1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8295 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Amendment Act (Bill 54). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

Mr. Hanson (continued) –– 8295

Mr. Lockstead –– 8296

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 8297

Division –– 8298

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 4). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

section 5 as amended –– 8298

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Hall

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment to

section 6 –– 8302

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to

section 6 as amended –– 8302

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

section 13 –– 8303

Ms. Brown

section 17 as amended –– 8304

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment to

section 18 as amended –– 8305

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to

section 25 –– 8306

Mr. Lockstead

On the amendment to

section 29 –– 8306

Mr. Lockstead

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Report –– 8307

Waste Management Act (Bill 52). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On the amendment to

Section 1 –– 8307

Mr. Skelly

Division

On the amendment to

section 4 –– 8308

Mr. Skelly

section 5 –– 8311

Mr. Skelly

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 8312

Ministerial statement, telex to federal Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8312

Mr. Barrett –– 8312

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Development Corporation annual report.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 8314

Ministry of the Attorney-General annual report, March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8314

Appendix –– 8314

FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair]

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to introduce pupils from

the Carson Elementary School in my home town of Quesnel. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Barclay. I'd like the House to

welcome them.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 54.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. HANSON:

After a perusal of the bill, and having listened to the extremely brief

explanation in principle of the intent of this bill, we're going to

vote against it in second reading. I'd like to outline why.

number of aspects of the bill exaggerate even more the extent of the

secrecy in which this government operates in the disposition of Crown

land. Several clauses indicate that the minister will no longer have to

gazette areas of the province which are going to be reserved from

disposition. One that they wish to amend indicates they will not be

obliged to accept an application, or to dispose of Crown land even if

an application is accepted. There are no rules of natural justice

surrounding these amended sections. It is apparent from the way the

minister has managed Crown land in the interior, around the Crown

grazing area and now in the Prince George area, that here we have a

situation where the high rollers — those who have sufficient equity and

collateral and security, like the logging companies in the Prince

George bidding situation — are going to get Crown land.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The point of order is that the member, first of all, is discussing a

variety of sections in this act. I indicated at second reading that it

would be more properly debated in committee because it's a series of

minor, unrelated amendments to the Land Act. Also, he raises the

question of agricultural land disposal in the Prince George area and

the matter of high rollers and dollars that buy agricultural land. That

has nothing to do with the sections that are contained within the Land

Amendment Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been the practice, when a bill encompasses several

sections that cannot specifically be tied together, that more debate is allowed

in committee. I'm sure the hon. member is just getting to his point and will

bear in mind the statements by the minister involving this particular section.

On a point of order, the member of New Westminster.

MR. COCKE:

If we followed through on that logic that there are a number of

different principles involved in this bill and we therefore were gagged

in second reading, we could in the future see nothing but omnibus bills

come before us and nothing but committee stage debate. So, Mr. Speaker,

from time to time the opposition must take the position that the

overriding principles of a bill are the ones that they wish to debate.

The only way that you can have a broad debate is in the House, not in

the committee, because in the committee we are directed to the specific

sections. I know the House Leader agrees with me totally. Were he on

the other side of the House at the present time, he would be on his

feet screaming his head off.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, the member for New Westminster makes some valid points. The

Chair, of course, is bound by the rules that guide us, and we must at

least be relevant to the bill. I would ask the cooperation of members

in dealing with a bill specifically of this type.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, there is a theme that I'm attempting to address because

these provisions that the government is seeking to amend address the

manner in which applications for Crown land are made and the way the

government will treat those applications. They're suggesting an

amendment which does not oblige them either to receive the application

or even to act when an application has been deemed successful, for

example, in the bidding process. They are seeking an amendment so that

they don't have to publish in the Gazette

information surrounding what Crown land may be reserved or made

available for disposition, etc. They are seeking to amend the method by

which the Crown land is paid for. They're seeking to amend the manner

in which the title for Crown land is granted. There is a general theme,

Mr. Speaker, and the theme is more and more secrecy, more and more

discretionary authority to the minister in the granting of the title

itself. The proposed change favours those with large amounts of

capital, either in mortgage equity or in capital projects that can

advance the security necessary to get title to Crown land even before

it's paid for. The method of payment that is in the existing

legislation outlines provisions whereby certain portions of money are

paid down and the remaining amounts are paid for over time. When full

payment is made, the full title is granted.

The minister may

try to argue that this particular change will favour financing through

a financial institution for a small operator to take that Crown grant,

providing they have the necessary security, and they'd get mortgage

money to carry on some development on that land. That sounds very good,

but that is not the way things operate under the administration of this

minister. The minister rose in his place yesterday and announced that

the farmers and agriculturalists of this province — and the first-time

farmers of this province — would not be given any kind of preferential

treatment, and that the stimulus and promotion of agricultural

development on Crown land would not be encouraged by this minister. In

his words: "Everyone in British Columbia should be treated equally when

they want to bid on Crown land." The fact is that a Iogging company can

clearly outbid a small farmer or a young couple — first-time farmers

who want to get into

[ Page 8296 ]

farming

in, for example, the Prince George area. They cannot compete with a

logging company that is able to see that the value of the cunits of

wood on that stand on that land far exceed the price that they will pay

for that particular property.

As you're aware, Mr. Speaker,

the way these auctions are structured at the moment is that.... For

example, in the Prince George area there are 20 parcels of property.

Each one of those parcels has been assigned what they call an upset

price — in other words, a minimum price for that land to go into the

hands of a bidder. There is an additional amount of money called a

bonus price, which is the extra to deal with the values of the land in

excess of the upset price.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, the same argument he's putting forward

now was put forward in question period yesterday, at which time I

answered it. It's not relevant to these amendments to the Land Act. But

if you want to allow him to continue in this vein, I'm prepared to

answer at length the distorted arguments he's putting forward.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, in perusing the particular bill before us it appears that

we are very much extending its scope. Some of the questions clearly

could be directed at another time, which will be before us very shortly

in the estimates of the minister, or on other than the particular point

that we're dealing with in this bill. I ask the member if he would

confine his remarks more specifically to the principle presently before

us in Bill 54. In the opinion of the Chair, the discussion the member

is now engaged in goes well beyond the scope of the bill before us.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, there is a theme to this bill that the minister was

derelict in not raising in this House when he introduced the bill in

second reading. It is not sufficient for him to bring in a bill with 12

clauses and say, "it is housekeeping," and sit down. There is a theme

here; there is a principle here.

The principle is the

openness of government in their management and administration of Crown

land disposal. The theme is that applications will be dealt with in

secrecy with no gazetting any more. The Crown is not obliged to advise

the applicant that his application has been received or, if the person

is successful, that their application has been successful. The method

of payment for that land will clearly favour the orientation of the

government. The very large operators with large collateral and large

security can obtain the Crown grant — in other words, the title for

that land — without paying for it; they can take the Crown grant to the

bank, remortgage it with that certificate of purchase or the Crown

grant, and then they can dispose of it.

This is a departure

from the way Crown land has been administered in this province since

Governor Douglas. This minister has done a number of things over the

last few years which are a departure from the way Crown land has been

administered in this province. We are moving toward a single use. The

ministerial discretion and the ministerial authority, the lack of

publication, the method of payment and the way title will be granted

will favour the very rich.

What we want to see coming before

the House is a process for disposal and management of Crown land that

will favour the public that are entitled to that land. It should be

managed properly. The changes he is suggesting are not just

housekeeping; there is a theme throughout the amendments to this bill

that is more secrecy and a removal from the purview of the public the

action of the minister in the administration of this most precious

legacy, our Crown heritage.

There is also a provision that

is somewhat separate from the broad theme, and that is a change to

allow the provincial government to transfer to the federal government

the water resources and the mineral resources over and above the

surface rights, which have been a part of Crown land administration in

the province in the sense that traditionally, when Crown land is

transferred to another holder, the subsurface rights do not go with it.

They're seeking an amendment that will allow them to transfer to the

federal government subsurface rights, water rights and other aspects of

section 47 of the Land Act. We will be raising a number of questions in

committee stage on these specific provisions.

It is not good

enough for this minister to stand in the House and say this is

housekeeping. Clearly there is a theme, and the theme is greater

secrecy, less public involvement and more private ministerial

discretion. We've seen what kind of decisions flow from that attitude.

They are privileged, selective, sweetheart arrangements with special

interest groups, entirely without a general, integrated, multi-use

approach which would benefit the province and subsequent generations.

On second reading we'll be voting against this bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have just a few short words on this bill. This bill deals with money,

the Land Act and the disposition of Crown lands in certain conditions.

For the record, I want to say that this House has never in my time

seriously dealt with the matter of the disposal of Crown land. I know

that there are many methods of disposing of Crown land, but it always

seems to benefit those people who already have property and money and

those kinds of things. They have a big advantage over the people who

really need a plot of land to build a home on, and it's extremely

difficult for those types of people to get a piece of Crown land. Rural

MLAs like me deal with this problem all the time. Now if you have

$20,000 to buy a five-acre subdivided lot — subdivided by a private

developer — you may possibly luck in and get a piece of Crown land, if

you have the money. But those people who really need it, particularly

in these times of economic downturn when more and more people are

unemployed and it's more difficult for young couples to get started —

whoever.... There should be a method. When we move as a party to that

side of the House after the next election — and I want this on the

record — we're going to make it possible for ordinary people, young

couples out there, to obtain a piece of Crown property without staking

their whole future....

HON. MR. CHABOT: How?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll tell you how if you've got the time to listen. I have my own theory on how it should be done.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tell us what it is.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I'll tell you. In this province about 95 percent of the land is under

the so-called jurisdiction of the Crown. That's not correct. That's

really not so. It's a figure used by the government a great deal, but

the fact is that much of that property is tied up under TFLs and those

kinds of

[ Page 8297 ]

things.

I know that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is very

concerned — I think he is; I'm not sure; at least, he should be — about

the loss of the forest base in this province. There are areas of this

province where we can make Crown land available to people who need it.

