support Rosemary for leader'?

MR. ROSE: I would think that my colleague the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) would be a most worthy contestant among

potential candidates. Why shouldn't anybody sitting over here run for

leadership of our party? They have a perfect right to, just as the

minister would have a perfect right to run as leader of his own party.

I don't think he'd get elected.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Clearly the din

which is echoing across the chamber is making it very difficult to hear

the member's remarks, even if they were in order. I would remind the

member speaking that we are currently on Motion 28 and that the vast

majority of his remarks to date have been very close to being

irrelevant on the subject. I would ask the member now if he would deal

with Motion 28, and I ask other members to keep their interjections to

themselves.

MR. ROSE: I'm very pleased to have that word of advice and

your protection, Mr. Speaker, because if an hon. member — especially a

brand-new member of this Legislature such as I — doesn't have the

protection of the Chair, he is vulnerable to all kinds of barbs from

across the floor, and I think that the cause of democracy is not served.

Let me make this point in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. A number of

resolutions have come from the municipal organizations such as the B.C.

municipal association, and I think that the government is certainly

considering these. I hope it hasn't got its mind made up on a lot of

things, and I've named some of them, including the ward system. But

what I'm suggesting is that we should have an opportunity to study more

than just the length of a term of a councillor or alderman. We, as

members of the Legislature, should have an opportunity to study the

implications of a taxation system, of the absence of planning and of

the development of programs of various kinds in, between and among

municipalities.

I would say on behalf of my party that I have no objection to this

matter going to a committee, but I think that I have a right to lay

some concerns before this House, because that's my job, my duty and my

responsibility.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion

to put one of the select standing committees to work. This is something

that I often advocate in this House. I feel that the select standing

committees should be assigned tasks, and for that reason I support the

motion. However, I do feel that the motion is somewhat restrictive. I

feel that to have the committee sitting while the House is in session

can be a useful utilization of the time of the members, and I don't

object to that. But when one looks at that in conjunction with the

other restriction in the motion — and that is that the final report is

to be given by December 16 of this year — it tells us that it will be

impossible to get even a sampling of the feelings of the average people

around this province. I do feel that if the committee is going to sound

out feelings on triennial elections in the Municipal Act, people from

around the province should be given the opportunity to voice their

opinions on this issue. I think that what we're going to see here is

maybe.... We have heard from the UBCM. We know how they feel. But are

we going to hear anything more than the feelings of the UBCM? I would

like people to be given the opportunity to come in and maybe not even

give a written brief, but just give notice that they would like to

address the committee for five minutes or so, and give a very quick,

succinct expression of their feelings about moving toward a longer

election period. This is something that's going to be missing.

If the committee is only going to be sitting while the House is in

session, and quite possibly the House is going to be in session right

through to December 16.... In fact, the committee must report before

December 16, which means the House must be in session that day, because

obviously the committee can report only to the House. So for those

reasons I feel that it looks like this is going to be a rather cursory

glance at this issue.

There are many far more important questions, I think, that could be

addressed by select standing committees. For instance, I think that one

of the most neglected areas of government activity is probably the

office of the public trustee. I think that should be sent to a

committee. Just in comparing the importance of the two things which

government has seen as being worth taking up a committee's time,

[ Page 1305 ]

and the whole issue of the public trustee.... I've

discussed this with members on both sides of the House, and some in the

middle. I don't want to trivialize the importance of the consideration

of triennial elections; indeed, it's a very important step to be taken.

So I feel, for that reason, that the motion is unnecessarily

restrictive. It seems to be channelling everything towards a quick

little report — maybe to keep the back-benchers occupied. Maybe, if

there's too much time for the back bench.... I know that their numbers

are so large and cabinet positions are so full that it is one way of

keeping the back bench occupied. Get them involved in a committee.

Prime Minister Diefenbaker did this. That was part of his technique.

So here we see a motion which I would certainly support; but it's

something which, in terms of the work that's being referred.... There

are many other things that probably should be taking the time of

committees. The manner in which the committee is going to be set up is

such that it is not going to get a full kind of input. But it's a

start, it's a beginning, it's a faltering step back toward using the

select standing committees of this House, and for that reason I would

support it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: I would agree that one of the refreshing aspects

of this is that we're finally, after all these years, seeing some

suggestion that work will go to select standing committees. This

particular resolution strikes me, however, as being a resolution that

is being put forward to take care of the minister's needs. The minister

has been under a good deal of criticism from the UBCM for a number of

things that he's doing. So he's trying to get them to take their eye

off the ball and look at biennial elections as opposed to, for example,

robbing regional districts of their planning rights, and municipalities

of this, that and the other thing, and centralizing power here in

Victoria.

The thing that I wonder is whether or not the minister might make a

suggestion as to whether or not school boards should also be included

in this discussion. If there's to be an aberration created by virtue of

the fact that you have a biennial election for city council and you

don't have the same kind of proposition for school board, it strikes me

that maybe it should be something that should be looked at at the same

time.

The structure of the committee is also certainly a worry to me. Most

of the standing committees of this House are now compose of nine; of

those nine, six are government members and three are opposition

members. That is not the way the House is structured by the electoral

process, but that is the w y a, our committees are structured. It

strikes me that it might be a good idea for the minister to prevail

upon the selection committee to change that structure for this

particular committee. It is a question that can be resolved. It is a

specific committee of the House, and in terms of numbers it need not

reflect the other select standing committees.

If the Minister has a point of order, jump up.

[2:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I detect one. We are reflecting on a vote, and we are discussing a report of another committee.

MR. COCKE: It is unfortunate that that is the structure. I am

also concerned that something in this committee may happen that has the

potential of happening in the eight and four committee. That is the

only one that is distinct; it is Public Accounts . On that

committee a government member has put forward a resolution suggesting

the only things that can come before that committee are questions that

the committee has resolved to hear. An individual member of a

committee, under our standing orders. has rights in terms of requesting

that the chairman subpoena witnesses, etc. Those rights would still be

there but would be denied, in fact, by virtue of the overriding

amendment that would say: okay, you can have that right but we can't

hear them because the rest of the committee doesn't want to hear them.

That is muzzling by the majority, and the last thing I think we require

in the democratic process is to see the majority muzzle the minority.

If this committee. like any other standing committee of this House,

is to work property. then it should not only be fair but be seen to be

fair by the participants, by the House and by the public at large. It

would not be seen to be fair if a private member on the committee were

denied access.... That person, no matter from which side of the House,

no matter who, on this standing committee, must not be denied access to

people who may provide testimony that would be important for this

committee to hear.

I don't imagine, by virtue of having read the resolution, that the

committee is going to be a travelling one. I don't think it need be. It

would probably be a waste at the present time, and I think the people

who wish to testify before this committee can come here and meet with

us in our committee rooms. Another thing, too: it would be very

difficult for the committee to travel if it is to be at work only

during this period we are in session at this Legislature, and that

again is my

interpretation of what this resolution says.

With that, I do hope that the committee can come to grips with this

situation. As some of my colleagues have said before, they don't feel

it is the most important situation confronting our electoral process in

this province. For that matter, it is not the most important problem

that we have in terms of provincial government and municipal or local

government discussions and deliberations.

In any event, the minister will be able to go to the UBCM this week

and report that he has successfully put together a committee. That's

the reason we are cooperating with this particular proposition: in

order to give him that opportunity when he gets to the UBCM meeting in

Penticton.

We don't feel that this resolution will in any way impair our

provincial situation. But we do think that the minister in his musings,

on his way up and on his way back, should think of some of the other

criticisms that are being made from time to time by elected people at

the local level. There are more of them than there are of us. and it

strikes me that they have a good deal to say, especially being so close

to the needs of the public. There is a good case, in my view, for

decentralization, and it strikes me that this may be part of our better

understanding of what goes on in the province. With that, I will

support this resolution,

MR. HOWARD: I would just like to put a few words forward in

support of the proposition advanced by the minister. You'll recall that

we on this side of the House iiave argued on a number of occasions, and

more particularly and more recently with respect to a discussion on

some bills before the House, which I don't want to get into at this

time, that committees of this Legislature can perform a valuable service

[ Page 1306 ]

and function. While the selection of one particular

resolution passed by a convention of the UBCM for reference to the

committee on municipal affairs may not be the most earthshaking one,

nonetheless it is welcome. It does afford an opportunity for the

Legislature, through one of its committees, to at least examine

something.

I would have much preferred to have that committee study and examine

some of the far-reaching and intrusive provisions being advanced by

this government in another forum, but it's the government's choice that

it doesn't want to deal with those authorities that it seeks to have

over municipalities in a broad and open way such as is possible under

the committee system.

Within the riding of Skeena there are two regional districts

organized under the Municipal Act, and five other municipalities, with

the possibility of at least another municipality being incorporated at

some time in the future — I know it has been talked about at different

times at the community level. So there is more than a passing interest

in the subject matter of triennial versus some other period of time for

election of municipal councillors.

