1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

2863 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23). Committee stage. (Hon. A. Fraser)

section 7 –– 2863

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

section 9 –– 2869

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 19 –– 2870

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Ree

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Kempf

Mr. D'Arcy

On vote 20 –– 2876

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Appendix –– 2878

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

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

Amendment approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

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

Amendment approved.

section 7 as amended.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, with respect to

section 7, in a

sense I suppose I want to make an admission, one that many, many

hundreds of people in this province would make; that is, for quite a

number of years now — I don't know how long — I haven't had an

inspection sticker on my automobile. I've never had it inspected. I've

never been approached about having it inspected. I think that what I'm

saying now, a great many people in the north are saying: that so far it

has been a kind of meaningless thing in terms of inspections. They just

do not take place.

We are now proceeding in an area where the cabinet may make some

regulations in this matter, requiring an inspection as to safety and

repair of motor vehicles. We're all very favourably disposed to having

on the highway motor vehicles that meet safety standards and that are

kept repaired and in good condition so they're not a hazard either to

the driver or to other drivers or pedestrians. The question that arises

is, now that the government wants to move in this particular direction

of embracing the whole of the province in a formal way on the

inspection system, how much is it going to cost the individual motor

vehicle owner? The regulations, presumably — if they say so — will

require the inspection and the like, and will prescribe the fees

payable to the province. Oh, that one was altered. What's all of this

going to cost the driver?

HON. A. FRASER: Really, I don't think anybody knows. There's

a lot of speculation regarding that. We've had written offers and so on,

but I think the costs will be fully discussed in the committee that's set

up. I've even seen advertisements, since this bill, from the commercial

sector, saying: "We will do your inspection if you'll buy such-and-such

from this station." So I guess we're in a competitive market, and that's

what hopefully will happen in the private sector: a fee based on a competitive

market for the charge.

MR. HOWARD: Usually where there's a demand by law for

something to be done, and in order to have that done the person needs

to approach the private sector, the competitive factor is whatever

amount the market will bear. There is no competition in that kind of

scenario, and there hasn't been in the past. Where something is

demanded to be done, the theory of the so-called forces of the

marketplace that tend to offer a service of better quality, or

whatever, at a lower price disappears. You end up paying whatever the

person who provides the service, either by himself or in concert with

others in that locale, determines the market will bear. So the

competitive aspect of it is nonsense. It's just not going to prevail.

I submit that the movement of the cost of following out the

requirement here is going to be upwards, to a level where those who are

providing the service feel it's going to be profitable to them. There

will be a tendency, as there is in similar circumstances where there is

a demand factor by legislation for something to happen, for

conspiracies to develop to charge as much as possible. Unless the

minister, taking that into cognizance, is prepared to put into effect

some price limitations or controls on this kind of activity, the poor

individual who owns the motor vehicle is going to have to pay through

the nose for something that previously — in some parts of the province

only — had been paid for out of tax dollars spread all across the

province, because it was absorbed totally therein. This is what's going

to occur, I submit to you.

Some sort of price control needs to be put into effect on this. It

would seem to me that the cabinet, in making those determinations,

should protect the consumer so that he or she is not ripped off by

unscrupulous elements — and they do exist in our society — that could

very easily, and probably would if the opportunity presents itself,

take advantage of the demand factor of the law in order to move the

price up to suit them rather than the consumer.

[8:15]

HON. A. FRASER: The member raises a good point here. It is

the intent to set the rate that will be allowed. I might point out that

we've had an inequity going on in the province. A lot of discussion and

speculation has been taking place in the media and so on, but from what

we can ascertain it's been costing about $15 to run the lower mainland

and Vancouver Island testing stations, and we were charging $5. So the

people of Skeena have been subsidizing those stations by about $10 per

vehicle.

MR. HOWARD: What else is new?

HON. A. FRASER: This system will hopefully bring some equity throughout the whole province.

MR. HOWARD: That may well be, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure the

member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) knows as well, as does the member

for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan)

[ Page 2864 ]

and other members in the House, that we've been

paying through the nose to provide whatever it is that's provided in

the lower mainland, including things like B.C. Place, as an example.

There may be some rationale for doing it this way, if taxes were to

be reduced. But what I see happening here is that everybody throughout

the province is now going to be paying the same, or higher, taxes for a

service that they're not getting, because the service is being wiped

out. Taxes aren't going to come down by that $10 per vehicle subsidy,

or whatever it was. So what will be happening now is those of us in

Skeena will still be paying the $10 into the treasury, plus paying the

extra amount, whatever it might be, that the inspection stations will

charge. We're not any better off in this situation; in fact, we are

worse off. If the minister can say to the people in Skeena who are

putting in $10, as they were before, that their tax is going to be

reduced by the $10, I'm sure we'll go for that. But without that all

he's asking the people in Skeena, Prince George South and Cariboo to do

is to continue paying the high level of taxes, and on top of that to

pay for this mythological thing called privatization which is going to

reduce costs. It is nonsense; it is not going to reduce costs. We'll

just be paying extra.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't that it was for

difficult times.... The allocation of government money from taxpayers

is very hard pressed. Even with restraint, with a $1.6 billion

projected deficit, obviously taxes can't be reduced. The saving in

providing equity for the people from the interior, whether it's South

Okanagan, Kelowna, Prince George, Nelson or Quesnel, in subsidizing a

service that was only provided in the lower mainland, means that those

dollars are freed to help our health care system and those programs

that are being maintained in Human Resources. Certainly the Chairman

would know that as much as it's been difficult to make decisions on

preserving essential services by eliminating some which while desirable

may have to have the tough decision to remove them while we come

through this difficult period.... Because of this, because these sorts

of things are providing equity and at the same time leaving

responsibility with the individual on an equal basis around the

province, and where the inspections can take place in the lower

mainland as they do in the interior.... I have personal knowledge of

the inspections that do take place in the interior on a regular basis

to reinforce everyone's own responsibility to try to keep their

vehicles in safe and working condition. It is the sort of thing we must

do at these times, these types of decisions, which have assisted our

Minister of Human Resources to have this allocation. Perhaps the member

for Skeena might think it's small, but I think our people would like to

see that money reallocated to preserve what programs we can in Human

Resources. Many people, of course, know for a fact that British

Columbia has more social programs under the Minister of Human Resources

than any other province...

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, Mr. Premier....

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...other than Alberta, because of savings

that are made by decisions such as this by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways bringing this equity in...

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the inspection stations, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and ending an inequity around the

province, but making sure that these dollars can be better spent. Yes,

they can't be shown, as the member for Skeena says, in tax reductions

right now, but they certainly have been of great assistance to the

Minister of Human Resources and the people who need assistance at this

difficult time.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that all members would say that the people of

the lower mainland are no less responsible than those people of the

interior have been in maintaining their vehicles. I think it would be

folly to suggest that the people of the interior, while they haven't

had subsidized public testing stations, have left their vehicles in

disrepair and have been unsafe drivers. That certainly would be an

unfair charge against the people of the constituency I represent or the

constituency that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) represents. In

fact, some of the arguments suggest that the government must

continually take the place of individual responsibility.

Here we have the benefits of both worlds: a chance to challenge our

people, end inequity, and make sure that the savings that have been

made can go into those very essential programs for people that the

Minister of Human Resources is noted for fighting for.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to find out what that standing order was about, strictly relevant to the clause under discussion.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 43.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It not really 43, but I'll find it and I'll share it with many members of the committee.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry that the Premier has left. That was sort of a hit-and-run speech.

I take this particular debate — and I have from the very beginning

of the introduction of this bill — as a very serious debate. I think

the argument made by the Premier was a very specious, vacuous argument.

He was attempting to pit the rural areas against the city, to try to

put across this obsession that the Social Credit government has with

privatization.

The point that we're concerned about, and I say this to the minister

in charge of the bill.... I realize we're discussing it clause by

clause, which the Premier obviously completely ignored. This particular

clause is suggesting the regulations and so on that will guide the

movement to the privatization of motor vehicle inspections. Mr.

Chairman, the minister has tried to suggest to us that this will bring

about a more even safety inspection.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. Number one, did you

do any studies on this before this was brought in? On what did you base

this major move to dispense with government motor vehicle testing,

moving towards privatization? Do you really believe that it is fair to

bring in a bill which is going to impose a substantial sum of money on

every citizen who has to go to a private station to have their car

tested? You are unable to give the House any estimation of the cost.

You hide behind the same philosophy as the Premier which I frankly

think is disgraceful — that the government has no responsibility in the

area of traffic accidents and traffic safety when it comes to vehicle

investigation. The Premier

[ Page

2865 ]

keeps saying, and you have too, that it's up to individuals to look after

their own cars. What a ridiculous argument in 1983! This is the very government

that insisted that everyone in this province wear seatbelts, which I happen

to agree with. I gave credit to the Social Credit government for bringing that

in. But at the same time, you are now turning around and saying to us that it's

up to individuals to look after their cars mechanically, without any inspection.

The Premier of the province actually said to us in this House that his government

no longer cares about whether a car on the highway is safe or not. I say that

is abrogating your responsibility as a government. You should be ashamed of

yourselves for presenting us with this bill.