I can give you no end of examples. I'll give you one right now. We had

an instance in my riding in which someone with a lot of money was able

to obtain through — I won't use the word "devious" — a technical method

three pieces of Crown land for purely speculative purposes, although

this person had a great deal of property of his own. That's the kind of

thing that can happen under the present Land Act and under this

administration. On this particular bidding situation, I had at least 24

or 25 people come into my office to ask how they could obtain a piece

of this property. They were left out in the cold. They didn't have a

chance. What I'm suggesting is that we can make land available with

lots properly serviced — water supply in to meet the standards under

the Health Act and so on. This government is not paying attention to

those people who need a piece of property in the worst way to somehow

start a home in this province. Mr. Speaker, I really want it to go on

record, and let that minister know, that we are concerned about this,

as are our constituents.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've

received a great deal of advice from some people across the way, some

of it fairly inaccurate and not related to the bill. Nevertheless, I'll

attempt to answer some of the questions in order, or out of order, or

whatever.

First, they talk about the availability of land.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) talked about the difficulty in

acquiring Crown land. I think he was talking about land for residential

purposes — let's say for residential and recreational purposes.

want you to know that one in every six lots sold in British Columbia

for residential purposes is a Crown lot that has been made available

through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, and they're disposed

of in the fairest method that can be devised, on the basis of lot draw.

Nothing could be fairer than that. There is the upset price. There's no

bonus bidding. The reason there is no bonus bidding in open competition

is that we want to ensure that that land is available to British

Columbians at the most attractive price possible. That's why we don't

have that.

I'm rather surprised to hear those socialists

across the way plead for land for people. I'll never forget those

speeches they made when they were government, in which they said they

were against private ownership of land. They very clearly indicated to

the people of this province that they were opposed to private ownership

of land.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I want you to have the member for Mackenzie withdraw that false statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Mackenzie to withdraw the remark that the hon. minister finds offensive.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is misrepresenting our policy and party

decision in this Legislature. At no time did our party ever come up....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The member was not asked to engage in

debate; the member was asked for a withdrawal. He will have further

opportunity to enter into debate, which is what this House is for. But

at this moment I would ask the member to withdraw the statement which

the minister finds offensive.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If the minister finds the statement offensive, I'll withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's very clearly recorded in Hansard :

the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) very clearly indicated that

his party was against the private ownership of land. That is

inconsistent with the policy of this government, and that's why we are

making so much residential. and recreational land available to the

people of this province.

On the question of the availability

of agricultural land, we've probably made.... I don't have the specific

figures; I'll have them during my estimates. I'll also read to the

House that quotation from the member for North Island, which I've read

before. I'll repeat it, because apparently they won’t listen. They want

to forget those terrible statements they made when they were

government. I'll remind them again of that quotation from the member

for North Island in which he clearly indicated that the NDP were

against the private ownership of land.

I believe we've made

available as much agricultural land as we ever have before. It's been

made available to a cross-section of British Columbians. To suggest

that only the very rich have access to this land is a false statement;

it isn't truthful. I can produce the evidence of the type of people who

have bought agricultural land in this province. They've bought it in

every region of British Columbia in which agricultural land is

available that does not compete with other resources.

One

thing they seem to forget — and I want to repeat this — is that the

availability of recreational and residential land carries with it a

commitment to perform, as does agricultural land — a commitment to

build a home. To suggest that residential land is made available for

speculative purposes in some instances is sheer nonsense.

The

member for Victoria talks about the successful bidder not being able to

get land because of this amendment. I don't know what he's talking

about, so I have some difficulty in responding to that.

the question of the elimination of the certificate of purchase, it

served its use at a particular stage in the development of this

province. It's no longer a useful document, and we believe that there

is another mechanism that could be better utilized than the certificate

of purchase. That's why it's being phased out.

The member

for Victoria also talks about first-time farmers and farmers not being

encouraged to acquire agricultural land. I don't know really what he's

talking about. I have some difficulty with that because our policy is

geared to making agricultural land available to British Columbians in

select areas of the province. He didn't really clarify his point, so I

have some difficulty with it. He talked about Governor Douglas'

land-disposal policy. If the member would make that available to me, I

would be glad to look at it to see if there are any points that

Governor Douglas had in his disposal policy that could be put in place

here.

[ Page 8298 ]

With

those few words, I look forward to a full debate on the various

sections contained in this minor piece of legislation amending the Land

Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minor?

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're minor in nature, and they're varied in nature as well. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

NAYS — 21

MacDonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Lauk

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

54, Land Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 4.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I just had a new amendment handed to me, and I have to look at it very quickly.

just want to make a few comments on

section 5. We have no amendment to

this section, but I'd just like to put this on he record. We've looked

this bill over quite carefully and it's the feeling of the official

opposition that there are really quite undue powers granted to the

superintendent under

section 5. It is our feeling that the courts

should have some discretion in these matters of suspensions. We

obviously feel that unfit drivers should not be on the road — and I

hope that doesn't include me.

In our view, any restoration

of a suspended licence should be conditional on the person taking a

driving course and reexamination. There should also be evidence that

the person needs the licence for transportation to work, and it should

be a first offence.

The public is actually entitled to be

protected from bad drivers, but the system has to be predictable and

fair, and justice has to be seen to be done. The only way to ensure

that these things happen is to inject some process into the system.

see the superintendent, Mr. Whitlock, sitting with the minister, I

should say at this point that this side of the House does appreciate

the cooperation we have received from the superintendent of motor

vehicles, the minister and Mr. Isaac in preparing for committee stage

of this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased

to see that there is at least a step in the right direction here. The

minister has recognized that the act, as it was originally brought in,

would have worked a very great hardship on certain members of the

community. While I share the concerns expressed by the member who has

just taken his place, I would hope that we will see this interpreted in

the way in which I'm sure it is intended.

I do feel that it

would have been better to have precisely spelled out the kinds of

conditions that you're talking about. It does leave a lot of discretion

in the hands of the superintendent without any guidelines set down as

to what the intent is. I think we all know what the intent is; at least

I hope we know what it is. The fact that the superintendent has that

opportunity means, I believe, that we could see it being abused.

Perhaps the bill should have been more specific about those exceptions

that can be made in certain cases. If there were some more definite

guidelines within the legislation itself, I would feet more comfortable

with it. I do feel that it leaves a lot of power in the hands of the

superintendent. It's at his discretion and he would be subject to

pressure. Heaven forbid that the minister would ever do that, but there

is that opportunity because there is nothing specific in this

amendment. It simply says that the superintendent can make these

decisions at his discretion.

We've pointed out many times

from this side of the House that it is a tendency with legislation that

has been prepared by the government benches during the past few years

to leave more and more of these things to be done in secret without any

firm guidelines in the legislation. While I'm pleased to see this

amendment, I would certainly have preferred to see it more specific.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Chairman, there has grown up around the regulation of drivers in

the province, especially young drivers, a mythology about regulations,

and it's a mythology that all of us have a great deal of difficulty in

correcting. We spent some time exchanging correspondence with this

excellent public servant who is in the chamber today finding out the

facts in order to puncture the myths and legends surrounding the

regulations, about driving automobiles. Incorrect assumptions are made

about points. Incorrect facts are bandied

[ Page 8299 ]

around

among the young community who drive motor vehicles excellently in

average fashion and, from time to time, extremely badly. It takes a lot

of effort on the part of our administrators and parents to puncture

some of those myths. Now we're going to place upon the shoulders of the

administration another quasi-judicial function, and I hope that we're

not going to establish another set of myths in that way. "I've had my

driver's licence taken away from me and I've only got 12 points, and I

know 16 young fellows that are driving around and they've got 40

points." It's part of the legend and mythology of the Plymouth

Satellite, the Chevy Corvette, etc. We all know that. Anybody who has

an office — and we all have offices, I presume — knows that. What I

would like to see the minister do, either today or in the future, is to

explain another public relations campaign as to how this is going to

operate. People will accept that. I share the misgivings of my side

about the transference of a judicial nature to the quasi-judicial

public servant function. I think if we start right we may have a chance

of finishing right. But if we don't start right, as they say in my home

county, we will never finish right.

I think that is what's

required: the clear and exquisite way in which this particular office

is going to function on this section, what guidelines are going to

operate, how this gentleman is going to dispense what in some people's

minds is the most important feature of their lives — the ability to get

to point A from point B in the fastest possible time, with the shiniest

possession that he's ever going to have in his life. It is sad to

relate, but that often is what possesses some of our young people, and

those of us with sons know that that together with a lead foot takes up

a lot of our waking moments as parents. I think that if we can do that,

we can start to make this piece of legislation a working piece of

legislation. I would take second place to no one in the desire to get

tougher driving laws and to get dangerous drivers, not behind bars, but

off the road. In coming from Surrey, with the worst possible record in

the province, where it's more dangerous to drive than to walk on the

Gaza Strip or, last week, to swim around the Falkland Islands.... You

know what I mean. I make an earnest appeal to the minister to start

right, and maybe we'll finish right.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr.

Chairman, I too want to speak briefly on the honest and sincere attempt

being made by the minister and his superintendent to enforce more

specific regulations to deal with one of the most tragic problems that

we face today: that is, the virtual massacre of people on our highways,

and particularly the young. I am in order, Mr. Chairman, if I deal

briefly with what I have an obsession with, and that is the need for

doing something about the accident rate of young people. I would like

to talk briefly about driver training and driver education.

First

of all, I think we're all aware — but perhaps I should put it in the

record again — that the under-25 drivers have approximately twice as

many crashes, and the crashes cost approximately twice as much per

claim than the overall average. The statistics are there.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Okay, three times — right.

What

we have to find out, of course, is why. What are the reasons? That is

one of the most difficult things. I have been reading on it; we've been

studying it in our ICBC subcommittee; and I know that the

superintendent, the minister and his staff probably have been studying

this also. It has been shown, Mr. Chairman, that there's a combination

of three elements which are causing this massacre of young people on

the highways: alcohol, excessive speed and driver incompetence. We have

to think about that, and this is what it really comes down to.

know that there have been sincere attempts to do something about the

matter of drinking. I know we'll discuss more of that under the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') estimates. I want to deal with

what comes under this minister's purview more.

There is no

question about it that the driver inexperience does play a considerable

part in the accidents and deaths of teenagers. An interesting thing,

too, is — and there's no question about it — that there's more

flaunting, perhaps, of the rules than there is as you become older. It

has been found out that there are a tremendous number of teenagers who

get in their cars and do not use their seatbelts. Unfortunately, there

are not enough statistics yet to check through the coroner's reports of

these many tragic deaths of teenagers to find how many actually did

have seatbelts on. It would be helpful if somehow we could get some

more statistics on that. The general feeling is that young people pile

into cars, coming home from parties, etc. They're even in cars where

there are not enough seatbelts for each. There are too many in the car

for the proper usage of seatbelts.