It would seem to me that the committee might as well look at another

question. It may have to stretch itself somewhat to do this. I suppose

it would come down to what the

interpretation is of the relevant

sections of the Municipal Act, and whether there are any

cross-references in those relevant sections to provisions of the School

Act. It would seem to me that if we were embarking upon examining a

three-year term of office for municipal councils, we might well give

the same consideration to school board elections as well and have some

continuity of balloting take place within communities. If this proceeds

in a favourable way — and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't — and

we do have three-year terms for municipal councils and two-year terms

for school boards, we'll have that conflict and that overlapping, and

the consideration of referenda, perhaps, within the two.

We're now able to incorporate all of the ballots at one time in the

course of the same election. If they're looking at this from the point

of view of one cost of running an election — and presumably this would

reduce it by one-third, if that's the way the finances of this work —

and they don't do something similar with other public bodies such as

school boards, I don't think we'll be much further ahead. In fact,

we'll be further behind because within a period of, say, four years,

we'll have three electoral processes going on — one in the second year

at a school board, the third year a municipal council and the fourth

year the school board again. I think the cost to the taxpayer would be

more than it is now by running them both at once.

So I would hope the committee would examine the possibilities of

marrying the ideas together. I don't know what the School Trustees'

Association have passed with respect to that, but it's worth examining

if we're looking at length of office and at costs. I would certainly

urge the committee, even within the limited scope the government sees

fit to afford it to conduct things, to look at that other question as

well.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Motion 29.

On Motion 29.

MR. KEMPF: As I was saying prior to adjourning this debate

last Friday, I fully support Motion 29, because I'm very strongly in

favour of it. I very steadfastly support the private sector and

individual enterprise.

I am very surprised to find them in support of the resolution that

was just passed in this House, after having spoken out last week

against this resolution. I am sure they will speak out again against

this resolution this afternoon. Unlike our friends opposite, who

support the concept of Big Brother government and its womb-to-tomb

philosophy, which believes that nothing is done properly unless it's

done by government, I'm not of that philosophy; for that reason I

support Motion 29. That socialist philosophy of the members opposite,

which they believe in and which they believe still excites the public

of British Columbia, even after a multitude of failures in other

jurisdictions.... They still think it will fly in this province and in

this country. It is absolutely not so. On May 5 the citizens of this

province said so; they have said it over and over again since that

time. The members opposite have still not gotten the message.

[3:00]

I will vote in favour of this resolution, not only because I believe

strongly that the private sector is able to do a better job than

government, but also because, unlike the Leader of the Opposition — I

listened to his speech in this debate last week — I realize that there

is more to the province of British Columbia than the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island.

For several years now my taxpaying constituents and others have paid

for the six lower mainland testing stations, which are now being shut

down, and they derived absolutely no service for their tax dollars.

Privatized, yes, you bet; at least we in the north and in many other

areas of this province will get what we pay for. Even if we have to pay

more — and I've heard members opposite say that this move is going to

cost more than what is now being paid out — in the north, we'll get

something for our tax dollars expended which we haven't been getting.

We paid for the six lower mainland testing stations, but we derived no

service whatsoever from them. At least we'll get something.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a dumb argument.

MR. KEMPF: You think it's a dumb remark. You too don't

believe that there's anything north of Cache Creek in this province.

Mr. Speaker, he's as intelligent in that respect as his would-be leader.

The members opposite have suggested that to close the six testing

stations would in fact endanger our citizens. What about the other 80

percent of the province that wasn't served by these six testing

stations? What about the northerners, who haven't had that service but

who will have it?

The members opposite can, if they like, turn a blind eye to what's happening

in the province. I'll tell you a little lower mainland story about what's

happened since the closing of those testing stations. Individual enterprise

is already stepping in, and it's not costing anyone anything. I'm sure

it will catch on. Just last week, as I was driving out of Vancouver, heading

for the B.C. Ferry system to return to Vancouver Island, I was driving along

Burrard Street and I came to the corner of Burrard and Broadway, where there

was a very nice-looking service station. And what did I see? A big sign advertising

a free safety check with every oil change or grease job. Mr. Speaker, that's

free enterprise. It is not costing anyone anything; not even tax money is being

spent to

[ Page

1307 ]

obtain those safety checks which are free to the motorist who must regularly

go in for an oil change and a grease job.

MR. ROSE: It's a loss leader.

MR. KEMPF: I'll bet that member over there doesn't even know

that. I commend that dealer. I'm sure he won't be the only one that

will rise to the occasion, but the socialist members over there

wouldn't understand that. They speak out against this resolution. I

just heard the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), my next-door neighbour

up north, argue for the committee system in this House. I agree with

him in that regard. If there's anything we need in this Legislature

it's more of the business taken outside of this House and into

committee. If that were the only reason that I would stand and speak in

favour of this resolution today. I would do it, Mr. Speaker, because I

believe in a proper and active committee system in this and every other

legislature in this land. I heard the member for Skeena speak in favour

of that. How can he stand and speak in favour of the committee system

on one resolution and then stand and speak against it on another

resolution? I don't understand that member speaking against this

resolution that would take some of the work of this House into an

all-party committee. It is preposterous. It goes against that which

even the socialist members opposite believe.

I would hope that in the ensuing debate, which will certainly go on

this afternoon and maybe longer, they will see the error of their ways

and reconsider what they have said and will stand, speak and vote in

favour of taking more of the work of this Legislature into an all-party

committee. I seriously support Motion 29.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the foregoing remarks are sufficient

for me to say that if I were ever motivated otherwise, I would have

difficulty supporting this resolution as it's presently structured

after listening to the arguments of the member from Omineca.

Yes, we support committees reviewing policy and directions for

government and the people in our province. I've sat on a number of

committees over the years in this Legislature as they're attached to

this Legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, let's direct ourselves at the

limitations that this committee faces. It's not as though the committee

is going to be looking at the whole question of automobile testing —

not at all. The committee is given narrow terms of reference to the

extent that you are only able to look at one side of the situation.

What does the resolution say? It says: "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." Mr. Speaker, why not take into consideration the possibility

that the public sector has been doing a darned good job over a number

of years, notwithstanding the fact that it's been limited by virtue of

the fact that it hasn't been available all over the province. But why

put in the limitations in this resolution and then expect the

opposition to applaud the idea.

We know that the admission of the motor vehicle branch was that they

were under-financed 50 cents per car- in other words, if you took your

car in....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, the Premier, whenever he does show his

face in this place, always has to joke around. You know, parliament is

a serious proposition. The faster you get a handle on that, the better

Premier you're going to be. I don't have too much hope for that, but at

least try.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to this resolution, it begs the

question that the public sector has been doing an excellent job of

inspecting motor vehicles as follows: (1) that it's probably costing 50

cents.... Why didn't we raise the rates for inspections? Why didn't we

consider the possibility of having a broadening of these inspections

beyond the lower mainland and the southern part of Vancouver Island? It

strikes me that that would have been a good idea. Or, on the other

hand, how about a mix?

Here's the problem we face when looking at other jurisdictions. The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says: "It's marvellous for free

enterprise. doing all these inspections. Somebody does a grease job on

my car, and they're going to give me a free inspection." Mr. Speaker, I

defy you to go into garages across the province. service stations or

whatever, and find the sophisticated equipment that's required in order

to do this. What you're going to be doing is providing a monopoly

situation in any event. Not everybody in Quesnel. with respect to the

minister's constituency. will be able to put alignment machinery in.

Certainly not everybody — or very few — will be able to put in

equipment to test brakes.

I rose on the question of brakes....

[Interruption.]

Excuse me. The House Leader for the NDP decided to get rid of his

cold, so he gave it to me. In any event. I was criticized in the House

when I brought up the fact that I have a 12,000-pound,

gross-vehicle--weight motor home. I drove that vehicle to a major

automobile dealership in my general area to have it checked up and so

on. Then I took it in to be tested. What did I find-' I had absolutely

no brakes in one of the back duals. Now that's jeopardizing not just

yourself, but also other people on the highway. I defy you to tell me

that there's a garage in Salmon Arm or Quesnel that has the capacity to

check those brakes the way they're checked at a motor vehicle testing

station. They can't. If you want a major check-up on your brakes, and

you want to have all the wheels pulled and do all those kinds of

things, of course they can check them. Of course they, could have found

that there was oil leaking onto the brake drums. But you have to pull

the whole darned thing apart. It costs a fortune. You're not going to

expect anybody to go out and do the kind of inspection that would be

required if in fact we forsake the present means of inspection. It's a

mistake to go this route. We should be expanding rather than

contracting . In other jurisdictions, in order to get a half-decent

inspection.... Ontario's a good example. The minimum inspection there

is roughly $28 — in your private sector. Most. however, run $40 to $50.

and some as high as $60. We're talking about the difference between $6

— because I'm admitting that $5.50 was too low — and $60.