I ask the minister: on what studies did you base your change to

privatization? We haven't heard what studies this was based upon, and

yet at the same time we have heard that a study has been presented to

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by people in his own

ministry stating that it is going to increase accidents on the roads.

Has the Minister of Highways, who is bringing in this bill, been made

privy to that study?

Why have you brought it in? What studies have you based it on? Will

you tell us what right you have to impose an extra cost on the citizens

of British Columbia, forcing them into private stations? I'd like to

have answers to those questions.

HON. A. FRASER: I think I've already answered some of those

questions. The member mightn't have been here. I'll go back again.

First of all, the attack on the Premier wasn't warranted. You're

correct, though, in saying that he and I talk the same language, and

that's to privatize the inspection of the motor vehicle branch and try

to get the government to some extent off the backs of our citizens. But

we're not abandoning motor vehicle inspection; we're going to do it in

a different model. Furthermore, we only had half the province, or less,

covered under the old system. We didn't have the rest of the province

covered as far as motor vehicle inspections are concerned. I'm talking

about the private car, not the commercial vehicles or the school buses;

they're all covered and remain covered under the proposals here.

Regarding studies, yes, certainly a lot of things were looked at. I

reported to the committee on second reading that in studies that I have

seen, mechanical failures contribute to about 7 percent of the

accidents we have. I have already reported that. Maybe the member

missed that, but it's certainly a factor that we have to look after.

But it also is in the Motor Vehicle Act — and always has been even

prior to these testing stations — that the individual is responsible

for the mechanical condition of his vehicle. That's not changing, and

that's a fact of life.

[8:30]

As far as cost is concerned, you say: "What extra cost is it to our

citizens?" Well, that's what we have a committee study about, and I

hope it isn't too much of an extra cost to the citizen, if any. I have

reported further here that of all the figures that have been battered

around, we were charging $5, but it was costing the treasury of British

Columbia $15 a vehicle. So that's all cost to the individual taxpayers

of the province of British Columbia. That really covers most of what

you have asked.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that they want to get

the government off the backs of the people. Well, I don't suggest that it's

any solution to get governments off the backs of the people only to sick the

private mechanics onto the backs of the people. What we've got here is compulsory

motor vehicle testing. Motor vehicle testing has been done very efficiently

in the metropolitan communities — I think up in Nanaimo; I'm not sure about

that, but I know certainly in Victoria and Vancouver. You can go there any time

of the day; it doesn't normally take more than an hour and sometimes 20

minutes. There is a convenience. For those of us up in the interior, there hasn't

been any kind of testing, but here we are proposing a setup where the government

can dictate the fees and decide who will be authorized to inspect vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, normally when it is compulsory for citizens to undergo

something that is going to cost them money, there is either the

provision of that service by government or there is a review by some

type of utility commission. The Public Utilities Commission, for

instance, looks at rates for natural gas and electricity. The federal

government commission looks after telephone rates and various things

like that. For many years in this province, to my way of thinking, we

had the very incongruous situation of compulsory auto insurance, but

you were compelled to get auto insurance from private companies who did

not serve us well. The automobile insurance agents argue that the car

insurance system we have right now is the best kind of system, and so I

believe it is with motor vehicle testing.

Mr. Chairman, who is going to guard the guardians? How are these

fees going to be set? If they are just going to be set by cabinet

order, there is no opportunity for intervention. What is the

opportunity for intervention of the public in terms of reviewing

authorized inspectors' and authorized garages' qualifications for

inspection? When does the public have an opportunity to be heard? This

does not go before any sort of a public utility commission.

I remember when I was at university there were some people who

talked about people in different levels fitting into different niches,

and they kind of put mechanics at a low level. I remember this one

professor of ours, Jack Regal, who really put the person who suggested

that in his place. He said: "Look, we need high-IQ mechanics. As soon

as I came to Vancouver, I was looking for a high-IQ mechanic."

Similarly I have sought out high-IQ mechanics, and I found a couple of

different places in Nelson where there is such a rare prize — well, I

hope not too rare — but certainly for me a gift.

Mr. Chairman, what happens when you just arrive in some place? I

recall when I first arrived in Nelson. I had a certain brand of car,

and the dealer for that brand of car was involved in two court cases

where they had been supplying used parts for new parts. I went into

that dealership, having worked in a garage for many years of my life, I

doped out the situation and soon assessed that I did not have the best

service. What is the guarantee? What is the indication? How is

government going to decide which garages are providing shoddy service

and which are providing good service? I could recommend a good garage

right here in Victoria — Bruce Whitten, out there on Fairfield Street,

a Gulf station. Fantastic, a good high-IQ mechanic. That was the one I

found in Victoria. But I think in terms of motor vehicle safety

inspection, we should be striving to retain that which we have.

We talked about getting government off the backs of people. If it

costs $15 per inspection, and if you can prove that and if a committee

of this House were instructed to look

[ Page 2866 ]

into the actual cost, then make it user-pay.

Perhaps automobiles are one area where user-pay would be justified more

than anything else — more than the way we have tried to strive toward

user-pay on the ferry service and with other utilities that the

government provides. Let's go to user-pay, and let's at least maintain

that kind of a window on the industry in terms of inspections.

I'm not against authorizing inspectors up in the interior, where we

don't have the population to justify a huge motor vehicle inspection

station. But I don't see why we should throw out that which we have and

that which I can remember, I think, dating back to the thirties. I

remember going with my father in his 1934 Ford through the motor

vehicle testing station on Georgia Street. That has served us very

well, and for this government to say that they can't afford it is an

admission of failure and an admission that this government has turned

its priorities around.

I can accept, after many of the mistakes that this government has

made, that perhaps there is a need for their austerity program. I know

that this government has embarked upon the austerity program, but

making this move is not based upon economics. We do not have to give

this power to government simply to set fees. I can't accept the

argument that we have to get government off the backs of people. If the

user fee is $15 — which is what the minister said — I would like to see

that minister guarantee that the rate would not be more than that for

the next.... Since we've only got 5 percent inflation to look forward

to over the next two years, I would assume that the minister could

guarantee that rates would rise no more than $17.50 over the next two

years. I'm sure he could agree to that, because that minister feels

that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. If it

is true that it is so, then surely the private sector can do it for

$15. In fact, they should be able to do it for $10, if we accept the

minister's argument.

So I ask the minister: how is the public going to have any input

into the fees and the review of fees? What equivalent to the public

Utilities Commission is going to be provided to the public? What appeal

is going to be provided to the public in terms of shoddy workmanship?

What guarantee is the public going to be given that the practices —

such as creating little problems for motor vehicles in order to bring

people back to the garage again and again, which has been known to

happen in the industry — will not occur? The public becomes captive to

certain people. I do not want to go to anybody but one of two dealers

in the Nelson area, yet they're all going to be authorized.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. NICOLSON: Sure, I want to go either to Bob Tremblay out

at Eight Mile on the North Shore Road or to Bill Apostoliuk in Nelson.

I want to go nowhere else for inspection of my vehicles. What guarantee

do I have that those two dealers are going to be authorized?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think that our very fair-minded and

gracious Minister of Transportation and Highways is to be congratulated

this evening, not hectored, because he fully appreciates the value of

motor vehicle testing. He has very clearly stated in his remarks to the

members across the way just a few moments ago that we are not

abandoning motor vehicle testing. I'd like to repeat it: we're not

abandoning motor vehicle testing. I say thank God for that. If we were,

I would have some second thoughts about this bill, I can assure you. He

recognizes that testing can be a lifesaver. He fully appreciates that

fact, and he is also providing a procedure and process whereby it can

be provincewide, where it is not today. This is a forward step. He is a

great minister. Nicely done.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of words. He has

abandoned it, the House Leader notwithstanding. Maybe sooner or later

we may get back into it again. That's what we are discussing tonight, I

gather, and that's what the committee is all about.

I just want to ask one question, and that question has to do with

the cost. The minister had under him a superintendent of motor vehicles

who said that automobile testing at $5.50 as opposed to $5 would have

broken even. The minister, on the other hand, says tonight, for the

first time, that it cost $15 or more to test a motor vehicle. Who is

right? It strikes me that the superintendent has had a fair amount of

experience over the years, and I have never known that particular

superintendent to be anything but dreadfully honest. So I am really at

sixes and sevens with respect to this whole question of testing. Maybe

the minister has something to say about spreading it out over the

province or this or that or the other thing, but I do know that for the

minister to be $10 or thereabouts different from the superintendent of

motor vehicles is a major difference, and I would just like the

minister to tell us on what basis he is making his prognostication.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the superintendent advises me

that he was misquoted. But apart from that, what he did use when he

used the figure was only the actual salaries. He did not in any way

take into account the rentals of BCBC and all the additional charges.

Since that has had a fair amount of media attention I asked for the

actual cost, and it comes to almost $15. It wouldn't be $5 and it

wouldn't be $5.50 if you consider all the real estate values and so on

and add them in there. As you know, in our estimate book they aren't

really tied together, but when you tie them together accountingwise

that's what happens.