I'm sure most of us here

are parents. As the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) said, this is one of

the things which distresses most of us. What can we do about it? I

think the superintendent is aware, and perhaps the minister is, that

there was a section, never proclaimed, of the Motor Vehicle Act several

years ago that stated that no person could get a valid B.C. driver's

licence unless he or she could prove having taken a valid

driver-education course. One of the former Social Credit

Attorneys-General, Mr. Peterson, brought that in. This has never been

proclaimed, and there is a great deal of debate, I know, over whether

insisting that every person in this province take some form of driver

education is going to decrease the number of traffic accidents.

Naturally, we're dealing with a large number of young people.

far as I'm concerned, any training in defensive driving is better than

none. I've pointed out that there are other factors such as alcohol,

but surely it is the responsibility of this province to do everything

it can to stop the massacre on the highways. Therefore I intend to

continue to bring this up. I would like to see that

section of the act

proclaimed so that nobody goes out on these roads without having taken

some form of driver-education training. It is rather upsetting to know

that the assistance that was given formally by ICBC — I don't want to

stray too much — for driver training has now been removed. I feel that

this should be looked at again. I would like to see that amendment

brought in by the former Socred Attorney-General brought forward again

through whoever's ministry it is. I suppose it's the

Attorney-General's. It is an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act.

Mr.

Chairman, I have the feeling that you're looking at me and wondering

when I'm going to stop. I simply want to say that as far as I'm

concerned, there's nothing more important than coming to grips.... Only

we, as members of this Legislature, have the authority and

responsibility to bring in some changes. I feel that there are too many

of us who sit

[ Page 8300 ]

back

and say: "Isn't this massacre dreadful?" But we stop realizing that we

alone, here in this place, can make the laws that perhaps will prevent

some of the carnage on our highways, particularly for our young people.

want to say to the minister and the superintendent that I support

anything you are attempting to do — I say "anything" within, of course,

the bounds of law — that will make it tougher for young people to get

into a car. I won't just pick on young people — for the new driver to

get into a car. That brings me to another point. I think that the motor

vehicle branch's driving test standards are not high enough. It really

gets down to: can you parallel park or not? I've always had difficulty

parallel parking, but that seems to be the basic thing. There is so

much more to going in for a driver's test. I make a plea to the

superintendent. I think you are making some changes, but I think they

should be really tough, as long as I don't have to go through it again.

I know attitude has a lot to do with it, but I think that the more

education anyone has is going to be helpful.

I could go on a

long time on this. I'm hoping that the ICBC committee will be making a

report and that there will be a lot more opportunity to discuss that. I

have two points for the minister. Would you consider bringing back that

section that says you can't get into a car in this province unless

you've taken a valid driver-education course? Would the superintendent,

through the minister, give consideration to really making those initial

driving tests much tougher? I think everyone should be put on a

probationary, provisional licence for at least two years.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, we seem to be straying just a little bit from the

amendment before us. I'm sure that while all of us share the feelings

of the member, we must remember that we are in committee and currently

on the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman. If the minister could explain what he means by it, we

would have something to stick onto the discussion of what's under

debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually what we're debating at

the present time, hon. members, is the amendment before us printed on

the order paper, and it is fairly clear.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, I'll try to explain what the amendment is. First of all,

I'd like to introduce the superintendent of motor vehicles, Bob

Whitlock. The other gentleman here is a solicitor from the

Attorney-General's ministry who has worked on the legal side of it for

some three or four years; his name is Rick Isaac. On behalf of the

government I want to extend our sincere thanks particularly to these

two gentlemen who have worked on this for, I believe, between three and

four years to get where we are today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Thanks to the task force where a lot of the recommendations came on,

but these people picked up from there and brought us to where we are

now.

This amendment deals with not only young drivers but

any class of drivers and has been amended to add specific conditions to

allow the restrictions to be placed on the driver's licence of

individuals or classes of persons. This will enable a driver's licence

of minors to be restricted in terms of the time of day or day of the

week they can operate a vehicle; to restrict them to a certain area;

and to restrict the number of passengers they may carry in a vehicle.

These restrictions could be placed on individual licences or on a

certain age group. The concept is requested because there is an

indication that very young drivers often get into trouble late at night

and while carrying a group in their vehicle. So this is the intent of

this.

I'd just like to say on behalf of the young drivers

that the majority of our young drivers are good drivers, but

approximately 5 percent of the young drivers cause themselves and all

of us difficulties, and this is trying to get a handle on that.

There

were other things probably not pertinent to the amendment, but the

reason the one section.... It's not in the act any longer, to the

member for Burnaby-North (Mrs. Dailly). Driver training was deleted

because there weren't the facilities across the province to carry it

out; there aren't today the facilities to carry that out. It is the

intention of the superintendent of motor vehicles to increase the

written test and the road test — in other words, they're going to get

tougher, and he intends to do that, I guess, starting this year, as far

as I know, so there will be an advance there and it won't be quite as

easy to get a licence as it has been in the past.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that we're having a bit of phony debate

here — not that the people debating it are phony, but the debate is

phony — because what we hope to do is to cure something by law: we hope

to make better drivers of our young people especially by passing laws

and regulations and applying those laws and regulations to drivers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I'll ask the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to remove himself from the chamber until he is properly

attired. Right now, hon. member; that's an instruction from the Chair.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, we can pass laws and regulations and apply them strictly

and diligently, and we're going to have the same problems, because as

long as young people grow up watching their parents speed, watching

their parents drink and drive, watching their parents go through stop

signs, and all of the infractions that parents do when driving, we're

going to end up with a bad bunch of drivers. Because I think there are

going to be more people driving according to the role model that they

see than applying themselves to the laws and regulations of the land.

And how many of us who drive really know of the laws and regulations of

the land? Probably scantily.

One of the things I only

learned in the last couple of weeks here in this Legislature as a

legislator is that a parent can go down and actually cancel the driving

licence of a minor. I think parents should know that, and I think there

should be some way of making more parents aware that that does apply

and that they can do it. Education has to be the answer, but if we want

to have our young people grow up to be good drivers, then we've got to

clamp down on the parents. The parents have to become good drivers. As

long as we just say to the young people, "oh, I guess they're young;

they're frivolous; they don't listen to and go along with the rules as

much as those of us who are a little older," we're losing the battle.

It's only through the role model of the parents and the adults that

[ Page 8301 ]

the

young people see that we're going to improve the way we handle

ourselves on the highway as a society in the long run. Although I think

what we're doing is worthwhile, I do feel like it's a bit of a lost

cause. What it does in many ways is it lets us as legislators and

parents, and everyone else out there who is a parent and a member of

society, off the hook. We feel we're doing our part by passing tough

laws and speaking in a lecturing way to our children about speeding,

when we speed.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Sure, I'm generalizing. I'd say there's probably one out of a thousand

who doesn't drive the way I'm talking about, but for the most part we

all speed.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Do I

speed? Yes. So do you. That's true. If we want our young people to

improve their driving, and then their children improve their driving,

it's up to us as the adults in society to start driving by the rules,

the regulations and the law. Until we do, we can bat our gums all day

in here and we're not going to improve much. It's like sending our

children to school and hoping that the educational system will

discipline them and give them values instead of doing it ourselves.

It's the same with drivers' licences. We want somebody else to do it,

as long as we don't have to tow the line ourselves.

concluding, I would just like to ask the people in of the gallery to

note this debate. The legislators, regardless of side, are talking

about a problem. That's what we do about 80 percent of the time in this

Legislature, and I guarantee that you won't see a word of this in the

press.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

I'm very pleased indeed to introduce a group of 90 students. They'll be

entering the chamber in lots of 30. They are from the W.A. Fraser

Elementary School and are being led by Mr. John Roberts. I would ask

the chamber to please welcome these students.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

My remarks will be brief. I rise as minister responsible for ICBC. I

recognize we're dealing with the amendment on

section 5, and it deals

with those variations to drivers' licences etc.

The comments

I wish to make are ones that relate to the amount of work that has gone

into this particular bill in attempting to address the question of the

problems on the highways and byways today. We all recognize that it is

not a right to drive a vehicle; it's a privilege. We all recognize that

a vehicle is a lethal weapon if it is not driven in a responsible

manner. The task force that has been talked about, the efforts that the

Minister of Highways has put into this bill, the involvement of the

Attorney-General and, I might say, the involvement of representatives

of ICBC have resulted in this bill and in this debate today. As the

member for Prince Rupert said, we are recognizing a problem.

would like to say something with regard to this particular

section and

the restrictions that the

section relates to. I may be straying a bit,

but I read an

article in the Times-Colonist a week or so ago. I

hate to refer to it, but it was in the Dear Abby column. It was brought

to my attention by a reader who sent me a copy of it. It's called: "The

Day I Died I Was 17," and if you ever want to read an

article that

brings home to you very clearly the problems we have on our highways,

you should read that one. I'd just like to say that this legislation

may appear to some to be a little heavy-handed, but I think the problem

that exists on the highway today needs something like this legislation

and these restrictions that are outlined in this

section to stop the

carnage on our highways. I compliment the Minister of Highways for

bringing this bill forward.

MRS. WALLACE: The remarks

of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) about "The

Day I Died I Was 17," bring to mind a tragic incident last weekend in

the Cowichan Lake area, where a young man, four days after he got his

driver's licence, was killed while driving on his motorcycle. I was

very pleased to hear the minister outline the way in which he thought

this particular amendment would be used, and I wonder whether he's

considering imposing any restrictions on that particular class of

licence for a motorcycle, which we all know is one of the most

hazardous vehicles on the road. There is no protection for the person

riding a motorcycle, and so many of our young people are killed on

those machines.

There is another thing that I would like the

minister to comment on. As I say, I was pleased that he outlined what

he saw this particular amendment relating to.

