1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 22, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 1, Number 25,

Part 2

[ Page 667 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. Just to inform the House, we'll continue to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then move to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 9.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1996

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 9; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 13 (continued).

G. Wilson: If we could just try to recap a little bit about where we are....

Section 13, as we can see, is a rather long and extended section, and I guess we could ask questions on all sections. As we closed in this discussion last time, I was focused primarily on subsection (b), the issue of medical exams and medical documentation. I wonder if we could just continue very briefly, and then I would certainly yield to others.

For two other areas in which I have considerable concern -- recognizing that in principle I don't think this is good public policy anyway.... I'm not going to belabour that on every section, except to point out highlights where I think that the public should be concerned and that the government should consider this legislation.

If you look on page 5, under

section 13,

section 24(e)(7), says: "For a driver's licence of any class of persons, the superintendent, by regulation with respect to a class of persons, may...." Then it gives a list of restrictions. In dealing with this matter, in respect of the transfer of powers from the superintendent to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, what I'm curious to know is if there should be, with respect to regulations that would require particular restrictions that may be imposed upon a licence.... It suggests the bill will "(

e) impose other restrictions on or add any conditions to the driver's licence of a class of persons that the minister considers necessary for the operation of a motor vehicle by a member of that class." This

section primarily outlines the superintendent's authority and powers. However, with the transfer of those powers, and in sections that we'll deal with in a few minutes, it talks about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia effectively having those same powers.

In looking at that, and given that we are trying to deal with

section 13 all in one, I would like to draw the minister's attention to

section 13(f),

section 24(7.7), where it says: "Notwithstanding the regulations" -- I assume those are the regulations that we're talking about here, namely, those that the superintendent has imposed by the minister -- "the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, by statement in, endorsement on, or attachment to any person's driver's licence, may, as a result of a knowledge test..." restrict further.... Then it says: "...(

d) impose other restrictions on the driver's license of the person that the corporation considers necessary for the operation of a motor vehicle by the person...."

What this legislation is saying is that under

section 13(e),

section 24(7)(

e) has the minister imposing regulations through the superintendent. And then it says that "notwithstanding the regulations" imposed by the minister, we're now, through this legislation, going to empower the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to "impose other restrictions on the driver's licence... that the corporation considers necessary...." I really question any public policy that would allow a commercial Crown corporation to have the power and authority to place restrictions that normally are within the purview of the legislative authority of this body, certainly not of a Crown corporation.

My question to the minister is: what is the rationale for providing those additional powers? Does the minister not agree that that's an area where there really should be some serious consideration given with respect to amending this piece of legislation?

Hon. L. Boone: There are no new powers in this legislation. All of these powers formerly existed with the superintendent. If you look at subsection (f),

section 24(7.7) says: "...may, as a result of a knowledge test, a road test or a road signs and signals test...." Any restrictions imposed by ICBC would have to be under the circumstances of the tests that were imposed. No new powers come with this legislation; they are exactly the same powers that the superintendent formerly had.

G. Wilson: With great respect for the minister, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia doesn't have this power now; the power rests with the superintendent. Therefore these are new powers. The corporation has been granted new powers that it doesn't have right now. My concern is with respect to public policy, as to whether or not....

Section 24(7.7)(

d) doesn't say: "...impose any other restrictions on the driver's licence of the person that the minister or the superintendent or any legislative authority or body that is accountable to the public deems necessary." It says: "...impose other restrictions on the driver's licence of the person that the corporation considers necessary...."

The corporation does not have that power now; that is a new power. That is an extensive power which has been granted to a commercial Crown corporation and which may -- and I put this to you, hon. Chair -- put the corporation in some considerable conflict if there is a dispute over a claim. Because in the same bill, the corporation is empowered now to refuse that driver's licence until all claims and payments are made.

So if somebody has a dispute with the Insurance Corporation, you have just empowered that corporation to refuse that individual the right to go out and drive commercially until that dispute and claim have been settled. Because that may be one of the other restrictions that this corporation may deem necessary, especially for a commercial driver.

[6:45]

This is a new power; this is a sweeping power. This is giving the Insurance Corporation tremendous power that it doesn't already have, especially if an individual is in dispute over a claim with the Insurance Corporation and comes up for driver's licence renewal. That's something that the Insurance Corporation cannot deny them right now.

Hon. L. Boone: You had to listen very carefully: I said there are no new powers that the superintendent didn't previously have. The whole intent of this bill is to transfer the powers that the superintendent had over to ICBC -- that's the intent. These are the powers that the superintendent previously had; now ICBC has those exact same powers. This

[ Page 668 ]

does not have an impact on insurance. As I have stated over and over, information gathered here cannot be used for any purposes other than those for which it is gathered, because it's within the Freedom of Information Act.

I understand that you don't agree with the intent of the bill, and I can accept that. The intent of the bill is to transfer these powers to ICBC, and that's what this bill does.

G. Wilson: Just let me try one more shot at this, and then I will yield to another member.

The minister says this doesn't create new powers. I'm not arguing that. It's the difference between saying that we've got the policeman on the neighbourhood beat who has certain powers, and we are now going to transfer them over to the monopoly hardware owner. That's the problem. You are putting powers and authority -- transferring them -- over to a commercial Crown corporation, and that's a philosophical difference that we have on this bill. I know that the minister isn't going to yield on it, so I'm not going to come back to that too often.

I think the public has to be aware of what this government's doing, and the public has to make a decision on whether or not that's a good idea. They will, I'm sure, within short order.

However, does the minister not see that this then puts the Insurance Corporation in a considerable conflict of interest? It now has the power to impose restrictions on a driver's licence. Indeed, in sections that we will discuss later this evening, it may even refuse to grant a renewal on a driver's licence -- given the fact that it is in a monopoly insurance position.

Previously, if you were in dispute with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, you could carry on your dispute but continue to have a licence to drive commercially. This opens the door to the Insurance Corporation precluding you from doing that. That's my concern. That's a power, I think, that is really bad public policy. Would the minister explain why she believes that this is not bad public policy -- why that issue is not something the public should be concerned about?

Hon. L. Boone: It does not have that power.

B. Barisoff: Is the hon. minister meaning to tell the assembly that...? You just said that the power from the superintendent of motor vehicles goes to ICBC. The superintendent of motor vehicles has that power right now. Now you're saying that all this power is transferred, but they don't have the power in ICBC?

Hon. L. Boone: I said it did not have the power to restrict the granting of a driver's licence or to withhold a driver's licence based on the information it has received from the motor vehicle branch. But they do have the same powers that the superintendent has. If the superintendent had the power to restrict a driver's licence, then ICBC would have that same power. But they could not take that and use that in their insurance business to further their insurance issues. They're separate issues. They are two separate entities, and they will be treated as such.

As I keep saying to you, the information gathered through the motor vehicle branch falls under the rules and regulations of freedom of information, and that information cannot be shared -- other than what is already shared. A lot of it is already shared with ICBC. As I've said to the members time and time again, you are assessed points by ICBC based on your driving record. That information is already shared with ICBC. Eighty percent of the information that the motor vehicle branch has -- 80-plus percent -- is already shared with ICBC. But they will not be able to use that information other than in the way they have already been using it.

B. Barisoff: If we're going to leave the motor vehicle branch and ICBC as two separate identities, I have a hard time understanding the purpose of amalgamating the two groups in the first place. If we're keeping the two separate, and you're not giving those kinds of powers away to ICBC, what's the purpose of putting the bill forward to amalgamate them? When you look at the cost saving, it will probably be insignificant. When the smoke clears, how much will there actually be in cost saving? If you're guaranteeing the assembly today that ICBC will not use part of their insurance claims against people's driving habits, that's great. I'd just like to hear that.

Hon. L. Boone: As I keep stating, the powers are split. There will be some administrative savings; there may be some real estate savings. But the powers are split between ICBC and the motor vehicle branch.

One of the interesting things that I find is that the public, in fact, although it's not here, would sometimes like to have more of a merge. In fact, over the years, I've had more people ask me: "Why can't you stop somebody from getting insurance if they've had a bad driving record...?" When you try to explain to them that they're separate entities, and you can't do that sort of thing, the public don't really understand; they really sort of want the bad drivers off the road. This does not allow that to happen.

This is merely transferring all the powers that were formerly with the superintendent of motor vehicles over to ICBC. The powers remain split, but the administration savings and the cost saving will come from a number of different areas.

B. Barisoff: What you're trying to tell us -- and I know that it takes place -- is that if a driver gets six points, or the equivalent of two or three tickets, in the course of a month, the motor vehicle branch can pull his driver's licence. If he happens to be a commercial driver, he's out of work. I know that happened in my particular area this spring; they've actually lost their driver's licence.

What you're going to guarantee the assembly, then, is that if a driver happens to be in an accident and ICBC has a claim against him for whatever reason -- and the way the court proceedings go in the province, it could take months.... Does ICBC have the opportunity of pulling his driver's licence in the interim until something is cleared up?

Hon. L. Boone: The Insurance Corporation only has the power to withhold insurance. This is in the legislation that they are guided by, and they will still be guided by that same legislation. The insurance act that guides ICBC does not in any way, shape or form change with this act that's coming in.

G. Wilson: We'll get to whether or not the Insurance Corporation can do what the minister says it can't do when we talk about the next section. But let me just for the moment ask: what is the purpose, then, of

section 13,

section 24(7.7)(d)? That is a new power to the corporation -- perhaps not to the superintendent, but certainly to the corporation -- that says: "...impose other restrictions on the driver's licence of the person that the corporation considers necessary...." What is the purpose of having the corporation provided the authority to determine what is a necessary additional restriction on a licence? In the beginning it says that "notwithstanding the regulations," the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

[ Page 669 ]

may stick an endorsement on your driver's licence. What's the function of that, if it isn't to empower the corporation to place further restrictions on a person's driving?

Hon. L. Boone: I said this before; I'll say it very slowly here. We are merely transferring the existing powers that the superintendent had over to ICBC. It's a transfer. Those powers existed for the superintendent before. You might very well question why the superintendent had them before. We are not taking away or adding any additional things.

I'll give you an example. If you took a class 4 licence test in a car instead of in a bus, then you would be restricted to driving a car and not a bus, because you hadn't taken the test on the bus. Those are some of the powers that currently exist and that the superintendent has. They are the powers that ICBC will have. There are no new powers here, just a different body.

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this all night, but that simply is not how this legislation reads. For the minister to suggest it is is quite misleading. It says in

section 13,

section 24(7.7): "Notwithstanding the regulations, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, by statement in, endorsement...." If you look at the original act and the powers of the superintendent -- most of which are retained, because it provides "or" as in "the corporation or the superintendent" -- it suggests that the superintendent is regulated by a certain set of regulations that prohibit or that put restrictions or endorsements on drivers' licences. This legislation says that notwithstanding that -- in addition to that -- the Insurance Corporation has the right to put on further endorsements that it considers necessary.