[3:15]

The member for Omineca says that this is a socialist philosophy, or some darned

thing. The point is that these motor vehicle inspections were put in by a previous

Social Credit government. Prior to that they were put in. long before even W.A.C.

was around — that is, in active politics — by the city of Vancouver. They said:

"'We don't want people driving on our streets unless their vehicles

are satisfactory

[ Page 1308 ]

and safe." That happened years ago. To suggest

anything in terms of one wing vis-à-vis another wing in this argument

is crazy. If the member got up and said, "We owe a debt of gratitude to

a number of Social Crediters out there who want to have a monopoly on

testing cars for 50 or 60 bucks a throw," then that would be somewhat

honest debate. But to get up and talk to us about socialism versus free

enterprise, this, that and the other thing, in this argument, is

nonsense. This was set up in the days when this province was so

reactionary that it squeaked. So to bring that kind of fuzzy argument

into this question is nothing more than showing contempt for the

argument itself.

MR. REYNOLDS: Why don't you get your car tested?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that I would

suggest should be of major importance. Having said that, I would

suggest that we take another look at it.

The member says: "Get your car tested." I have. I had our large car

tested; I had our motorhome tested. I have a little car I just started

using again that I can't get tested. It has been pulled behind a

motorhome for a few years. Now I can't get it tested unless I go to

some private entrepreneur to find out whether or not he proclaims that

it's okay. I've done that, but I don't like the idea. I'd like to take

it back to the motor vehicle branch.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing to do with Big Brother.

This is to do with children in our crosswalks facing the possibility of

a car with brake failure. This is to do with safety for all individuals

on the highway: pedestrians, those driving cars or whatever. As far as

I'm concerned, what we should see here is a broadening of the

guidelines so that the whole thing can be discussed. I'm not saying

there is anything wrong with our setting up a committee, but the

guidelines are too narrow. Why doesn't the minister stand up and amend

this so that we can take a look at both aspects, or the possibility of

marrying the aspects? Why get rid of something that's working well? Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that that would be a resolution easy to

support. If we had the guidelines broadened to the extent that we could

look at both aspects, not necessarily in contravention of one another

but in terms of an opportunity to assess whether it should be done both

ways, or one way or the other, then we could have something to argue

about. Right now witnesses are going to come before this committee

committed, married to the guidelines that the minister has given us. On

that basis I think we have to say no.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of

Resolution 29. I think it is very interesting to refer to some of the

comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday, and I would

like to refer to the Blues. The Leader of the Opposition stated: "It is

required by law to have your vehicle tested. There is now a gap to get

that testing done." I would point out that every member of the

opposition who has taken his place in this debate to speak against this

resolution has very properly pointed out that it could be a matter of

life or death if we adopt this philosophy of privatizing the car

testing. But I would quote again from the Blues. The Leader of the

Opposition referred to a comment made by the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who talks about people who didn't

go to the testing station.

They are lawbreakers and I have no sympathy for

lawbreakers, whether they are busy MLAs or not. The whole purpose of

driver education, or public education, is to ensure that people obey

the law, not to have MLAs get up in this chamber and give excuses as to

why people can't go to testing stations. Perhaps there was a 10- or

15-minute inconvenience for someone to go to the testing station. But I

for one resent any MLA of any party suggesting that anybody is too busy

to go and have his car tested. Those people who are that irresponsible

should be fined and warned.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Who said that? When did he say that?

MRS. JOHNSTON: These are comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday afternoon.

I took the time to go out into our parking lot and look at some of

the vehicles out there. It is very interesting to note the lack of

stickers on most of the cars, but there were two cars that particularly

came to my attention. It's unfortunate that the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has left his seat, because I found that the

1971 MG, licence AHD-784, has a sticker on it dated December 1974. I

would suggest that the value of the provincial government and the

taxpayer providing for the testing of vehicles is really worthless if

even the elected MLAs don't take the time or trouble to put their

vehicles through the test. I found a 1972 Fiat, CFW-085, in parking

space no. 59, the parking spot of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), and he has a sticker dated August 1975. There are several others,

but I think that really proves the hypocrisy of the arguments that have

been put forward. Even if we had a testing station on every corner, it

does not necessarily mean that the people are going to use them, as

witnessed by the elected MLAs in this Legislature.

I would suggest that we allow this resolution to go to the committee

and that we have a lengthy opportunity to rehash and come up with

something that everybody can live with. I'm very pleased to speak in

support of the resolution.

MR. ROSE: I am pleased to take

part in this debate, because I

think it's a very important issue. I think it's only fair to point out,

though, that when any member goes snooping around a parking lot, they

should be prepared to name all the cars and not just have some sort of

selective citings and noncitings. A little bird from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound whispered in my ear that there were some fairly

embarrassing oversights of certain kinds of stickers on perhaps even

the cars of members of the government out there. I wouldn't want to

point any fingers, because this was told to me in confidence, but I

understand that they do exist. My colleague the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) points out to me, and he hasn't got a car here, that the

only places that you have these opportunities for stickers is in

Victoria, Nanaimo or Vancouver. Somebody — for instance, the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is outside the lower mainland — may

not have that same opportunity to have a sticker. That would also apply

to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), or to the member from

Kelowna or some of those other places.

The very fact that someone is unable to get tested because they

happen to live beyond Hope or beyond the lower mainland as an excuse to

get rid of those testing stations that apply in the lower mainland, I

think, is fatuous reasoning. In other words, because you can't have any

inspections where there are no public testing stations in areas of the

interior is reason enough to get rid of the ones in the lower mainland.

I've never heard of such a thing. I think that's absolutely stupid in

terms of trying to put forward a valid argument. There may be valid

[ Page 1309 ]

arguments for getting rid of public testing — maybe they lack productivity or maybe they're unbiased or do a sloppy job.

I think there are good and sufficient reasons that could perhaps be

drawn up, but not for the fact that they don't exist in part of the

province. Where do they exist? They exist where the traffic is the

heaviest and where testing is probably needed the greatest. To use an

excuse that they don't exist in Terrace, British Columbia, and

therefore we should remove them from Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo is

to me a specious argument at best and a fatuous one at worst.

I think that probably this party opposes the setting up of the

committee because of the timing. We have Bill 23 which deals with this

issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it.

MR. ROSE: Some oracle on my political right said: "Get on

with it." I'd like to point out that the opposition doesn't call the

order of business. If the government wishes us to get on with the

debate of Bill 23, it has the power to call Bill 23.

My concern here is that we're setting up a debate on a resolution to

send to committee the best, most effective methods of privatizing the

inspection. The decision has been made, even though Bill 23 hasn't

passed. I think the timing is wrong. I would think that if you wanted

to set up a committee, it would be to discuss perhaps better ways of

vehicle inspection where there are no public inspection services

available. That's what I would like to see. I would like to say all

right, let's put the one up against the other. If we can figure out

some private way to approach this matter in areas of the province that

lack testing facilities for the safety of the public, then well and

good.

Why don't we leave the existing testing stations open while we

develop this other source? Why don't we try it for a year? Why don't we

try it where there are no other testing systems available for those

people with the big logging trucks that a speaker mentioned in his

speech the other day, for areas such as Terrace and Smithers and all

these other places that lack these safety testing procedures and

facilities? Why don't we do it that way? Why don't we leave these

testing stations in operation where they have obviously been quite

successful and worked quite well for the past 30 years. Somebody said

that only half of the people ever go into them. Well, that isn't the

fault of the testing stations. That's the fault of how the inspection

and collection of offenders is administered. That's the reason that

works.... It's not that the people in the inspection stations do not do

their job. It's because it is not policed. It is not a high priority to

have people picked up and sent to those stations if their cars are

obviously — or maybe not obviously — in need of some sort of

improvement.

I'm a little concerned about who is going to do the inspection. How

do we determine which car has to be inspected, and who's going to

inspect that particular car? For instance, is it going to be on an

annual basis? Someone might say that that's what we're going to talk

about when we get the thing to committee. But I think there's more to

it than that. Somebody is going to have to inspect the inspectors.

Suppose I live in Smithers and I take my car to garage X. I have an

inspection and there's a certificate attached to it as passing ' The

work may or may not have been done. I think we've all heard all kinds

of horror stories about people taking their televisions and their cars

in to service people for work that has never been done. There is

absolutely no end to the horror stories of work that was never really

done on these. How would I know if somebody inspected and replaced a

lefthanded widget in my carburetor. I wouldn't know that. If you're

going to have private inspection of automobiles, what assurance do I

have that the private garage-owner who did that has done an adequate

job? I have no assurance at all, unless I have another set of

non-conflict-of-interest people.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What I've said obviously pains the Premier.

Interjection.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know if they check widgets or not.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), if not

an expert on health, perhaps puts himself forward as an expert on

left-handed widgets. But I'll tell you this much: how would the

Minister of Health like the butchers to inspect the meat in British

Columbia, instead of federal inspectors? Would that be all right? Does

the Minister of Health not feel that we need external people with no

interest in it at all to make those judgments?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Save the coliforms. Why don't you start a new society? What about the restaurant owners checking the sanitation of.... . "

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Most car dealers are honest.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have to get closer to the mike,

because I remember that when he was a hot-liner and people would argue

with him, he'd do precisely that: he would get close to the mike.