MR. COCKE: Alex, you're straining your credibility, really.

HON. A. FRASER: As I said right off the bat, the superintendent said he was misquoted. He didn't say that. I don't know....

Back to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). You made a lot

of statements, Mr. Member. First of all — maybe I haven't made this

clear — the government will set the rates. They will also administer

the program, and if we have shoddy operators in the system they will

just have their licences rescinded.

Interjection.

[8:45]

HON. A. FRASER: When does the public...? Well, we're right in

that sphere now, and I think your party agree that we're committing

with the House committee.... The public can come to that, and they are

coming to that, as a matter of fact, next week. That is certainly the

most public place in the world. The other thing is I always get a kick

out of hearing that everything will be decided by the cabinet behind

[ Page 2867 ]

closed doors. That's correct, but it's always made

public, and then the public certainly have their opportunity to

complain, and they certainly do. Decisions made there are made public,

as you know. That's decided by the public out there, but they have

access to the administration and to the government to make their

complaints. We have the same system, really, going on now about ferry

rates, as far as that goes. That is recommended by the B.C. Ferry

Corporation to the cabinet — they stamp their approval on it and that's

it. So I don't see that we're departing from a great principle in this

setup here.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the

minister. Does the minister believe in mandatory inspection of cars in

this province?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, but I'd like to see

some changes in the actual plan. I think we can improve on the plan.

One thought, and I guess it will come up in committee: I am not so sure

that a brand-new vehicle needs to be inspected every 12 months, as was

the case before. I think we can vary it as to the age of the vehicle

and things like that. But on that basis, yes.

MRS. DAILLY: I understand that the minister is saying that in

his opinion.... I realize there is a committee set up, but you are the

minister and would opt for the fact that every vehicle in B.C. should

still go through mandatory testing, except for certain exemptions for

those of a certain age. Is that correct?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, because of the safety factor some

control should be done, and that's what this proposes. I used to be in

the business. I don't think new vehicles — I'm talking about passenger

cars — need to be government inspected once a year; possibly every two

years. Older vehicles need it more often than every 12 months, maybe

twice a year. We are continuing with the commercial and school buses;

that's going to continue on as it always has. As a matter of fact, we

intend to step it up.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am pleased to hear

that the minister believes in continuing, mandatory testing. That

wasn't quite clear in some of the reports that have come out re his

government's change to privatization. If the minister believes in

mandatory testing for the majority of vehicles in B.C., would he then

answer this question: does it mean that every vehicle which is not

exempted will have to go to some private station in British Columbia

for a test?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, that's where we seem to be headed with this legislation. Yes.

MRS. DAILLY: You are not able to tell us what this will cost. It could vary from $15 to $50 per test. Is that correct?

HON. A. FRASER: I think we'd be speculating there, but I do want to make it doubly clear that the government will establish the fee.

MRS. DAILLY: So the government will establish the fee, based upon what? How will you establish that fee?

HON. A. FRASER: e have capable administrators; hopefully,

they will find out what it really should cost, what the reception in

the private sector is and arrive at a figure that they can make a

dollar at. It will be at an economic price to the motorist.

MRS. DAILLY: Does the minister say, then, that his government

believes it is right to force a citizen of British Columbia to go to a

private dealer to have a car tested, which they must pay for

individually? In other words, that person is being forced to pay money

to a private operator in the province of British Columbia. They have no

choice. They must go and give their money to a profit-making

institution. Is that correct'?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is yes.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you mean that there is no choice and that

every person in British Columbia is now going to be forced to go to

help someone else in this province? Are they going to be forced to go

to a private station, without any choice at all? Do they have to go to

a private station and pay a certain sum of money? The money that they

pay is not going back into the tax revenues to help all the people of

this province. Instead it is going to go to one individual operator. Is

that correct?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member, it's going to go to the operator of the vehicle owner's choice.

MRS. DAILLY: So you mean to say that we are now turning back

a plan where everyone who could went within the area that was already

set up and paid their money and whatever it cost we knew at least that

it was going through general revenue. But now we know you are being

forced to go to a private operator. That money will go to the private

operator and will not benefit all the citizens of British Columbia. Yet

it is compulsory and set by the government. Is that your philosophy?

HON. A. FRASER: I think the statement you made is that it

benefits the vehicle operator as well as the service station. Hopefully

it does. They'll have a better and safer vehicle after the inspection.

They'll pay the private operator for it. Hopefully it benefits every

motorist.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister must be aware that this cost could

go up to $50 and that there are many people in the province of British

Columbia today who simply are not going to be able to afford that. Mr.

Minister, what is going to happen to the individual in British Columbia

who cannot afford that increased sum of money? What is going to be the

penalty for not being able to go and pay money to a private operator?

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has given the figure of $15. Is the fee set for the private sector going to be less than or equal to $15?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm sorry. I can't answer that. Whether

you're talking $15 where I'm talking $15, it's what our cost is at the

present time. I use that figure to try to get some rationales because

I've seen in the press $50, $5, $5.50 and so on. But what I'm saying

the actual cost is.... Maybe the private operators will bid $10, maybe

they'll bid $20. I don't know. The private people are coming to meet

the committee next week, so I hope we'll learn from that.

[ Page 2868 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Unfortunately, maybe we're going to pass the

bill this evening. If the private sector can't do it for less than $15,

say, then why should we taxpayers pay a voluntary tax in excess of what

we need? The minister has also said older cars may be required to go

twice a year. That means that perhaps a mint 1956 Jaguar is going to

have to go twice a year, but a piece of junk from Detroit, right out of

the showroom and subject to all kinds of recalls, with brake pedals

that go right down to the floor, is going to be allowed to go for two

years. Does that make sense, Mr. Minister? What is the rationale of

forcing a quality car, maybe by its year, to be classified with all

others of that same year? People who drive older cars tend not to have

the ability to pay for two inspections a year, as opposed to people who

have newer cars getting by with one per year. Where are the dangerous

cars? Look at all the recalls we see. Look at Unsafe At Any Speed

by Ralph Nader. Remember the Chevrolet.... What was the one with the

engine in the rear? Corvair. That was a brand-new car, but it wasn't

safe. The Ford Pinto.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: You're not a Ford dealer, are you, my hon. friend from Surrey? What is the rationale, then, of....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Am I forced to respond to interjections, or would I be in contempt of the House if I refused, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister, if he's going to heckle, at least should heckle from his place.

MR. NICOLSON: He should at least be sitting down in some seat

somewhere. Maybe over here, or over there. Even back here, but to be

standing up and heckling, not at his place....

Quite seriously, I find that this thing is quite a mess. I want to

ask the minister why he doesn't introduce this concept maybe in the

interior, but leave the existing concept where we have the very

efficient installations, where we have the infrastructure. You might

capitalize the value of all these things and the real estate that they

sit on, but after all, those things are there right now, and I think if

you put them up for sale they're probably not going to sell this year.

Maybe in two or three years when things pick up a little bit, but

they're not going to sell this year, so why the haste?

Why don't you experiment up in the interior? Why don't you

experiment with this system in Nelson, Creston, Salmo, Nakusp? Why must

you remove this window, which you have with the long-established motor

vehicle testing stations? That's where I applied for my very first

driver's licence. I might say, I went in and took my learner's licence

and then I took my driving licence — all in the same day, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. NICOLSON: At Georgia, around Denman, or some place like that, in Vancouver.

But why abandon that? We don't have that in the interior. We do have

the one-eyed monsters coming at us, Mr. Chairman. We see these vehicles

approaching us. We think they're motorcycles and they turn into

automobiles. I just hope it's the proper type of headlight. We also

have the ones with one high beam and one low beam. We want to see an

end to that but why abandon this good window on the industry and just

go holus-bolus into this thing based on ideology, refuting the

decisions of this House, which saw Conservative governments, Liberal

governments, Social Credit governments and New Democratic Party

governments and another Social Credit government supporting the system

that I think we can quite proudly point to here in British Columbia?

Why do you not just install this in the interior, then?

[9:00]

HON. A. FRASER: Quite frankly, I think we're into a lot of

philosophical arguments here. I've said before in the debate, regarding

unsafe vehicles, that it's already in the Motor Vehicle Act, and any

policeman can yard them off the road tonight. You are now dwelling on

why we don't keep open the testing stations on the lower mainland and

on the Island. Our government wants to privatize, that's why. We want

to privatize the operation, and probably, as far as the lower mainland

and the Island are concerned, spread it out further. We are fairly

restricted in what we have got on the lower mainland and Vancouver

Island. We don't even cover the total areas of the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island with motor vehicle inspection, and the private sector

will achieve that without a big capital investment by the government of

British Columbia. The private sector will be making that investment

because they will have the shop. Philosophically, we want to hand it

over to the private sector, and we want it expanded throughout the

whole province.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister is telling us tonight

that they want to privatize this whole service, but what he's telling

us is that the government is taking a significant step backwards. I

recall very well, when we had legislation in this province that

required people to take out auto insurance from private companies, the

complaints that we received as MLAs or candidates running for election

about the terrible service that was provided by these private insurance

companies, as far as auto insurance was concerned. Here we have the

same case again where the government is going to require that people

have their vehicles inspected, just as they used to require that people

take out insurance from private companies. What it means is that we're

going to receive the same kind of complaints that we had before and

that this government is prepared to take a step backwards in order to

privatize a service that is very much needed in this province, in spite

of what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says.