The reason this is important is that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may well be in dispute with a driver who has had an accident or who has been involved in some way in an accident, and that dispute may not be resolved in a court of law. Therefore it puts the Insurance Corporation as the endorsing agent of that driver's licence at the same time that it's fighting a dispute in the court -- a potential conflict of interest. That's a new power. To suggest that it doesn't add these new powers to the corporation or change the status quo is just not true.

Hon. L. Boone: It is true. As I said to you earlier, the Insurance Corporation is guided and ruled by the same Insurance Act that it has been ruled by in the past. That Insurance Act has not changed. They can only restrict insurance based on the same rules and regulations that they had in the past. Nothing has changed in that way whatsoever. The act is changing what the superintendent formerly had over to ICBC. ICBC will not be able to restrict insurance based on anything other than what the Insurance Act allows them.

D. Jarvis: I assume my associate from Powell River-Sunshine Coast is right to a degree on this. I think it's fundamentally wrong, but I understand that you're trying to do it on a person-by-person basis. This is lumping together the graduated licences for beginning drivers and all the rest. You're trying to work on a person-by-person basis, are you not?

Well, I'll continue. I assumed that was what you were doing under

section 13.

I'd like to ask the minister this: you say that the corporation has to abide by the act. Can you tell me who's the authority of the act? Is that the superintendent of insurance?

Hon. L. Boone: It's

an act that's passed by this government, and the regulations come under this government.

D. Jarvis: Who controls that? Who dictates to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia whether they must comply with the act?

Hon. L. Boone: The minister and the cabinet.

[7:00]

D. Jarvis: When you say "impose other restrictions" under

section 13,

section 24(7.7)(d), you've listed a whole gamut of restrictions. Why did you not spell them out? You've got an open-ended situation there. What would it be, other than the change of driving a car to driving a bus, as you explained? What would be a typical circumstance that would apply to the situation?

Hon. L. Boone: If you take your test north of the 50th parallel from an RCMP officer, then you are restricted -- you know this? -- to driving north of the 50th parallel. It's amazing the things you find out here.

Section 13 approved on division.

section 14.

G. Wilson: I take the minister back to the comment she made that the Insurance Corporation could not refuse to issue.... There's a little

section in the bill that sort of gives you a synopsis of what this does: it "provides authority to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, in addition to the superintendent, to refuse to issue to persons licences, corresponding number plates and permits for vehicles and trailers in the circumstances set out...." It goes on then to talk about striking out the superintendent and putting in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

If you look at the existing act, under this particular section, it's interesting that the discretionary powers fall to the superintendent. It provides the "superintendent's satisfaction" requirement that whatever indebtedness exists has to be cleaned up before this thing can be dealt with. To be sure, the existing act provides for the superintendent to consult with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to determine if that's the case.

This language changes that, because it says under

section 14, subsection 24.1(b): "...the corporation or superintendent is satisfied that the amount of indebtedness has been fully paid to the corporation." So if the corporation is not satisfied that the indebtedness has been paid, it may continue to refuse to issue. That's what this bill says, and that's what this minister told us a few minutes ago that it didn't do. It does. Perhaps the minister can explain why we changed the discretionary power from the superintendent to the corporation on a matter of indebtedness which is owed to the corporation.

Hon. L. Boone: What I said earlier was that ICBC could not restrict the issuance of insurance -- that nothing here would restrict the issuance of insurance. Now this says that we can refuse the new issuance of drivers' licences; I did not say insurance. I said insurance before, and the concern was that ICBC may be able to withhold insurance based on a driving record. I said that they could not withhold insurance based on a driving record, but they can refuse drivers' licences.

[ Page 670 ]

G. Wilson: That's the point I was making earlier. If you're in dispute with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia right now, they may choose not to issue insurance on a car that I own -- or a truck, if I'm a commercial operator. But it doesn't mean that I don't have a valid driver's licence. I can go and drive for somebody else, fully insured. But if I'm in dispute with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and my licence comes up for renewal, now they can refuse to renew it, and I don't have a valid driver's licence until such time as this dispute is resolved. There's nothing in this bill that prohibits them from doing that.

In fact, there's everything in this bill that encourages them to do that, because in

section 15 -- we'll get to that next, if you like -- you're transferring inspection, AirCare and all those kinds of regulatory authorities on vehicles that the Insurance Corporation will require payment for -- fees and inspections and those sorts of things. In addition, you've given them an added hammer over your head, by saying that if you haven't got all of this done to our satisfaction, we may refuse to issue a driver's licence. That's what the bill says. It may not be what you intend it to say, but it certainly seems to be what it says.

Hon. L. Boone: It may surprise the hon. member to know that the superintendent can do that right now. The superintendent can refuse to issue licences, permits and that, based on whether you owe money. That is being transferred over to ICBC, exactly as we said. I think this bill is the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act -- ICBC merger bill, because that's merging those things. Should you be surprised that, in fact, we're transferring powers that the superintendent had over motor vehicles to ICBC? The conditions under which ICBC can refuse are established concretely in the act, thus no degree of discretion is assigned to ICBC.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I'm not surprised that that's what this bill's doing, but I am absolutely amazed that the minister doesn't understand the problem here. The superintendent doesn't sell me insurance. The superintendent doesn't hold a monopoly in this province on auto insurance, especially for commercial drivers. What we're doing here is transferring to the authority that holds a monopoly on the issuance of insurance the added authority to issue my licence. If I'm in dispute right now, I can still hold a valid driver's licence.

I can even owe ICBC money and continue to go about my business as a commercial truck driver. I don't have the added threat of the corporation with whom I have a legal dispute having the authority to withhold my licence when it comes up for renewal. That's what this does.

I hope the minister sees that the superintendent has quite different powers than a commercial Crown corporation that has a monopoly on the selling of insurance. I don't care if the superintendent has the right. In fact, I think it's a good idea that the superintendent has the right on occasion to restrict a person if they feel their record isn't up to par, because it keeps people driving well, at least in theory. But I have a real problem if you transfer that authority over to a corporation that holds a monopoly on the sale of insurance. That's the distinction.

Hon. L. Boone: If it's in dispute, then the powers don't hold. Currently, the superintendent can stop you from having a driver's licence if you owe money or if you have outstanding fines or outstanding insurance debts. The superintendent can do that. So ICBC will have exactly the same powers that the superintendent has. If you are in dispute, they will not have that power.

G. Wilson: That's a really valuable piece of information. I wonder if the minister might point to the

section in this act so I might just read and review where it says that if there's a dispute, these powers are null and void.

Hon. L. Boone: If it's in dispute, there's no established debt. That is the only rule by which they would be able to withhold your licence. If it's in dispute, there's no established debt.

G. Wilson: Just a last question, and then I'll yield. Am I right that there's nothing in the act that says that? I can tell you that ICBC may have a different

interpretation of that. Do I take it from the minister's comments that there's nothing in this legislation that outlines that?

Hon. L. Boone: No. It isn't very complicated in terms of trying to transfer the powers over there, but if you look at the Motor Vehicle Act, it says "indebted to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia." So you have to be indebted. If you're in dispute, you are not indebted.

G. Wilson: It says: "...to the corporation's satisfaction." It doesn't say until ruled in a court of law. So I don't think the minister is on very thick ice on this one at all. In fact, I think the minister is in some trouble on this one.

G. Plant: I rise on a slightly different point, but it is still dealing with the same language. I understand that one of the purposes of this bill is to achieve certain efficiencies, and in the recent questioning about this subsection, the term "merger" has been used. It's not clear to me why that's the purpose. Both the corporation and the superintendent are given powers. If you were actually trying to do something astonishing like simplify government, you would give fewer powers to fewer people instead of more powers to more people.

The Chair: Hon. member, this is on

section 14.

G. Plant: Yes.

The Chair: Good, okay. The question is not clear.

G. Plant: I'll say it more slowly, and you'll assist me in telling me when I'm in the wrong place, I'm sure, hon. Chair. I'm at the top of page 7. I am in a

section that I would call

section 14(

b) of Bill 9. Am I allowed to be there?

Interjection.

G. Plant: That subsection purports to make certain changes to

section 24.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It purports to make those changes in subsection (3) of

section 24.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and what it purports to do is delete certain words from subsection (3) of

section 24.1 of the current Motor Vehicle Act and replace them with other words.

The grammatical vehicle chosen for the replacement is the verb "substituting," and after the word "substituting" appears in the first line of

section 14(

b) of Bill 9, there are some words that appear in quotations. Am I in a place that is familiar to other members? When I read those words, I see "the corporation or superintendent." Those are words used in that subsection. Reading them in what I would respectfully suggest is their plain and ordinary grammatical meaning, it appears to me that both the corporation and the

superinten-

[ Page 671 ]

dent are now given in equal measure a power which either or both of them may exercise to determine whether an amount of indebtedness has been fully paid to the corporation.

Now, if I have read that right, then the question I asked precipitantly, too early, now arises. Why, in a bill that is intended to simplify government, do we give a power equally to two separate individuals or entities? What is it that will in fact be achieved by doing that?

Hon. L. Boone: We have, in fact, as the member is probably aware, retained the position of superintendent of motor vehicles to deal with the concerns that members opposite are raising with regard to the fact that the superintendent is the only one who can withdraw a licence -- to deal with medical records, to withhold a driver's licence for somebody. That is kept separate to deal with the concerns that have been raised by individuals.

[7:15]

G. Plant: I am grateful for the hon. minister's assistance to me, but health records don't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with

section 24.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, in particular, or with the amendment which is proposed to it in respect of

section 14(b). What is it, then, that is the particular concern motivating that subsection, since it isn't health records?

Hon. L. Boone: The superintendent still has the power to issue permits for commercial vehicles, and that power is retained by the superintendent. The issuing of licenses would go over to ICBC.

G. Plant: Why do we need to amend this section?

Hon. L. Boone: Because we're transferring the services, formerly performed by the superintendent with regard to motor vehicle licences, over to ICBC.

B. Penner: I'd like to take this opportunity to get up and add my comments. I think

section 14 is an apt

section of the bill for me to do that, because I think it highlights the problem with the bill as a whole -- and that is the scrambling of the egg. I think it effectively poses the danger of making ICBC the judge, jury and executioner for the travelling public in British Columbia. I think, intellectually and conceptually, that that is wrong.

My question is similar in some respects to the one posed by my colleague from Richmond-Steveston when he asked the minister -- and I'm not sure if we got a clear answer: why is this being done? Why is it necessary to transfer the powers of the superintendent to ICBC if the superintendent is going to continue to have those powers him- or herself? Why not leave those powers with the superintendent and not give them to a commercial insurance company?

Hon. L. Boone: This is not a commercial insurance company. This is a Crown corporation. It is a public body, and it is accountable to the government and to the minister. The government is merging ICBC.... Those services that were performed by the motor vehicle branch with regard to motor vehicle licensing, and a number of other different services, are being transferred over. However, the superintendent has retained the ability to withdraw licences for medical reasons or because of a driving record, and those are the things that your members are raising.