How about having the restaurant owners inspect the kitchens for sanitation? Would that be all right?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Certainly they do that, but you also have an external inspector when that happens.

What about the backhoe operators inspecting the septic fields when

you have a septic tank and a septic disposal field? Would it be all

right" Maybe we could get rid of all those health inspectors, because

they cause a lot of trouble to a lot of people when they won't let them

drain their sewage onto rocks or stones.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Electrical contractors — all right. I've got a

better one for you. Would the minister approve, for instance, of the

companies that make upholstery for airlines inspecting that upholstery

for flammability? That's exactly what you're suggesting here with

automobiles.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am sure they could.

[ Page 1310 ]

MR. ROSE: Well, they haven't done it. We just had an Air

Canada plane burn up in Cincinnati because they had inflammable

material in that upholstery. I think even the minister must grudgingly

— and reluctantly even — agree. It isn't a case of socialism or

whatever else exists in this world, because I think the whole thing is

a lot of nonsense anyway. This government believes in some public

enterprise, and we on this side believe in a mixed economy as well, so

this nonsense of this disparity and "you're all one thing and we're all

the other" is a lot of nonsense. Anybody that believes that ought to

have his head examined. It makes good rhetoric.

The point I am trying to make is that you need to have outside

arbiters, like external examinations. The Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich) is not going to let the school teachers inspect the

progress of the students. He is going to bring in external

examinations. He makes this point, and he tries to make it strongly,

that we have to have certain kinds of standards and we can't put the

flocks in charge of the chickens. All I am saying is that you use the

same argument on this and you will keep your public testing stations,

or at least you will keep some kind of a trial basis until you get

something else working more successfully.

A lot of people have suggested Ontario. We found out what they do in

terms of their safety. A certificate of safety is required only when

registering or re-registering a car in Ontario. That is the only time

it is required, not on an annual basis or when it might be needed. Thus

a car will not be safety inspected annually, but only when first

registered or when sold to another owner. If a car is not resold, it

will never require safety inspection under Ontario law. The member for

West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) mentioned how he had a very

successful inspection of his automobile in Ontario. It must have been

on resale or the original sale, because otherwise it is not required.

The cost varies depending upon who performs the inspection. The

cheapest inspection available is provided by the Ontario Motor League,

which I suppose is the equivalent to our BCAA, for approximately $28.

Otherwise, prices in the Toronto region vary from $30 to $50 in private

garages.

I suppose that has more to do with how I feel about this. I don't

think the private thing is necessarily going to be all bad provided

there is an opportunity to have a check on them, but I don't know why

you have to close down the public ones before you find out if this

thing even works. Just because you have nothing for inspection north,

east or west of Hope, is that a reason to close down the inspections

you have? Either inspections are needed or they are not. That is the

argument, not that other kind of nonsense.

Various service stations can put up loss leaders of all kinds. They

can give you a free brake lining, they can give you a free inspection

and they can look at your dip stick. They can do all these things that

are important for selling oil or brake lining or giving you a tune up.

I suppose that would also be a function of private enterprise. I am

suggesting that to me it's not a good enough excuse merely to say that

because you now have no inspection in part of the province, you have to

close down the areas where they exist. There have been hundreds of

thousands of documented horror stories on repair. It is my view that

unless you have very strong standards, and someone inspecting the

inspectors, you are going to have the same thing happen here.

People said in previous debates that it's a payoff. If it improves

auto mechanical safety, then I am not opposed to it, but I have a very

difficult time swallowing the suspicion that this isn't done for

efficiency or safety or anything else. It is done on strictly

ideological grounds, and I don't think it is worth it. I am not going

to support it.

MR. LEA: I am not going to take too long, because I don't

want to repeat the points made by other members in opposition to this

resolution.

One of the main points that is being made by Social Credit members

is that somehow this will be better for the private sector and that

somehow or other the small business community is going to be helped by

this resolution. I believe that the small business sector is going to

be harmed by this resolution. As it is right now, you take your car in

for an inspection and they check your car and they say: "Here's what's

wrong with your car: a, b, c, d and e. Take your car down to the

garage, get it fixed and then bring it back. That creates work for the

private sector. If it is not a requirement that your car be tested,

then....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There are no check stands in Prince Rupert, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: When you get Rita to check the parking lot, you better make sure she knows what she is talking about.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You haven't been to Prince Rupert in 20 years.

MR. LEA: Well, isn't that strange, Mr. Member, I wonder how I get such a high vote.

Mr. Speaker, the thing is that it is undeniably going to cost the

small business sector money, because if people are not ordered by the

inspection branch to take their cars down to the garage to get them

fixed, then many times that's not going to happen. So in fact this

resolution could end up costing service stations and the small business

sector which does the work on cars that have been checked out by the

motor vehicle inspection branch.

When the minister.... Does the minister close on a resolution? No?

Then I would hope that the government would take a look at that,

because I'm not convinced that this is going to be any more work for

the private sector. If it was going to be more work for the private

sector I might even be tempted to go along with it, with the thought

that maybe the people who have been laid off could get hired into the

private sector. One might go along with it on those grounds, if some

effort were being made on government's part to make sure that those

laid off were first in line for the new jobs that were going to be

created. But, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that I'd like to see the

government bring back some proof. I just don't believe that the service

stations are going to get the same volume of work after the inspection

areas are closed down. It's common sense that that's the way it's going

to go. Here is the Social Credit government trying to help the small

business sector, and they are in fact going to harm it, in my opinion.

I'd be willing to bet that after these are closed down the service

stations don't get the same volume of work out of this kind of

procedure as they do out of the old — unless the mandatory part of

getting your car inspected is still in effect. But I suggest to you

that if it's a mandatory inspection by

[ Page 1311 ]

government, and then each garage would have to keep

an administrative chart as to who came in and who didn't. The actual

cost of paperwork in dealing with that would probably cost the small

business sector more money than right now.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I just don't see any winners in this. I don't see any winners for

the private sector, I don't see any winners for the people who've been

laid off — that's for sure — and I don't see any winners for the public

at large, because there are going to be more cars on the road which

have not been inspected. Surely that's not desirable.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Vancouver.

MR. LEA: In Vancouver and in Victoria; that's right, Mr.

Minister. But then again, that's where the bulk of the cars are.

Probably half the cars in the province — or more — are in the lower

mainland and in Victoria. So we're closing down inspection centres that

affect probably more than half the vehicles in the province. I suggest

to you that the small business sector is going to be one of the losers.

The biggest loser is going to be public safety. The second loser is

going to be the small business sector, which up until now has had the

business of fixing the cars that were found defective at the inspection

stations. That is going to die off. If it goes the other way of

mandatory inspections by the private sector, then you're going to find

out that the administrative costs are going to far outweigh the income

to the service stations. Government has never done anything where red

tape wasn't involved. I can imagine the red tape that's going to be

involved between the service stations and the government if it's

mandatory to go to the private sector to get your car inspected.

When you start looking at it, it doesn't seem to make sense from any

angle, except from the angle that there is the political residue left

out there that the Social Credit government is trying to downsize

government and move those things that are possible out into the private

sector. The government seems determined to do that whether it makes

sense or not, for political purposes. I feel that this is going to be

one of those political decisions that is going to harm the public

generally, harm the small business sector to a certain extent, and

cause a great deal more red tape for the small business entrepreneur to

go through in dealing with government. So I don't see any winners in

any way whatsoever. I think the minister should have researched what he

was doing a little better before making this kind of decision.

For instance, I know that another decision was made about the

Systems Corporation where the board of directors didn't know that it

was going to be sold any sooner than the general public. I'm sure the

minister can't deny that. So these decisions are being made in the

cabinet room and in the Social Credit caucus, based on nothing other

than political opportunism. They've taken some surveys, they feel that

out there people are generally in favour of downsizing government,

people are generally in favour of not having government do things that

the private sector can do as well or better, and so they're just taking

those polling results and are willynilly going around and looking at

things they can make some sort of political show about. This is one of

them.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, we're now playing with the safety of the

citizens of this province, and we're playing with that in a very

political way. I think the government would be remiss if they didn't

reconsider before pushing this resolution through the House w because

it's going to help no one. I can't think Of anybody it's going to help:

the private sector, the public at large, or the individual owners of

cars. It's not going to help anyone, but it is going to harm people, so

what's the point" Was some sort of philosophic rigidity the government

has. They don't care who suffers, as long as they can carry out that

philosophic rigidity.

[3:45]

I strongly suspect that the minister's heart isn't in this either.

If the truth were known, the minister probably fought it and, being a

pretty moderate guy, lost out to the hawks. The last election brought

in more hawks than doves. They're zooming straight down from 30,000

feet, with blinders on.