MR. KEMPF: I didn't say a thing.

MS. SANFORD: You certainly did. You got up the other day and said there shouldn't be any inspection whatsoever.

MR. KEMPF: Do you want me to say something? Sit down and I'll say something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, if she wants me to speak tell her to sit down.

[ Page

2869 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Comox will be allowed to speak until such time as she sits down.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I recall very vividly that the

member for Omineca got up the other day and said that he didn't agree

with either the NDP or the government on this issue.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm only repeating what you said.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got an open mind.

MS. SANFORD: Exactly — very open.

It seems to me that we're taking a step backwards here, because

we're moving towards the same kind of privatization of a service that's

required by the government for the people of British Columbia to

undertake, and it means that we will be going to these private testing

stations, and we will be faced with the same kind of complaints that I

recall very vividly receiving as a result of the kind of service that

we got from the private insurance companies for car insurance. I don't

want that to happen again. I think the minister and the government are

making a serious mistake in making this move in this bill.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have had a great deal of

latitude, I think, in this debate, for reasons which are out of my

control, but I think maybe we can get back to the relevancy now.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments,

for argument's sake about Mayor Harcourt of Vancouver and Mayor Lewarne

of Burnaby, who are involved in municipal matters and have some

authority in this province and in the area....

MR. COCKE: How about the mayor of Maple Ridge?

MR. HOWARD: I don't know about the mayor of Maple Ridge, but

I know about the mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Burnaby; I know

who they are.

What I would like to ask the minister is this: if the minister owned

a car, would he permit the mayor of Vancouver to inspect his vehicle?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I know I wouldn't, but I just wonder if the minister would.

HON. A. FRASER: No, I agree, I wouldn't let him inspect the vehicle if he didn't have the authority.

MR. HOWARD: But that's precisely what the minister is doing. He

is saying that the mayor of Vancouver, the mayor of Maple Ridge, the mayor of

Terrace, the mayor of Burnaby and the mayor of every municipality in British

Columbia can inspect vehicles. What kind of nonsense is that? I've got a

little doubt about some of these service stations inspecting vehicles, but when

it comes to asking the mayors of all our municipalities — who knows who they

are or what they are — to inspect motor vehicles and make decisions about them,

you're asking too much, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: They haven't got the capacity. You're asking too much when you ask that, Mr. Minister.

In addition to that, in my own town of Terrace the Attorney-General

has got a correctional institute established for people who offend

against the law. I drive by that correctional institute most of the

time when I'm coming from uptown Terrace to my home — that's the usual

route that I take. What the minister is saying is that the warden or a

correctional officer can come out, flag me down, and inspect my

vehicle. That's asking far too much. The minister should make those

changes and tell us what his intentions are. This business of saying

that Mayor Harcourt, even when the minister wouldn't let him inspect

the minister's own vehicle, has the right to inspect vehicles and make

some determination about them, is going too far. I hope the minister

will correct the whole situation for us.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, it's the intent of

section 9 to only

let qualified peace officers carry out this duty, and I don't think the

mayors of Vancouver or Burnaby would be given the qualification to

carry this out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, entering into this type of debate might be reflecting back on

section 4.

MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't reflect on

section 4. I'm reflecting

section 9. What the minister is saying in the.... It doesn't matter

what his intentions are, you know. The road to that nether place is

paved with good intentions. The minister isn't going to be the minister

forever. But what he's saying here is that the mayor of any

municipality can inspect a motor vehicle — regardless of what his

intentions are. I think if we're going to make law of that nature we

should be somewhat precise about who we're giving this authority to.

Once that's cleared up, I want to argue about the so-called

qualified peace officer; that is, the one who in fact is a police

officer or a police constable or a sheriff or something of that sort.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member would clearly be reflecting on

section 4. If the member would care to read

section 4, he'll note that there is....

MR. HOWARD: You're asking me to read

section 4. If I do that I will be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You'd be out of order. In fact you're reflecting on a previous vote.

MR. HOWARD: It doesn't say anything at all in that particular

section to which reference was made a moment ago

[ Page 2870 ]

about the designation of peace officers. This

particular section,

section 9, says a peace officer may require a

person who is the owner or the person in charge of a vehicle to.... He

may inspect it. And I think that's improper. If you want to identify

what you mean by the persons who have or seek to have this authority,

then I'd suggest you do that. You call the person by the proper title.

But peace officer is far too broad. Peace officer includes a mayor, a

sheriff, a sheriff's officer, a warden, a correctional officer and any

other officer or permanent employee of a penitentiary, prison or

correctional centre. That means clergymen as well. Men of the cloth who

would minister to the spiritual needs of people in jail have the

authority under this particular section. I think it's very poor and

sloppy draftsmanship to have gone in this direction. The minister has

been blinded by privatization and doesn't realize what common sense is.

MRS. WALLACE: If we're looking at the definition of peace

officer, that definition is given in the Motor Vehicle Act, which

describes a peace officer as an enforcement officer. Now a peace

officer, we know, is a pretty broad term and includes a lot of people.

The minister is trying to tell us that it's a qualified peace officer,

but there is nothing to indicate that that's the case. It's a very

broad term, as indicated in the

interpretation

section of the Motor

Vehicle Act. What my colleague from Skeena is saying certainly applies

here. A peace officer could include the mayor of any community; that's

what the act says and that's what this

section says, and unless there

is some stipulation in that

section there is nothing to indicate that

they would have to be qualified or what those qualifications are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with the greatest respect, we are

discussing

section 4. Members may be confused.

Section 4 goes from page

1 over to page 2. If you'll check

section 4(e), you'll note that it

pertains to the Motor Vehicle Act and the Highway Act, and therefore

covers the questions that might be dealt with in

section 9.

HON. MR. GARDOM: To assist the hon. members, unless I'm

misreading it, in

chapter 288, which is the Motor Vehicle Act, the

definition of peace officer is quite restricted. "Peace officer means a

constable or a person having a constable's powers."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, just let me read what it says a

peace officer is here: "'Peace officer' includes (

a) a mayor, sheriff

and sheriff's officer; (

b) a warden, correctional officer and any other

officer or permanent employee of a penitentiary, prison or correctional

centre; and (

c) a police officer, police constable, constable or other

person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public

peace." That's what this says.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where is that definition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, also with the greatest of

respect, we're reflecting on

section 4, which refers to a peace officer

as defined in the Highway Act or the Motor Vehicle Act. It's clearly

subsection (

e) of

section 4.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

section 13.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[9:15]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND

CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 19: minister's office, $184,197.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a couple of questions for the minister.

One relates to some correspondence I have had with his ministry

regarding certain terms in mortgage contracts. The Royal Trust seems to

be the big offender here. They have been writing in a waiver which

relates to the payout or changes in payout regardless of any existing

legislation or legislation that may be brought into effect. The actual

wording is:

"Repayment of this loan and interest may only be made

in the manner stipulated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, with no further

right of prepayment prior to the maturity date of mortgage loan

renewal. You expressly waive any right of prepayment you now have, or

[ Page

2871 ]

hereafter may have, pursuant to

section 10 of

the Interest Act (Canada) and or any similar federal or provincial

legislation permitting prepayment prior to the maturity date of

mortgage loan renewal. The original mortgage is deemed to be dated as

of the maturity date of the existing loan above captioned."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Now the correspondence that I have from Mr. Bainbridge of the

Consumer Affairs ministry indicated that he had come more or less to

the same conclusion that I had: that it was invalid because it did deal

with contravention of a public act in the public interest. In fact he

sought legal advice and forwarded to me correspondence to the effect

that a couple of citations which he made — one of which related to a

Griffiths v. Dudley (Earl), way back in 1882 — indicated that a waiver

like that can be made unless it can be shown that such an agreement is,

in the circumstances of the particular case, contrary to public policy.

Because the Canada Interest Act or any further federal or provincial

legislation would be public policy, there would not be the right to

write that into a contract. What he advised was that the people

involved see their solicitor, and of course that's what they have done.

My question to the minister is whether or not he's prepared to take any

action to ensure that such clauses are not written into contracts or

innocent victims caught up in this illegal thing, and without knowing

it, forfeiting huge sums of money in an attempt to pay out a mortgage

contrary to the terms, or else continuing to pay exorbitant interest

rates and being unable to finance them. I wonder whether or not the

minister is prepared to take any action to prevent that kind of thing

from happening.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the material the

member has, but first of all the contract between the borrower and the

lender, I think, should be written in a fairly easily understood

manner. One of the concerns I've had as Minister of Consumer Affairs is

to see some of the documentation improved — some of the legalese, if

you will, brought into modern-day language. However, in regard to some

of what you quoted there I have no difficulty with the mortgage lender

having a "closed mortgage" having clauses in the agreement that tell

the borrower that these funds are available, that there is not a

prepayment and it falls due on a certain date and must be paid, because

the lender wants to be treated as fairly as the borrower. When the

mortgage says you waive all rights to legislation that may be

forthcoming or is in place, I think that's more non-enforceable than

anything else. I would assume that if they tried to hold the borrower

to those clauses in spite of legislation that may come into place, they

would have some difficulty. I believe that under the federal

legislation you can have a closed mortgage for five years and then

after that the lender has to allow you payment subject to, of course,

an interest penalty in pre-payment when you are paying it out. But I'm

not sure that's what you said. I'm telling you that some of those

clauses would be non-enforceable, in my opinion, but they're in there.