I guess I'll

have to explain a little. If a person loses his licence for drunk

driving, or for driving while impaired on the way home from a party, it

is a much greater hardship for the person who drives a vehicle during

working hours, say a logging truck, than it is for the person who lives

three blocks from an office where he works. When I saw this amendment,

I thought the minister was perhaps going to relate it to that

particular situation in which a permit could be issued to a person to

drive from seven until four-thirty in the vicinity of his work. I'm

wondering if in fact it is intended for that purpose and would be used

in that case.

Certainly there's no one more concerned than I

am about keeping off the road people who have been using alcohol; it

is, I believe, the major killer on the highways. Speed, of course, but

speed usually goes along with the alcohol because people get

overconfident and think they can.... Well, they're not responsible,

really, under those conditions, so it's the alcohol and the speed. But

I think speed is the second thing and follows along with the alcohol.

There's no way that I want to see on the road a person who has been

drinking, but it's very unlikely that a person going to work, perhaps

driving a truck during those daytime hours, would be consuming alcohol.

If that were the case, certainly no licence.... He gets carried away

some night and makes a mistake by putting his keys in the ignition,

maybe he doesn't even start the motor, but the keys are in the

ignition. He's picked up and loses his licence because his alcohol

content is above 0.08. If he happens to be a truck driver he's in a

very bad position — not only himself, but also his family. The whole

support is probably gone from that family unit.

[ Page 8302 ]

Would

the minister give us some idea whether this is a situation that might

be left to the discretion of the superintendent; also about the

motorcycles.

HON. MR. FRASER: In reply to the member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), first of all, regarding your

comments on motorcycles, this

section does apply. I might say that on

Vancouver Island the Capital Regional Safety Council are doing a good

job in educating motorcyclists, and we support them. It is a distinct

help. This

section certainly applies.

I'll give you my

opinion on the way it has been working, as I understand it, regarding

drivers. You are really talking about drivers who lose their privileges

when driving on pleasure, while they're at a party — and they are

professional commercial drivers. I think they should remember that and

do what I do: get your wife to drive you home. It's sound advice. In

other words, you are jeopardizing your job. The superintendent of motor

vehicles gets a lot of correspondence now, and for quite some time in

no case has a commercial or professional driver been given back his

licence on the grounds that he has to have it to earn a living. Public

opinion seems to be that they must suffer the same consequences as

anybody who isn't a commercial professional driver. I'm happy to say

that we don't have too many cases like that now. But they will be given

no special consideration at all.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I was going to comment on this before the minister responded. I'm very pleased at the response he gave.

People

who are professional drivers cannot turn off their professional

attitudes because they happen to be driving for pleasure. I think the

responsibility lies with them to demonstrate a professional driving

attitude at all times, not only when they're earning a living. Because

they have so much more at stake, I think it behooves them to do just

that.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to comment on the

previous two speakers, but I believe that's covered under

section 18 of

the act. So we'll do that when we get to it.

I support this

section, which gives a class of people the right to drive in certain

areas and localities, on the grounds that a lot of people in the rural

areas, especially older people, need transportation to get into the

community or to the transit line. If the superintendent can make

regulations to cover this class of person.... I think it's also

imperative, though, if you're going to allow a person to drive in a

restricted rural area where traffic is not heavy, to look at the

possibility of having the driving tests given in that locality. It's

hard for older people to come into the city and pass a driving test on

a busy road, and then be restricted to an area, especially the Sooke

and Jordan River area, where all they want to do is drive into the

village to catch a bus or do their shopping.

If these

modifications can be made within the regulations for the testing of

this class of person, I think it would be a valid step in making

transportation available right now to people who can't pass a driving

test in the city.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member raises

a good point. I will just tell you that we will go to those people to

give these tests. We are doing it in Sidney and we'd be glad to do it

in Sooke. In other words, the testing group will go to them. We've done

it to a small degree; we'd be glad to expand that service. If you would

contact the superintendent, we can do that in that area. That applies

in any area of the province. It might take a little longer because of

staff and so on, but we're actually doing it now. It's a really good

point.

MR. MITCHELL: One other point: has the

superintendent ever considered a different style of licence for a

person who is restricted to driving in a certain area so that it's more

identifiable than the standard licence, with the check mark on the back

of the list of restrictions?

Speaking from very practical

experience as a policeman, at night or whatever you don't always go

through all these restrictions on the back. If something is restricted

to an area, there could be something definitely marked, like a

different colour or a special type of driver's licence, so that it's

identifiable by the police officer or persons checking it — something

to make it workable.

HON. MR. FRASER: The

superintendent advises me that a new type of licence coming out in

October 1982 will do just what you are asking: identify certain things

on the new format.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This appears to be a housekeeping amendment on the minister's part, Mr. Chairman, and we'll support it.

Amendment approved.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a few brief explanatory words on this section. Basically, this

section legalizes the procedure for ICBC to, by sending an order over

to the motor vehicle branch, have someone's driver's licence suspended

for non-payment of bills. That's probably fair enough up to a point;

but it is the feeling of the opposition that this, in effect, creates a

situation where we place the citizen in double jeopardy without due

process. We've had a number of cases, which I think we have cited in

the past, where people have been actually suspended from driving and

haven't known about it. There are a lot of reasons why you can be

suspended. Legal non-payment of a bill may be a good reason for drivers

having their licences suspended, but for one thing, the person should

know he's suspended. We've had cases where drivers have not received

the correspondence or notification, for whatever reason, from the motor

vehicle branch and have been picked up for some small infraction or

stopped, or whatever, and all of a sudden find they've been driving —

and are in fact charged with driving — under suspension without knowing

it and without having recourse to due process in law.

Further,

we feel — and I certainly feel — that ICBC, like any other corporation

or company, could use other legal means to collect bad debts. All

companies in private industry do it. For example, Woodward's can't

write to the motor

[ Page 8303 ]

vehicle

branch and have somebody's licence suspended because he owes a bill at

Woodward's. What's the difference with ICBC? They're a corporation

apart and separate from the motor vehicle branch. The civil liberties

people have written to the minister and to us on this matter; they're

extremely concerned about this process as well. I therefore move the

amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like to support this amendment. Certainly the kinds of things

that we've seen happening with ICBC lately — the most recent headline

was, of course, that they had declared somebody dead who was very much

alive — indicates the kind of problems they are having just keeping

their records straight. I think it would be very unfair for someone to

lose his driver's licence because of a statement or a claim by ICBC.

During

the debate on ICBC many cases were raised in which these sorts of

situations had occurred. There was one in my constituency where a woman

had been charged year after year with a $76 debt and finally paid it,

even though she didn't owe it, in order to be able to get credit for

her next insurance policy. I sent a letter across the floor that

appeared in our local paper last week. I sent it across to the minister

for his information just yesterday. This particular family had been

told by ICBC that they owed $27. They had tried to phone the numbers

indicated. The lines were busy; they were never able to get through.

And here they were told that they owed $27 which, to the best of their

knowledge, they didn't owe.

These are the kinds of situation

that would result in having drivers' licences cancelled under this

legislation. It seems to me that, apart from those mistakes, what we're

doing here is saying to people that they are going to drive based on

their ability to pay, not on their ability to drive.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is saying that that's good. If

you are in fact talking about a person who has had a claim, who has had

an accident, then yes, certainly. And that's what this amendment does

if he's a bad driver. But if, in fact, for some reason that is no fault

of his.... The example has been raised where, if a person has moved and

transferred his bank account and has issued post-dated cheques to ICBC

and, just through an oversight, has not changed those cheques with

ICBC, he would find his driver's licence cancelled. That seems to me to

be a wrong direction to be going in. If there is in fact a claim and

they have had a legitimate problem, fine. This amendment changes the

original bill that is before the House to eliminate the kind of problem

where clerical errors or mistakes in bookkeeping and accounting and

those kinds of things cause a person to lose his driver's licence. I

certainly believe that that would be a fair way to go. We shouldn't be

saying that just because a person has missed a payment his driver's

licence is going to be suspended. I think it's too much power in the

hands of lCBC. The issuing of drivers' licences is not within the realm

of their responsibility. Their record and their bookkeeping is far from

good, and I would just hate to see that kind of power put into their

hands.

HON. MR. FRASER: The amended

section 6 permits

the superintendent of motor vehicles to refuse to issue a driver's

licence. It has nothing to do with suspensions. The refusal to issue a

licence is to be used to collect money owing the government or the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia where a fee or premium has

not been paid. This will be in place of the previous policy of

suspending the driver's licence of a person who owes money to the

Insurance Corporation. It was a task force recommendation that a

driver's licence not be suspended for monetary considerations, and

there has been a great deal of pressure from both the court and the

police for this change. In view of those observations, we do not accept

the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the amendment standing on the order paper on

section 12. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

section 13.

MS. BROWN:

I was hoping that the minister would have used this opportunity to

include as a general offence any adult driving an automobile in which

there is a child under the age of six who is not securely placed in a

car seat or some other kind of restraint. This would have been an

opportunity, in amending this piece of legislation, to do something

that the minister says he has been wanting to do for a long time. A

number of people have brought to the minister's attention that it

doesn't make sense to make compulsory the fact that seatbelts must be

worn by everyone in the province over the age of six and not do

anything about children under the age of six.

It seems to me

that every year that I have been in this House I have to get up, either

under the minister's estimates or under one of these amendment pieces

of legislation, and ask over and over again for the same thing. I get

the same response: "Research is being done. The car seats presently in

existence do not meet Canadian standards; they do not meet American

standards." I have the Hansard from last year's debate on this,

and I can read back to the minister his own words. Once again we were

told that studies continue, research continues, and while all of this

research is going on small children are increasingly being very

seriously injured in automobile accidents.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

shared with the minister my experience as a social worker in the

cerebral palsy ward in the Children's Hospital in Montreal, where 90

percent of the children with brain damage were in there as a result

either of being hit by an automobile or of being in an automobile when

it was hit and being injured by being thrown around inside the car and

banging their head against the various structures on the inside

[ Page 8304 ]

of the car. I'm not sure whether even an inadequate car seat isn't better than no car seat at all at this point.

Last

night I was told of the experience of my colleague, the member from

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), whose own children, on their way home

from a visit to the Legislature, were hit on the passenger side of the

car. The only thing that saved his grandchild was that that child was

firmly restrained in one of these unsafe car seats that the minister

keeps talking about. Yet the seat was safe enough to save that child's

life. The child wasn't thrown around inside the car, and the brain

damage that results from that didn't happen.

Maybe the

minister can give us some idea and date about when all this research

and study is going to end, because the longer it goes on, the more

children are being severely damaged, usually brain-damaged, as a result

of this law not being on the books. If buckling up is compulsory in

British Columbia, surely to goodness it's important that children under

the age of six be protected by this legislation, which the minister's

own statistics say saves lives every year. We're told that by buckling

our seatbelts we're saving all kinds of lives, yet somehow we don't

seem concerned that children under the age of six are not being

protected by this legislation. I just wanted to say that I'm

disappointed that in

section 13, under the general offences, it has not

been made an offence for any adult to drive an automobile in this

province in which there's a child under the age of six who is not

restrained in some form of car seat, seatbelt or whatever. That's one

way to start.

HON. MR. FRASER: I thank the member for

being persistent. I feel the same way, but to bring you up to date,

they're still studying it. They're trying to come out with uniform

standards for Canada. It appears that it's not very far away. Once

that's done, no legislation is required; it can be done by regulation,

so I hope we'll get something done in the next while. I don't know how

long that would be. I hope it would be within the next 12 months.

MS. BROWN: Can't we go ahead? We don't have to wait for Canada.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I believe one province has started to go ahead. I guess we can when

we're doubly sure that the thing will work. We haven't had that big a

success with seatbelts themselves. When they first came in the

percentage of use was very high, and it's been dropping. Now we are on

the enforcement side of that to try to correct it. I have no argument

with what you're saying. It's just a question of when we get it done,

and I hope it will be soon.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 17 as amended.

MR. MITCHELL:

I believe that particular

section takes into consideration a person who

has been reported to the superintendent by the police, a neighbour or

someone, because in their opinion he should be called in for retesting.

In a lot of ways I support that 100 percent, from personal experience.

I just wonder if the superintendent, when someone is called in — I know

it's not policy to divulge where the information came from — perhaps

should instruct his staff to explain some of the procedure and not be

too bureaucratic, because I have received complaints of people being

called in and when they inquired, the particular inspector was very

harsh with them.

I know you don't want to say, "Your

neighbour phoned up and said that you were drunk," but give some

explanation of why a person is called in and why he should be retested.

Maybe in many cases the complaint was true, and the driver is

definitely going to deny it three weeks later. But explain why the

superintendent and motor vehicle department have to go through this

procedure, because they should depend on some of the information they

get from the public. It's not all bad. It should be checked out,

especially with some of the more senior drivers who are still feeling

as fit as they were when they were 20, but when they get to 75, they're

not quite as good drivers as they think they are. I think it's a PR job

that should be done in the ministry.

Section 17 as amended approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 18, hon. members, we have two amendments. Possibly we could deal with those one at a time.

section 18.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 18 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

First amendment to

section 18 approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment to

section 18 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Second amendment to

section 18 approved.

section 18 as amended.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment dealing with

section 87 of the

Motor Vehicle Act standing in my name on the order paper, and the

reason for this is very complicated. I thought it was going to be

simple, but it's not. Actually, it's self-explanatory, so I'll just

move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See

appendix. ]

[ Page 8305 ]

On the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I brought this to the attention of the minister before,

and I still feel that if we're going to make this Motor Vehicle Act

effective, it's got to be realistic that it can be enforced. Again,

from statistics provided in, I believe, the task force, where they say

that 40 percent of those under suspension are driving.... You know, I

honestly believe that is quite true. There are a lot of people who are

going to be caught in this time bomb, and there are a number of

timebombs in these particular amendments. One of them is the collection

of the money owed that is paid out by ICBC for an accident that they

caused when they were convicted under a certain

section of the Criminal

Code.

There are going to be a lot of people who don't

realize it, but they're going to be under suspension until they pay

large sums of money back, and a lot of these people are not the real

criminal element. They're that 60 percent that most likely would obey

their prohibition. But many of these people live in rural areas where

there is no transit; they do have to go to work, and they are going to

be forced under the circumstances to take chances. I really think that

the superintendent should look at some ways of modifying the

regulations. I'm one who believes that there are lot of people who

should be off the road, but for people who, in the superintendent's own

opinion, can be granted restricted licences so they can drive to work

or they can drive to an area where they can catch public transit....

think that we want to make it workable, and I think once the timebombs

in the new amendments that come through explode, there are going to be

a lot of people caught in the net. From my experience dealing with the

people in the motor vehicle branch, they have been very reasonable.

There are occasions that under certain regulations, some type of

licence similar to the one that we were talking about earlier for older

people, that can restrict people to certain areas and to drive only for

employment or to get to work.... I think it's something that we're

going to eventually come back to, because I don't think this particular

harshness is always going to be workable.

From experience,

we're going to find that some of these sections, though they sound nice

when you're dealing with the people who are demanding harsher

treatment.... In fact, when you get out onto the road, when you're

dealing with a lot of the good part of the general public, I think

there should be some regulations in there that certain modifications,

under certain circumstances, with very specific regulations restricting

that particular driver to driving to work in order to hold his job, to

be able to support his family and to pay his mortgage.... I think

somewhere down the line we're going to have to make these amendments. I

just wonder if the superintendent or the minister would give some

consideration as to what type of thoughts they may have on that,

because, I say again, there are timebombs in it.

There are a

lot of people who are not listening to this debate, or not reading this

act, or not reading about it in the paper because it doesn't get the

press that is needed. I said it before and I'll say it again: these

amendments and the effect they're going to have on the driving public

should be well publicized so the people know what they can expect. I

know it's going to take a few dollars, but it's going to save a lot of

problems that will arise, not only at the constituency offices but with

the police and the superintendent. I don't think the jail system should

be used to collect money, or as a threat to keep people from earning a

living when there can be some reasonable amendments, or a reasonable

regulation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, we discussed

this with the minister at one point after the bill was introduced. Once

again, we feel the courts should have discretion, and restoration of a

suspended licence should be conditional on the person's taking a

driving course and a re-examination. There has to be evidence that the

person needs the licence for work or transportation to work, and it

being a first offence the public is entitled to be protected from that

driver. We all agree with that. The system, as we say, has to be

predictable and fair, and justice has to be seen to be done. The only

way to ensure that these things happen is to inject some process into

the system. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell)

explained the reasons quite adequately.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I expressed my thoughts on this earlier, but I would just

like to point out, now that we have passed the

section relative to a

debt to ICBC being responsible for your not being able to issue a

driver's licence.... This is a possibility that could happen. I would

think that it should be quite obvious that a person could well find

himself in a very difficult financial position. If a person lives on a

bus line and doesn't own a vehicle, takes the bus to his place of work,

and then drives a commercial vehicle, there's no question as to whether

or not they owe ICBC any money. When because of some billing error,

which it could well be, they don't have a driver's licence issued to

them, why should they be prohibited from earning their living? That's

really what it amounts to. The person doesn't own a vehicle — there's

no question — but he has a driver's licence to drive a commercial

vehicle.

The Attorney-General says you wouldn't want people

driving without insurance. Of course not, but the company that owns the

commercial vehicle has the insurance. All the driver is required to

have is a driver's licence. His driving ability should not be judged by

his ability to pay some debt to ICBC, whether correct or incorrect. The

two things don't relate. This particular amendment would correct that,

Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

section 18 as amended.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment negatived.

Section 18 as amended approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, so there's no confusion,

section 18

is now being passed with the two amendments which were standing on the

order paper in the name of the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

Sections 19 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

[ Page 8306 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to propose an amendment to

section 25, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will read the amendment, hon. members. "25(

a) By deleting in the

proposed

section 121(l) (e), 'where allowed under subsection (2)' and

(

b) by adding in the proposed

section 121 the following subsection:

(4) actions against the minister under

section 53 of the Police Act of

against a municipality under

section 54 of the Police Act are not

proceedings within the meaning of subsection (3)."

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Firstly, I wish to thank the Attorney-General and the minister for

forwarding to us a copy of this proposed amendment. At this point, I

might say that one of the people who helped us greatly in going over

this bill

section by section, Chris Eves, at a meeting with the

superintendent and Mr. Isaac and the minister pointed out this anomaly

under the act and the conflict with the Police Act. I must say that I'm

very appreciative of Mr. Eves' work in this regard, and am appreciative

that the government did take action, under

section 25, to fix this

matter up. Therefore we will not be moving our amendment under

section

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 29, the minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, hon. members. The Chair is mistaken.

HON. MR. FRASER: Wrong member, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Mackenzie on

section 29.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The minister has been good enough to move the amendment. [Laughter] I

presume now that the government will accept our amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

It was the Chair's mistake, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the

member for Mackenzie, who moves the amendment standing in his name on

the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is the so-called radar section, the fuzz-buster section, or whatever you want to call it.

There

were 14 recommendations in the task force report which were not, in

fact, implemented in this bill we're debating here this morning.

Section 29 deals specifically with the radar detector devices. Perhaps

the minister could explain why this particular recommendation — because

there were a lot of strong feelings in our caucus about this

recommendation from the task force — was dropped from the bill.

HON. MR. FRASER: We get lots of advice from lots of people. We accept some and reject others. That's what happened in the case of this one.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have to speculate. I wonder if the advice on this particular

section

came from the minister's own caucus. We don't discuss those things in

committee.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

section 31.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 31 as amended approved.

Sections 32 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Section 41 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

4, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendments

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8307 ]

section 7.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 7 standing in my name on Orders of the Day . [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 10 standing in my name on Orders of the Day . [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 15 standing in my name on Orders of the Day . [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

3, Offence Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendments to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 52, Mr. Speaker.

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Richmond in the chair.

section 1.

MR. SKELLY: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the government does not find the amendment acceptable. In fact, the amendment is out of order.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, I would think that it's the duty of the Chair to decide

what's in order and what's out of order in this House, not the Minister

of Environment, who's never been that accurate. Maybe I should read the

amendment.

The amendment to

Section 1 adds a new subsection

under the definition of waste. As you read there, waste includes air

contaminants, litter, effluent, refuse, and subsection (

e) is special

wastes. What I propose to add is a new subsection (f), which is waste

heat energy and water vapour.

One of the serious problems we

have in the whole regulation of pollutants in this province is the fact

that we're releasing tremendous amounts of heat into the atmosphere,

which changes the climate of the area surrounding the release. Also,

heat can cause serious damage to, for example, fish habitat. As we all

know, fish can survive in a healthy way only within waters that have a

very small temperature difference. Releasing additional amounts of heat

into that water can make the environment impossible for fish and other

animals to survive in. It can change the whole environment so that

certain types of desirable fish will be eliminated, or become more

susceptible to disease, and certain coarser types of fish and predator

fish will then take over the area. In fact, we can destroy large parts

of the fresh water environment of the province by releasing waste heat

energy into watercourses or into the atmosphere.

Having gone

through the act in some detail, I can find no part of this act or, in

fact, any other statute by which the government can legally regulate

the release into the atmosphere or into the environment of waste heat.

Knowing the dangers that this release can cause, I would ask the

minister to reconsider his refusal to accept the amendment.

There

may be a problem with the amendment in that it also ties in water

vapour, and I would be willing to change that

section of the amendment;

but I certainly think that the minister should give to himself the

right to regulate the release into the environment of waste heat

energy. It's especially important because of the fact that

pollution-control permits that are outstanding right now attempt in

certain ways to regulate the discharge of heat energy into the

environment. Yet the government doesn't seem to have the legal

authority to regulate that release of heat or to prevent the release of

heat. That's why I have sought to give the government that authority by

including that definition in the

section which defines waste.

I'd be interested in the minister's response.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Chairman, if the release of heat causes a pollution problem, then

it is covered under the permit system. If you look at

Section 1 in the

interpretation section, under "waste," waste includes air contaminants,

and in that case it can be applied; but it would be covered under the

industrial permit

section rather than under a separate section.

MR. SKELLY:

"Air contaminant," then, refers back to an additional definition in a

previous part of this section, which defines it as a substance, and I'm

not sure that that's sufficiently clear to cover energy. If energy is a

substance, then perhaps I've learned something new today. In that case,

[ Page 8308 ]

could also have been considered under the old subsection (f), which was

"any other substance designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

In the authority granted to the minister and to the branch, I would

prefer to see the act a little more specific in the way it deals with

energy. Energy is a serious potential pollutant in some cases. It's

already a serious pollutant in this province when you look at places

like Port Alberni with a massive pulp and paper complex that releases a

tremendous amount of steam and heat into the environment. You're

dealing then with something that can change the climate of the area,

the health of the people living in the area. It can change

transportation access to the area. I think the government should at

least have the authority to regulate energy.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Of course, we would consider water vapour to be a contaminant; that's a

substance. I might point out that if we were to deal with your

particular amendment, we could also be dealing with heat energy from

brake shoes, from electrical resistance and other things as well. We

have, within the act, the ability to accomplish what you want, but to

broaden it could bring in superfluous

definitions of waste energy that

is not controllable.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is

getting involved in semantics here. We don't license brake shoes in the

province for any kind of contaminant. The minister is aware of that,

and so am I. Under the permitting stage, we're talking about

contaminants of sufficient quantity. Right now we're talking about

energy which is not a substance. As far as I can see, waste energy

cannot fit under the definition of air contaminants. Perhaps the

minister should give himself some opportunity to review the problem and

look into it. Maybe he would be willing to accept this definition.

Perhaps

he would like to hoist the

section and take a look at the problem. The

government has massive new developments on stream. B.C. Hydro is

looking at massive new developments that are going to involve a

tremendous discharge of waste heat energy into the atmosphere. We're

talking about coal thermal electric plants, refineries and smelters,

new pulp and paper complexes. Right now, with pollution control permits

you're attempting.... I can't see the legal authority, in fact, where

you're preventing the discharge of waste energy into the atmosphere or

into the rivers of this province. That waste energy has a tremendous

potential for damage to the environment. I would urge the minister to

give this special thought, because it is a serious problem.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Wallace

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Heinrich

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. SKELLY:

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.] It seeks to insert on line 3 between the word "permit" and

between the word "that"....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a

point of order. I apologize if I did not accurately hear the vote that

you put with respect to

section 1. Did you say "Section 1 as amended,"

because the amendment was defeated and there was no amendment before

the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes for that.

Section 1 passes without amendment.

We're now on the amendment proposed by the member on

section 4.

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm seeking to amend

section 4(l)(

a) by placing between the word

"permit" and the word "that" a new

section issued in accordance with

section 14A and the regulations.

Mr. Chairman will note that

one of the problems with the new Waste Management Act is that it has

virtually eliminated all of the public involvement provisions that were

present in the previous Pollution Control Act. It appears that this is

in accordance with government policy over the past few years. Where the

public had any opportunity at all to comment on approval procedures

conducted under government legislation, that public involvement

procedure is now being eliminated. As the NDP caucus in this

Legislature, we are seeking to restore the public's right to know and

be involved in those decision-making procedures which affect the

environment and the lives, health and safety of the people in this

province.

Under the previous Pollution Control Act it was

possible for objectors to a pollution control permit to file

objections. For example, there was a requirement that an applicant for

a pollution control permit place ads in the Gazette

or in papers circulating locally throughout the province. Objectors had

a right then to file objections, giving their reasons and stating their

interest in why this permit should or should not be granted. Any

opportunity for public involvement, with one exception, has been

eliminated in this act. What we are

[ Page 8309 ]

attempting

to do by this amendment — and by a number of other amendments — is to

restore public involvement in the decision-making procedures with

respect to matters relating to the environment.

This new

section would allow the transportation and storage of special wastes by

permit only after there's been a public involvement procedure in

determining whether that permit should be granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

We do not accept this particular amendment, as we will not accept many

of the others that include

section 14A, because I think

section 14A

offends standing order 67.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not sure

that the

section does offend any

section of the standing orders, Mr.

Chairman. We brought this amendment to the attention of the Clerks and

asked whether they were in order, and the Clerks seemed to indicate

that they were, which is why we allowed them to go ahead without any

changes. What seems to be offensive is the fact that the government is

taking steps — every step along the way — to eliminate public

involvement in decision-making with respect to the environment.

When

you look at the coal guidelines, when you look at the metal mining

guidelines, when you look at the minister's sacking of the Environment

and Land Use Committee secretariat, every step along the way public

involvement has been eliminated. One of the worst features of this act

is the fact that public involvement has been eliminated. It is the

right of the public to know what the minister and his ministry are

doing to them with some serious environmental contaminants and threats

to their health and safety. All of those things are now being done

behind the closed doors of cabinet or the minister's office. We are

asking that a public involvement procedure be incorporated into this

act that is as good as or better than the procedure that was in the old

act. It's not enough for the minister to say it simply offends this

section of standing orders or that

section of standing orders. The

minister can accept a public involvement procedure. All my amendment

does is describe that procedure and allow the minister to make

regulations giving it effect.

If the minister had any

concern about public involvement at all, if the minister had any

concern about the public's right to know at all, if the minister had

any concern about the public at all, then he would have incorporated a

public involvement procedure in this statute from day one, and we

wouldn't have to amend this act. I'm asking again for the minister to

reconsider his almost knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that the

public has a right to know what the government is doing to them.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The reason that this particular

section is superfluous if we don't

accept

section 14.... If 14(

a) is accepted, the entire public process

is involved. It is the intention of the ministry under section

(35)(2)(e), (

f) and (

g) to prepare regulations that would require

notice to the public on the permit application and amendments that are

sought by the permittee.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman,

that is the problem. The minister is talking about allowing this to be

done under regulation. The government may or may not require public

notice. There is absolutely no way of telling from a

section that

allows the government to make regulation.... There is absolutely no

assurance to the public that the government will require notice. What

we are saying is that in the case of pollution control permits,

transportation, storage and the handling of special wastes, these

provisions should be written in the statute and the public should be

aware that they are protected by statute, not protected by regulations

that can change from one day to the next. This is one of the most

critical amendments that we are making to this act. We are asking the

minister to take a careful look, because the regulations simply aren't

protection enough for the citizens of this province.

I'm

asking the minister to reconsider his decision to allow

section 14(

l) to go ahead and to incorporate the provisions and the requirements of

section 14 (

a) into this one, which allows for permits for the storage

of special wastes.

Mr. Chairman, I can find no legitimate

explanation for the minister's stubbornness in this regard. What are

they trying to do? Why do they want to eliminate the public involvement

in this procedure? Who are they trying to protect? Don't they want the

public to know who is storing special wastes, what they term special

wastes and where they are stored?

I can't understand the

government's reluctance to allow the citizens of this province the

right to involvement in decision-making that affects their lives and

health. I can't understand the minister's reluctance. In every single

piece of legislation that this minister has charge of, the public

involvement procedure has been wiped out — in the guidelines, in the

operations of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and

everything. Have you no confidence whatsoever, Mr. Minister, in the

people who have elected you in this province? They're certainly losing

confidence in you as a Minister of Environment.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

It's not a personal attack, but it's definitely an attack on a minister

who is abusing the public by denying them the right to be involved in

decisions that affect their lives, health and safety. In almost every

other jurisdiction, the public's right to be involved in the

decision-making and to be informed is secured by law. In this

jurisdiction we're taking that much out of the law again. It's

shameful, and the minister should be ashamed of himself, because no

matter what else you take out of the act this is one of those things

that should be assured.

The minister, who's mouthing off

from his desk in the back corner, has set up a public involvement

procedure in his own ministry; he has hired Dr. Fraser and other people

to set up a public involvement procedure to talk about advisory groups.

This minister should take some credit for the advisory procedures that

he has established. He is now criticizing this opposition for saying

that a similar procedure should be placed in the Waste Management Act.

I find that a bit of a contradiction. I find that almost anything that

minister does is a bit of a contradiction.

Mr. Chairman,

this is one of those pieces of legislation where the interests of the

people should be secured. I would ask the minister to reconsider,

possibly to pull the bill in committee stage, to move an adjournment

until he has had an opportunity to read the amendments on the order

paper and to give it more thought.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I intend to move that

section 14A is out of order as it involves necessary

[ Page 8310 ]

expenditure

of public funds and comes under

section 67 of our standing orders.

Therefore the subamendments that involve

section 14A are also out of

order.