They're saying that they don't want ICBC to have the right to withhold insurance based on someone's driving record. So they think that there shouldn't be that merge. That is, in fact, why the superintendent has retained a separate identity.

B. Penner: Perhaps a few comments could help clarify the situation for the minister. I believe our position is that we don't have any concerns about the current powers of the superintendent. We think that those powers are properly vested with the superintendent of motor vehicles and that that is the place they should remain. The question to the minister is: why does this government feel that those powers need to be transferred to an insurance company that operates in a commercial way?

G. Plant: I was imagining what the answer to my colleague the member for Chilliwack's question might be, and I failed to pay attention to the fact that it wasn't answered. I understand what the minister is saying in defence of this subsection, but I don't think it stands there in the wording, because the wording in subsection (

b) doesn't say who wins. It says either the corporation or the superintendent has to be satisfied. It's not clear to me, reading these words, who wins. What if one is satisfied and the other is not? What if neither is satisfied? What is the mechanism that the minister proposes to enact in order to achieve reconciliation of a confrontation between the corporation and the superintendent? Does the minister intend to legislate that? Will that be done by means of regulation, or will there be some kind of intradepartmental simplification -- or will it be a complication -- of the situation between the two of them?

It seems to me that, finally, either one or the other has to have the supervisory function. You don't get the superintendent to have a supervisory function in the way that the minister is describing just by adding him into the list of decision-makers. It doesn't accomplish either a merger or a simplification of anything. What you have is two decision-makers who can make a decision, with no provision for what happens when they make different decisions, or for who gets to decide first or second, or for anything like that.

So I understand the objective, but, frankly, I don't see how it's achieved in the wording that has been chosen in the subsection.

Hon. L. Boone: They only make decisions based on the authorities that are given to them within this act.

G. Plant: Does the minister have a view as to what happens in the event there are conflicting decisions?

Hon. L. Boone: There is no overlap.

G. Wilson: I want to carry on with that just for one second. If one reads the existing Motor Vehicle Act and fully understands the powers of the superintendent, throughout this entire bill certain powers are transferred entirely, some powers are transferred in a shared manner and other powers are not transferred at all. In fact, in

section 16,

section 24.4(2), which we'll get to in a little while -- and I'm not jumping ahead -- there are two words, "may" and "must," which kind of determine who wins in that status. It says: "The Insurance Corporation... may refuse to issue, and, if so directed... by the superintendent, must refuse to issue...." So clearly, he or she has more power there.

But in the areas where there clearly is shared jurisdiction or responsibility, if there is a dispute it is not clear which of the two will be deemed to have the final authority. My reading of

[ Page 672 ]

this, up until the answers that were given to the member for Richmond-Steveston, was that the superintendent would. I'm not confident now that the superintendent will. So I wonder if the minister might confirm that the superintendent does in fact have the final authority with respect to those shared provisions.

Hon. L. Boone: I've said it before and I'll say it again: there are no shared provisions. The act clearly delineates who is responsible for what. There are no shared provisions within the act.

B. Penner: Continuing on with the same

section 16,

section 24.4(2)(b), I would direct the hon. minister's attention to the word "or" which appears there. Could she please tell this House why that word "or" appears? It appears to give both of those entities the same power. The question is: which one has precedence in the case of a conflict?

Hon. L. Boone: Each deals with different things.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

G. Wilson: When the minister was saying that they deal with two separate issues under the previous section....

Section 15 amends

section 24.2 of the existing act, which reads: "The superintendent may refuse to issue (

a) a licence and corresponding number plates, and (

b) a permit" for the reasons under

section 215. Under

section 215 of this particular act, if you read through it, there's a whole long list of regulations that have to be adhered to in order for this to be given.

In this case, the transfer is completely from the superintendent to the Insurance Corporation. The question is: why, in the previous section, does the superintendent have a role, but in this particular section, where powers were formerly vested with the superintendent, the superintendent has no role? What's the reason for those distinctions to be made?

Hon. L. Boone: This allows the superintendent to refuse to issue permits for those areas which they maintain responsibility for, such as commercial transport vehicles.

G. Wilson: I'm aware of what

section 15,

section 24.2(c)(2), does with respect to the provision of the powers to the superintendent. It's

section 15,

section 24.2(a), that strikes out "superintendent" and replaces it with the Insurance Corporation of B.C. That's my question: why, if in the previous

section you shared responsibilities -- with the conjunctive "or" being used -- have you now delineated very clearly the responsibilities and duties between the superintendent and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in this particular section? Why would it apply to this

section and not have applied to the previous section? What's the distinction here?

Hon. L. Boone: The

section that you're talking about deals with generalities around the act. The other one,

section 15,

section 24.2, deals specifically with commercial vehicle licences.

G. Wilson: No, in the Motor Vehicle Act, it deals with the authority to refuse a licence plate, number plate or permit because under

section 215 the vehicle or trailer that's required to be presented hasn't passed inspection. That's what it deals with in the act. And you're amending it to take out the superintendent and put in the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Then you go ahead and sort of add a subsection that provides certain powers, very specifically delineated powers, to the superintendent under

section 15,

section 24.2(2). The question is: why do you make the distinction in this

section that wasn't made in the previous one? It deals with precisely the same thing.

Hon. L. Boone: It seems to me that I've already said this. The earlier one deals with general issues around licensing. The one that we are talking about deals with specifics due to inspections, number plates and permits. So there's a general one, and then there's a specific one.

Section 15 approved on division.

[7:30]

section 16.

G. Wilson: This

section provides just a very quick opportunity to further clarify this relationship between the superintendent and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It still remains extremely murky, in my mind, notwithstanding the attempt of the minister to clarify the generalities and the specifics, which I fail to understand. Under

section 16,

section 24.4(2) says: "The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may refuse to issue, and, if so directed under subsection (1)" -- which is the superintendent's power in terms of direction -- "...must refuse...." Now, this implies that the superintendent has some final authority here. Maybe we're getting down to the member for Richmond-Steveston's comment about who will win in a contest. As we look through this bill, however, and we get into some of the consequential amendments later on, this gets further complicated by the powers that are granted to the Insurance Corporation to act unilaterally in some instances -- which it may do, and this bill provides it.

What we need is clarification from the minister on the denotation of

section 16,

section 24.4(2): "...if so directed... by the superintendent," the Insurance Corporation must act. Does that mean that the superintendent has final authority at all times over the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with respect to the actions the corporation may take on licensing?

Hon. L. Boone: Only in this section, which deals with vehicle standards. The superintendent keeps vehicle standards enforcement powers. If the superintendent finds that a vehicle is unsafe, she or he can tell ICBC not to issue a permit or a licence.

G. Wilson: So as I understand it, then, with respect to

section 16,

section 24.4(2), it refers only to that long list of regulations under sections 215 and 216 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and that's the only time the superintendent actually has the authority to instruct ICBC on what to do. The rest of the time ICBC is pretty much on its own.

Hon. L. Boone: This

section deals with and speaks to that. The rest of the bill speaks to different issues, but you are correct on this section. The superintendent can only deal with those powers as I stated to you.

[ Page 673 ]

G. Plant: I am reading

section 24.4, which is proposed to be added by

section 16 of the bill. I thought that the beauty of

section 15,

section 24.2(c)(2), was its purity; that is, that the power given under that

section was given only to the superintendent and that that reflected a policy decision. I don't understand what the policy decision is, but I'm sure it reflected one. At any rate, the beauty of the subsection was that it gave a power to the superintendent. That was the decision that was made.

I have to pause here. I know that lawyers are unpopular people, but lawyers do occasionally have to try to make sense of these provisions. And I now find that in

section 16,

section 24.4, which is what we're looking at now -- lucky I kept reading -- the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will in fact have a role in relation to the permitting of motor vehicles or trailers in the context of inspection or not being presented for inspection. I wonder why it is that the superintendent's power in relation to

section 215 of the Motor Vehicle Act has to be put in different ways in two different sections of this amending statute.

Hon. L. Boone: This

section of the act gives the superintendent the authority to direct ICBC with regard to a permit and a licence when a vehicle does not meet motor vehicle inspection standards.

G. Plant: Under the immediately preceding

section of the bill, which would create a new subsection -- subsection (2) -- the superintendent has the power all by himself to refuse to issue a permit. Then, in the

section under discussion, ICBC has the power to refuse to issue a permit. And then we have this third case, which is the case where the superintendent decides to direct ICBC to refuse to issue a permit. Instead of one situation where the superintendent makes the decision, we now have three potential decision-making situations to encompass the situation of a motor vehicle or trailer that is required under

section 215 to be presented for inspection and has not been presented for inspection. So in what way will that achieve administrative efficiencies?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we will be creating efficiencies by reducing staff, by combining real estate areas, by combining some computer technology -- all kinds of different things. We will be making efficiencies.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

G. Wilson: Just as a point of order, all of these sections, hon. Chair, are passing on division.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I'm not even going to respond to the comment from the cheap seats over in that section.

Under this particular

section 17, I just note that there really is not much of a change in intent from the original act, except to say that the superintendent, with respect to powers here -- and again it makes it pretty clear what the powers are -- would require that an individual submit to tests that only are authorized and run by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. That's not in the original act. The original act provides that "the superintendent or a person authorized by him for the purposes of

section 23 may require a person to whom a driver's licence has been issued to attend at a time and place to be examined as to his fitness and ability to drive and operate motor vehicles of the category...." That's what the act says. But here it says: "...to be conducted by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia: a knowledge test; a road test; a road signs and signals test." My question is: does that include the current powers the superintendent has with respect to safe driver courses currently operated by the private sector?

Hon. L. Boone: This doesn't have anything to do with safe-driving training; this has to do with being retested. So if the superintendent of motor vehicles demands that you, MLA -- I can't use your name in the House -- have a bad driving record, and therefore you have to be retested, you would undergo the same tests that you would normally undergo, and those are the ones that will be done under ICBC, the same as they are right now under the motor vehicle branch. That's all it says.

G. Wilson: No, I understand that. If you have a bad driver's record, and the superintendent currently has the power to require that you enrol in a course that teaches you what you're doing wrong, and at least corrects what you're doing wrong.... My only question is whether or not the intent of this

section of the bill is to include, within that set of conditions that may be placed, for ICBC to run such tests or courses.

Hon. L. Boone: No.

Sections 17 and 18 approved on division.

section 19.

G. Wilson: I just want to raise a couple of matters with respect to this because it deals with

section 27, which is again the issue of these transfers of powers. Note that where it deals previously with the superintendent's satisfaction -- and it comes back to the comments we made earlier -- here it provides for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's satisfaction. Now, to be sure that we're only looking at a question of dealing with a matter of records here and record changes and so on....

But I do want to once again state that, in the case where people are in litigation against ICBC, or ICBC is in litigation against some other individual, this puts an individual in a very different relationship with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with respect to the maintenance and powers and provisions. Where you see legislation that says "Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's satisfaction," that's an area that causes concern, and it's throughout the entire bill.

G. Plant: In terms of the application of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to this subsection, what consideration has the ministry given to judicial review as being applied now to a Crown corporation that formerly was more or less confined to the business of insuring people and now will be exercising functions that used to be exercised by a superintendent of a branch of a ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: Judicial review applies to a Crown corporation.

Sections 19 to 23 inclusive approved on division.

section 24.

[ Page 674 ]

G. Wilson: This, of course, is the transfer of regulation-making authority respecting AirCare programs from the superintendent to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, authorizing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to act. With respect to the provisions provided under the existing act, I note that there is considerable care taken that fees and regulations are set outside of the company offering that service. Now it would seem that not only is it going to be under the regulatory authority of ICBC, but.... My question -- because the

section seems to be silent on this issue -- is whether or not that's also going to include the setting of standards and fees.

Hon. L. Boone: Standards and fees continue to be set by government, as they are now.

G. Wilson: Will that be by appended regulation to this act, or will it continue to be done through the Motor Vehicle Act?

Hon. L. Boone: By regulation appended to this act.

Section 24 approved on division.

section 25.

D. Jarvis: I assume that now we're right into the graduated licences here, and I notice that in

section 25,

section 55(2.1) says: "...may issue to a person a driver's licence with a term of more than one year and less than five years...." Would there be any discerning between individuals on that? Or could one 17-year-old getting his first licence be issued a one-year licence, and the next one down the road be given a four-year term? Can you discern between that?

Hon. L. Boone: The policy is set by government and applies to everyone, not individuals.

Section 25 approved on division.

section 26.

G. Wilson: Just a technical question. In the Motor Vehicle Act that I've got, which is consolidated, I see no reference to a

section 55(2.2)(

a) or (b). I see reference here to a

section 55(2.2)(

a) or (b), and I wonder if I'm missing something here, or if that's a misprint in the bill.

Hon. L. Boone: It's a little confusing. It's one we just enacted in the previous

section --

section 25.

[7:45]

The Chair: You see it, hon. member, under

section 25(a), subsection (2.2).

G. Wilson: Then

section 25 deals with

section 55 of the act, which is amended. It then goes on to say that

section 55.1(1) "is repealed and the following substituted...." So is the minister saying, then, that the whole of the

section which deals with the cancellation of drivers' licences is being repealed and that

section 55.1(1) will now read as it is here in consort with the previous

section 55? In other words, it further amends

section 55, if I understand that correctly.

Hon. L. Boone: It cross-references it.

G. Wilson: It sort of does a little bit more than just cross-reference it. But that's the intent of this, that

section 55(2.2) refers to this bill, not the Motor Vehicle Act? That's all we need to know. Okay.

B. Penner: A question to the minister with respect to

section 26. I note that

section 26,

section 55.1(1), allows the Insurance Corporation, at its own discretion, to decide whether or not to refund insurance fees. Does not the minister think that that places the Insurance Corporation in a conflict of interest, when obviously it would have an inherent interest in retaining any insurance fees for its own benefit?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a driver's licence fee, not an insurance fee.

Section 26 approved on division.

section 27.

D. Jarvis: I notice that under

section 27,

section 59 says: "Subject to

section 15.1...all fees collected under this act...." About ten months ago, ICBC entered into a contract with a collection agency to collect outstanding fees. So I have three little questions. I believe it was a two-year contract. It says here that ICBC will continue to collect the fees. But will you still enter into that existing contract? Or if you have that contract, are you going to cancel it, and how much would it cost to cancel, etc., etc.? Could you explain, please?

Hon. L. Boone: That contract will continue.

D. Jarvis: Does that mean...? No, that's fine.

B. Penner: With respect to the fees being collected by the Insurance Corporation and whether or not they are to be essentially kept and then turned over to the government for the consolidated revenue fund, is the minister considering providing to the Insurance Corporation any guidelines or regulations for them to follow to assist them in making that decision -- when to retain fees? And if you are considering such guidelines, could you perhaps share them with the House?

Hon. L. Boone:

Section 61 covers that.

Section 27 approved on division.

section 28.

G. Wilson: Just one question on

section 27, just before you go away from there. It suggests here that "subject to

section 15.1 of the Insurance Corporation Act...."

Section 15.1 of the Insurance Corporation Act essentially allows the Insurance Corporation to be advanced money from general revenue. What it means is that the government can.... It provides for an advance on a temporary basis by agreement. I wonder, given the fact that we're about to enter into considerable revenue from this new photo radar situation, whether or not that provides also for agreements to be made for general revenue to be advanced to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia in anticipation of revenues gained. Is that the power the minister is envisaging here?

[ Page 675 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I've been told that this does not refer to this section, but I will answer your question anyway, because I want to get this clarified. This allows ICBC to retain funds net of revenue. They will be collecting the funds on dollars that come in for services, and subject to an agreement with Treasury Board, they will be keeping back dollars to cover their costs.

The Chair: Hon. member, we are in fact on

section 28. We passed and dealt with

section 27. I'm sorry if you missed it, but the minister clarified the one question you had.

G. Wilson: I'll clarify it under

section 28. We can do that under one of the subsections -- albeit with some difficulty. Nevertheless we'll get there. It has to do essentially with documents and certification that are held by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I noticed that within the Insurance Corporation Act, which I'm assuming is still the regulatory act with respect to this provision, there is a provision.... Under the

section we were just talking about, with respect to

section 15, it says that for temporary purposes of the consolidated revenue fund, moneys can be advanced. Right? That's what it discusses here. My question to the minister is about whether or not it's envisaged, then, that the powers that are transferred to the corporation will provide, on the basis of records kept.... Given that they are going to now collect all the fines, especially from this great photo radar cash cow, are all of the records and documentation going to provide for the provision under

section 15 of the Insurance Corporation Act -- by which you've just empowered it to now get advances from the government.... Can that be considered essentially as part of the ongoing revenue for the corporation to which they could apply advances from the general revenue fund?

Hon. L. Boone: That will be covered in

section 61. So in trying to reduce the amount of time on this, can we deal with this under

section 61, hon. member?

G. Wilson: Just a couple of questions on this with respect to certificates as evidence. I notice that under 75(4) it says: "A photograph or microfilm of a document kept by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia or the superintendent shall be deemed to be the original of the document." This particular

section goes on with respect to the Document Disposal Act. Maybe I should just read it, then we'll know what it says. It says: "A document kept under subsection (6) by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia" -- and that deals with the fact that ICBC is responsible for keeping, and has ownership, custody and control of, the records that are prescribed for the purposes of this section, which is the matter of certification -- "or, notwithstanding the Document Disposal Act, under subsection (7) by the superintendent may be recorded and the document destroyed, and a record of the document certified to be true copy in accordance with this

section is evidence in all cases and for all purposes for which the document would have been admissible in evidence."

I raised this the last time. I have some serious concerns about ICBC having the extent of documentation that they are going to be allowed. The matter of the question of privacy is an important one, and the fact that the Insurance Corporation is given wide latitude now with respect to the information it can gather on the people it serves, which is the vast majority of British Columbians -- in fact, all who drive....

This now provides an opportunity, through electronic and photographed and microfilmed documentation, to have evidentiary material that is deemed to be the originals, even though they may in fact be in error. That's what it says here. Now, I have some serious concerns with this. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is a commercial Crown corporation. This is not vital statistics. This isn't the superintendent of motor vehicles, which is a perfunctory government authority.

This is a commercial Crown corporation that may well be in dispute with the people it sells insurance to if claims are made against them. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the value of that kind of evidentiary material, but I would have to think that it's pretty critical. I have some serious concerns.

Hon. L. Boone: This legislation shouldn't really come as a surprise because it deems stored copies of documents to be the originals. The legislation that has allowed this has been in place for decades. A provision allows ICBC and the motor vehicle branch to use efficient forms of storage like microfiche to keep costs down. The

section makes sure that the documents kept by MVB and ICBC are just evidence of the facts they refer to. It means that anyone who wants to dispute the record can challenge the importance of it.

Under the current Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, they have the same powers: "A document kept by the corporation under this act or the regulations may be recorded and the document destroyed, and a record of the document certified to be a true copy in accordance with this

section is evidence in all cases for all purposes for which the document would have been admissible in evidence." That's in the current Insurance Act. There's really nothing new, vindictive, secretive or subversive about this whole thing, hon. member. Try to reach above.... This is not James Bond here. We're not out to do a whole pile of things to you. We are just transferring the Motor Vehicle Act over to ICBC to administer.

G. Wilson: I'm a great fan of James Bond, actually.

Notwithstanding that, I'm not the least bit worried, because fortunately this government has frozen ICBC rates, so I can go after them with great vigour and not worry about some problem with insurance rates going up.

R. Neufeld: Only for a year.

G. Wilson: That's true, as the member reminds me.

I will simply state again for the record, because the minister and I would otherwise get into a philosophical debate, that while I understand what the Insurance Act says, what is new is the extent to which ICBC has been given powers to be able to gather, collect and store huge amounts of information that they did not have previously. That is new and that's the concern. It's not that that documentation or what the minister brought forward is not already there; we understand that. But what is not already there is the right of this corporation to gather and be the keeper of such an extensive record of personal information on B.C. drivers.

Hon. L. Boone: The motor vehicle branch kept that before; ICBC is doing it now.

B. Penner: I also have concerns, Madam Chair, about

section 28 and the changes it purports to make. I'm looking at the new

section 75(2). My concerns are similar in some ways to those of my fellow member from Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- the difference between ICBC and the motor vehicle branch is that ICBC does have a commercial interest. They're taking in proceeds from the people who they're serving and

[ Page 676 ]

possibly disciplining because of the sections of this act, giving the Insurance Corporation more authority and essentially putting them in a quasi-judicial position with respect to the customers they serve.

My concern with

section 75(2) is that it purports to give any document emanating from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia legal status -- that is, it's above reproach. It doesn't need to be proven who authorized or signed the document. That is a concern because other statutes of British Columbia, such as the Motor Vehicle Act, bootstrap or incorporate documents that can be used in prosecutions without any question into the court process. Once it's found that the documents have complied with any other requirement such as the one contained in

section 75(2), which has virtually no requirement here.... You can see that it's very loose; it doesn't require any proof of who signed or who authorized the document. Once it's met that test, then it's admissible in a quasi-criminal prosecution under the Motor Vehicle Act for a whole range of offences. I've already experienced that problem in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, where the judges say: "My hands are tied by the legislation. I'm forced to accept this document, because the legislation tells me that it's evidence, and I'm bound by the legislation."

[8:00]

My question to the minister, then, is: what can you do to allay our fears and the concerns expressed by some members of the judiciary, which bootstraps in these documents simply because there's a name appearing on a line that says to the world, effectively, that this document's above reproach?

Hon. L. Boone: ICBC has that ability now for insurance documents; the superintendent has the power now under the act. It's merely stating that we're moving these things to ICBC, so the same powers exist there. We have in fact used this type of document storage. And declaring a document to be evidence has gone on for many years now already.

B. Penner: It might give perhaps even members of the judiciary some more comfort if these documents were sworn to be factual or correct statements of whatever the fact may be. I notice that the previous

section that was passed just moments ago gives the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia the authority to authorize people, in writing, to take affidavits. It essentially expands the category of people who are authorized to take affidavits -- at least, to me that's what

section 60(2) appears to give.

So my question to the minister is: why wouldn't it be possible to require under 75(2) that any documents purporting to be records be sworn under oath?

Hon. L. Boone: There's just a small number -- just the officers of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. currently use these. They use them in court. They have never been questioned. I suppose one could swear. But it would probably cost more money and add more time to these things, and it's really not necessary.

B. Penner: Yes, I realize what the minister is saying: the number of people in ICBC who are currently authorized to take affidavits. However, the

section which was just passed, the previous section, includes

section 60(1). It says: "...every person authorized in writing by the corporation has power to take the affidavits required or authorized to be made under this Act." So it is open to ICBC to designate more people for the purposes of taking affidavits. I don't know why there would be any additional cost. Perhaps that would give some more certainty to or confidence in these documents, which will have legal impact on people facing prosecutions in the courts of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Boone: It would just add more red tape, hon. member. I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that.

B. Penner: Just to clarify that comment, my concern about the whole nature of this bill is that it's creating more red tape and adding to the confusion. It's confusing the responsibilities between the superintendent of motor vehicles and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is responsible for selling insurance. You're now essentially putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. I just wanted to clarify my comments for the record.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: One quick question. This past Thursday, I believe, the evening when we were debating this bill, the minister stated that ICBC would not hold medical records on file, that they would be transferred. Although they would put them through their system, they would be transferred to some central registry under the superintendent of motor vehicles. This

section tells me that ICBC in fact has the ability to retain and file those medical records. Which is correct: what the minister stated last Thursday, or today?

Hon. L. Boone: This

section says that each area can keep the records that they need to do their work. The superintendent is the one that will keep the medical records. It will not be done by ICBC.

R. Neufeld: Then the minister -- she said that in two ways -- is confirming that ICBC will not keep any medical records. They will all be transferred directly through ICBC to the superintendent.

Hon. L. Boone: Under the Motor Vehicle Act, they go to the superintendent.

G. Plant: I understand the answer that's been given to the last series of questions, but, I'll tell you, I have a concern with the way the

section is worded. I'm looking at

section 75(1) of the act. I'm comparing it to

section 60, which is the affidavit section. What's good about that

section is that it breaks out the affidavit-making power into three different places. When it speaks about the affidavit-making power of ICBC in

section 60(1), it's limited. It talks about the "purposes of carrying out the powers, duties and functions under this Act of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia," and only in that context does the corporation have the power to make affidavits. That makes sense to me. It says that you're not going to give the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia the power to make or swear affidavits for purposes unrelated to the duties that it has under the act. I think that's a careful way to give expression to that point.

Unfortunately, I don't think the same care is taken in

section 75. The way

section 75 works, any old document that is certified by an officer of ICBC as a true copy of or an extract from a record kept by either of them, is, among other things, evidence of the facts stated in it.

[ Page 677 ]

The hon. member for Peace River North has been given an assurance that medical records won't slip over into ICBC files, but of course, that's nonsense. ICBC has buildings filled with medical records. We're not supposed to think of those buildings in the context of this bill; we're only supposed to be thinking about motor vehicle licensing. But ICBC has thousands and thousands of file cabinets filled with medical records that it may want to get into evidence some day under this act, even though the hon. minister might say, and I might agree, that that's not a very fair thing to do.

The hon. minister will, I'm sure, be surprised to hear that ICBC, it has been said from time to time, has occasionally acted unfairly.

Interjection.

G. Plant: I'm sorry to say such a horrible thing. Someone looking at this section,

section 75(1), would not see any limit on the kinds of records which ICBC could use the certifying power for. I think that's a defect in the way the

section is worded.

Hon. L. Boone: If you remember correctly, I said the medical records under the Motor Vehicle Act. You're correct, ICBC does have records and they currently have records through their insurance area, but they will not be retaining the medical records that are obtained under the Motor Vehicle Act. Those would be returned to the superintendent. If you read further down, hon. members,

section 75(6) actually states that ICBC has "records pertinent to the corporation's powers, duties and functions under this Act or any other enactment." So they are restricted to retaining the records of those functions, those duties, that they are given within this act.

G. Plant: At first, I thought that was the answer, but isn't the statute -- whatever it is that creates and imposes ICBC on us -- another enactment within the meaning of

section 75(6)? Again, I understand what the minister says, that ICBC through this act is not supposed to have these kinds of records, but it is under other enactments. In fact, doesn't this make clear that it's responsible for keeping them? That's what

section 75(6) says: "The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is responsible for keeping, and has ownership, custody and control of the records that are prescribed for the purpose of this subsection by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and of other records pertinent to the corporation's powers, duties and functions under this Act or any other enactment." I listened with interest, wanting to have an answer, but I don't think I have an answer yet to the concern that I say arises from the way that this

section is worded.

Hon. L. Boone: Go back a little further, because then you can see that the records that are prescribed for the purpose of this subsection by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- that's the cabinet.... As I stated, this act enables ICBC to retain records for those functions that have been prescribed to them by cabinet.

G. Plant: I see those words, and I don't intend to drag out the debate on the point any longer. But I'm going to respectfully suggest that when you read all of

section 28,

section 75(6), you will find that the responsibility for recordkeeping, which ICBC has under that section, extends beyond simply records that are prescribed for the purpose of this subsection by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It includes other records, and it is those other records which the member for Peace River North was thinking about earlier when he asked his question. I am grateful to the minister for her attempt to assist me, but I can tell you that looking at this in as fair and as careful a way as I can, without any interest in making her life difficult, the protection that I think ought to be there just isn't there.

Section 28 approved on division.

section 29.

The Chair: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. I welcome you into the chair and note for the record again that all these sections are passing on division.

[8:15]

With respect to

section 29, the minister has told us that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will not have the power to suspend as a result of indebtedness to the corporation. Let me read what the Motor Vehicle Act,

section 83(3), says currently: "Where a suspension occurs under subsection (1)...." The suspension deals with a person who in the preceding year hasn't paid all their insurance premiums or who has obtained automobile insurance as defined in the Insurance Act -- the motor vehicle liability policy. The

section says:

"Where a suspension occurs under subsection (1) due to a person being indebted to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for reimbursement of money paid in respect of a claim, the suspension remains in force until (

a) the superintendent is satisfied that the amount of indebtedness has been fully paid to the corporation, or (

b) the corporation has, in relation to the debt owed to it for the reimbursement of money paid in respect of a claim, notified the superintendent under

section 93(13) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act."

We could go into that section.... Basically, what that simply says is that it's either been ruled on or the Insurance Corporation has written it off.

Now what we've changed that to is:

"If a suspension occurs under subsection (1) due to a person being indebted to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for reimbursement of the money paid in respect of a claim, the suspension remains in force until the amount of the indebtedness has been fully paid to the corporation."

The superintendent is no longer in the picture. It doesn't have to be to the superintendent's satisfaction. It presumably is to the corporation's satisfaction, and the corporation, remember, has now been granted the right and authority to grant these permits and certificates.

Now, if we look under

section 29,

section 83(7), in this bill, it says:

"If the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia considers that any permit, consent or certificate that the corporation has the power under this Act to issue should be cancelled or suspended, the corporation, without a hearing, may (

a) suspend, for a period that the corporation considers proper, or (

b) cancel the permit, consent or certificate."

The original act says under subsection (7): "Where the superintendent considers that a permit, consent or certificate issued by him under this Act should be cancelled or suspended, he may, without a hearing, suspend, for a period...."

I take the minister back to her comments that this is not transferring additional powers to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, to give them authority to cancel or to prohibit or to suspend permits or certificates. Clearly, this provides exactly those powers, because it removes any reference to the superintendent with respect to this and places, the corporation's right to suspend directly in the power of the

[ Page 678 ]

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, without even a hearing on the matter. Clearly, this is a flagrant conflict of interest. Surely, on this issue -- and it's one, I would say, that we will take to division -- this government cannot possibly believe this is in the public interest.

Hon. L. Boone: Why do I have to keep telling you? I don't know why you are so surprised that the powers that the superintendent has are given over to ICBC. That's exactly what we said would happen.

To be indebted -- as I said to the member -- for reimbursement of money paid in respect to a claim, they must get a judgment. Otherwise it is not yet a debt but simply a claim of money. So in order to get a judgment, I would say that most of the motoring public would be quite happy to make sure that people were, in fact, paying their fines and their insurance. The judgment is against them if that's the case. I'm not quite sure what the point of the member is. Do you feel that people should not be forced to pay their money and that they should continue to drive even if they have a judgment against them?

Even if in the previous legislation the superintendent could stop them from driving, would you think that the government shouldn't do that -- that they shouldn't withdraw or withhold those licences? I'm not quite sure. Rather than getting into an argument here, why don't we just go to division, hon. member? Because we're going to go to division on this anyway.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, we'll get there. But in the meantime, for any who may be interested -- and that may be the driving public -- they ought to know what this government is doing. They ought to know what's afoot, so to speak. What we are looking at here is powers that have previously been granted to the superintendent, who has no commercial interest whatsoever in the right of a driver to get insurance, permits or certification.

That superintendent has been, presumably, an independent arbiter, and there have been rights of appeal -- in fact, rights of private hearing -- where you can go before that superintendent and seek the superintendent's authority to continue, either under probation or under some kind of revised permit, to drive. That's what exists right now.

What this is doing is providing a commercial Crown corporation that has a commercial interest in the driver, pure and simple.... It empowers that corporation, and gives them the powers they consider necessary, to suspend for a period the corporation considers.... This corporate entity has a corporate interest in my driving -- because they make whatever moneys they make off it, whether it's profit or not -- and what they decide to be the proper permit or consent....

This is bad, bad public policy. You don't give to a commercial Crown corporation the authority and rights that are currently vested in a non-interested third party called the superintendent. It was bad enough that the superintendent had the latitude of some powers with respect to the appeal process, because the appeal process was something that was highly suspect in some instances. But to give this to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is really bad public policy, and I think that the public ought to know that their interest is not well served by it.

Hon. L. Boone: This is not a commercial entity; this is a Crown corporation. This is a Crown corporation with the responsibility of keeping track of and protecting the public interest. They do not have the power to withhold a licence unless they have a judgment. I don't think there is any responsible vehicle owner out there with a licence who would object to having their insurance premiums controlled and kept down by the fact that ICBC is going to try to get money from somebody who owes them money, as they were allowed to do in the past under the superintendent.

Are you suggesting that ICBC should not have this power which the superintendent had -- that people continue to obtain licences even if they've got a judgment against them? Are you suggesting that that is what you would like to see happen to the motoring public?