Anybody who wants to put anything in a contract can, but when they come

to try and enforce it, they may find it's just so many words and has no

effect.

MRS. WALLACE: That's exactly what I have said; that's what

Mr. Bainbridge has said. People who are aware of this are having to go

to a solicitor and deal with this situation. Is the minister prepared

to do something to ensure that people aren't caught up in this kind of

a trap? I know any kind of a thing can be written into a contract, but

really to write in something that is illegal.... It seems to me to be a

responsibility of that minister to ensure that that doesn't happen, and

that's really what this is, because it's illegal, according to the

citations that have been given me by Mr. Bainbridge, who has obtained

legal advice, to have that in the contract; or at least it's illegal to

do that. So surely there should be something the ministry can do to

ensure that that's not in a contract. If he can't do that, at least

advise consumers that it is illegal so people will know that that is

something that, if it's in their contract, they don't have to honour;

there is a way out. The way out is a pretty expensive way if you have

to get a solicitor to get out. It may cost you more, by the time you

get it through court, than you're going to save in refinancing. My

objection is that to sit back and allow that kind of thing to be

written into a contract certainly to me seems to fall within the

minister's prerogative to take some action.

I have one other question that I want to raise with the minister,

and this deals with policy in providing or approving liquor

distribution outlets. I've had an ongoing request for a liquor

distribution outlet since December 17, 1981, which was the first time I

wrote to the minister's predecessor. The applicant, a Mr. Sager, had

been dealing with the ministry for some time before that, trying to get

an outlet in Mill Bay, where he was building a shopping centre.

HON. MR. HEWITT: An agency store?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. It's about 20 kilometres south of Duncan,

which is the closest and only other liquor distribution centre in the

area. That application had been in for some time. His shopping centre

has been going ahead on the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway at

Mill Bay. It's nearly complete at this point in time, with a lot of

businesses in there. But he was turned down. At the time I was told by

the liquor distribution board that of the 12 applications last year,

only one new site, which was in Kamloops, was approved. That was as of

January 1982.

Certainly at this point Mr. Sager doesn't have a liquor licence, but

he has continued to supply them with new information and to pressure

for review of his application. The interesting part about this is that

we now have another shopping centre being built just across the highway

from Mr. Sager's. It's under construction: the road is in; it's not

blacktopped yet. It displays a sign that says it will have a liquor

distribution centre. I'm concerned about this: a new subdivision just

going in, and the owner certainly was displaying signs that weren't

orange and black in the last election campaign. I'm wondering if Mr.

Garnett, who is the landowner of the new shopping centre, is going to

get a liquor distribution licence there.

What I'm asking the minister is: what is the policy? Do first

applications come first? Certainly, everything is in place in the other

shopping centre. The request has been in since 1981.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: He happens to live in Victoria, and I don't

know what colour his sign is. There is someone who has been applying,

and now we find this other area with a sign

[ Page 2872 ]

saying that they are going to have a liquor

distribution centre. That doesn't seem fair to me. It doesn't sit very

well in fact a new shopping centre going in some two years after the

other one actually gets the liquor distribution centre, when the other

application has been in so long before. If it does, it certainly is

going to look like politics have had something to do with it. I'd like

the minister's comments.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Let me go back to the problem with the

mortage contract. I said earlier today that we have had discussions

with my counterparts across Canada concerning standard language in

mortgage contracts. I think that's important. We've also had

discussions with mortgage lenders concerned about the language used in

mortgage contracts. However, I'd like you to send me the material you

have on that particular mortgage with Royal Trust. Also, all the

legislation in the world is not going to stop lenders from putting in a

contract clauses which they feel give them protection, but which they

may find are unenforceable because they may be "illegal." I think there

is some difficulty with the word "illegal" as opposed to

"unenforceable." Those are the problems. I could put legislation in.

We've got consumer protection legislation. But there are some contracts

that are written in spite of it. We can't solve all the problems, but

we certainly can try to improve the contract language in order for

people more readily to understand what they are signing.

The liquor store. It is not an agency store; it's a retail liquor

outlet. You were concerned about who has priority. Your gentleman, Mr.

Sager, you said applied in 1981. Up to this point, there has not been a

need for a liquor store in that area as determined by the management of

the liquor distribution branch. I refer you to your colleague the

member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and advise that you are arguing

exactly opposite to what he argued this afternoon. You're telling me to

put a liquor store in there; he's telling me not to build any more

liquor stores.

[9:30]

MRS. WALLACE: I'm asking you what the rules are.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The rules are basically this. When we

determine that there is sufficient need for a new store, we will put it

out to tender. We will look at the tenders and determine the best

location for parking and traffic, the best layout, the best lease fee

if it is to be leased, etc. We will then make the determination. So he

doesn't have protection just because he was in there in 1981. We have

to get the best return for our dollar invested in a new liquor store. I

am concerned about what you mentioned in the display across from Mr.

Sager in this new shopping centre — that he is advertising that this

will be a location for a new liquor store. That does concern me, and I

will have that checked out, because that, in a sense, is

misrepresentation of that location. He might say "proposed" on the

sign. But if he is saying one is going to be established there, I can

assure you....

MRS. WALLACE: It may well be proposed but the idea is that he's going to get the liquor permit.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. He's trying to encourage people to come

there and then he'll make his submission. But at this particular time

there are no plans for a government liquor store at Mill Bay, although

we are aware of the interest that's been expressed.

MR. REE: I'm pleased to stand here this evening on this

minister's estimates and ask a few questions or make a few comments

with respect to the automobile accident compensation committee report

recently been issued by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

It's not too often that I can agree with the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), but I have to endorse a great number of

the statements he made earlier today. My comments are not directed in

the same vein he was putting forward. He seemed more concerned, to a

certain extent, with the position of lawyers in the community and what

they might lose if ICBC was to bring in a no-fault type of insurance

protection for the public of British Columbia. The main gist of my

comments, being averse to the no-fault proposition, is that I think it

is probably the most extreme, socialistic type of procedure or program

that could be implemented by any form of government. I am not averse to

having people in need looked after. We do this through our Human

Resources. If ICBC is to enter into the no-fault type of benefits, I

think it is going to encroach upon the normal benefits provided by

Human Resources.

My main concern is that under ICBC's present benefits, a person who

is injured in an automobile-related accident, whether at fault or

otherwise, still receives far more benefits than a person receiving the

same injury in an accident in which a motor vehicle is not involved. In

other words, I do not see why a youngster who rides a bicycle into the

side of a car and becomes a quadraplegic should receive all the

no-fault benefits proposed in this study, under

part 7, when the same

youngster running into a tree and receiving the same injury would not

receive any of those benefits. As I say, I am not averse to the

community providing benefits to an injured person who is at fault, but

I am averse to the motorist providing benefits to the at-fault person.

The at-fault victim should be looked after by the community if he needs

that much care, and certainly not by the motorist.

During various meetings of the Committee on Crown Corporations, many

people were interviewed, including the police and others, with respect

to the causes of accidents and the high cost of damage and injuries

within the province of British Columbia. One of the common themes in

these committee meetings and interviews is that the attitude of drivers

is a great cause of and reason for the extensive accident rate that we

suffer in this province. To bring in a no-fault type of benefit, a

no-fault type of insurance program, will further increase the adverse

attitude of motorists. I am a strong believer in a person being

responsible for his own actions, and I don't think that a person who is

injured in an accident which he has caused himself should be entitled

to the same benefits as the person who is not at fault.

Mr. Chairman, I am strongly averse to the implementation of a

no-fault type of insurance and benefit scheme within this province. If

the community has an obligation to look after its sick and its injured,

which I think it does, it should not be paid for by the motorists. It

should be paid for by the community as a whole.

There's one other aspect of the report which I must support, though,

and that is a change in contingency fee charges by lawyers. I do agree

that this is being misused by the bar. I don't think it's so much for

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to look into, but I

certain commend the B.C. and the Canadian bar to look into this and

modify, or make whatever changes are necessary, so that it shall not be

abused to the detriment of injured people in accidents.

[ Page 2873 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just one or two words along the lines that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano was taking.

One of the problems with contingency fees, as I see it, is that

there probably is a place for them, although sometimes one wonders. But

where liability is established, then, as far as I'm concerned, a

contingency fee is absolutely out of the question, and somehow or

another it should be completely done away with. Yet there are some

reputable — in most people's opinions — lawyers who are charging

contingency fees. I think it is disreputable, in terms of that

situation. However, I'm not an expert on the law, and I'll leave that

to my colleagues engaged in legal activities in the past, present or

future.