I think that it would be appropriate, though, to

comment on some of the remarks made by the member, because all of the

records of the waste management branch are open to the public. A

mandatory public hearing on every application would be a needless

expense of government money. All permits issued are appealable, first

to the director, and then to the Environmental Appeal Board, and I

think there's ample opportunity for the public concerned to appeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, it appears to the Chair at this time that in view of the

fact that the minister has now informed the House that expenditure of

public funds will be required, under standing order 66 the motions

therefore would be invalid. The members are fully aware of the process

that can be used in the House, but the Chair is bound by the standing

orders. The Chair is here to enforce these orders. Let me just read

standing order 66: "This House will not receive any resolution stating

an expressed or abstract opinion of the House on recommendating the

expenditure of public money unless recommended by the Crown." The Chair

is bound to instruct that the amendment before us is therefore out of

order.

MR. HOWARD: On a point or order, you do that

without offering anybody in the opposition an opportunity to express a

view about standing order 67? That was why I rose earlier, Mr.

Chairman, and you asked me to wait for a moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will entertain....

MR. HOWARD: But you have already ruled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under these circumstances, hon. member, I will be more than pleased to entertain the remarks of the member.

MR. HOWARD:

What I want the Chair to consider is this: simply because a minister

says something is going to involve the expenditure of public funds, I

don't think that's sufficient for the Chair to come to the conclusion

that in fact that will be the case. The proposed

section 14(

A) does not

mention anything about the expenditure or the appropriation of public

funds. It talks about a procedure. If, in putting that procedure into

effect, it is necessary to expend public funds, then the minister is

under the obligation to bring in a message bill to deal with that

particular expenditure. But I submit to you that this does not, by

itself, entail the expenditure of public funds, and the declaration of

the minister that it might or might not, etc., is not sufficient

grounds to do that.

Let me reiterate: if the minister feels,

in the process of administering this, that public funds are necessary,

then the minister, as a minister of the Crown and pursuant to standing

order 67, brings in a message bill in order to put into effect the

general declaration of the Legislature. I submit that this would be the

appropriate ruling to make, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, we worded the amendment this way, if we're talking about

section 14(

A) now, since it relates back to

section 4(l)(a).... We

stated in this amendment: "...until a public involvement procedure has

been completed." We did not say in any place that that involvement

procedure had to be one conducted by the Crown. For example, under the

guidelines procedure established under the Environment and Land Use

Act, the proponent conducts public hearings; the proponent provides

public notice at his expense; and the proponent is required to provide

full public access to information at his expense. The Crown, at every

step along the way, has attempted to eliminate their involvement in

paying for the public involvement procedure, and there is no

requirement under

section 14A for the Crown to lay out a nickel of

public money.

MR. KING: On a further point of order,

Mr. Chairman, I think the Chair should take notice that the minister

has indicated his entitlement to call a public hearing under the

regulations. Certainly the essence of this amendment is that that

provision should reside under the statute rather than the regulations,

so I find it difficult to conclude how a statutory provision would

involve any expense additional to what would be required under the

regulations suggested by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

As hon. members can appreciate, the Chair is not in a position to

determine what is or is not an expenditure on the Crown — the mechanics

of the act. Traditionally the Chair has accepted the statement of a

minister, who is in fact the administrator of the legislation before

us, when he states that there is an impost on the Crown. The Chair is

bound by that, and the ruling of the Chair is that the point of order

raised by the minister is a valid one. Therefore the Chair has no

choice but to instruct the committee accordingly, and I so rule.

MR. HOWARD: You are therefore saying that ministers of the Crown are determining what our standing orders mean, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member for Skeena raises a valid point. As I tried to explain

earlier, because I anticipated that remark, hon. member — and

rightfully so — again, the minister of the Crown is the one responsible

for administering the bill before us. Therefore it is he who must make

the decision as to whether or not there is an impost on the Crown. Hon.

members, on that point, as I stated, I so rule.

MR. SKELLY:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When an amendment is drafted by a

member of the opposition, are you saying that the minister of the Crown

can then form some kind of intent relating to an amendment put forward

by a member of the opposition? The intent in putting this motion on the

floor was that no Crown funds would be expended or required to be

expended. The minister can now unilaterally rule an amendment by a

member of the opposition out of order simply by saying that if he were

to administer it he would spend government money on it. It simply does

not make sense, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please, hon. member. The Chair can appreciate the position in which the

member finds himself in having to accept the ruling of the Chair.

Nonetheless, hon. member, I'm sure that a study of what has taken place

in this House over many years — and it has not varied — will prove that

the Chair has no alternative but to make the ruling that was just

handed down. That must conclude the matter at this point.

[ Page 8311 ]

MR. SKELLY: May I ask which citations the Chairman is bringing to this decision. You're simply saying that by long-standing tradition....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has ruled on the matter. There is

a method open to the member, but I would encourage members to look back

in the records available to them, as well as to the Chair, and I'm sure

they will find that the ruling of the Chair is most consistent with the

actions of this House in innumerable cases.

MR. SKELLY: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in committee the ruling of the Chair pertaining to

section 4 under standing order 66 was challenged.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained.

The House in committee on Bill 52; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. SKELLY:

In this

section the minister has a right to issue permits for the

transportation of special wastes, and there is a

section in the

regulations which allows cabinet the right to issue licences to those

companies or firms or persons or individuals who will then have the

power to transport what are defined as special wastes in the province

of B.C. We recognize the value of a manifest system in order to trace

these special wastes through from their point of origin in the province

— whether they're created in the province or brought in — and we think

that's a valuable addition to the waste-management legislation of this

province.

In the case of licensing those who would transport

special wastes in British Columbia, there is a danger here that these

licences are granted behind the closed doors of cabinet. This is not a

procedure like the granting of motor carrier licences in the province —

where there is a public involvement procedure, where the issue of those

licences can be challenged by the public — whereby the character of

those who would transport special wastes could be questioned by the

public and by people who may have special information. Again, the

government is setting up a group of people who can be licensed by

cabinet and can derive great profit from the transportation of these

special wastes in the province of British Columbia. They have virtually

captive clients. The people who produce these wastes are captive

clients of those who have licences to transport them. What we are

concerned about is the fact that those who will transport the special

wastes will obtain their licences from cabinet, behind the closed doors

of a political body. We'll again see the same type of conditions that

prevail when land is taken out of the agricultural land reserve by what

is essentially a political appeal process. If you flash your Social

Credit Party card, then you're going to get a licence; if you don't

have the right political credentials, then you won't get a licence.

We're saying this is an extremely dangerous

section because it does not

provide a public forum for the granting of licences to transport

special wastes — as there is a public forum for the granting of motor

carrier licences in this province — whereby people can challenge the

credentials, the ability and the equipment of the people in the

province who are standing forward to provide those services. We are

saying that this makes the whole issue of special wastes more dangerous

to the people of British Columbia, because they do not know who will be

granted those licences and whether or not those licences will be

granted strictly on a political basis. It certainly gives some people

in this province the right to make tremendous profits on special

categories of wastes and the cartage of those special categories waste.

We cannot accept this section.

I've proposed an amendment

which requires the issuance of licences in a public forum. I'm certain

that the minister can say this is going to involve the expenditure of

public funds and therefore he's not going to accept it. Mr. Chairman,

if the minister recommends that that amendment be accepted, then those

licences will be granted in a public forum, there will be no question

of political favouritism, and the public and the people of the province

of British Columbia will be protected. I ask the minister now, during

debate under

section 5, if he is willing to see those licences granted

in a public forum similar to the granting of motor carrier licences or

other licences granted in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Chairman, it is intended that any carrier would also have a Motor

Carrier Commission licence. That is a motor vehicle licensing

requirement that comes prior to permits to transport special waste.

They would go through the standard Motor Carrier Commission appeal, and

it would be a standard Motor Carrier Commission licence. To that

extent, they don't vary at all. Two acts come into place here. One is

the federal transportation of dangerous goods act. Special wastes make

up less than 1 percent of the goods that are transported in the

province, so the transportation of dangerous goods act would be the

paramount act in terms of transportation and in terms of licensing. So

to that extent I don't think it's necessary. In fact, in this

particular bill, because of the manifest system, we will have control

from the cradle to the grave, as it were. We will be able to track the

entire transportation of the goods. So it's even more restrictive than

it is on the outside for other people.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, that is not true at all. What we are trying to do is an

improvement here on motor carrier licensing provisions. People who are

transporting special wastes are going to require special equipment,

specially trained personnel and specialized emergency equipment, and

those things simply aren't covered by the act that governs motor

carrier licences.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair]

that were the case, why is the minister setting up a separate special

regulation provision in

section 35 of this act for the licensing of

people who transport special wastes? What we want is something written

in law, a rule of law with respect to the granting of those licences so

that it's done in a public forum, in much the same way as motor carrier

licences or other licences for bodies involved in public transportation

of goods and people.

[ Page 8312 ]

This

one is going to be done behind the closed doors of cabinet. We're

concerned that people who transport special wastes with special

equipment and special personnel are going to have captive clients.

Certain people who are the favorites of the government can make

tremendous profits by holding captive other citizens of the community.

I'm concerned that this legislation does not protect either the people

who produce those kind of wastes or the citizens of British Columbia. I

think the minister should give some consideration to changing this

section to allow those licences to be granted in a public forum, and

that the provision for granting these licences be spelled out in the

legislation in a

section of this statute.

Mr. Chairman, as we're approaching one o'clock, I move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message form His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TELEX TO FEDERAL MINISTER OF FINANCE

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I rise to make a ministerial statement. I wish to share with members of

the Legislative Assembly the contents of a Telex which was dispatched

one week ago to the federal Minister of Finance. I will not take the

time of the House to read the concluding paragraph, which is readily

available, but which deals with another topic. The Telex is as follows:

AS FINANCE MINISTER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND AS A CONCERNED CANADIAN,

I URGE YOU TO TAKE EARLY ACTION TO DEAL WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS. WHILE

I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE QUICK OR EASY SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM, THERE ARE

SOME ACTIONS OF AN IMMEDIATE NATURE WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN. I'M PARTICULARLY

CONCERNED WITH THE LACK OF INVESTOR AND CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IN CANADA. I'M

GRATIFIED TO SEE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN STEPS TO MODIFY THE NATIONAL

ENERGY PROGRAM AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF THE MORE DAMAGING TAX PROVISIONS CONTAINED

IN THE NOVEMBER FEDERAL BUDGET. I SINCERELY BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THESE STEPS

ARE TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, AND THAT A FUNDAMENTAL RECONSIDERATION OF THESE FEDERAL

PROGRAMS IN THE CONTEXT AND PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC REALITIES IS IN ORDER.