I think that ICBC, as a Crown corporation, has the responsibility to try to keep our premiums down, to try to make sure that our insurance premiums are as low as possible. That is a responsibility that they have, and that is why they are not a commercial entity. Would you please get your head around this? It is not a commercial entity; it is a Crown corporation. That is where the difference is between what you think ICBC's mandate is and what their mandate actually is. It's to provide insurance to the motoring public at as low rates as possible and as responsibly as they can. They are not out to make money, and if they save money, they are saving money for you and me.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think what the Crown corporation is out to do is what many of them do -- that is, to protect their turf. The analogy I use with this

section is that it is like allowing WCB to have power over the granting and retracting of business licences -- i.e., if you don't pay all the amounts that you owe to the Workers Compensation Board, and you're a small business, and you're in a dispute, and you get a judgment, instead of your working to pay it off, they can come out and yank your business licence. That's one analogy. The other would be folding the Utilities Commission in with B.C. Hydro and having them both in the same Crown corporation. All of those are Crown agencies. But wouldn't it be nice if it were B.C. Hydro that had control over the public Utilities Commission? Holy smokes! Would we ever be taken to the cleaners!

So I guess maybe this is a different perspective from what it's like to be in government. What I see is that when you're standing on that side of the House, you seem to have this blind faith that the Crown corporations, the agencies, the ministries of government work like a charm -- that everything's fine, that nothing ever goes off the rails, that there aren't any problems. I seem to remember that member being on this side of the House ranting and raving, with a good deal of skepticism -- as she should -- about various ministries and Crown corporations, and the way government ran things.

What I'm disappointed with is that the minute the minister crossed the floor and sat on that side of the House, she suddenly has this blind faith in Crown corporations and agencies. I suggest that that minister spend some time in her constituency office answering the phones from people that have problems with ICBC, WCB and B.C. Hydro. If she doesn't get any calls, I'll be glad to forward mine to her.

B. Penner: The minister seems to be falling back on a great deal of rhetoric and hyperbole, perhaps because she doesn't want to answer the question. In her attempt to deflect the issue, she questions whether or not ICBC can be considered a Crown corporation that's partaking in a commercial activity. Let me get this straight: they offer a service, and they charge a price. That sounds like commerce. Whether or not it's owned by the provincial government doesn't determine definitely whether it's engaging in commerce. It's offering a service to the public, and it's charging a price. That's commerce.

Now, given that, Your Honour.... That's my courtroom background. Hon. Chair, it's going to take some getting used to the new vernacular.

[ Page 679 ]

It's true that this government is guilty of bad judgment, and I think the previous comment about blind faith is apt. Blind faith in anything is dangerous. I think it's dangerous for us to make the leap of faith that anything ICBC, or any comfortable bureaucrat, does is above reproach. Everything should be open to scrutiny.

What concerns me is

section 29. For instance,

section 29,

section 83(7), indicates that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. can suspend or cancel a licence whenever it thinks that it should. It doesn't say anything about a court order. It says that when ICBC "considers that any permit, consent or certificate that the corporation has the power under this Act to issue should be cancelled or suspended, the corporation, without a hearing" -- without a hearing, no due process -- "may (

a) suspend...or (

b) cancel the permit, consent or certificate." I think that's just far too sweeping a power to be given to a commercial corporation, whether it be a Crown corporation or not. I would ask the minister to clarify her remarks.

Hon. L. Boone: I've already done that. The Crown corporation would only be able to withhold a licence if there was an indebtedness to the corporation, and that indebtedness would only come about through a judgment or if, in fact, the person acknowledged the debt. Other than that, you couldn't claim to be indebted to the Crown corporation.

G. Janssen: Hon. Chair, it's with some delight that I've listened to the comments from the opposition members on this section. They talk about suspensions and court orders and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia operating without an order or due process. Well, I ask the hon. members if they have ever thought about not paying their insurance, to see what happens, or not paying some of the fines that are levied under the act presently, to see whether they will continue to drive....

B. Penner: I rise on a point of order. I believe the member opposite is out of order, because the question is not directed through you to the minister.

[8:30]

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Member for Alberni, please continue.

G. Janssen: Hon. Chair, I again preface my remarks by recognizing you first. I recognize that the new member may not have been in this chamber as long as some of us. However, it is already recognized that fully 85 percent of the drivers in British Columbia have no record with the Insurance Corporation or with the superintendent of motor vehicles. Only 15 percent of us -- and I preface that remark by saying "us" -- have a record and in fact have violations. None of those violations that I and perhaps other members in this House have received were ever appreciated, if I could use that term.

However, nothing has changed with Bill 9. Bill 9 simply recognizes what has been practice up to this point in time. The dollars that will accrue through Bill 9 have been accruing for some time through the other acts that we are attempting to amend by Bill 9.

We have spent some time on

section 29 and subsections 83(7) and 83(7.1). It's very clear where we are moving with this part of the act. I ask the Chair to put the question.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Wilson: I would like to clarify one point for the record. The minister said the Insurance Corporation can only act if it has a judgment. That simply is not borne out by anything in this act. There's nothing in this act that makes any reference whatsoever to a judgment. In fact, what the language of the act says.... Let me read it. It says:

"If the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia considers that any permit, consent or certificate that the corporation has the power under this Act to issue should be cancelled or suspended, the corporation, without a hearing, may (

a) suspend, for a period that the corporation considers proper, or (

b) cancel the permit, consent or certificate."

There's nothing whatsoever that says they're bound by legal judgment.

Furthermore, even if an individual had a judgment against them and indebtedness was determined, if an appeal was underway, this act will allow the corporation to remove -- to eliminate -- that person's right to continue to drive. For commercial drivers or operators, this is a power that simply should not be vested in the hands of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Previously there was an appeal process through the superintendent; that's gone. The Insurance Corporation, the very agency that's going to insure you, is now going to be the one that's going to deny you the right to your licence and to carry on.

As I pointed out, it is possible for you to be in dispute with the Insurance Corporation and still hold a valid driver's licence today. With this act it won't be, because they will remove your valid driver's licence if you're in dispute with a Crown corporation that is conducting commerce and has a financial interest in you. That is bad public policy.

Section 29 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 35

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Farnworth

Conroy

McGregor

Janssen

Hartley

Orcherton

Kasper

Walsh

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Bowbrick

Stevenson

Pullinger

Calendino

Waddell

Kwan

Ramsey

Streifel

Hammell

Boone

Cashore

Zirnhelt

Evans

NAYS -- 31

Dalton

Gingell

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Plant

Stephens

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

van Dongen

Thorpe

Penner

Weisgerber

G. Wilson

J. Wilson

Reitsma

Hansen

C. Clark

Hawkins

Symons

Abbott

Jarvis

Weisbeck

Chong

Coleman

Nettleton

Masi

Barisoff

Neufeld

Sections 30 to 82 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 680 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[8:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 35

Evans

Zirnhelt

Cashore

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Ramsey

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Pullinger

Stevenson

Bowbrick

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Orcherton

Hartley

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Farnworth

Conroy

McGregor

Janssen

NAYS -- 31

G. Wilson

Weisgerber

Penner

Thorpe

van Dongen

Whittred

Nebbeling

Anderson

Coell

Stephens

Plant

Hurd

Farrell-Collins

Reid

Gingell

Dalton

J. Wilson

Reitsma

Hansen

C. Clark

Hawkins

Symons

Abbott

Jarvis

Weisbeck

Chong

Coleman

Nettleton

Masi

Barisoff

Neufeld

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1996, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 10.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1996

The House in committee on Bill 10; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

B. Barisoff: Could the hon. minister please give us an explanation of the irreparable vehicles and salvage vehicles -- just a complete explanation on where this is going with these kinds of things?

Hon. L. Boone: Before I get started I'd like to advise the House that this gentleman behind me that you can't see, who isn't really here, is Norm Daley, who is a senior policy analyst with the ministry.

This

section enables the recording of vehicle status in the registration system, which in turn requires that they pass a safety inspection test before they can be relicensed or prevents them from being relicensed at all if they're irreparable.

B. Barisoff: If they're not relicensable, what does ICBC do with the salvage vehicles or irreparable vehicles?

Hon. L. Boone: They're sold for parts.

B. Barisoff: I'm led to believe that these vehicles are sold through public auction. Is that right?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: I'm also led to believe that at these public auctions, anybody is allowed to bid on the vehicles, which brings us to the point of an irreparable vehicle being sold outside the province, and the serial number.... They're getting exorbitant prices for these vehicles, and basically all they're buying is the serial number to take outside the province. Are vehicles allowed to be sold to buyers from outside B.C.?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Are we not, then, leading ourselves down the same path? I don't think this

section goes far enough, because ICBC is putting themselves in a position of condoning what takes place, in allowing vehicles to be sold outside the province. The whole concept of where these VIN numbers are ending up, whether it be in eastern Canada.... It seems to me that we're leading ourselves down a path of condoning what's taking place out in the market, where cars are being stolen on a regular basis.

Hon. L. Boone: You're right, hon. member. We're trying to make the system as good as we can. This legislation is part of a strategy agreed to by all provinces and territories, most of which are now introducing similar legislation to make it harder to launder wrecked vehicles. Provinces all have access to an interprovincial database, which sends a do-not-register message for vehicles which have been declared irreparable in another province. We are working hard to make sure that vehicles aren't sold and then put back on the road in other provinces.

B. Barisoff: I think that's probably.... That becomes my big concern about this whole section: the fact that we haven't gone far enough in tightening it up so that this can't be done. With the way this is presently written, I don't think there's any real accountability in what takes place. It seems to me that ICBC is taking the highest bidder, the highest market value, which is still going along the same lines as condoning what's taking place out there with motor theft. I think this whole

section should be tightened up somewhat severely if we're going to try to curtail this area. There seems to be no accountability in subsection 2(b), where you could transfer this from one person to another person to another person, and the accountability doesn't really come back to anybody.

Hon. L. Boone: In fact, it does. The legislation requires salvage vehicles to be transferred into the name of the purchaser each time they change hands. The registration is permanently branded, to indicate that the vehicle is salvage or has been rebuilt from salvage. This information is readily available to purchasers, but they must assume some responsibility by demanding to see the registration papers before they buy a vehicle. So we are doing what we can. That's not to say we can't improve the legislation later on. If the member wishes to come to me in the future with improvements, I would be happy to listen to him and work to making this legislation even better.

[ Page 681 ]

B. Barisoff: I appreciate the fact that the hon. minister would entertain a tightening up of this section, because there's no doubt that a lot of brokering is going on. As you transfer it through more and more people, the brokering seems to go farther and farther away. There seems to be no real accountability anywhere in the whole system to put into effect what takes place out there.

[9:00]

R. Neufeld: Just a quick question about salvage vehicles. Subsection (

a) says: "... while unsafe to drive has its title transferred." Would that tell me, then, that a vehicle in British Columbia...? I'll use the example of a 1930 Chev that's totally unsafe to drive but someone wants to buy it. Are they able to have the title transferred from the previous owner to themselves within the province?

Hon. L. Boone: As long as they report what state it's in.

R. Neufeld: Can that same person buy a vehicle in the same state in Alberta and bring it to British Columbia and have it transferred to their name stating what's wrong with it?

Hon. L. Boone: It would have to be inspected before it was licensed, if it was deemed to be insurable.

R. Neufeld: I'm not talking about licensing; I'm talking about transferring ownership. When I first asked the minister what subsection (a) -- that a salvaged vehicle while unsafe to drive has its title transferred -- meant, if I remember, the minister said that if you buy a vehicle like I described within the province, you can transfer it from your name to my name. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: You could transfer it as long as it was known what state it was in, yes.

R. Neufeld: Why, then, would a vehicle -- you would do the same thing, you would inform ICBC of what state it was in -- brought from Alberta to British Columbia not be able to be transferred in the same manner as you allow it to happen within the province?

Hon. L. Boone: Alberta doesn't brand their vehicle identification numbers; therefore it would have to be inspected.

R. Neufeld: I was surprised by the answer. They don't have what numbers?

Hon. L. Boone: They don't brand their vehicle identification numbers.

R. Neufeld: Alberta doesn't brand their vehicle identification numbers? I don't quite understand the term. I think a serial number on a car in Alberta is exactly the same as a serial number on the car in British Columbia. They do go all across Canada. I didn't realize that there was such a thing as a brand on a serial number.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, the legislation requires salvage vehicles to be transferred to the name of the purchaser. The registration is permanently branded to indicate that the vehicle is salvage or has been rebuilt from salvage. We do that here in British Columbia; they do not do that in Alberta.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to belabour this too much longer, but I do have some difficulty with being able to buy a vehicle in British Columbia that you can't drive on the road. It will not pass an inspection, yet you can transfer it from the previous owner into your own name, registration only, and not buy a licence. You cannot do that from the province of Alberta to British Columbia or Saskatchewan or Manitoba. I don't care; you go all across Canada. It's absolutely no different.

It's got nothing to do with branding or any such thing. It is that people go across the country and buy antique vehicles and want to bring them to British Columbia. It could take them eight or ten years to rebuild that vehicle. They want to have that vehicle in their own name. They have no intention of driving something with absolutely no wheels or tires on it. If you can transfer a car in British Columbia, or take exactly the same vehicle to Alberta and not do it, I feel that's unfair. I see you have it in legislation here, and I just wonder why you wouldn't allow that. Nobody intends to drive something with no wheels on it.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, we're trying to protect our public from having unsafe vehicles on our roads. Alberta does not inspect their vehicles, does not stop the public from selling vehicles that are not salvageable. We have taken a stand that says we will not pass on, or allow to be put on the road, or license a vehicle that is not salvageable. If you are in British Columbia, it would have to be inspected prior to determining whether it was salvageable or not salvageable. The same thing would happen if you brought a vehicle from Alberta. You would have to go through the inspection.

If it was deemed to be salvageable or not salvageable, then that would be the status of that vehicle, and that would be determined by the licensing, and as a result of that, then you could transfer ownership.

R. Neufeld: I'm not talking about licensing something; I'm talking about transferring the ownership of that car -- or whatever it is, that piece of equipment -- from one person's name into another, as I stated in the case of an antique vehicle. Now you can do that within the province of British Columbia. I'm not talking about licensing it and putting it on the road, hon. minister. I'm talking about getting the registration into your name.

I'm asking the minister why we don't allow law-abiding citizens to travel across Canada from British Columbia, buy an antique vehicle in some other part of Canada, or the U.S.A., bring it into British Columbia and be able to transfer and register that vehicle in their name with no licence, no desire to drive it, until it passes an inspection?

I guess the second part of the question is that there must be other provinces in Canada that have similar rules to British Columbia and that do inspections. Are you saying, then, that we would allow people to go to those provinces and buy vehicles and bring them, but just not Alberta?

Hon. L. Boone: I understood the transfer. I stated to you quite clearly, and I read out to you, that you have to have the status of that vehicle before you can transfer that vehicle into somebody else's name. We are currently working on developing standards so that we can recognize the brands so that each province's deeming of a vehicle as salvageable or not salvageable would be recognized in every province. I think this is a relatively new concept, this whole idea. I know that within the past couple of years we saw it become a problem here in British Columbia: people selling vehicles and having vehicles on the road that should never have been repaired.

[ Page 682 ]

So we are breaking new ground in some areas, and the other provinces are looking to us, I think, and will be following some of our leadership. In some cases they are working on their own programs right now. But the full intent is to make sure that no vehicle gets on our roads unless it has been inspected, meets the standards we require and is deemed either salvageable or not salvageable. If the ownership is transferred, we must know what status that vehicle has when that ownership is transferred.

R. Neufeld: I fully support what the minister says. I'm not here to advocate that we should have unsafe vehicles in British Columbia. In fact, I would go so far as to say to the minister that there are vehicles on the road at the present time in British Columbia that should not be on the road, and that maybe there should be some type of mandatory test for older vehicles to make sure they are roadworthy. But what I am asking the minister to do....

The minister may not have had experience with this, but I want to point out to her that a constituent of mine purchased a vehicle in Saskatchewan with the full intent -- I'm talking about antique vehicles; it's not a 1969 Corvette, it's a 1930s Chev -- of bringing it to B.C., because they live in Fort St. John, and going through the process of restoring that vehicle to a roadworthy, driveable condition. Upon doing that, they would go in to get their licence and have to go through an inspection. They fully understand and know that.

But right now they are prohibited from transferring that vehicle from its registered owner in Saskatchewan into their name and to where they reside in British Columbia. The process of rebuilding this car, which isn't even registered in their name, could be anywhere from five to ten years. That's the difficulty they have. I'm just wondering if there is any way that the ministry can look at these types of things in some fashion other than just saying no.

In British Columbia we can do it within our borders. If you happen to buy one in B.C., you can transfer it just like that. If that person went from Fort St. John to Prince George and bought a car of exactly the same nature and condition, if that was possible, it would be re-registered in the new owner's name. It wouldn't be licensed, because it's not safe for the road. That's what I'm asking. I'm not asking for something abnormal here; I'm just asking so that people who buy things can have the comfort of at least having it in their name, because who knows what's going to transpire ten years from now with governments and ownership requirements.

Hon. L. Boone: They could bring that vehicle here. They would have to have it inspected, and then it would be deemed not salvageable, at which point they could then do the restoration. At the time they want to put it on the road, they could have it re-inspected, and if it is deemed salvageable, they could do that.

But I understand what the member is saying. People have phoned my office complaining that they haven't been able to get.... They brought a vehicle from Alberta. Those of us close to the border sometimes have those things happen more often. But the point is that if you make an exception there, then they will be bringing things from Alberta. We have no idea what standards they could be bringing; they could be bringing wrecked vehicles that have been through accidents and all kinds of different things. So it's really important that we make sure that vehicles are inspected and that they meet our standards.

R. Neufeld: Let's leave Alberta out of it. You people across the way have something against Alberta, so we'll talk about Saskatchewan, because that's really where this car came from. Your cousins are governing Saskatchewan, so you should feel more comfortable with that.

If they brought that car from Saskatchewan to British Columbia, they would go then -- do I understand the minister correctly? -- to a mechanic that's authorized. That person would write out a form that says that this car is salvageable. Then you could go to the ICBC office and transfer that vehicle from the previous owner's name into yours without getting a licence. When you are finished rebuilding it, you take it back, have another inspection done to say that it is now roadworthy and then you can buy the licence. Is that the procedure that I have to tell people to go through?

Hon. L. Boone: If this person just wants to bring this vehicle from Manitoba.... They can restore it to their heart's content without registering it; if they want to register it, then they must have it inspected. They don't need to have it registered unless they are going to try to put it on the road.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to jump in, but I'm going to have a go at it and see if I can get an answer on this.

Every time government passes legislation -- not every time, but often -- there are unintended consequences. What the member for Peace River North is bringing up is perhaps one of those unintended consequences. Is there not a way that the legislation could be drafted to stop that from impacting negatively on people?

[9:15]

Some of these antique cars -- and I grew up on the Prairies and I know they are just sitting out there in the middle of the bush and have been for fifty years in many cases -- are not really what you would describe as salvageable to a general mechanic. It's not going to take three hours or a week in a body shop to fix this thing; it's going to take, as the member said, ten years of stripping down each bolt, each nut, each piece and starting over again. It's a huge project.

The minister said at one point that you could bring the vehicle into British Columbia and have it inspected and declared unsalvageable. At the end of the restoration period, you could then go back and have it inspected again and have it declared salvageable. Is that the process? Or is it the case that the individual has to bring the vehicle to British Columbia and not have it registered in his name at all because it is not salvageable, and in order to avoid getting that brand on the vehicle identification number -- to avoid having it branded as unsalvageable forever -- not actually transfer the vehicle into his own name?

If you were to do that, then at the end of the ten years, what's to stop the friend from Alberta or Saskatchewan -- or whoever this person is you bought the vehicle from -- from coming and claiming their vehicle and saying: "Thanks for the nice body job. I'm really glad to have it back"? People have invested thousands of dollars and probably tens of thousands of hours in that vehicle.

I think what the member is trying to get at is: what process do they go through to avoid the unintended consequences that will necessarily arise from the way this bill is drafted? I think it's a straightforward question. If there isn't anything particular that is done under the bill as it stands now, should the member then be recommending amendments to change that? Or is there a separate classification that the

[ Page 683 ]

government could bring in under this bill -- much like is done for licensing when plates are collectible plates and special provisions are provided? Certainly if you can do it for licensing, you can do it for the registration process for these restoration vehicles.

Hon. L. Boone: This is rather complicated. The members are getting a little confused about ownership and registering. It's not necessary to register in order to own. You have a bill of sale that proves ownership. If you want to bring a vehicle in, you don't have to register it. You can restore it. You can then have it inspected and put it on the road. There is no requirement for you to have that vehicle inspected at all until such time as you want to put it on the road. The ownership is dealt with strictly by a bill of sale. It's not necessary to be registered.

I must correct myself. If you have it inspected and it fails, then you cannot register it. I'm sorry, hon. member, I was in error on that. You cannot register it, but there's no need for you to register a vehicle until such time as you want to get it on the road.

R. Neufeld: I really don't want to take a lot of time, but this is the difficulty that one comes to when you have a minister or representatives of your ministry that are so rigid that they don't want to accommodate the public -- the people we are here to serve, the people that elected us to try to make government responsive to their needs in a safe manner.

I can tell that you no one I know of in the antique car business is here to hose the government, drive unsafe vehicles down the road or anything like that. I wonder if the minister would be comfortable spending $50,000 on a vehicle that's not even registered in her name, a vehicle registered to Frank whatever-his-name from Manitoba. Would you be willing to do that? Would you be willing to put your $50,000 into that car, truck, or whatever the vehicle happens to be, knowing that it's really not in your name? Registering a vehicle does not license it, does not put it on the road.

Registering that vehicle puts it in your name. I know the process for rebuilt vehicles. It's marked very plainly on the registration: rebuilt.

They talk about how good computers are. I can't for the life of me see why we can't have some system where that person registers that vehicle and you touch one of those little keys -- one of those little buttons on the keyboard -- and put some code on that registration that says that this vehicle cannot be licensed until it is inspected. It's that simple. It's a way of responding to people that elect us to come to this House to represent them and try and make government work for them instead of creating so much red tape and making people so mad that they don't even want to live in British Columbia anymore.

The minister spoke earlier about red tape. Here's a process where you could become friends with a lot of people. I don't know that they'll all vote for you, but you never know; some of them may. There are all kinds of people in the antique car business who probably cross all political lines and who would be very happy if you would recognize that they have some special need to want to have the vehicle in their name before they invest those kinds of dollars to fix it up. That's all people are asking. It's pretty simple, pretty straightforward.

Nobody is trying to break the law, and nobody is trying to make you really do something that you don't want to do -- other than serve the public, which we are elected to do.

Hon. L. Boone: I wish I had $50,000 that I could really easily put into a vehicle -- I am sure many of the members here would as well -- but I don't and I probably never will.

As I said, it's clear your concern seems to be mixing up ownership with registration. In order to register, you have to prove ownership. If you've got ownership, not registering it does not make you any less of an owner, hon. member. Your ownership is there with your bill of sale. You can register it and, at that time, you can have it inspected. It's there for the protection of the motoring public. I know that a year or so ago there was a tremendous outcry from people across this province who were concerned about vehicles coming into the province, and this is dealing with that.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister would at least acknowledge -- not for us but for British Columbians -- that this legislation was drafted without any thought to the issue now raised: the bringing in, the importing, of antique vehicles for reconstruction. This legislation simply, legitimately and genuinely overlooked an area of undertaking that has now been raised in the Legislature. Would the minister acknowledge that?

Hon. L. Boone: It was a concern. It was looked at by individuals who were reviewing the whole issue, and it was felt that the value of the greater public was served through this and that, in fact, you could still maintain ownership. We were not dealing with ownership of a vehicle. But I'll acknowledge that the members have a concern, and I will undertake to work with you to see what we can do to resolve some of your concerns through whatever means we can.

J. Weisgerber: If by that the minister suggests that she'll stand this

section down and bring in an amendment, certainly we'll move on. If that's not the case, I'd make this observation. First of all, you might want to have your senior staff consider the competency of the people who helped you develop this

section of the bill, because if they considered it, and this was the best they were able to come up with, that's another whole area of concern.

In one of my previous lives, as an automobile dealer in Dawson Creek, I was in a position of spending a lot of my time registering ownership changes -- not licensing the vehicles but changing ownership registration for the purposes of the automobile business. I can tell the minister that the longer you wait to change ownership registration in British Columbia, the more difficult it is. If you do it the day after you buy a vehicle, all the documents are there -- the addresses are known, the details are known.

If you wait a month, the chances of having grief are increased; if you wait a year, they are dramatically increased. I can tell the members of this House that if you wait ten years with a bill of sale and then go down to try and register ownership of the vehicle, you are inviting an enormous amount of grief.

I'll take you back to the example the members have talked about, where you might spend substantial amounts of money -- upwards of $50,000 is not unusual in the antique car business -- and then find that you're virtually unable to register the thing because your documents are so old. Your documents may have been misplaced; there's no record of ownership in the computers; there may have been a fire; there may have been a theft. Any number of things can happen to that registration certificate.

The sensible thing to do is to transfer ownership and have it registered with the motor vehicle branch and have an electronic record of your ownership. I'm not trying to make grief for anybody. I don't think anyone here is. There's a loophole. There's an area in this

[ Page 684 ]

legislation that's not been well thought through, and I would encourage the minister in a very genuine way to stand this

section down, think about an amendment, and we'll get on with the rest of the bill.

Hon. L. Boone: I know the member would very much like me to stand this down, but no, we won't be standing this down. We will be proceeding with this. If there are some problems, I'll work with you around them.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Chair, could the minister then guarantee the motoring public of British Columbia that any vehicle that is considered by ICBC to be irreparable won't show up on the highways of British Columbia again?

[9:30]

Hon. L. Boone: Not as a whole vehicle. The vehicle identification number would be branded, and it would not be sold as a vehicle that could be on the road, but parts of that vehicle may turn up. A fender may show up somewhere or other but certainly not the whole vehicle.

B. Barisoff: I don't mind. I think that's great. I think that's what an irreparable vehicle is.

That leads back to my earlier comments, that some of these so-called irreparable vehicles get taken outside the province and somehow, by whatever means, arrive back here in British Columbia as a different vehicle or a new vehicle or whatever. My concern is that we make sure that we tighten up this area to make certain that a vehicle deemed irreparable by ICBC never shows up on the roads of British Columbia again. I think more has to be done with this

section if we're going to be able to do that.

Hon. L. Boone: A vehicle with a branded VIN -- vehicle identification number -- will not be able to be registered in British Columbia.

R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, my concern goes back to the antique issue as well, and that is the status of sale upon registration. My concern is that a handwritten bill of sale becomes an unacceptable document over a period of five or ten years, and at the point in time the person has finished $50,000 worth of work restoring the vehicle and arranges to have it proudly inspected by the motor vehicle branch, they say: "You know, your bill of sale for $200 for the frame of that vehicle ten years ago isn't acceptable to us.

Go get an appraisal on your $50,000 car so we can tax you on the transfer of title." I'd like to know how the minister is going to protect the person that buys a salvaged vehicle that they're going to restore from having that taxation put on them upon registration when somebody decides that the value is higher than the bill of sale or that the bill of sale isn't acceptable.

Hon. L. Boone: That's not in this bill.

R. Coleman: I'm sorry; I didn't hear that answer.

The Chair: The minister said that it's not part of the bill; it's not in the bill.

R. Coleman: Well, we were answering questions a minute ago with regard to these salvageable vehicles. Maybe the minister could advise me what education program she's going to undertake to advise people how to handle the salvage of a vehicle they're going to buy for restoration.

Hon. L. Boone: There are pamphlets around, and there is information around. The hon. member was asking me about taxation and protection of taxation later on. That has nothing to do with this bill. This has to do with vehicle identification numbers and nothing to do with taxation.

R. Coleman: In all fairness, I believe it's got everything to do with taxation if somebody ends up paying tax on something they didn't buy at a specific price because somebody won't accept their formatted bill of sale. Perhaps, then, the minister might tell me if they are prepared to establish a standard format bill of sale that can be registered with the motor vehicle branch, so that people's purchase of the vehicle can at least be registered if the registration can't be registered.

Hon. L. Boone: Acceptable bills of sale are established in ICBC's policy manual; that's public information.

R. Coleman: Is the minister prepared to set up a registration format for bills of sale so that people won't have difficulty in the future? If I buy a vehicle for restoration, can I register my bill of sale? Is it possible to set up a format for the registration of the bill of sale, for protection of the sale price of the vehicle at the time of purchase?

Hon. L. Boone: Not at this time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to come back to this briefly, because I think it could be solved fairly easily.

I think the concern raised by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is a valid one. If one purchases a vehicle that's been sitting, as I said earlier, in the field for 40 or 50 years, you may pay, as he said, $200 for it, and the bill of sale would reflect $200. My understanding of the way the system works in British Columbia, although it has been some time since I purchased a vehicle, is that at the time you register it you pay tax on the value of the vehicle.

I would think that if you rolled up in a vehicle that was 50 or 60 years old that had been completely restored and was now virtually in mint condition after some eight or ten years of work, with a bill of sale that said $200, you would probably get a funny look from the person that you are registering the vehicle with. Certainly you pay taxes on the various parts that you put into it; you pay taxes on the labour that you put into it; and now you're going to pay an even greater amount of sales tax on the vehicle itself after having already paid it on the parts and the labour that went into it.

It would seem to me that you'd solve a whole lot of those problems, as well as the problems that are inherent when people feel uncomfortable owning a vehicle that's not registered in their name, by having a classification much like the government does for insurance purposes -- that of a collectible. So one could bring that vehicle in with the $200 bill of sale, walk up to the ICBC office and say: "Look, I want to register this vehicle. Here's my bill of sale. It's a rusted-out hulk right now, but I'm going to work at fixing it." Then you can register it in your name. It's classified as a collectible.

It can't be allowed on the road for licensing until such time as it's inspected and insurance is given, perhaps eight to ten years down the road. Wouldn't it be easy, electronically, just to put that classification in, perhaps even by regulation, and solve all of the problems that are being raised by the members on this side of the House?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. member, you've raised a whole pile of things, none of which is in this

section of the bill, including taxation.

[ Page 685 ]

The Chair: We're on

section 1, and it's about irreparable and salvage vehicles.

G. Farrell-Collins: Right. I know exactly what it is, hon. Chair. I thank you for drawing our attention back to it.

The problem is that the way the system is being set up by this section, by this bill, it may well have an impact on taxation. The issue isn't the taxation. The issue is the way this

section sets it up and the definition of salvageable and unsalvageable, and the classification that is then branded onto the VIN of the car. The implication is there; the impact downstream is there once one designates that vehicle as unsalvageable, which can't be undone.

These are legitimate questions. I don't think anybody's trying to give the minister a hard time; this isn't anything personal. These are people who have some interests, background, skills and knowledge in this area and who have raised some legitimate concerns. We're trying to find a way to accommodate not just them but the people out there who are in this field as a hobby or whatever. All they want is some assurance that by regulation or by some change in the legislation, one can accommodate those concerns in a realistic and legitimate way.

We're trying to put forward a couple of options that the minister may want to consider. I guess all that people are looking for is a reading from the minister that those concerns are legitimate, that they're being taken under consideration and that perhaps there's a way they can be addressed, if not in this

section then certainly in regulation, by defining a certain category of these type of salvage vehicles that are designed for antique restoration. I think that's only good government. It makes sense; you're accommodating, with very little effort on behalf of the government, something that provides a major reduction in inconvenience for a sector of the population that has a real interest in this field. Quite frankly, it's a hobby, it provides economic activity -- it's all of those things. It restores our heritage and our culture. I would think that with a small change on behalf of the government, we could accommodate all of those things very easily, and move on.

B. Penner: Regarding

section 1 of the bill, the minister made a comment earlier that all salvaged vehicles are branded. I just wanted to confirm if, in fact, that's what she said.

Hon. L. Boone: This

section makes that so, yes.

B. Penner: So it's not just vehicles designated as having irreparable damage, but also salvage vehicles that are branded in a specific way that would identify them, to any consumer, that the vehicles have been salvaged?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Penner: My next question deals with the definition of salvage. The scenario I'd like to put to the minister is the following. When a vehicle is stolen and not recovered