I'm concerned about what is going to happen to ICBC. Not that it's a

creature of the NDP, or that it's anything other than a creature of the

demand of its time. I recall, vividly, that ICBC was not just wanted

but was demanded by some 85 percent of the public at that time. Our

memories are short. We forget the fact that there were innumerable

young people who had no access to insurance, other than through

assigned risk, which was an absolutely outlandish price. Those of us

who are old enough and had children at the time certainly remember

that. I just hope that ICBC continues on. There are some modifications,

and I understand that there was a debate this afternoon, no-fault

vis-à-vis no no-fault and all the rest of it. As far as I am concerned

I have a particular prejudice. I feel that if you're going to go

no-fault you go all the way, and if you're going to go this modest

no-fault that I've heard bandied about, forget it, because it's not

really going to do the job. If you're going to wind up in court in any

event, then what's the point of no-fault?

Anyway, all that we hear to date is rumour, and I'm not going to

spend all night debating rumour. But I do hear a very strong rumour

about the fact that the Insurance Corporation might very well give up

their participation in general insurance. For those who are not

cognizant of the difference, I'm not talking about car insurance any

longer; I'm talking about house, fire, and burglar insurance and all

the rest of it. At the outset ICBC set up a voluntary general

insurance, really as a window on the industry, and it's worked well, in

my view. Not only do I say that, but so do most of the agents in the

province of British Columbia, and those agents cover all political

spectrums of the province. I would just urge the minister not to go

along.

I want to read a line from a letter that the minister sent out some

time ago: "The Insurance Corporation's general insurance division has

no special advantage over private insurance companies." That may or may

not be the case. We can argue that ad infinitum. But what we can't

argue is: (1) there are innumerable people in this province who would

prefer to deal with ICBC, their company; (2) it is, after all, a window

on the industry. And I think that's important. It's not as though

you're trying to monopolize that particular area. Yes, there's a case

for the monopolization of car insurance, because it's the law that

everybody must have it, blah, blah, blah. But this is not a situation

where the government or ICBC is capitalizing on the law. What they're

saying is: "Those of you who wish to deal with your own company may do

so. You may have your money invested in the growth of our province" —

which I think is darned important — "and have more of our own people

employed." I think in this day and age, in B.C. particularly, where

we're concerned about the number of people employed and so on, it's

very vital that we carry on with the general insurance aspect of ICBC.

I ask a question of the minister. At this point you are studying

this proposition, I take it. Where is the minister's consciousness with

respect to this matter? I think it's important to all of us, because I

really think that ICBC, under the NDP and under the Socreds, has played

an important

part in the British Columbia scene. Mr. Chairman, one of

the things that seem to go by most people is the fact that there are a

tremendous number of dollars invested in the British Columbia economy,

and also an awful lot of people employed here.

I come from the insurance industry, as most people in this House know. Most of the jobs are down east, and

would be again were we to give up our participation. I just say that

it's terrible timing, if in fact it does happen — and I'm not

suggesting that it's going to. It would be terrible timing if it did

happen. Secondly, I think that they're doing a good job, and virtually

every agent in the province thinks as I do. I've talked to an awful lot

of them.

I've read the brief. The minister has read it too, I'm sure.

Certainly there are briefs coming out our ears on this matter. So, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to know how the minister feels about this particular

situation.

[9:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want first of all to go back and touch

very briefly on some of the comments made by the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), who is sitting here with me now. Just a

point that the study that we're referring to is not under debate at

this time, but is a report that I would commend all members of the

House to read, so they understand what the committee was attempting to

do. The automobile accident compensation committee is an independent

committee. It was set up by ICBC in 1979 in response to the growing

concern that the compensation system for bodily injury may, by its very

nature, produce injustices for the victims of automobile accidents,

especially those seriously injured. The committee's mandate was to

review the present compensation system and recommend ways to improve it

at no substantially greater cost to the motoring public. It is an

excellent report, and I think one that we should read, and one that

will be thoroughly discussed before any changes are made by government

to the type of insurance we have in British Columbia.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano talked about a socialist

program, but then he moved to talk about how there should be coverage

for everybody, overall compensation for everybody who is injured in an

accident. I believe they have that type of system in New Zealand — a

social program, if you will.

All that I look at in evaluating this program — I'm not an advocate

for no-fault insurance, but I've attempted to approach it in an

unbiased way — is that the compensation for the people involved with

vehicles and who have accidents, whether at fault or not at fault,

would be paid by people operating vehicles. So I can look at that and

say it's not a "socialist" program; it's a pooling of funds to create a

fund to cover people and provide them with a guaranteed income, if you

will, to give them a reasonable standard of living through their years

should they be totally paralysed or very seriously injured.

It's very difficult to determine "at fault." You can be seriously at

fault if you happen to be breaking the speed limit, under the influence

of liquor, and being irresponsible, and

[ Page 2874 ]

cause the accident. I can say you're at fault. But if you're driving

down the road and you happen to sneeze, lose control of your car in the

centre lane of a highway and clip another car, go across the road and

smash into a car and kill three people, were you entirely "at fault"? I

think we have to recognize that it's not black and white when you

determine fault in accidents. It can be just a minor thing — a bee in

the car, whatever — that can cause that one minute of lack of

attention, and you've got a major problem.

Mr. Member for New Westminster, what's going to happen to ICBC?

We're not talking about the automobile side of it. You're more

concerned about general. I've told you that we have a committee that is

reviewing the operations of the corporation and will be reporting to

cabinet and giving their recommendations. No decision would be made

until the thing was thoroughly analyzed. I appreciate your comments and

the comments of others tonight concerning the corporation. It's the

largest general insurance writer in British Columbia. It's not a window.

MR. COCKE: Guess why.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, if you want to guess why, I guess

there are a number of reasons that I could give you, but I'll give you

one: it's a nice company for the agents to deal with. I can also tell

you that there are a good number of agents in the province who are

private enterprisers and who don't feel the government should be in the

general insurance field. It writes, I believe, about $36 million a year.

Mr. Member, I might be at somewhat of a difference with my colleague on this

side of the House the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom),

but do we really need it? Or the question may be extended a little farther into

general insurance. Do we have the philosophy on this side of the House to say:

"Let the private sector do it"? Put in the legislation and regulations

that are needed to ensure that there is fairness in the marketplace, but is

it necessary that the government is in the business of selling fire insurance

on my or your house? I'm not sure. I have difficulty, philosophically, with

the position that we are in the general insurance business.

I can concede, as a private enterpriser, the concept of automobile

insurance and Autoplan, because everybody who drives a car must and

should be insured. I think the Autoplan system works reasonably well.

However, it's important that after upwards of ten years we should

analyze the system and see whether it is working efficiently for the

motoring public of British Columbia. But general insurance is one of

the areas that's under consideration and will be reported by that

committee. You may find me not much different than my colleague the

Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) in saying: "Yes, it's

privatization." It may well be that the determination is privatization

with general insurance. That being the case — if that were the decision

made by government — I can assure you that I for one would want to be

assured by the general insurance industry that they would be

responsible and would ensure that anybody in British Columbia had the

ability to get insurance, and that we would have the regulations in

place. I think they would know that if they failed to meet their

responsibility, the government would have to look at returning to the

general insurance business. But, Mr. Member, until that committee

reports and cabinet makes a policy decision, it's business as usual at

the corporation.

MR. COCKE: I understand what the minister is saying, and I

regret that the minister has that kind of a general attitude with

respect to the general aspect of ICBC. Let me tell you that this fetish

about privatization and private enterprise, and so on, is really just a

bit of a smirk as far as I'm concerned. I remember when Lee Iacocca,

probably the greatest free enterpriser who ever faced the North

American continent — you know, that guy who was the leading Ford

magnate — said in those days: "My heavenly days! Keep government out of

business, and everything is just going to be fine." Then all of a

sudden he finds himself heading up Chrysler, and they got in trouble.

What did he do? He had his hat in his hand, and he was out to the

federal government of the United States for $500 million so fast it

makes your head swim. Private enterprise goes down the tube when the

people need to be consulted to help out with the financing of major

private enterprise companies. It's a lot of junk.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're not a socialist, are you?

MR. COCKE: Come on, Jim. The fact of the matter is, what we

have here.... And the minister says they got 38 percent of the

business. Why do you think...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, 8 percent — $36 million.