I THINK YOU WILL AGREE THAT CURRENTLY HIGH INTEREST RATES REFLECT

WHAT MAY WELL BE A SHORTAGE OF FINANCIAL CAPITAL IN NORTH AMERICA. CANADA CAN

ILL-AFFORD POLICIES THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO UNDERMINE OUR ABILITY TO ATTRACT

THOSE INVESTMENT DOLLARS NEEDED TO GET OUR PEOPLE BACK TO WORK. SERIOUS CONSIDERATION

SHOULD THEREFORE BE, GIVEN TO MODIFYING POLICIES DETRIMENTAL TO ATTRACTING CAPITAL

INTO CANADA AT REASONABLE RATES OF INTEREST.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REGISTER MY CONCERNS WITH THE INTEREST RATE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE

DIFFICULTIES AND COMPLEXITIES ASSOCIATED BETWEEN DIRECT LINKAGE WITH CANADIAN

AND AMERICAN INTEREST RATES, I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE IMPACT ON CANADIANS

IS CONSIDERABLY MORE DAMAGING THAN FOR OUR NEIGHBOURS ACROSS THE BORDER. I AM

REFERRING IN PARTICULAR TO THE FACT THAT CANADIAN TAXPAYERS DO NOT RECEIVE THE

BENEFIT AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED STATES OF BEING ABLE TO DEDUCT MORTGAGE INTEREST

PAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL TAXABLE INCOME.

FINALLY, I THINK YOU WILL ALSO AGREE THAT THE CURRENT CRISIS

IN INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS MAY BE AT LEAST AS SERIOUS FOR THE 1980S AS

ENERGY SCARCITY HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST DECADE.

I TRUST YOU WILL NOT CONSIDER IT PRESUMPTUOUS OF ME TO SUGGEST

THAT THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CANADIAN PROGRAM FOR FINANCING

OUR ECONOMIC FUTURE. A PROGRAM OF ACTION SHOULD BE DEVELOPED ON A PRIORITY BASIS

TO ENSURE THAT OUR CAPITAL NEEDS ARE MET WITHOUT MAJOR DISRUPTIONS TO CAPITAL

MARKETS, INTEREST RATES AND THE INTERNATIONAL VALUE OF OUR CURRENCY. IF A MEETING

OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL FINANCE MINISTERS AND TREASURERS TO CONSIDER THESE

MATTERS WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO ATTEND.

That is the end of the relevant portion of the Telex to the federal Minister of Finance.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason I make this statement at this time is that not

withstanding follow-up Telexes, I have to advise the House that not

only have I not received a reply; I have not received an

acknowledgement of its receipt in Ottawa.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister's bringing the contents of the

telegram to the House. As I understand it, the telegram had been

released publicly. I think it's important that the minister bring to

the House these important areas of requests from the federal

government. I regret that the debate has been opened so late. I will

not cast reflection on the fact that an opportunity to debate this very

important matter was raised in a request for an emergency debate by my

colleague the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). Nonetheless, the subject

is here, albeit briefly, on a quiet Friday afternoon.

agree essentially with the thrust of the telegram, but it is an

escapist telegram in light of the fact that when we talk about capital

formation within Canada for mortgage rates and new funds for venture

capital, it is a fact that in this very House in 1975, when that

minister was a member, we passed legislation known as the British

Columbia Savings and Trust, which would allow the province of British

Columbia to go directly into the mortgage field without waiting for

anyone else to move. I find it a little less than convincing that while

the federal government heaps scorn on the United States

[ Page 8313 ]

government

and requests them to adjust on the basis of mortgage rates, the

provincial government's response is to ask the federal government to do

more. When we ask all Canadians to do for themselves things that should

be done for themselves, included in that are provincial governments,

and this provincial government should be proclaiming the B.C. Savings

and Trust act immediately to help stimulate the economy here in British

Columbia.

It must go with recollection of the fact that in

1978 the Premier of this province, in a monetary statement, at an

economic conference in Ottawa, declared his support for high interest

rates and monetarism. There has been no doubt until now that it has

been a panic response by this provincial government. The Milton

Friedman monetarist policies that have brought North America to this

terrible condition, based on the United States policies, received not

tacit but overt verbal and written support, officially, by the Social

Credit Government in British Columbia in submissions in 1978 to a

federal economic conference. This government cannot escape its direct

responsibility for deliberately requesting the federal government to

embark on those foolish, right-wing, simplistic economic strategies

that have brought the economy of British Columbia, Canada and North

America substantially to its knees.

We are in the midst of a

depression, Mr. Speaker. Tens of thousands of British Columbians are

now on the edge of losing their homes, their cars and have lost their

jobs. Of the potential workforce of 6,000 people in the city of

Alberni, only 500 people are working at this day. Here we are at a few

minutes after 1:00 p.m. responding to a ministerial statement slapping

the wrist of the federal government when 5,500 people in Alberni alone

would have dearly loved to have heard the minister stand up to demand

and announce some action by the provincial government to help those

unemployed right across this province.

In responding to the

telegram asking for a reduction in mortgage rates and a change in

policy, I have not seen one single initiative from this government or

that Minister of Finance in terms of reducing mortgage rates, as he

mentions in the telegram, for people to purchase homes or save their

homes here in British Columbia. A small comfort it is indeed to read a

telegram telling Pierre Trudeau and the federal Liberal Party what you

think they should do when in fact you asked for power in two elections

saying that you were going to straighten out the economy of British

Columbia. All you've done with your policies is create the mess that we

are in here in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

member while response is allowed to a ministerial statement, the

opinion of the Chair is that the member is clearly abusing that

privilege to some degree in going well beyond the scope and entering

into what could best be described as a full-fledged debate. I ask if he

could more or less restrict his remarks in fairness to the position

that the Chair is in.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Chair, and I appreciate what the Chair is saying. I will do my very best.

But

I must say that this is the first opportunity we've had since the

budget debate came down to have a general discussion on the economy.

This province is in terrible shape. The minister is quoted in an

interview with a newspaper reporter as indicating that we may be

heading for a deficit in this fiscal year. There hasn't been a word in

this House about it.

I will stick to the subject raised in

the telegram, and I made notes about those. The minister suggested more

Canadian content in capital formation. What about it? What about more

Canadian content in capital formation? Again, I refer — and I'll be

brief — to the the B.C. Savings and Trust, which you voted for.

Proclaim that bill and come up with provincial government initiatives

in terms of exemptions from provincial income tax, if need be, as

incentive for British Columbia capital formation for secondary and

tertiary investment in this province. I want to refer to the response

of the high interest rates, related to capital formation and small

business. It is this government's own policy that is driving hundreds

of small businessmen to the wall, and to read a telegram today, without

any mention of this government's position on the hundreds of small

businessmen whose taxes are a matter of tax revolt and tax debate....

You don't even make any reference to them today and....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Clearly at this time the member is well

beyond the bounds of ministerial response, and I ask the member now to

conclude his remarks.

MR. BARRETT: Not to conclude, but contain.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A little of both, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair must advise that the right of

response is not the right to an open-ended debate. Clearly, hon.

member, I think upon reflection you will see that you are maybe taking

a little bit of advantage of the situation, and I would ask you to

please bear that in mind in concluding your remarks.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, there have been occasions when I have taken advantage of

the latitude of rules. This may be one now. But I ask the House to bear

with me, because we've got close to 200,000 people unemployed in this

province and somebody has got to stand up and fight for those people,

instead of sending a weak-kneed telegram from the minister, without a

statement by this provincial government in defence of those people who

have worked hard to buy homes, buy cars, and create a good life. I

don't want this debate in any way to appear to be limited.

But

I will do my best to stick to the rules, and I intend to stick to the

rules. I understand the time, and if you want to pull closure on me you

go ahead, but this is the first time in a week that we've had a chance

to fight for those people. You're trying to stop me from saying a few

things on behalf of the unemployed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Again, hon. member, the Chair must ask the

member to conclude his remarks at this time. Clearly, he is abusing the

rules of the House, and I am convinced the hon. member is fully aware

of that position. I would ask him at this time to conclude his remarks.

I urge the member so to do.

MR. BARRETT: I will take with seriousness your admonition and refer my final remarks to comments about capital

[ Page 8314 ]

formation.

In my opinion, capital formation should also be involved in aggressive

marketing and sales. Could it be said, in terms of some attempt at

capital formation, that at such a conference this provincial government

would cooperate with the federal government on an agenda to seek new

markets? That too would have been welcome.

Now I will

conclude. I do not wish to abuse the House. But I will say this: what a

sorry failure that telegram proves this government is. What a sorry and

pathetic failure this Social Credit administration is in coming up with

something more important than anything mentioned in the telegram. It's

a word that I'll conclude my remarks on; it's simply a matter of hope.

There has been absolutely no lifting of one finger by that Minister of

Finance or by this provincial government to give any British Columbia

citizen a sense of hope coming out of some leadership from this

provincial government. You're a failure. And you've failed again today.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the eighth annual report of the British Columbia Development Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled the annual report of the Ministry of the Attorney-General for the period ending March 31, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

42 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the

following questions:

With reference to the Council of the '80s—

1. How often has the Council met, where, and how many persons attended each meeting?

2. What are the names of those persons on the Council?

3. In which towns do these persons live?

4. Do the members of the Council receive any remuneration, honorarium expenses or moneys from the Government?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. The Council of the '80s has met three times in Vancouver: September

9, 1980, May 8, 1981, and February 19, 1982. Approximately 90 people attended

the initial meeting in September, 22 attended the second meeting and 14 attended

the third meeting which was limited to Vancouver and Lower Mainland members.

In addition, members meet with local ministry staff in their own communities.

"2 and 3. A list of names of Council members and towns in which they reside

follows: Mark Ando, West Vancouver; A. V. (Vill) Backman, Vancouver; Leonard

Bawtree, Enderby; Val Beeston, Qualicum; Vic Bowman, Prince George; David Bruce,

Vancouver; Art Cameron,