This is the result of rigidity: decisions that make so sense

whatsoever, from anybody's point of view, are made by politicians. 1,

for sure, representing the people of Prince Rupert, will vote against

it.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to say a few words in opposition to this

resolution. It seems to me that this is another example of setting the

fox to watch the chickens, which is something this government is very

good at. Here we are in British Columbia where we have, at least in

some areas, a well-established set of.... I come from an area where

unfortunately we didn't have vehicle testing, and many times I raised

it with the minister, asking him when he would be prepared to put a

testing station in the Cowichan Valley. But for those people who had a

testing station it certainly was a very valuable service; a government

agency was able to to make a valid and unbiased decision relative to

needs of a specific motor vehicle and whether or not it would be safe

on the road.

It's also interesting to note that it cost a modest fee of $5. I

don't know whether it was mentioned in this debate — it certainly

wasn't while I was in the House — that the former superintendent of the

motor vehicle branch, Mr. Robert Whitlock, now retired, indicated that

a 50-cent increase in that $5 fee would have caused the whole operation

to break even. Certainly I think motorists would have accepted a 50cent

increase and continued to use the facility; perhaps even a $1 increase

would have allowed areas like Cowichan to have a testing station.

Instead, that capital investment of taxpayers' dollars in those testing

stations suddenly closed up, just like that. There is no testing

available.

The piece of legislation before us.... We're going to privatize it.

That's setting the fox to watch the chickens. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you

and all members of this House are aware that, generally, business in

this province is having great difficulty in surviving. People are not

having routine maintenance done on their vehicles; that's just one of

the ways in which people are economizing. It's twofold in its effect;

it's a two-edged sword. Not only do the vehicles perhaps need

maintenance.... Suppose you take in a vehicle that happens to be in

good order and doesn't need any maintenance. That shop is wondering how

it's going to pay the rent, the power and gasoline bills, its payroll,

and the other things. There's going to be a real temptation for them to

say: "Well, you know, that could fail or deteriorate, so maybe we

better replace it." That's what I mean by setting the fox to watch the

chickens. There is ample opportunity for people who are hard-pressed to

bend a little bit. There is ample opportunity for those who may not be

quite as honest as some of us might

[ Page 1312 ]

wish to simply fake the records. Who would know? It

would bring them business. If you have to pay $50 a shot, as the

minister indicates it probably will be, it would be very difficult to

go out and have another estimate made at some other place just to see

whether or not that was the problem.

You know, it's the old story of the TV repairman who always wants to

replace the picture tube. There have been jokes made about this. We

used to have to go to get our glasses from the some person who

prescribed them. So it was in the interests of the eye doctor who

examined your eyes to ensure that you needed glasses. We don't do that

anymore. We separate those two now. Going back even further, the doctor

used to dispense the medication, and we don't do that anymore.

Certainly it's a very regressive move to go back to taking our cars to

be evaluated as to whether or not they need fixing to the same people

who are going to fix them. It's very open to abuse and there is no way

that it can be properly policed.

The cost factor. In a time when many people are on restricted

incomes, with very little extra cash, and they suddenly find themselves

faced with ten times the cost to have their cars inspected, we are

going to find a lot less inspection done when it's on a voluntary basis.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not a case of not trusting people; it's a

case of people not being able to afford it. You wouldn't understand

that, Mr. Member. Neither can they afford to buy a new car. I've

mentioned in this House before, on other occasions in other debates,

the number of cars that I see stopped beside the road with a hood up or

run off into the ditch when I go home over the Malahat. I travel it

every day — twice a day. Some of them apparently are just abandoned. I

noticed a few there this morning that had the orange stickers on them.

They've been there for some time. Cars are not being maintained; they

are not being exchanged. People are driving older cars. They are not

exchanging them every couple of years anymore. They simply can't afford

to do it. If ever there was a time when we needed to have that testing

more available at a reasonable price, that time is now. Instead, it's

being taken away.

It costs $50 in Ontario. The price ranges from $30 to $50. The

cheapest price is actually $28, which is supplied by the Ontario Motor

League. Those are very current figures. But what does that testing

entail? The only time that it is done in Ontario is when a car changes

hands. When you buy a car, it's tested. But if you buy a car and keep

it, it's never subject to tests. That's the same thing that's going to

happen here when it's on a voluntary basis. We're going to have unsafe

vehicles on the road. The 7 percent figure of vehicle accidents that

was quoted by my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is going to go

up and up. Already we have far too much useless loss of life and

maiming as a result of highway accidents. There are many ways that we

can try to control this. Certainly one of the ways is to ensure that

vehicles on the road are safe.

This motion and the duties that are being set forth for this

committee go in exactly the opposite direction. Under a voluntary

private system there is no possibility that we are going to see

vehicles tested with the regularity and frequency that is particularly

required in a time of economic downturn when less regular maintenance

is being done on vehicles and people are changing their own oil,

putting in their own antifreeze and changing their own tires rather

than going to a shop. There isn't that opportunity for those vehicles

to be checked over when the machine is in a shop. Also, those vehicles

are being kept on the road for much longer periods of time than has

been the case when we were living in a more affluent time in our

economy, when people were exchanging their cars every two or three

years for new vehicles.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this particular motion

and this particular direction which seems to be part and parcel of a

general government move which indicates the basic philosophical

difference between this government and the opposition. This is just one

example. There are certain areas of the economy that tend themselves

well to and are best handled by private enterprise. But there are other

areas that lend themselves much better to and are much better handled

by public enterprise. This is one of those areas. For that reason

certainly those of us on this side of the Legislature cannot go along

with the principle as set out in this particular motion. I very much

regret that a standing committee of this Legislature is being asked to

consider such a regressive measure. I believe in the operation of

standing committees. I think that that is something that we do not use

enough in this Legislature. It is an unfortunate situation that we find

now. This government is attempting to create an appearance of utilizing

these committees when in fact the terms of reference for the committee

are so restrictive and so regressive that it is going to make it

impossible for the committee to function the way it should function.

What the committee should be looking at, if we have that committee

functioning at all on this particular subject, is the whole gamut. If

the government wanted to examine the pros and cons of maintaining

testing, of doing it privately or publicly, of the costs involved

privately or publicly, and come up with a recommendation as to how the

thing should be handled, that would make more sense. But to make the

decision first and then come in with these very limited terms of

reference and ask a standing committee of this House to sit in judgment

on such a limited and regressive and restrictive measure really

contravenes the whole idea behind the purpose of standing committees in

this Legislature.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can only regretfully oppose this

particular resolution, because I am particularly concerned that I find

myself in the position of opposing an operating and effective standing

committee. This committee cannot operate effectively under this

resolution and therefore I must oppose it.

[4:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I always find in these debates

that the less you know about it the more shouting and screaming you

appear to do and the more personal attacks you make on the opposition.

My good friend across the aisle from the northern riding of Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) seems to believe that the only way to establish a good

argument is to scream and rant about doctrinaire socialism and all the

other rhetoric that he appears to think really enforces an argument. I

definitely would not like to fall into the same trap that he continues

to fall in. I'm hoping, mainly from past experience, that what I have

to say will be considered in the light of the actual facts of the motor

vehicle public and the type of accidents that do take place because of

the new technology that we have in our motor

[ Page 1313 ]

vehicles today versus the technology that was there

even 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, before your brakes went, because

they were definitely mechanical, you had the scraping and the squealing

of metal against metal. Even the dumbest of us who are not mechanically

minded realized that we needed our brakes renewed. The problem with the

change that has come into the construction of the vehicle today — with

hydraulic brakes and steering, plus the new roads and the high speeds —

is that the type of damage that can happen to a car is far more

dangerous today than it was twenty years ago.

The testing stations that started in Vancouver were not something

that some bureaucrat dreamed up to create jobs for certain civil

servants. It was something that evolved because there was a need for

some type of inspection of vehicles. There was a need, for the safety

of the pedestrian public and the drivers, that the rest of the cars on

the road should be safe to drive. Vancouver pioneered the evolution in

British Columbia of motor vehicle testing, because it is a large,

metropolitan city which has a lot of roads, stop signs and one-way

streets. It has a different type of a vehicle and flow of traffic than

some of the northern roads and backwood areas of the ridings of some of

the previous speakers.

We have to look at what we are doing. I understood when the

government brought in their first bill stating that they were going to

abolish vehicle testing stations, because it was consistent with what

they were saying about downsizing government. It was also consistent

when the announcement came out that the cost of the motor vehicle

testing was too high. It was stated that they were losing 50 cents on

an average test, and that for another 50 cents for the inspection the

actual motor vehicle testing station would be profitable. It would be

profitable in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area, where you

have the volume of business.