MR. COCKE: It is, under those circumstances, a window.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It may be the largest, but the fact of the matter

is I have been associated with the insurance industry — thank god, not

for the last 14 years — for 7 years as manager for a major company for

the province of British Columbia, and prior to that I was with them for

13 years, mainly in life insurance, although I had plenty to do with

general insurance people. I remember year after year the complaints of

people living beyond Hope. Do you know the old story? If you're beyond

Hope, you're beyond insurance. If you don't have a fire hydrant right

beside your house, you don't get insurance. ICBC changed all that, and,

Mr. Chairman, that was a corporation very much appreciated by those

people outside of the lower mainland and the areas that are highly

serviced by fire protection agencies. I can remember the day when you

couldn't buy fire insurance, for crying out loud, if you were in a

municipality in the Fraser Valley that didn't have great fire

protection. You had to go running all over the face of the earth, and

then, if you could find it, the price was absolutely outrageous. I'm

saying ICBC has done an absolutely spectacular job in that area. For

crying out loud, I think you've got a setup in terms of the people who

are studying it for you. I think they have biases coming out of their

ears, as I understand it. I just suggest to the minister that he

consult with some of your colleagues who are a little bit more

progressive-leaning than you and maybe some of the people who are doing

the study for you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the

remarks of my colleague the minister, and I would certainly like to

assure him that I was a free enterpriser probably when he was still in

swaddling clothes, My original view was somewhat the same as his

concerning the general

[ Page 2875 ]

portfolio held by the Insurance Corporation, but I well remember

when I was on the board of the Insurance Corporation. The private

sector could not and would not provide a market. People couldn't insure

their businesses, and they could not insure their homes via the private

side. One always has to remember that the private side essentially had

their headquarters in London, in Hartford, Connecticut, in New York,

Valparaiso, or wherever, but the people who filled the gap were

essentially the private enterprisers in this province who exercised

their freedom of choice, and they chose to purchase general insurance

from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia which was able to

fill that gap. I think they performed a very first-class task there and

provided that kind of a window, which is very much needed in this

particular area. If we ran into a situation again, which I suppose

could happen at any point in time, of the market drying up and not

being able to find a source of funds, that would create extreme

difficulty for our people who desire insurance in the province.

Another point that I would rather like to mention, because I don't

think it has been articulated during this discussion, is to ask why

there is a commanding requirement in society in our province for us to

insure public buildings. Why not treat that as payment after loss? I

fail to see how there is use in putting premiums into the hands of

either the private sector — and the private sector, again, insofar as

insurance is concerned, is pretty much removed from British Columbia —

or into the hands of the Insurance Corporation. I think that could be

well and best attended and at far less cost to the taxpayer by virtue

of payment after loss.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions with

regard to liquor regulations that I was going to ask. I was going to

ask them under vote 20, but I might just as well ask them under vote 19.

[10:00]

I also wish to comment on ICBC. There has been a lot of discussion

back and forth this evening with regard to the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister at this point

whether or not he has seen the final report put out by the Committee on

Crown Corporations on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,

because I think on reading that report, if and when it is ever tabled

in this House — and I would certainly hope it would be because

taxpayers' dollars have been spent on that very realistic and very

in-depth report done on the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.... If that report were ever tabled in this House it would

allow both sides of this House to better understand the merits — or

demerits, whichever way you want to look at it — of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. So I would commend to both sides that

they urge whoever it is who now has custody of that particular report

to table it in this Legislature for all to see, not only the members of

this Assembly but also the people of British Columbia who paid for it.

Mr. Chairman, that was not what I was going to talk about. I wish to

ask a couple of questions of the minister in regard to liquor

regulations. I am sure the Chairman now in the chair won't rule me out

of order for being repetitious because he hasn't been here in the last

three or four years.

First, each and every year in this particular minister's estimates I

have stood in this House and pleaded for a change in the absolutely

archaic regulations as they pertain to neighbourhood pubs in the rural

part of this province. I'm talking about regulations which prohibit the

opening or the licensing of a neighbourhood pub in any community in

this province unless it's more than one-half mile from an arterial

highway, or at least one mile away from another such liquor outlet or

establishment in that particular community. Anyone who knows the rural

area of this province — by rural, I mean the northern 80 percent —

would know, as I know in serving eight incorporated communities, that

in any one of those eight incorporated communities, to be half a mile

from an arterial highway is to be out of town, out in the bush. To be a

mile from another liquor outlet would surely be a half a mile from

either side of that community. They would know that those regulations

are absolutely archaic. They don't pertain to the rural communities in

British Columbia.

As I have done in years gone by, I would again not just plead, but

beseech the minister to have those regulations changed; and if he does

not wish to change the present regulations, then to have two sets of

regulations: one for the urban area of British Columbia, and one for

the rural area. Not for Houston, but for a couple of communities in my

constituency which have for two and a half years now been waiting for

the minister to sanction applications for neighbourhood pubs.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Minister of

Municipal Affairs. These are applications which have been sanctioned by

the municipal councils in those communities and by the people living in

those communities. As you and your staff know, these applications have

been sanctioned by everyone in those municipalities.

If you're not going to consider changing the present regulations, at

least consider bringing in a set of regulations that would bring the

small communities, of which 80 percent of this province is made up,

into the twentieth century as far as pub applications and the

sanctioning of neighbourhood pubs is concerned.

Secondly, I wish to speak to the minister about a subject which I've

talked to him about on many occasions. I know it's difficult, and I

know there's a hesitation on the part of many members in this assembly

to talk about liquor regulations. We seem to have a mental block when

it comes to liquor in the province. All I'm asking is that the minister

tell me tonight if there is any consideration being given to the

introduction of specialty wine shops in the province of British

Columbia. I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in the

House tonight. We talk a lot about tourism. You say I get a little

parochial when I talk about the rural areas of British Columbia. I want

to talk for a few minutes about the urban areas of British Columbia,

and specifically Victoria, in which this Legislature sits. In talking

about tourism and specialty wine shops, I think we should talk about

Victoria. If there is anything that we need in order to bring more

tourists to this capital city, or to service the tourists that we bring

to this city, it's specialty wine shops. Heaven forbid I should talk

about liquor in grocery stores or any of those other terrible things

that we might do in regard to bringing liquor regulations into the

twentieth century. I won't talk about any of those; I'll just talk

about specialty wine shops.

As one who has travelled a lot and been in areas where other

countries take very good care of their tourists, I think that the

introduction of specialty wine shops into British

[ Page 2876 ]

Columbia, specifically for the urban areas of British Columbia,

would be a fantastic at least half-step for mankind. I would like to

ask the minister during his estimates here tonight if he is giving any

serious consideration to the introduction of specialty wine shops.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, as someone from an interior

community, I resemble some of the remarks that the member for Omineca

has made. However, I want to make it clear that a neighbourhood pub is

exactly that; it's a neighbourhood pub. If the member for Omineca is

advocating roadhouses along the highways, let him call them roadhouses.

If he's basically advocating an unrestricted tavern policy in our

communities, let him say an unrestricted tavern policy. I'm not saying

those are necessarily bad; I'm simply saying let's not cover up those

potential retail outlets for selling booze under the euphemism of

neighbourhood pubs, which they most definitely would not be.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I would like the attention of

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) with

regard to the comments made concerning ICBC. I'll just start my

comments, which will be brief, by saying there is nothing as difficult,

Mr. Member, as the challenge of change. There were comments made

tonight that ICBC brought the private general insurance companies into

line. All I'm saying to you is that perhaps now is the time to review

what has been put in place and possibly consider that return to the

private sector. There were comments made about ICBC selling insurance

at reasonable premiums in areas where people couldn't get insurance

before. I would hope that some of the people who buy general insurance

are not subsidizing areas in the province, but that the ratings on the

insurability of that property is done in a reasonable manner, as it

would be done in the private sector. In the review, it seems to me that

we would have to assure ourselves — myself included in government —

that insurance would have to be given and regulations would have to be

in place to ensure that people were not denied coverage in this

province if general insurance was returned to the private sector.

In closing, I would say to the member for Omineca, yes, Mr. Member,

we are considering some of those comments you made concerning specialty

wine shops. Finally, to the member for Rossland-Trail, I wholeheartedly

agree with him that sometimes the "neighbourhood pub" is being used out

of context. If we're going to identify roadhouses and taverns — those

establishments — maybe that's what we should be calling them. The

original concept of the neighbourhood pub was to serve an area, to

serve a small neighbourhood, and not to stick it out on the side of a

highway and have the travelling public use it. But if we want to

address that question, we can do that.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I can't let the remarks of the

member for Rossland-Trail go by, or the last remarks of the minister.

If I do, I really haven't made my point tonight, last year or the year

before that. That is, if the regulations were changed then surely, in

the small communities of British Columbia, you would not have to call

neighbourhood pubs roadhouses; they could in fact be built in the

communities and not out on the highways out of town. The regulations

now prohibit them from being built in areas where people live.

According to the regulations that exist now, you would have to build

them out of town. And yes, Mr. Member, you would have to call them

roadhouses, particularly if you built them on the highway.

Vote 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Brummet

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 11

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

D'Arcy

Brown

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

A hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[10:15]

On vote 20: ministry operations, $18,922,938.

MS. BROWN: I have two questions for the minister, and one has

to do with the condominium office. I want to find out whether the

minister has given that matter any thought, in terms of reopening it,

or whether he's planning to do so, in view of the importance of that

office and the kind of job that it has been doing for people who are

involved in strata plans in the province.

The other is just to say, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that coming

from a riding which has a number of people who live in rental

accommodation, I cannot stress too strongly how important it is to both

the tenants and the landlords that the office of the rentalsman be

reopened as quickly as possible. A number of issues that were handled

by the rentalsman's office cannot he settled by the courts at all.