If the government really wants to enlarge the testing, as they

claim, for the northern parts of the province where there are large

logging trucks driving on the roads today that are mechanically

unsound, and if they feel that these vehicles should be upgraded, then

I would say that they should go ahead and enlarge a service that is

already there, because it is needed. If you're going to have the

postage stamp rate, you are not going to be able to give that type of

inspection up in the northern parts of the province where you don't

have the volume. You're not going to be able to send out the letters

when you have gone over your year. You're not going to have the

capability of keeping on top of the transient type of population that

do move about in the interior part of British Columbia. It is going to

cost more, and there's no way in all practicality that you are going to

be able to raise the inspection fees 50 cents or $1 in the lower

mainland to cover the cost of additional inspection up in the north,

and these are the facts of life.

I know that certain members of the government keep on saying: "We

are the majority. We won the election on May 5." But as a member of the

opposition, I still represent 45 percent of the voting public of this

province. Nowhere in that last campaign did this government who won the

election ever state in any of their literature that they were going to

raise the motor vehicle inspection 1,000 percent. If it is going to

average, as I believe the budget speech said, that we can get an

inspection for anywhere between $45 and $50. that rate is approximately

a 1,000 percent increase on what we in the lower mainland and on the

Island are presently paying.

I don't think we should get into the semantics of figures, but we should look at whether there is a need for inspection. We

should face that issue, not whether there is a way of getting something

for nothing, because at the present time, with a 50 percent increase,

you're not getting anything for nothing. If we are getting something

for nothing today.... If you want to take a very hard-nosed position

that we get nothing for nothing, then raise the rates an extra 50

cents. Let's raise it, and let's continue to maintain some type of safe

vehicles on the roads.

I was, prior to being elected, as I've said before, in the police

force. In the last 25 years, because of the inspections, I have watched

the improvement in the style of vehicle that is driving our highways

today. In an area where there are inspections, you get less

one-lighters, as they are commonly called. You get less vehicles

blinding you when the lights are on dim, because they are inspected on

a regular basis. The people who live in the inspection area are more

aware of the type of standards that they must maintain.

The enforcement that is carried on by the police on the highways is

a little more stringent when a vehicle does approach a patrol car and

you realize that the headlights are on dim but that they are coming

right into the eyes of the oncoming motorists. It's not that they go

out and lay out the tickets, but they will stop the vehicle and say:

"Take your vehicle to the testing station. You have 48 hours to bring

it up to a normal condition." These are the facts of what was happening

on the highways.

What's going to happen, now that you have wiped out the motor

vehicle testing? The attitudes of the drivers are going to be less and

less on safety. They are going to look at it solely from a cost point

of view. They're going to look at it that taking it to a garage and

asking that their vehicle be tested will cost them.... I've heard

figures today from $28 to $50. But they are going to hesitate. A lot of

the motoring public are going to hesitate to put out that S30 to $50

because they know that if they do find something wrong with their

vehicle, the cost of aligning those lights, or checking their hydraulic

steering, or checking their brakes is going to be additional. So the

travelling public and the safety of the highways is going to get less.

I've heard — I believe I read it in letters to the editor, and I've

seen it on TV — that the police should look after the inspection of

vehicles. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with your past experience

you know that the police were never trained to be mechanical

inspectors. It is not their realm. It is not what they are hired for.

Basically it is a waste of their time. If a vehicle was obviously

unsafe in the present system — or the system that we are just phasing

out — the police did have, in the Victoria and lower mainland areas, an

opportunity to send that vehicle to have it properly inspected. With 25

years' experience, I can tell you right now that I am not qualified to

inspect a vehicle. If I see a vehicle that has bald tires, I know that

the tires are bald. But I can't tell you why they are bald. I don't

know if they bought them cheaply and just put them on, or if they were

worn out because of improper alignment. I think this is why the special

equipment that the testing stations have developed over the years, the

special methods that have evolved because of the change in the

technology of vehicles, must be maintained.

[4:15]

If this government feels, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

states, that their constituents up in the northern part of the province

should have the same service that we are getting down in the lower

mainland, then enlarge it. But

[ Page 1314 ]

you're not going to get it for $6. You're not going to get it for $7.

MR. KEMPF: We're tired of paying for yours.

MR. MITCHELL: You're not paying for ours. I say, Mr. Speaker,

in all fairness to the member, that there is a certain validity in what

he said. I say that because of the mismanagement of the present

administration this particular service, with only an additional 50

cents, could have been made selfsupporting. So don't attack the

messenger, but attack the message. Attack the people who created this

particular situation that.... He says they are tired of paying for

ours. We are paying for ours every time we have an inspection and every

time we maintain our car in a drivable, safe condition.

Not that I am against studying it. I think that if a committee was

set up and had an opportunity to study what is needed to provide the

maximum inspection needed for the vehicles on our highways, what is

needed to make sure that the logging trucks in Prince George and

Vanderhoof are safe to be on the highway.... If that increase is

needed, these are some of the issues the committee should be looking

at. As I have said, and continue to say in each speech, the legislative

committees are a valuable arm of the Legislature. They have an

opportunity to bring in the experts, to listen to briefs and to get

both sides of the problem. I would not like to see any of these

legislative committees with a very restrictive set of guidelines — only

to study, for example, the privatization of the inspection service.

As some of my colleagues have said: "Are we going to have the

restaurant owners inspect the sanitary condition of their kitchens? Are

we going to have the health inspectors not check health, no matter if

it is septic tanks or public buildings?" If that argument is sound,

then I would say that we get rid of police as a whole because only I or

2 percent of the population are served by the police; the rest of us —

95 or 98 percent — are honest, law-abiding citizens. We are very

law-abiding citizens. There are certain cabinet ministers who, I know,

go around with their radar equipment on — their warning system — which

is just part of the game. It is legal because the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) never had the guts to bring into legislation the

amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act his own committee was studying.

There was a recommendation that radar warning systems be made illegal.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you are talking

to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in the hallways, that I

do not possess a radar warning system. I am not saying any of them do

or don't. I have never heard of one. It is not my job to investigate my

colleagues. It is my job to represent the people of Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew on this committee, on this resolution for the safety of the

driving public, pedestrians and all of us who are out on the highways.

I say that it is not only the safety. I think it is important we look

at the cost, the idea of giving the best service at the lowest price.

That is real competition, and I know every member of the government

believes in true competition, in comparison. They want to know that

when they get something, whoever they pay their dollars to, they are

getting the best service at the lowest cost.

I think it important that — supporting the position of the member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf); he feels he needs this type of inspection in

the north — we look at enlarging the service, and whether it can be

provided cheaper or more economically by the private sector. As long as

we have something to compare it with.... We can compare it with the

particular operation that the minister has been supervising for the

last seven years, that has been in operation under the previous Social

Credit government. They have a lot of records that go back to the days

when the service was available in Vancouver, in the lower mainland.

As one who kind of prides himself on keeping my vehicle relatively

safe.... I do. Because of my personal relationship with the garages I

have dealt with, I have continually asked them to inspect my vehicle

and make sure it is up to grade. Only once, in all the times I've been

to the inspection, has it ever failed, and that was because my brakes

on one wheel weren't operating up to scratch. That's not because I'm

any better but because I have dealt on the highways with what happens

when a vehicle is out there that is unsafe. I've dealt with it and I've

listened to the arguments that "I didn't know that it was unsafe." A

large percentage of these vehicles that were in accidents because the

vehicle was unsafe did not have valid inspection stickers on them.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, in deference to

the mouthy Minister of Forests: the majority of the vehicles that were

involved in accidents had not been through a regular inspection check.

They were either out-of-town vehicles or they were vehicles.... In my

particular riding when you get fewer than 25 miles out of the city you

are no longer in an inspection area. These types of vehicles are

continually driven without regular inspections. The majority of those

who are driving and are involved in accidents are from that particular

segment of the vehicles. The rest of us who live in an area where we

have to maintain our vehicles do maintain them.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I have very mixed support or opposition to

this particular resolution. I believe that there is the need for

inspections, and I know there are members of the government who share

my belief that there is need for inspections. They understand that the

vehicles that have developed over the last 20 to 30 years are a lot

different than they were back in the thirties and the early forties. We

know that. We know that somewhere in between there is a happy medium.

Maybe in some areas it would be uneconomical to set up a large testing

station. It would be an inconvenience to the public. But I would like

to be assured that if this government gives out a certain franchise, if

you want to call it that, to certain garages in the private sector,

their standard of inspection will be every bit as reliable as the

inspection service that has developed in the province of British

Columbia in the last 20 or 25 years. I want to make sure, although I

know I can't amend the minister's motion, that they do make some study

of a phase-in period in areas that presently are not involved in

inspection so that the problems that were outlined by the member for

Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) will be given serious consideration.

So when it comes to the vote, Mr. Speaker, under the present wording

and under the present attitude of the government that we are going to

wipe out inspections where they are now properly developed....They are not going to take a practical position that we are

[ Page 1315 ]

going to raise it so that it is self-supporting.

Instead of correcting the issue we are going to throw out the baby with

the bathwater. I'm sorry that the government has taken that position,

but I still think that there is some merit for areas that are not

presently being serviced. Maybe there is a possibility that the private

sector could give this service that would guarantee.... Nothing is

going to guarantee anything, but it would give a little stronger

assurance that more vehicles are going to be safer for the drivers, for

the passengers, and for the travelling public.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, unless I have something stronger

in support from the government about why they are taking this

particular method.... I'm not sure if it is just to save face from the

opposition that they are getting from editorials and groups that are

involved in motor vehicles. But even the Prince George Citizen

has an editorial telling the Minister of Highways that the

privatization of the testing service will not work. I know that is only

one example, and many organizations have expressed their opinions to

the minister and to the motor vehicle branch. Many people, I know, were

shocked to find out that only an extra 50 cents would make it

self-supporting; that for $5.50 or $6.... They would not be expecting

to get something for nothing, but they would be paying for the service

that they were receiving. The majority of us are quite happy to pay for

what we are getting. But they were shocked when in the budget speech it

was said we were going to wipe out the $5 and $6 fee and replace it

with a $45 to $50 fee. This is the way they do it in Ontario, and this

is the way we're going to do it here.

For the 45 percent of the voters of British Columbia who supported

our party, for the 57 percent of the people of my riding who supported

me, we are opposed to that attitude. Unless there is some change, I

will be voting against it.

[4:30]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's a tragedy that we're

debating this resolution at all, because what it means is that a very

excellent service provided by government is being eliminated, and

favours are being returned to private industry, which supported the

government party during the election. It means that employees who

currently are working, or have been working, in the motor vehicle

testing stations — employees who had no vested interest and who were

there simply to check on the safety of those vehicles — will lose their

jobs so that people in the private sector, private garages, will be

able to take over the testing of vehicles in this province. Mr.

Speaker, they have a definite vested interest.

In addition to the fact that we are now turning over this government

service, which government some years ago determined was a necessary and

valuable service to the people of B.C.... That we are eliminating it as

a government service and turning it over to the private sector means

that it's going to cost the people of British Columbia far more. We

know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of the testing is no longer going to

be $5, $5.50 or even $6, but two, three, four, or maybe ten times what

it currently costs. The people of British Columbia have already paid

for the necessary equipment to have the testing done in the lower

mainland, Victoria and Nanaimo. Now they're going to have to pay for

the new equipment that's going to be required in the various private

firms that are going to receive the nod from government as those which

will be qualified or accepted to test motor vehicles.

I was interested in the comments of the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf), who complains because there is no testing station for motor

vehicles in his constituency. He said he was supporting this resolution

because he was tired of having his constituents pay for the testing —

in other words, the deficit that occurs in the current testing program

— in the lower mainland and Victoria and Nanaimo, which are currently

in motor vehicle testing areas. The subsidy is not that great. We had

the head of the motor vehicle branch telling us that for an additional

50 cents per car they could probably break even. Yet the MLA for

Omineca was objecting to the fact that his constituents pay for that

particular subsidy. Well, I can assure you that there are people in

various other constituencies who might well object to the costs that

taxpayers are paying through the Ministry of Highways for work that's

undertaken in his constituency. For instance, they have a free ferry

service up in his constituency. I can assure you that all of the

taxpayers in this province pay for the subsidy required so that people

in his constituency can ride entirely free of charge on the ferry.

Surely if it's going to be fair, he should be standing up and saying

that that free ferry service should no longer be allowed in his

constituency, that people in other parts of the province shouldn't be

subsidizing his constituents. Or perhaps he would suggest that it

should be privatized so that we can have a private entrepreneur in on

that ferry service. I can assure that member that he would then find

out that people would no longer be riding free on that ferry.

MR. SKELLY: Maybe they'll privatize their MLA.

MS. SANFORD: Even the minister enjoyed that one.

I've heard that there are people within various parts of this

province who object to the fact that their tax dollars go towards

snow-clearing in areas of the province that receive large snowfalls —

areas like Omineca. They are subsidizing those people. So the argument

that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was making really doesn't hold

much water when you start analyzing it.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Exactly what I'm saying. There are lots of

subsidies to lots of people in this province. One subsidy that the

constituents of Comox pay for is the free ferry service within the

constituency of Omineca, so that argument doesn't hold much water.

We are now going to turn this over to a committee which is going to

determine how the privatization of this particular service can take

place. I sincerely hope that the committee will recommend that we

entirely reject any privatization of that service if it's going to cost

people more to have their vehicles tested. It seems to me that this

government has been preaching, for months on end, about keeping down

costs to taxpayers. If people are going to have to pay five or ten

times the cost for a service that's now provided at a nominal rate,

surely the government would not allow it to happen. We know there's

going to be a huge increase in costs by turning it over to the private

sector. I sincerely hope that that committee, when it reports back.

will reject — if in fact it's going to cost people more to have their

cars tested, and I firmly believe that it will — any notion of

privatizing and will recommend an immediate reopening of the government

testing stations in the lower mainland, Victoria and Nanaimo. If

necessary, they will raise that fee a bit to cover the deficit which,

we were

[ Page 1316 ]

told, amounts to about 50 cents a vehicle and also

build up a fund so that they can put testing stations in places like

Omineca. The taxpayers up there will then have the same kind of service

that was available in Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo.

I want to bring to the minister's attention a particular reason why

I think it is tragic that today we are even debating a resolution

that's going to establish a committee to look into privatizing that

particular service. A constituent of mine was in touch with me not too

long ago — within the last couple of months. He informed me that he had

just moved to Vancouver because, lo and behold, he had obtained a job.

He had been looking for a job for months on end; in fact for several

years. He finally got a job, left my constituency and moved to the

lower mainland. In order to get himself back and forth to work, he

purchased a vehicle at a fairly sizeable dealership in that lower

mainland area. He was advised by the person who sold him the car that

he should take it in for testing at the motor vehicle testing station.

Dutifully he did so. He took the car in, went through the test and was

informed by the people at the testing station that that car was a pile

of junk. It really was not worth fixing and should not be allowed on

the road. Now this constituent had already made out a cheque and signed

an agreement. He immediately went back to the company in order to let

them know that, in fact, the motor vehicle testing branch had told him

that the vehicle should not have been allowed on the road and that it

was a pile of junk. "Too bad," said the person who had sold him the

car. "You have signed the agreement. You have advanced us a cheque.

It's in your name now. All the insurance has gone through. Too bad. If

you want it to pass the motor vehicle testing station, then obviously

you are going to have to have the car repaired as best you can and at

your expense. It's in your name. You own the car."

My constituent spoke to the police about this particular situation

and they advised him that he should get hold of the consumer services

branch of the provincial government, to see whether or not he could get

some assistance from them in his dilemma. He phoned up the consumer

services branch in Vancouver and a secretary answered the phone and

said: "I'm sorry, there aren't any more consumer services officers,

because they've been fired." He then decided that the only thing he

could do to get some advice was to talk to a lawyer, which he did — he

didn't have very much money because he hasn't worked for some time —

and the lawyer advised him to take the car back immediately, put a stop

order on the cheque and leave the car, abandon it, at the dealership.

He did that. Now he is advised that the company will probably sue him.

They told him that they would have the car towed away, because all the

papers show that it is in his name, and he would then be charged with

the towing fee, in addition to having to repair the car so that it

would pass the motor vehicle testing.

This is one of these dealerships which is supposed to ensure,

through their testing procedures, that that car is roadworthy. There is

no way that a car dealer in this province should be selling a car that

is not roadworthy. They're not allowed — or are supposedly not allowed

— to do that. But unfortunately there are no consumer services officers

to take on this case, so my constituent's lawyer advised him the only

thing he could do now is wait to see whether or not the company is

going to sue him for the money that they claim he owes them as a result

of the purchase of this car.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Here we have this conflict of interest which occurs in the private

sector. In the private sector they do not wish to take that car back to

ensure that it is roadworthy, because they're in there trying to make a

profit. We know that. That's why they're in business. As a result we

have situations like this, where a car goes out in an unroadwortby

condition. They're not interested in helping out this particular young

person who now has a job in Vancouver. They are interested in only one

thing: ensuring that he pays for that car. They don't care whether it's

roadworthy or not. What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that with a

government-operated motor vehicle testing branch there is no conflict

of interest or profit to be made, but there is a valuable service to be

delivered to the people of British Columbia. I certainly support the

previous Social Credit government who set up the motor vehicle testing

system which is now going to be eliminated.

[4:45]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Am I wrong on that?

MR. NICOLSON: It goes back way before the Social Credit government.

MS. SANFORD: Well, the Social Credit government has been here forever, hasn't it?

MR. NICOLSON: Too long.

MS. SANFORD: Too long, in any case.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to have those public

motor vehicle testing stations. I am definitely opposed to any

privatization of this particular service. The minister knows that by a

slight additional charge he could, in fact, cover all of the costs

involved. He could improve the service by setting up additional public

testing stations throughout the province, and indeed serve all of those

members from places like Omineca, who object to the fact that the

people in their constituencies are helping to pay for the small deficit

which now exists for the motor vehicle testing.

The other day I heard the MLA for Prince George North — no it was

Prince George South, (Mr. Strachan) — speaking in the Legislature, and

he expressed concern about the safety of logging trucks.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm aware who he is. I just couldn't remember whether it was north or south.

He was talking about the need to test some of the vehicles, like the

logging trucks, to ensure that they were safe when they were on the

highways of the province; that could be done, presumably, in Prince

George South by the implementation of the recommendations this

committee is going to make.

I'm going to make another recommendation with respect to the safety of

these vehicles on the road; this, in fact, would be expanding the terms of the

committee to a certain extent. Within the constituency of Comox about a year

ago — in fact I think it's longer than that now — we had a propane tanker

overturn just in that Royston area. At that time we had to evacuate the area.

The propane tanker truck was finally

[ Page

1317 ]

righted and was then sent in for inspection, and is now, as I understand it,

undergoing repairs or has been repaired, and is probably back on the road at

this stage.

But we have a situation in this province which is totally

inadequate, in my view, in terms of the inspection of vehicles such as

that propane tanker. If the propane tanker is manufactured here in

B.C., then the safety branch of the Ministry of Labour undertakes an

inspection and ensures that it meets the standards laid out by the

American engineers who lay down the standards for the construction of

these tankers. But if the vehicle is constructed elsewhere and is then

shipped in for use in British Columbia by one of the companies here in

B.C., there is no requirement for any further inspection of that

particular tanker. As a result, we found that when this tanker which

overturned in the Royston area was finally inspected because it had

been involved in an accident — otherwise it wouldn't have been

inspected at all — there was indeed a manufacturer's fault.

There was also a need to ensure that the tankers manufactured in the

future have recessed valves in the tanker truck themselves, and not the

protruding valves which this particular tanker truck had, because when

the tanker truck overturns, the valve scrapes along the tarmac. As a

result, a leak occurs and we endanger so many lives. I believe, and the

RCMP and the fire chief in the Courtenay area believe, that we in fact

were extremely fortunate in that Courtenay area because the tanker

truck did not blow up, there was no fire, people were evacuated safely

and they finally righted the tanker truck, although there was a great

delay in traffic on the Island Highway in the meantime.

It seems to me that if we are going to ensure the safety of these

propane tanker trucks on the highways, the committee should indeed be

looking at the kind of necessary testing that I feel should be taking

place on a regular basis, even though right now we have, out of Ottawa,

legislation which talks about the transportation of dangerous goods and

chemicals, and there is a federal-provincial committee that has been

established, made up of representatives from every province in Canada,

to try to set out some regulations with respect to regular testing and

the kind of standards that should be met. But it will be a long time,

in my view, before all of the governments of the provinces of Canada

agree on a system that can be applied uniformly. I don't think we can

wait that long, because since the time we had that Royston accident, we

have had another accident in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, plus

yet a third one, which received a good deal of coverage in the local

papers in Parksville, as a result of a leaking propane tanker that was

left at a railway siding overnight. The fire chief in the Nanoose area

was indeed very concerned about the safety of the people in that area

as a result of yet another leaking propane tanker truck.

I think that this committee's terms of reference should include the

kind of inspection and necessary standards to ensure the safety of

these vehicles on the highways of British Columbia. In a heavily

populated area, if we'd had the same kind of accident as we had at

Royston, we could well have had a major tragedy on our hands as a

result of the fact that these inspections do not take place on a

regular basis. This particular tanker truck was tested in around 1978

in Alberta, and B.C. accepted the testing that was done, even though

that tanker truck was subsequently found to have manufacturer's defects.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right. And we will always have that

problem. But, Mr. Speaker, what we don't have is any subsequent testing

of tankers on the roads of British Columbia once they have passed that

initial test. I think it should happen, and I think this is something

that the committee should look at, not only the safety of the logging

trucks that the MLA for Prince George South....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: What are you talking about?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is hilarious. You are really

going to have to hear this. The minister is suggesting that the

Teamsters are responsible people and they look after their trucks.

There is no doubt about that, but they do not have the qualifications

or the expertise to be able to test a tanker, for heaven's sake. After

all, we have very highly trained, experienced people to do the kind of

testing on a tanker truck. A member of the Teamsters' Union doesn't

have that kind of qualification. How on earth is he supposed to do this

test? The test takes a good deal of expertise, a good deal of know-how

and a good deal of time. The Teamsters are very responsible drivers and

they ensure that the tires on the truck are in good condition and they

took their vehicle through the testing station when it was open, but

the government has now closed that down so they can't even have their

vehicles tested for brakes or anything like that. But they don't have

the expertise to test a propane tanker truck for safety. That's not

within their expertise, and I certainly do not feel that we should ask

the truck drivers to undertake that particular task. The minister is

really outrageous sometimes, Mr. Speaker, in the comments that he makes.

I feel that in view of the fact that government testing stations

have been closed and that no vehicles in the province are being tested

at this time.... The government people working at these government

testing stations have no conflict of interest. They don't have any sort

of hidden agenda, they don't have to worry about a profit and they are

the ones who are best qualified to handle the testing of vehicles in

this province. I think that the government will probably go ahead with

its plan at this point anyway and establish a committee. If they do,

they should certainly look at the costs to individual people to have

their vehicles tested through the private sector versus the public

sector, and the committee should consider recommending the cheaper of

the two to the minister. Secondly, they should expand the terms of

reference to include areas such as the safety of propane tankers on our

highways in British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to

speak on Motion 29. Like the other members of my caucus, I plan to

oppose this resolution for a number of the reasons mentioned. It is

unfortunate that the government has already scrapped the regular safety

inspection of private motor vehicles in this province prior to

considering any alternatives for safety inspections of private

vehicles. It is something that should not have been done without a

careful examination of the costs and benefits to the province prior to

doing away with the testing stations. I know the government will

continue carrying on testing of commercial vehicles, but it is

unfortunate that we have seen the suspension of testing of private

[ Page 1318 ]

motor vehicles prior to the examination of

alternatives for motor vehicle testing, which will be supposedly

brought in by this committee.

For example, Mr. Speaker, a cost-benefit analysis should show.... We

are told by the Ministry of Finance that they examine all the

legislation that is proposed by the government and determine what the

costs are going to be to the province and what the benefits are going

to be to the people of the province. Yet when the budget was tabled in

this House, we saw no budget papers this time around, no examination of

the costs and benefits of individual pieces of legislation that were

presented, so we really don't know what the impact of doing away with

private motor vehicle testing is going to be. Given this government's

record in the past, we do know that it is going to result in a loss of

government employment and a loss of government service. It is going to

result in a loss of a charge against the government, but it is going to

result in an increased charge against taxpayers through the private

sector. We know that the people out there who own and operate motor

vehicles are going to be paying more as a result of the elimination of

this service by the government. Not only are they going to be paying

more in the direct cost of the testing and servicing of motor vehicles;

there will also be other impacts — and I suggest there are in fact

impacts occurring right now as a result of the premature eliminating of

motor vehicle testing.

For example, how many accidents have resulted from mechanical

failure as a result of the elimination of motor vehicle testing up to

the present time? How much loss of life and property has resulted from

mechanical failure up to the present time? What does that mean to us as

provincial taxpayers and participants in the medical plan, in terms of

higher medical costs to treat accident victims, higher hospital costs

and services to the handicapped, to widows and to children left without

parents, etc., all of which are related to motor vehicle accidents, a

percentage of which are attributable entirely or in part to mechanical

failures which might have been prevented had that mechanical failure

been identified in a regular motor vehicle inspection? What is the

impact on the province, on all drivers in particular, of higher

insurance premiums as a result of an increased number of accidents due

to mechanical failure? I'm sure that the minister did not examine any

of these possible impacts before announcing that the motor vehicle

testing stations would be closed for compulsory testing.

[5:00]

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) looked at it strictly from a

parochial, regional point of view, and asked why people in his area

should subsidize motor vehicle testing in the lower mainland and other

areas where testing stations are located. To some extent that's a

legitimate complaint. However, we've been told by people within the

motor vehicle branch that a slightly increased charge for motor vehicle

tests would make that government service self-supporting. Also, I don't

think the member for Omineca was swift enough to take into

consideration the fact that motor vehicles are operating more safely in

some areas of the province and that accidents had been reduced as a

result of the identification of mechanical defects through motor

vehicle testing. Injuries were reduced and property damage was reduced

as a result of the identification and correction of mechanical defects,

and as a result people in his area were paying lower insurance premiums

than they would have otherwise, and lower taxes to pay for medical and

hospital benefits than they would have otherwise. The member isn't

looking at the broad view; he's only looking at the question of the

subsidy. Even that isn't a legitimate complaint when you take into

consideration the fact that if the cost of motor vehicle inspections

were increased by a small amount the operation would be self financing.

That's one of the problems with the ministry's announcement that

compulsor