Unless he has an alternative to deal with those kinds of cases, I don't

think he has any choice other than to reopen the rentalsman's office.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the condominium office service

will not be reopening, although there has been some interest expressed

by the lady who formerly operated it, and it might well be that the

Condominium Owners' Association may be providing a service through

their body.

The rentalsman's office still is there and still is operating,

dealing with rent review. The only thing that has happened to date, of

course, is by order-in-council; we did away with rent controls, but

rent review is still carrying on. You know the residential tenancy

legislation before the House. But as of today that office is still

operating.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, there are two issues that I would

like to bring up to the minister. I have spoken on one in this House

before. I have written to the minister, and I

[ Page 2877 ]

still haven't got what I consider a proper answer. That is the

problem that faces a lot of people who buy lots that are being

developed in the rural areas. They buy it on the strength of a

prospectus that is being given out by the real estate people, by the

developer.

In this prospectus there are statements made that are false. I use

an example of one particular prospectus. I have had three of them, I

think, which I brought to the attention of the minister and the

government over the last three or four years. They state that all roads

in the particular development are up and are approved by the Highways

department. This is filed with the minister's ministry, and this is not

a fact. The Highways department has turned down the particular

locations of the road; they have turned down the grades of the road. I

find the problem is that the ministry accepts these prospectuses

without even checking with other ministries within the government. I

think a phone call should be made before any prospectus is filed and

accepted to see if it does conform to the basic regulations of the

Highways department.

I have in my own riding this particular situation — and I've been

battling through the ministries — where people have bought property

from a prospectus. It was stated in this particular case that they had

access to Happy Valley Road, which is approximately 14 miles closer to

Victoria than the road that is eventually being utilized. I really feel

that the ministry is condoning this type of prospectus being used by

real estate people and allowing people to buy property when the

prospectus doesn't come up to the facts. I've asked the minister what

can be done about it. I've asked the person who held that position

before. I think the government has to look at it. What kind of

protection can the buying public, who invest their life savings in a

home, have to feel secure that they have a prospectus that is stamped

by his office and enforceable?

The second question I'd like to ask the minister is if he has any

facts on what happened to the Northern Union Insurance Co. It was an

insurance company registered in Alberta that was selling insurance to

homeowners, and all of a sudden they went broke. I believe under the

ministry that there are provisions under the Insurance Act that a

certain percentage of the premiums must go into trust when an insurance

company is dealing with the public's money. There is a certain feeling

in the community that when they do buy insurance and an insurance

company is policed by the ministry, they are going to be protected.

I had one particular person who had a fire, and the insurance

adjusters settled for $7,000. By the time it got worked through the

receiver and everything else, it was down to $2,500, when and where

they could pay it. What kind of policing is given by the ministry over

private insurance companies that are doing business in our province?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response, if false statements are made in

a prospectus, an individual can take action under the Real Estate Act.

A developer issuing a prospectus with false statements in it commits an

offence. If there's a specific instance the matter can be referred to

the superintendent of real estate and it would be investigated and

prosecuted, or the individual involved could take action due to the

false information. If he has specific information — and he may have

already done this, because I believe I have received something

regarding Happy Valley Road; that seems to stick in my mind — he can

send me the material and we can investigate it on behalf of the people

who you feel have had misrepresented to them that certain things would

be done.

In regard to Northern Insurance, we did take action as soon as we

found there was a problem. We advised all the agents who were carrying

on an agency for Northern Insurance, and they advised the people they

had sold insurance to to reinsure quickly. There are some problems

where claims were filed and have not been paid. I have discussed with

my colleagues the need for an early warning system across Canada, so

that where a company is registered, say, in Manitoba and there is a

problem there with the forms that have to be filed, they advise other

jurisdictions so we can be aware of a problem that's developing.

We are also exploring that compensation fund for insurance

companies, and contributed to by insurance companies, to take care of

the situation that you mentioned — similar, I guess, to the travel

assurance fund which is contributed to by the travel agents. So it's a

possibility that you may see that develop in the not too distant future.

MR. MITCHELL: Getting back to the first one on the property,

I've already filed with the minister and with his predecessor all the

documents in the prospectus — the statements about where the access to

this particular road was going to be, and I got an answer from you

saying: "Well, it's too bad. He sold all the lots, and there's nothing

we can do now that he's gone bankrupt." This is easy. You can say there

is nothing you can do, but there are still 35 to 40 families in the

area who should never have been there if the ministry had made a simple

check. Before they give a stamp of approval on any prospectus they

should at least check with the Ministry of Highways and Transportation

to see if that particular network of roads conforms and is up to the

standard. In another particular real estate development where they said

that there will be power into the site by a certain date the ministry

should check that B.C. Hydro has received sufficient funds to put in

the power. When a person buys a $50,000 to $100,000 lot and they have

been told by their real estate agent that their....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't they incorporate? Then they wouldn't have that problem.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, it is quite a joke that the

Minister of Municipal Affairs can make snide remarks like that. It

doesn't really matter if they are incorporated or not. It is the

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that is allowing

prospectuses to be given the stamp of approval, allowing real estate

people to go out and sell it when they have not made basic checks that

the statements within the prospectus that even deal with Highways,

Hydro.... The statements made are not checked first. I really don't

think it's a big issue. I'm not asking that you install a whole army of

inspectors to go around and look at every field. But you can always

make that phone call or send a letter. The regional manager of this

particular subdivision, the people in Hydro of another subdivision,

were aware of it. Unless your ministry, before they give that stamp of

approval, makes those checks, more people are going to lose a lot of

money.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has, on occasion,

mentioned the office of the rentalsman. I know Bill 5 or some form of

Bill 5 will be coming before this House, but

[ Page 2878 ]

I think it might be useful for this House — not only for this House

but for all of those 355,000 tenants in British Columbia — if the

minister would just explore a little bit some of the intentions of the

government. There have been a lot of rumours about what's happening

with the office of the rentalsman. We have heard today — maybe the

minister will confirm it — that the office of the rentalsman will be

continued till the end of November with full staff to continue not only

rent review.... He mentioned just rent review, but in my understanding

they will also continue dispute resolution at least till the end of

November. Perhaps he could give us some indications of what is

happening with the office of the rentalsman. Many folk in British

Columbia — many tenants — are not sure. Many think it is currently

being phased out in totality early.

I'm just going to see if we can get some dialogue from the minister

on this particular issue, because there is a degree of confusion out

there about what is happening. The press are reporting and you have

been saying that there may be some form of the rentalsman left, there

may be some review panels discussed. I think it might be useful this

evening to perhaps get some indication from the minister if some

changes are being considered. Perhaps he could explain some of those

thoughts as an early indication of what's happening, just to perhaps

alleviate some of the misapprehensions that are happening out there in

the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got to remember that we can't anticipate legislation.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

23 The Hon. A. V. Fraser to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill

(No. 23) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as

follows:

SECTION 1.1, by adding the following section:

" 1.1 The following

section is added:

" Inspection of vehicles

and refusal to issue

licence

"24.2 The superintendent may refuse to issue

(

a) a licence and corresponding number plates, and

(

b) a permit for a motor vehicle or trailer that is required under

section 215 to be presented for inspection and has not been presented

for inspection or has not passed inspection."

SECTION 7 , in the proposed

section 215 (1),

(

a) by deleting paragraph (

e) and substituting the following:

"(

e) prescribing

(

i) fees or the method of determining the amount of fees payable

to the Province in respect of inspections of vehicles and in respect of applications

for and any consultations relating to the issuance of authorizations, designations

and exemptions under

section 215.1, and

(ii) charges payable, by persons required to present vehicles

for inspection, to operators, other than the Province, of facilities designated

under

section 215.1, and,"

(

b) in paragraph (f) (iii) by deleting "inspection certificate,

and" and substituting "inspection certificate.", and

(

c) by deleting paragraph (g).

SECTION 11 , by deleting "65, 67," and substituting "24.2, 65, 67,".

[ Page

2879 ]

SECTION 12 , by adding the following section:

''Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act Amendments

"

Section 38 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act , R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 204, is amended

"(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'contrary to this section'

and substituting 'contrary to this subsection', and

"(

b) by adding the following subsection:

"

(1.1) No owner's certificate shall be issued for a motor vehicle

or trailer for which the superintendent refuses to issue a licence or permit

under

section 24.2 of the Motor Vehicle Act , and a certificate issued contrary

to this subsection is null and void and shall be deemed to have always been

void and of no effect.'"

SECTION 13 , by adding the following section:

" 13.

Section 40 (3) is amended by striking out 'by reason only of

a suspension of a licence under

section 25.10 of a regulation under the Motor

Vehicle Act made by Order in Council 30/70, until the superintendent notifies

the corporation that the licence and the number plates have been returned to

the superintendent pursuant to paragraph (

b) or (

c) of that section.' and

substituting 'by reason only of the surrender of a vehicle licence in compliance

with a regulation made under

section 215 (1) (

f) of the Motor Vehicle Act ,

until the superintendent notifies the corporation that the vehicle licence and

corresponding number plates have been returned to the superintendent.'"

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada