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 )

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1279 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions.

Motion 29 (Hon. A. Fraser) –– 1279

Mr. Lockstead –– 1279

Mr. Strachan –– 1282

Mrs. Dailly –– 1282

Mr. Macdonald –– 1285

Mr. Reynolds –– 1286

Mr. Barrett –– 1288

Mr. Kempf –– 1291

Motion 28 (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) –– 1292

Mr. Blencoe –– 1292

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

On the amendment

Mr. Parks –– 1295

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 1296

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today observing

our deliberations this morning are three ladies: Betty Smith visiting

from Calgary, Alberta, accompanied by two constituents of mine from

Saanich and the Islands, Alice Howes and Jean Scott. Would the House

make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 34: minister's office, $172,432.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call Resolution 29 standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

On the motion.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving

Resolution 29, which reads as follows: that this House authorize the

Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to

consider methods for providing for the inspection as to safety and

repair of prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing for different

types of inspections for different classes of vehicles by the private

sector; and this committee shall be empowered to sit during sittings of

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

further, to report its findings and recommendations to the House from

time to time, and make its final report and recommendations by not

later than December 16, 1983.

The present situation, Mr. Speaker, is that we have had inspection

programs which have required inspection of vehicles in Vancouver,

Victoria and Nanaimo, and this has been discontinued. It is the

government policy to privatize this function. There is a need to

encourage and require a reasonable standard of maintenance of all motor

vehicles in the province, not just in the areas where it has been done

in the past. The purpose is to increase the margin of safety by

ensuring that mechanical defects are reduced in all classes of

vehicles, which will reduce death and injuries.

There are various methods to achieve this in the private sector, and there

is a need to examine which vehicles should be inspected, what method is used

— contract status or broadly spread service garages available — across the province,

and the cost of methods to be used.

I might add that a lot of interest has been shown by the private

sector in taking

part in any new program. As stated in the resolution,

we want the committee set up and we want it to report by December 16,

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I should say that as usual we had no previous indication from the government what the order....

MR. SPEAKER: As usual, too, I will remind the members that

that is not a matter to be discussed. It has been ruled to be out of

order in discussion.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am not discussing it, Mr. Speaker; I am just mentioning it in passing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You just want some help and instruction, that's all you want.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That wouldn't be a bad idea.

I may add, Mr. Speaker, to the government that under very ordinary

circumstances this is the kind of motion that this side of the House

would normally support, because we have been calling for it and

suggesting that, on a number of items, the legislative committees of

this House should meet and resolve the business of the day and

questions that come before this Legislature.

However, we have something quite different here. Before us in this

House is a bill which will abolish the motor vehicle testing stations —

so-called privatization. Even the director of the motor vehicle branch.

Mr. Whitlock, has indicated that this would be a very foolish move for

British Columbia. In terms of cost....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I need your assistance, Mr. Speaker. This

is a motion, and the debate on the motion, I'm sure, can’t anticipate a

bill which is before us. I think that the motion is very clear: it is

simply referring to a committee and instructions to a committee to

consider certain things. I don't think we can anticipate what the

committee might be considering, and certainly we cannot discuss those

matters which are anticipatory of this bill itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order raised is an

excellent one, and the Chair would hope that in passing, while very

brief reference could be made, the member would turn to the specifics

of the motion which is before us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I was

not anticipating passage or non-passage of the bill. I anticipate, in

fact, that the bill will likely pass when it is called, and that is

exactly my point. The Minister of Agriculture and Food shakes his head,

but the government has 35 members over there, and at some point that

particular piece of legislation will come before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please, hon. member.

[ Page 1280 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I understand what you're saying. He's made a point, Mr. Speaker, and I have the right to respond to his point, absolutely.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if the member wishes to challenge a

point of order it may be done, but we can't enter into debate on points

of order. The point of order raised was that we cannot discuss anything

other than the motion before us, and to refer to something that is in a

piece of legislation in another setting would be out of order. The

member is free to make some very brief passing comments on that, but to

enter into an argumentative type of approach.... I'm sure the member is

aware of that and will continue in this spirit.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, my comments were brief and

passing until the Minister of Agriculture leaped to his feet, if you'll

recall, when this thing started about five minutes ago.

But I want to suggest that, prior to this motion coming to this

House, by debating the motion now, we are anticipating a bill. This is

quite the reverse of what the hon. Minister of Agriculture told us a

few minutes ago. In any event, we are on the motion. I'm going to speak

to the motion. I was trying to find reasons why, under ordinary

circumstances, we would in this House support this kind of motion. What

the government has decided to do, in this case, is to bring a motion

before the House anticipating the passage of a bill which will wipe out

or privatize the motor vehicle branch in some form in British Columbia.

We don't know what form it is going to take. Is it going to be the

comer garage? Is this what it is going to be?

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are they going to do the motor vehicle

testing? I started to point out that a senior, long-time and respected

public servant in this province has already said publicly that the loss

in the motor vehicle inspection branches could be overcome by an

additional charge of 50 cents per vehicle. It seems to me that where

the government is going with this type of motion and legislation with

their privatization is the Ontario route, where they do in fact have

private motor vehicle inspection. I don't have my notes in front of me

at the moment, but I believe that they charge somewhere between $45 and

$50 per inspection. Once again, the public is going to be ripped off.

It's as simple as that.

There's more to it than this. If you will go and examine the annual

report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, you will see, in

the back part of that thick volume, statistics relating to motor

vehicle accidents in this province. On page 347 of that report you will

see the number of motor vehicle accidents in British Columbia every

year, the types of vehicles involved and these kinds of things. It has

been determined that many of these accidents occur because of having no

motor vehicle inspection. It could be steering problems or mechanical

failure.

MR. SPEAKER: At this time it is clearly the responsibility of

the Chair to instruct the member that he is now on a course of debate

that is by no stretch of the imagination related to the motion before

us. In fact, the motion before us deals with the appointment of a

committee. For a member to conclude...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not finished yet.

...the results of the hearing of that committee is most

inappropriate, hon. members, and to deal with a piece of legislation

currently before us also goes beyond the bounds of the particular

motion.

MR. HANSON: On the point of order, the member for Mackenzie,

I would argue, is in order because he is simply indicating to the House

that we are unable to support the committee structure on this

particular motion because we oppose the dismantling of the motor

vehicle stations, which is coming in a bill. He's indicating to the

House in a very articulate way that we cannot support this committee

which implies that the private sector will assume total responsibility

for the inspecting of vehicles.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The first member for Victoria is clearly engaging in debate at this time, and secondly...

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, if I may....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

...a member is not free to argue a point with the Chair. You may

stand and raise a point of order, but you are not at liberty to engage

in debate with the Chair.

MR. HANSON: Are you making a ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I am making a ruling.

MR. HANSON: I'd like to challenge the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 29

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

B arrett

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

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

[ Page

1281 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We are dealing with a motion concerning the motor vehicle

inspection stations around this province. Now we've had a ruling that we

can't speak on the safety or lack of safety of the motor vehicle inspection

stations. I am greatly shocked and surprised that the government would take

this tack.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, but more than that, what about the safety factor involved in this particular matter?

I have an item in front of me that indicates to me that an estimated

7 percent of accidents in this province are related to mechanical

failure. That is a significant number. I don't know how many that is in

bodies, but it's lots. I have figures here that show that last year in

this province we had 231,879 motor vehicle accidents, 7 percent of

which were directly related to motor vehicle mechanical failure.

The government is proposing to privatize, so-called, and do away

with motor vehicle inspection branches throughout this province. That

is what they're proposing under this motion, and there is no way we can

support that.

[10:30]

Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that for an additional charge of 50

cents per inspection the motor vehicle inspection stations in this

province would at least break even financially? What the government is

proposing to do, once again, in their own way, is hand out patronage to

their friends. That's what will happen with the privatization of motor

vehicle inspection stations. The costs to motorists will soar. Many

people will probably not even bother to have their vehicles inspected.

And the list goes on and on.

I think I have made my point in this debate. But I just want to

remind you once again, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling you made in dealing

with this particular motion, in my view, sets a precedent in this House

whereby members will lose the opportunity to debate in detail the

aspects of any motion that may come before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will caution the member about

reflecting on a decision of the Chair — and a vote of the House.

Members are certainly entitled to have their own opinions, hon. member.

But to reflect on a decision of the Chair is most inappropriate.

HON. A. FRASER: Tell us you're against the committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No! Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but the minister

interjects across the floor and says that we are opposed to committees.

That is absolutely not true. In fact, the conduct of this House and the

business of this House would be much better served if the committee

system was used properly for the purpose it was designed and set up for

in the first place, in my view.

But that is not the issue here at all. What we're talking about is motor

vehicle safety in this province. That's exactly the issue here. I don't

see how the Ministry of Highways or anybody else...how the government feels

that the taxpayers of this province are going to save a great deal of money

by abolishing the motor vehicle inspection stations. I honestly don't understand

that. What we will see is an increased number of accidents.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We will!

This motion says, Mr. Speaker, if you will read it, starting on the

second line, that the committee is to meet "to consider methods for

providing for the inspection as to safety and repair of prescribed

classes of vehicles, and providing for different types of inspections

for different classes of vehicles by the private sector." The two key

words here are "private sector" — and motor vehicle safety, which is

exactly the point that I am attempting to make under discussion of this

motion.... If we can't discuss motor vehicle safety when the motion

itself relates to motor vehicle safety, then what should our discussion

relate to? I don't understand the interjection. Well, the interjection

the minister was making.... We know the government is going to

privatize motor vehicle stations in the province; they have said so.

Charges will increase out of reach for a lot of people.

The tragedy of this whole thing is — I'm generally concerned and a

little angry — that the number of motor vehicle accidents in this

province related to mechanical failure will increase. There is no

question about it.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Look, I have before me

article after

article.... Almost every major newspaper in the province is opposed to

this move that the government is proposing. I know we'll get into a lot

more detail when we discuss the matter under the bill. But, Mr.

Speaker, I want to go on record as opposing this motion for the reasons

I cited.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order under

standing order 18: "No member is entitled to vote upon any question in

which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so

interested shall be disallowed." The reason I raise this is that at

least ten of the government members are car dealers and one is a

used-parts dealer and there is a pecuniary interest in this debate, Mr.

Speaker. Why else would they do away with this? I want a ruling from

you on this, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about social workers?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the

Leader of the Opposition is using his same socialist arithmetic. If he

has that kind of a complaint, I wish he would name the ten car dealers.

It's the same nonsense that he's been speaking about for years in this

province, the same garbage he's been trying to purvey around this

province.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly will. Do you want me to name them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Clearly, hon. members, we are

currently engaged in a debate which is not before us, nor by any

stretch of the imagination could it be before us at the present time.

If the member wishes to raise a point of order on a vote, the time to

do it is not during debate but rather

[ Page 1282 ]

when the vote is taken. That is the time to raise a point of order, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, despite the interruptions, I'm

asking you to rule on the question of standing order 18, in light of

the rules that exist in this House and in light of the fact that

certain members may have a pecuniary interest in this.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: If the House wants names in front of it, I will certainly....

MR. SPEAKER: I will caution members at this time that we are

currently engaged in a debate that should not be before this House. A

ruling has been asked on standing order 18, and the ruling of the Chair

will be as follows. At this time there is no vote before us. We are

currently engaged in debate and if a point of order is to be raised

under standing order 18 it should be at the time of a vote, certainly

not at this period in the course of debate.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on Motion 29, but

there are a couple of items in the resolution that I would like to

speak to. However, before I do that, let me observe that it's

interesting that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have concluded that

they cannot support this resolution. I therefore must conclude that

they will decline to sit on the committee, and that would, I am sure,

be a good thing.

MS. BROWN: That's no big loss.

MR. STRACHAN: It's no big loss that you are declining to sit on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to the motion briefly, I am intrigued

with it, and I think it's something that both sides of the House should

support, particularly the clause which provides for different types of

inspection for different classes of vehicles by the private sector.

As a member from the central interior I'm quite concerned, as I

guess many of us are, about different classes, and the class that

lately we're concerned about most is the industrial class: private

trucking firms, logging trucks, chip trailers and that class of

vehicle. Over the past four or five years the accident rate in this

class has increased significantly. It is a concern to the Truck

Loggers' Association, and I'm sure to ICBC and to the private sector

people who insure this class of vehicle as well as ICBC. I think that's

something that this committee should look into in some detail, because

we don't have logging trucks only in the central interior, of course,

but throughout the province; it's a very viable part of our industry.

In the last ten years logging trucks have gone from reasonably slow

and underpowered for the weight they were carrying — in the

neighbourhood of 200 horsepower — and not the fanciest of transmissions

to very sophisticated rigs costing up to $100,000, with horsepower

going from 200 to well over 450, radial-ply tires and automatic and

13-speed transmissions, which are far faster. The end result is that we

can carry a large load down the highway very quickly. But, of course,

the potential for accident and serious damage is compounded, I would

submit, exponentially as you increase horsepower, speed and the ability

of that large load to go down the road very quickly. It's been a good

thing in terms of not causing any traffic tie-ups and causing a load to

get delivered efficiently, but it is a very serious thing in terms of

accident potential. Instead of the rigs going 40 or 50 miles an hour,

they now have the potential to exceed the speed limit up or down hill —

whatever.

I would strongly support this committee and the recommendation that

we in fact look at all classes of vehicles and take into consideration

what we can do to make them safe. There is just no question that we do

have a large problem with the industrial private sector on our

highways. It is compounded in the north because we have icy roads under

winter conditions, and that, of course, is when logging is at its best.

I know that the ministry in the past couple of years has had random

inspections here and there, and they found large units — in the 80,000

pound class, B-trains and large logging trucks — with defective brakes,

tires and steering. That has largely been the result of a downturn in

the economy. A lot of truck loggers can't afford to keep their trucks

in the best repair that they would like to. But nevertheless it's a

serious concern to many people in our province, in particular in the

central interior. I'm sure my good colleague from Omineca will agree

with me that it's a concern in the area west of Prince George.

So I would strongly support this motion that's before us and

strongly support the investigation into all classes of vehicle, in

particular the industrial and the logging sector.

MRS. DAILLY: There is no way that I would ever support a

motion in this House presented by the Social Credit government — or any

government, for that matter — which will condemn thousands of our

citizens to death on the highway. You will be responsible. If you pass

this motion, you can have on your heads the death of thousands of

citizens on our highways, and I think, Mr. Speaker, you know that I am

not a member who speaks in extreme words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must at this

juncture caution the member that any inference of the cause of that

kind of injury to a government member or a body of government is

absolutely out of order. As a matter of fact, hon. member, an incident

in Westminster some very short time ago resulted in very serious action

being taken against the offending member. I would caution members in

debate that we have a responsibility to maintain the parliamentary

traditions, and I am sure the member speaking is more than able to

eloquently do so.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, this resolution says that

the committee is to examine only one thing: inspection by the private

sector. The hon. member gets up and in her wisdom and experience says

that examination of cars by the private sector will lead to maiming and

injury of many thousands of people on the roads. That is a perfect....

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it may be garbage; you can disagree with

it. But for us to be cut off from discussing that point on this

resolution would be stifling free speech in parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the point made by the member and

the argument by the member is a valid one and is parliamentary when

referring to the private sector. To infer

[ Page 1283 ]

that the government in fact would be the

responsible party is not parliamentary by any stretch of the

imagination, and will not be allowed.

[10:45]

MR. MACDONALD: On the point of order, supposing a government

was about to declare war and a member got up and said: "This will cause

so many unnecessary deaths..."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair cannot deal with hypothetical cases.

MR. MACDONALD: "...and they will be on the conscience of the

government." What's wrong with that? It's been said in parliaments a

hundred times.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair is not

dealing with hypothetical cases; the Chair is dealing with a case

presently before us. I'm sure, as I stated, that the member for Burnaby

North is eloquent and sufficiently versed in the rules to put her

argument forward in a parliamentary method.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I do not

often resort to extreme statements, but this motion does arouse in me

feelings of great emotion, and distress at the callous move by that

government. In my opinion, if this public testing of cars for safety is

turned over to the private sector, which this motion is asking us to

do, I am saying that it will result in increased traffic deaths on the

highway. I cannot believe that even this government, which has shown

such a doctrinaire, extreme approach to their whole idea of how they

should govern, particularly in the recent budget and the package of

regressive bills they have brought in, would go this far in their

obsession with privatization. It's straight obsession; it is not based

on logic, compassion, care, or concern for the figures on our highways,

which show that many of the traffic deaths are there because of the

mechanical failures of cars.

That minister is bringing this bill in on behalf of his government —

the same minister who will stand up in this House and say to us that

he's concerned about traffic deaths and traffic accidents. How can he

be concerned and at the same time close down one of our best vehicles

for protecting the public against unsafe cars? We are asked to take

part in the dissembling of one of the best features in our province for

traffic safety. It was respected and known across Canada. We were

looked up to. This government is making me ashamed every day to say I'm

a B.C. citizen. We are going to be responsible in this Legislature if

we pass this motion. We are going to be responsible for turning over to

the private sector, willy-nilly, some kind of testing which we're going

to have to pay for to an extreme degree. There will be no more control

on the price, and there's no assurance that the cars will go in there

and be tested. Every time we leave this Legislature and drive home, we

will not know if we are going to face a car which is mechanically

deficient and will kill us and members of our family.

I cannot understand how any government in British Columbia could be

so stupid, so callous and so incompetent. We have the figures. Mr.

Whitlock says that if mandatory motor vehicle inspection fees were

raised 50 cents to $5.50 a car, the government would break even. This

is the man who is in charge of it. There is no logic behind this. You

know what's behind it? It's a stupid adherence to a dogma of

privatization and an opportunity, they think, to pay off some of their

friends who supported them in the election. That is true. There is no

other reason for a government to try to move away from one of the best

features they ever had. I give them credit for keeping it over the

years. The NDP did not bring this in; the Social Credit brought it in.

It was good. It saved lives, and you think we're going to take

part in

anything that is going to bring about increased traffic deaths on our

highways? What has happened to this government? Their adherence to

their dogma and their right-wing extremism has taken them to a point

where they don't care about human lives. I believe this is true, and

that is why I am so stating.

MR. REID: Nonsense.

MRS, DAILLY: It is not nonsense. I could go through reams and

reams of figures. Everyone on this side of the House could go through

figures to show the increase in traffic deaths because of mechanical

failure. I would like the minister, when he closes this motion, to give

us the actual reasons why he's closing up public testing of our cars.

MR. SPEAKER: As hon. members can appreciate, the Chair is in

a rather difficult position in that we have a motion before us and we

also have a bill on the order paper. While a motion can be discussed in

a bill, a bill cannot be discussed in a motion. The difficulty the

Chair is having, of course, is relating debate of one to the other.

However, for the guidance of members, I wish to quote from Sir Erskine

May's Parliamentary Practice ,

nineteenth edition, which may help to qualify the type of debate that

we are engaged upon: "On a motion for the appointment of a select

committee, or for determining the number of its members, the merits of

the matter referred to the committee have not been allowed to be

debated."

In no way is the Chair attempting to preclude debate, but the Chair

also has the responsibility to ensure that debate does not take place

twice on the same item. Therefore, with the guidance of Sir Erskine May

and the parliamentary traditions, we must adhere to the premise that we

are allowed to discuss not the merits of the matter referred, but only

the motion itself. I would commend that to all members, and I would ask

again for the cooperation of members, bearing in mind that the Chair

must rule as the rules dictate, and not as members often would have the

Chair rule.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate your position as Speaker, but if I

may just read the paragraph that we are being asked to vote on, again,

into the record, it says: "That this House authorize the Select

Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to consider

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

prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing for different types of

inspections for different of classes of vehicles by the private

sector." As you say, we're only to discuss the merits, but I just

cannot discuss the merits of whether I should support this motion or

not without referring specifically to why I am against it going to the

private sector.

MR. SPEAKER: I can appreciate the quandary that the member is in because the Chair has somewhat the same

[ Page 1284 ]

problem. Nonetheless, the merits of the matter referred to the committee have not been allowed to be debated.

On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. MITCHELL: You allowed the member for Prince George South

(Mr. Strachan) to discuss the merits of certain types of inspection

made on logging trucks. What we are saying is that it is not the merits

we are discussing; it is the principle. There is a long tradition in

parliament that we are allowed to discuss the principle of the bill

first, and this is what we are discussing now — not the merits but the

principle of the bill and the principle of the reason for it. This has

been laid down in parliament, and I know you understand it more than

any of us. We are discussing the principle, and that, I believe, is

allowed in debate. We are not getting into the details of merit. All we

ask is to stay on the principle.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Commenting on the same point of order, I

know that you are very well aware that although endless opportunity for

debate is possible upon any question, it must be debated at the right

time, and that's what's at issue here this morning. This is not the

right time to be discussing the merits of the issue, which are to be

determined by a committee, and I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to

hold fast to your decision.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point raised by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the argument put forward dealing with the

principle is absolutely correct. However, superseding that at this time

is the fact that there is a bill before us which precludes a great deal

of the argument that the members, I am sure, on both sides would like

to put forward. Nonetheless, hon. members, the Chair is bound to adhere

to the rules of debate; otherwise we could conceivably be debating the

same issue on the motion, on a bill and at other times, and that is not

the intent of the legislative rules.

MR. MITCHELL: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, this

is what I have been saying all the way through the House. There is a

tradition of parliament, and we should have followed that tradition of

parliament. We should have gone through the throne speech, the budget

speech, the estimates and then the bills; if we had followed those

traditions, we wouldn't be in this position of you saying that there is

a bill before the House. I am saying that the only thing before the

House right now is this motion. We are discussing the principle of that

motion and nothing else; that is the only thing we can discuss.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the problem, and members

must understand that the Chair does not select the order of calling

business. But the Chair must uphold the rules of debate. As I say,

while members may wish to put forward certain arguments, we must adhere

to the rules of debate. The rules of debate are simply that bills

supersede motions, and a bill cannot be debated under a motion. I ask

the member for Burnaby North to continue in her debating of the motion.

MRS. DAILLY: Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, could I have

your guidance. Would you please, therefore, outline to me what the

parameters of my debate are.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not the responsibility of

the Chair to give instructions to members, much as the Chair would

often like to, privately or otherwise — but certainly not at this time.

I am sure that members appreciate the rules of the House. While

oftentimes we would like to engage in a debate on a variety of

subjects, we are bound by the constraints of the debating rules of our

House.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is up to

the Chair to determine the parameters of the debate, because the Chair

knows when the member has gone too far. What the member is asking for

is advice ahead of time to know when she has gone too far. I point out

to the Chair the wording of this particular motion, which the bill

cannot be raised under at this point. I refer particularly to the fact

that the motion is right here in front of the House, and the decision

has to be made on wording itself: "That this House authorize the Select

Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to consider

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

prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing for different types of

inspections for different classes of vehicles by the private sector."

It clearly spells out in the motion what the instruction to the

committee is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: The point that I am making to you, Mr. Speaker,

is that this is an unusual motion, because the motion itself is giving

an instruction to a committee in particular terms rather than in

general terms. I submit that the merits of the committee are unusually

focused on the wording, foreclosing the work of the committee right in

the wording of the resolution itself — unusual, extraordinary. The

committee has been instructed with specific instructions, with no

generality, around the private sector, and the member, I submit, is in

complete order when she specifically debates the wording of the motion,

not straying. And she has done that.

This is a motion to instruct that the inspection go to the private sector....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair would

appreciate it if, on a point of order, the member would address the

Chair rather that the....

MR. BARRETT: I am addressing the Chair, Mr. Speaker, speaking to no other member.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, hon. member, it helps greatly if we are engaged face to face, rather than in a debate.

MR. BARRETT: Visual contact?

[11:00]

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we are in visual contact

— eyeball to eyeball. And I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the merits

of this peculiar resolution are specifically spelled out in an

extraordinary manner and, indeed, because of that, the member is in

order. To say that she isn't stifles the debate in a direction that is

specific — unusual, extraordinary, but specific.

[ Page 1285 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The guidelines before us

have been spelled out. The Chair will rely on the members to adhere to

the guidelines that they seem best fit to cope with. And if there is

some straying, the Chair will do its best to rein in the members to

fall within the guidelines.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the motion says: "...providing for different types of inspections for different

classes of vehicles by the private sector." So I would like to raise this point of concern, another reason we do not wish

to support this going to a committee. We reject outright the idea of all the

fleets of government cars, government trucks, whatever — and there are thousands

of them, I'm sure — being taken away from public testing and being placed

in the hands of the private sector. This means, then, that thousands of dollars

are now going to have to be spent in the private sector which heretofore would

be handled through the public testing.

Now I would like the minister, in closing — when he does — to

explain to us how he is going to explain to the public of B.C. how the

taxpayer of B.C. is going to benefit from this. They're not going to

benefit from decreased traffic deaths; in fact, traffic deaths will go

up. They're not going to benefit as far as cost goes, because we're all

going to be responsible for paying off the private sector.

MS. BROWN: Payoff!

MRS. DAILLY: As someone here says, it's the biggest ripoff and payoff motion we've ever had.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how any government that cares for

the people they've been asked to serve, or any government that talks

about so-called "restraint," can possibly come in here with a motion

which is going to do exactly the opposite. I say again, Mr. Speaker,

and I'm going to conclude on this: I cannot support a motion which, in

all seriousness, will be condemning thousands of our citizens to death

on the highways.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to stay within

the guidelines that have been expounded by the Minister of Agriculture,

who used to make some terrible rulings when he was in the chair.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Oh! Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I can reflect on them when you're no longer making them.

But I'm against setting up a committee on this point provided in this resolution for the following reasons. I'm still in order.

It's a very serious resolution that we're talking about, Mr.

Speaker, because the government has not brought in a resolution that

says that a committee should consider whether or not it's advisable, in

the interests of the safety, health and limbs of the people of British

Columbia, that testing should be done by the private sector. This

resolution says that the committee is to spend all of its time

considering ways and means whereby it will be done by the private

sector. I do not believe that that kind of a committee should be set up

by this House, because, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his

point of order, you foreclose the judgment of the committee before the

hearings begin. You've told them whether or not you think it's a

disaster to go this particular way in privatizing motor vehicle

inspection. That's the way the government has decided you're going to

go, committee. You've been instructed and foreclosed on the merits of

the matter. Why set up that kind of committee?

The reason I don't think we need this particular committee, Mr.

Speaker.... I've listed a number of the reasons. I was greatly

impressed, I may say, by the eloquence of my colleague, the member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I entirely agree with what she said.

Number one, we do not need to set up a committee which has

instructions to dump the costs of a public service upon the private

motorists of the province of British Columbia. We are taxing motorists

to the extent of about $60 per car at present rates, and we're putting

that upon everybody who owns a car in the province. Probably a million

and a third people are going to be forced to pay $60 per car — taxation

by this Legislature on the private citizen not brought in by the

Minister of Finance, but nevertheless taxation without representation,

without being allowed to consider the merits of the matter under this

resolution.

Number two, you are placing these people — all of the people in the

province who own a car — at the mercy of the car repair business, the

car dealers. When this committee is finished its work, car dealers will

have no choice but to pass through the doors of private industry —

because inspection must be by the private sector — and that industry

will be able to soak them.

This is my third point. We have returned to that old invidious

principle which defeated the Social Credit government in 1972 under

W.A.C. Bennett. It was one of the main reasons. The Legislature passed

a law relating to insurance and then forced all of the people of

British Columbia to go to private companies to buy their insurance. So

by law we promoted private business. That invidious principle is

present in this legislation and will have the same consequences. I do

not think the people of British Columbia will stand for this

Legislature instructing them that they must go to private business

which can soak them for the repair and inspection of their cars, but

they have no choice as to whether or not they go. They're deprived of

their freedom just as they were in the seat-belt legislation case.

They're forced by law to go to a private business, and that business

will then have them at their mercy.

Fourth, if we instruct a committee that it has no choice other than

placing this under the private sector, we are interfering with the

safety, the lives and the health of men and women on the highways of

British Columbia. That point was eloquently made by the member for

Burnaby North.

I add two more factors. When you consider safety on the highways —

forget, for the moment, the human factor — think of the cost, the

bottom line. Think about what additional accidents will do to

automobile insurance premiums, which are bound to rise. Think about

what it's going to do to medicare services. Medical costs are bound to

rise with this kind of inspection, with the fine public system being

done away with. Hospital costs are going to rise. The government of

British Columbia's own treasury is going to pay dollar costs for this

act of radical right-wing folly.

Mr. Speaker, I say we are turning the clock back. This is one of the

most important indices of where this government stands. The orders go

out that inspection is to be by the private sector; that we've got to

cut back the public service. About 150 good public servants — mostly

men, but some

[ Page 1286 ]

women too — in our motor vehicle inspection

service, which was the pride of British Columbia and everywhere

recognized as such, have to be cut from the public payroll to satisfy

this ridiculous Reaganism that has gripped the government. Those 150

people go and try to readjust their lives somehow, and you think it's a

victory.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, for several

minutes now I have listened to this debate by the member who was just

on his feet. I find it very difficult to find in the debate he's

entering into any relevancy at all to the motion before us. He's

absolutely out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I wish you'd recognize that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as the Chair explained earlier, we

are in a very difficult area, in that some latitude must be allowed

because of the wording of the motion. Nevertheless, the references read

from the nineteenth edition clearly prevent us from discussing the

merits. Nonetheless, we have a principle to deal with at the same time.

There is a very thin line there. I would ask all members to try to bear

in mind that this line does in fact exist, and that they have a

responsibility to be as intelligent as possible in discerning that

line, and to demonstrate ability to grasp that thin line.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to argue with the Speaker about

the point of order. Part of the reason I'm against the committee

hearing this matter is that the committee is foreclosed. We now have

motor vehicle inspection by law throughout British Columbia — not

everywhere; I know that. But when you set up a legislative committee to

do it only by the private sector, then what I'm talking about follows.

I don't want that committee set up. You're going to put 150 perfectly

good public servants, who are doing a very creditable job, onto welfare

or UIC, or they'll have to look around the province and try to sort out

their lives and find a job somewhere.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What are you giving this to the car dealers for?

MR. KEMPF: What do you think the private sector do when they lose their jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca will have an opportunity to participate.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I do

not want to see a committee of this kind set up, following an election,

with instructions that this business of car inspection must be pushed

through the doors of private businesses in the province of British

Columbia because they supported the Social Credit Party to a tremendous

extent in the last election. I think we are seeing a payoff here; we

are seeing the culmination of an election promise...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and we're turning the clock back.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair finds the term "payoff"

to be non-parliamentary language, and I ask the member if he would

withdraw that word.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, yes, I withdraw. I say this is carrying

out an election promise: that they would privatize and get this additional business

if they supported the government party. This is what we're seeing in this

resolution. You can call it what you will. I withdraw the word "payoff."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: The same thing is applying in the whole of the auto insurance field too. You know it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm very pleased to get up and talk on this

motion presented by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm

very proud to see that he put Motion 29 on the order paper, because I

had a similar motion, Motion 7, on the order paper that called for the

very similar type of action that the minister is taking in his

ministry. I think most members saw that and know where I stand.

[11:15]

In listening to the second member for Vancouver East talking about

election promises.... He used a word that the Speaker made him

withdraw, and I won't repeat that. Certainly this party did make some

commitments to the electorate during the campaign, and one of them is

this motion that we're talking about right now in this Legislature.

MS. BROWN: So there you are. It is a payoff.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Burnaby–Edmonds talks about....

I heard her say "payoff" again. Well, Mr. Speaker, I said it because I

repeated what the member said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The word was found unparliamentary. Perhaps we could avoid it, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's what she said. I suggest to her, Mr. Speaker....

I listened to the member for Mackenzie talking on this motion. He

said he couldn't support it because we would be taking jobs away from

some people and giving the jobs to people in the private sector. Well,

I just checked the phone book and in his own constituency of Mackenzie

there are a number of firms: Auto Marine Electric, Centennial Service,

Janzen's Auto Body, Kal Tire, Mackenzie Autobody, Mackenzie Esso

Services, Morfee's Super Shell Service. They're all in that member's

constituency and are going to benefit when this government gets this

motion passed and gets it to the committee to discuss it. I'm sure that

some of these private sector employers in that member's constituency

may even want to come down and appear before this committee, Mr.

Speaker.

If they were to read the motion, it says: "This House authorizes the

Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to

consider methods...." The decision has been made about putting it into

the private sector. We are asking this party across from us — the NDP,

the party led by Kube — to come and bring people to the committee. Let

[ Page 1287 ]

us hear from the people of this province how it can

go into the private sector. It was a commitment made by this party

during the election campaign; we're living up to that commitment, which

is what parties should do when they make election promises. We are now

giving this party an opportunity — the Kube Party — to go to that

committee and discuss this motion.

This party mentioned the $600,000 payoff to the Liberals, Kube and

the NDP and Solidarity yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I know I can't talk

about that in this motion, and I don't intend to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we have enough

difficulty with the motion before us now. Perhaps if we can be strictly

relevant to it, it would be most appreciated.

MR. REYNOLDS: I will, Mr. Speaker. It's very hard not to pick up on comments from other people, especially when there are payoffs made.

I want to talk about some of the comments that the NDP have made

during this debate on this motion. They said: "We're talking about

motor vehicle safety," and they all pound their desks. That's why this

government is moving the testing into the private sector. The fact is

that it will increase safety in this province immensely. If this party

— the NDP, the Kube party — would allow this motion to get down to this

committee so we could discuss it, we could show them. They talk about 7

percent of the accidents in this province being caused by cars with

mechanical failures. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) doesn't

have a testing station in his constituency; the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) doesn't have one in his. There are loads of areas

around this province — in fact, over half of them — that don't have

testing stations. More than half of the cars in the lower mainland that

were supposed to be tested were not tested. People just didn't go

through the testing station, because most people couldn't stand the

bureaucracy of lining up at the testing stations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, are....

MR. REYNOLDS: That's speaking to the motion. The motion says

"to consider methods," and I'm talking about the methods of this

committee and what it will be discussing.

Safety will be increased in this province, and we must get this

before the committee so that we can talk about the methods of

increasing that safety. The members from the NDP talked about — and I'm

quoting them and just talking about what they were allowed to speak

about in this debate.... The member for Burnaby–North (Mrs. Dailly)

said that we'll condemn to death thousands of the citizens of British

Columbia. I would suggest that that member does not know her

statistics. If she were to check, she'd find out that by the time we

take the testing and put it into the private sector, like they do in

the province of Ontario.... They have a lower death rate per capita

than we do in the province of British Columbia, and they are using the

private sector to test their cars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much?

MR. REID: How much is life worth?

MR. REYNOLDS: Some members are yelling, "How much is life worth?" I have to agree with them.

When I was working in Ottawa, I had my car tested in the private

sector, and if I remember correctly I paid about $22.50. I would

suggest that BCAA in this province would be prepared to test cars for

approximately $20. Right now, if you're going to purchase a car in this

province — and this will be discussed in this motion — you can go to

BCAA and get your car totally tested, including compression, for $50,

which most people should do if they're buying a used car.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says

I'll get in trouble with my colleagues for talking about that. Well, he

knows as well as I do that there are very few car dealers in this

government, but, of course, the Leader of the Opposition likes to

promote that. But we'll be able to talk about that when we get this

motion before the committee.

In support of this motion, I have to stress that in the lower

mainland we have six testing stations and half of the people were

driving around with cars that did not go through the testing station.

I'm sure there are even members of the NDP with cars that maybe weren't

through the testing station. For anybody who leads a busy life it's

very hard to find the time to take your car and drive it through the

testing station. I know loads of associates off mine who said they just

didn't have time, or they got a leased car and had it in the company

name so nobody could catch them anyway. There were so many loopholes to

get around having your car tested that most people looked to them not

to do it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One at a time, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's very hard to answer all the hecklers, Mr. Speaker, when they're all going at the same time.

MS. BROWN: Not if you know what you have to say.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Burnaby North — the one who

can't get it straight whether she knows how to play cricket or not —

seems to have an awful lot to say. I hope she will get up and speak on

this motion.

MS. BROWN: You can't get it straight. I'm from Burnaby–Edmonds.

MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, sorry, the member is from Burnaby–Edmonds.

She still doesn't want to answer the cricket question in this House.

She said she didn't know anything about it and then wrote a letter to

the editor saying she knew how to play.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, to motion 29.

MR. REYNOLDS: I hope she'll get up and speak on this motion

and use her usual pleas. I'm sure she'll find some way to find that

this motion has some human rights activities in here that are going to

affect people in this province.

[ Page 1288 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The hon. first member for Victoria rises on a point of order.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks of that member offensive and ask that he withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, and to the first member for

Victoria, I didn't detect an unparliamentary statement, innuendo or

reference in the member's comments. The member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound will continue, but within the parameters of this debate, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: I didn't think I said anything unparliamentary either, Mr. Speaker.

In closing I will just say that I do support this motion. I think

it's a positive step for the province of British Columbia. The members

in the NDP should read the motion. I want to read it to them again:

"That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee

on Transportation and Communications to consider methods for providing for the

inspection as to safety and repair of prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing

for different types of inspections for different classes of vehicles by the

private sector;

"And that this committee shall be empowered to sit during

sittings of the House during this session of the thirty-third parliament;

"And further to report its findings and

recommendations to the House from time to time, and make its final

report and recommendations not later than December 16, 1983."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the members opposite that they could

vote for this motion and come to that committee and give us their

input, instead of passing out scare tactics and scaring the people of

this province. We will prove in that committee — they will have the

chance to question those same witnesses — that by the private sector

handling this there will be more cars tested and more safety in this

province. The great Minister of Transportation and Highways will

continue to do his good work and the good job in his department. There

are other provinces who wish they had a Minister of Transportation and

Highways who ran his department as well as this minister.

I would hope that they could get to Mr. Kube sometime in the next

hour and get his permission to vote with us on this motion. Let's get

some action on this very important motion.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the instructions

of the Chair, I will confine my remarks to the specific direction of

this motion to the committee, and I will try to stay within the same

parameters as the previous speaker in that regard. That doesn't give me

too much leeway, but it's good for about four days.

One cannot question the sincerity of individual members in this

chamber, so I won't do that, but one can question the sincerity of

government. I read this motion — which we must confine our remarks to —

and point out that it is a direction to move testing to the private

sector, and also that it has a date, i.e., a deadline — December 16.

The government claims that it has concern for the safety of the

motorist and repudiates the eloquent arguments made by the member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that

were the case, then why are the public testing stations closing now?

What is going to happen in the interim? Who is morally responsible for

an accident between the time that the testing stations are closed and

the time that this committee finishes its work? I submit that the point

made by the member for Burnaby North is absolutely correct. Once those

stations are closed and there is no other testing in place, as is now

the case, this government is morally culpable and responsible for the

accidents which take place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doubletalk!

MR. BARRETT: The member says "doubletalk." If the government

was truly concerned as to whether or not this motion would consider the

merits of the private sector, why did they close the public testing

stations already?

What will the minister, whose virtues have been extolled on the

basis of sincere dedication by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Reynolds), the three-day Socred, who picks out the most elderly

minister for praise...? Why? Well, that's associated with ambition.

MR. REID: Like good wine.

MR. BARRETT: Wait till that cork pops! That's it, Mr. Member,

he's ready to take his place. But who am I to cast aspersions on the

obvious, overwhelming ambition of that member to pick on that poor,

elderly chap?

However, elderly as he may be, he has a moral responsibility to say

to the people of British Columbia: "Until this committee's work is done

there will be public protection and safety." The sincerity of the

member who spoke reeks with hypocrisy. Every single day that a vehicle

goes down the road now without the kind of safety that you say you

want.... In sticking purely to the wording of this resolution, you want

that in the private sector. Why did you close the already existing

testing stations? What will you tell the mother of a child whose life

is lost at the hands of an irresponsible driver who has not had his

vehicle tested — publicly or privately while we wait for this committee

to act?

Commitment? Sincerity? It's politics, and I agree completely with

the remarks of my colleague. He wouldn't say payoff unless he meant it,

and he wouldn't say payoff because parliament wouldn't let him say it.

I won't say it, Mr. Speaker, because parliament won't let me say it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's fine, thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Very good, but I can think it, Mr. Speaker.

What's the unseemly haste? Millions of dollars of the taxpayers'

money has been spent to provide the best and most up-to-date equipment

to test motor vehicles — mandatory in this province. Big government

overseeing the poor little drivers out there — taking away their

freedom! Yes, you did it. You great big right-wingers brought in

oppressive legislation, ordering vehicles through the public testing

stations. Now they're going to relieve the oppression, and they're

going to order the vehicles through the private sector.

MR. REID: Good idea.

[11:30]

MR. BARRETT: Good idea! It's just straight, smacking

politics, ordering people to go through the private sector. What right

do you have to do that and urge their taxes up from $5 a vehicle to $50

and $60 a vehicle into private hands? If

[ Page

1289 ]

they were sincere, the original point is valid. Why have you closed the existing

stations? What protection is there now?

The other point I make is that the ideologues are going to carry

this reasonableness all the way through. Included in vehicle testing is

the requirement for having adequate seatbelts. They look into your car

to see if you've got seatbelts. It's required by law. Big right-wing

oppressive government orders you to wear your seatbelt. Who's checking

the seatbelts now, between the time when these stations are closed and

the private sector is going to test them?

MR. KEMPF: Traffic policemen, as they always do.

MR. BARRETT: What is the traffic policeman going to say to

the fellow who doesn't wear his seatbelt? There's no testing station;

mine doesn't work. They can fire a policeman anyway under Bill 3.

MR. KEMPF: It's up to each individual to get it fixed.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order.

MR. BARRETT: These brutal attacks will never silence us. The

member says it's his responsibility to get his seatbelt checked. What

do you have the law for? What are you setting up the committee for?

What are you ordering the private sector for, if it's his

responsibility? Why do you paint the white line down the middle of the

road? Trust them to drive on any side they want. Big government has

gone too far: they've painted a line down the middle of the road to

tell you what side to drive on. Is that freedom of choice? Does that

comply with your philosophy of getting governments off your back? Let

the private sector paint the lines on the road. Maybe we'll have

zigzags all over the place. That's the way to get government off your

back.

The stupidity and obvious greed related to this kind of legislation

indicates that the government doesn't have in its fabric a sense of

social responsibility or of what government is all about. If you want

to change the system as this motion does, if you want to move in this

direction, then why did you close the existing stations right away?

What was the necessity? What was the imperative? Have you tabled in

this House or explained anywhere to the people of British Columbia, who

have paid lock, stock and barrel for every bit of equipment that does

the testing, that they have been faulty in their testing, and that the

stations had to be closed overnight? What are you doing about the

four-month and five-month gap that will exist when no testing takes

place at all? If you had any sense of responsibility beyond an

ideological commitment to some form of right-wing madness, you would

have guaranteed that at least some minimum safety standards would be

obtained until the private sector took over.

The member wants to debate whether or not the private sector is better. That's

a great philosophical debate. We'll participate in that. But what neither

the House nor the government address themselves to — in terms of this committee

— is what's in place right now. What's in place right now is nothing.

If one child is killed because of a mechanical failure of a car that would normally

have been spotted during testing, that government is morally culpable in the

loss of that child's life.

Before we were elected and that party was in power, you couldn't

even sue the government without a fiat. It was a law in this province

that you could not sue the government unless you went cap in hand and

got the government's permission. We changed that law. We said freedom

should exist for every citizen at any time to sue a government if he

feels that there is a case for that suit. It's not the government that

makes that choice. It was Social Credit that kept that freedom away

from the people. Now that that right has been established, and we go to

the committee, and the committee is discussing setting up the

conditions as to whether or not cars are tested, and existing testing

stations have been removed, the government has opened lawsuit after

lawsuit on any accident simply because of the stupidity of leaving a

four- or five-month gap in what exists as a mandatory inspection by law

right now. It is required by law to have your vehicle tested. There is

now a gap to get that testing done. If there is injury or loss of life,

the government is legally responsible, because it has not provided any

inspection in that time vacuum, and as a result millions and millions

of dollars could be paid out of the taxpayers' pockets because of this

administrative stupidity. It is a dangerous situation. This

administrative stupidity has overtaken a government which has ideology

as its philosophy, rather than understanding that if there is going to

be change, there should be a time-frame within which that change must

take place. No planning. Off the seat of the pants. Right out of the

seatbelt and onto this kind of gap.

We can debate for days on end the question of the merits when it

goes to the committee. I'm sticking strictly to the wording of this

motion. But in the meantime, while that takes place, the government has

not given a public explanation as to why those stations were closed,

why the government is now open to suit because of the absence of

legally required testing stations, and is morally culpable, in my

opinion, for the damage that can be done.

Mr. Speaker, I recall those self-styled freedom fighters saying in this House:

"Get governments off my back." The government is now going onto the

citizen's back in a brand-new way with this legislation. In this motion

the government is now ordering people, under law, to go to the private sector.

That's government right on the backs of the people. A service that was provided

by government at $5 is now going to be provided by the private sector at $60

and you're going to be ordered to go there by big government right on your

back.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it is. It means that what the taxpayers

have already paid for, what they've already put in place, which has

been paid off with no mortgage on it in terms of the existing testing

stations, has been closed down — money thrown away.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1290 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The member is fortunate that we don't have

testing stations for members. I think a certain unnamed member — well,

two unnamed.... One and a half unnamed members might not make it

through on a hot day.

The point that has been established clearly is that if the

government were logical in the sequence of shifting, for ideological

reasons, from the public sector to the private sector, why the gap?

Who's legally responsible during this gap? The decision was obviously

made long before the wording was put in this motion. The decision was

made on an ideological basis to close the existing stations, and then:

"We'll have a committee to look at it afterwards." Is there a single

shred of evidence, any research, any documentation that validates the

closing of those public testing stations as an emergency? Could they

not have been kept open until this committee finished its work? I don't

know, Mr. Speaker, but there seemed to be some ideological haste to

close the testing stations, and then they came up with this afterwards.

Why?

Well, I am not a skeptic, I'm not cynical, but other people who are

greater observers of political activities could come to the conclusion

that vested interests got to this government, and they closed those

testing stations in unseemly haste while this motion was being drafted.

Far be it from me to suspect that. A 53-year-old ingénue would never

expect that from politicians, Mr. Speaker. Oh, no. But some younger

person than I, someone who has more experience in seeing the wondrous

workings of political influence through campaign donations, might come

to that conclusion. But not I, Mr. Speaker. Oh, no. I believe in the

goodness of the minister's heart and the intentions of the government.

But there is a hangup here, Mr. Minister: why did you close the

stations if there was goodness in your heart? Why are you putting the

public at risk for six months? How do I explain to poor Joe Citizen out

there, poor Joe Taxpayer, who comes up to me and says: "I think it's

payola." I say: "First of all, you can't say that, because it's not

parliamentary. Secondly, it's not nice to think that, because the

elderly gentleman minister wouldn't possibly think of that." "Except, "

Joe Citizen says to me, "why did he close the stations in the interim?

Oh," say I, "I don't know."

Now, Mr. Minister, what do you say to the parents of a child who is

going to be killed, perhaps, because the testing station has been

closed and there is no substitute? What do you say to the family that

has a maimed breadwinner out of a faulty vehicle because the stations

have been closed? You say: "Well, the committee is sitting. The

committee's going to turn it over to the private sector. I'm sorry you

lost your child. I'm sorry the breadwinner isn't working right now.

It's too bad he got run over. You know, you've got to look after

yourself more in this society. We believe in freedom of choice. If you

step into that crosswalk, that is your choice. You just stepped out

there in front of a broken vehicle. That was your choice. And you got

run over by that broken vehicle. You should have looked for the stamp

that was overdue." What kind of stupid position have you placed the

citizens of this province in, in terms of being at risk?

We can have the ideological debate ad infinitum about who should do

the testing. The fact remains that in your haste there is no testing at

all today. You are putting people at risk and you don't even seem to

understand that. This pious, self-righteous government talks about

restraint. This pious, new ideologue government comes up with this

resolution today saying that we are going to save money by closing down

facilities that have already cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

The previous speaker, the member from West Vancouver, talked about

people who didn't go to the testing station. They are lawbreakers and I

have no sympathy for lawbreakers, whether they are busy MLAs or not.

The whole purpose of driver education, or public education, is to

ensure that people obey the law, not to have MLAs get up in this

chamber and give excuses as to why people can't go to testing stations.

Perhaps there was a 10- or 15-minute inconvenience for someone to go to

the testing station. But I for one resent any MLA of any party

suggesting that anybody is too busy to go and have his car tested.

People who are that irresponsible should be fined and should be warned.

If someone gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and puts other human

beings at risk, it has nothing to do with what political party he

belongs to; it is basic irresponsibility, and that should never be

encouraged by an MLA — ever, ever. The obvious question is: why the

haste in closing the stations? Why is the time-frame of the committee

December 16? Why not keep those public inspection stations open and

tell the public that, until the government has something else in place

— which we may debate December 16.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. PARKS: I rise under standing order 43, which seems most

appropriate at this moment. The member speaking at this time has surely

on numerous occasions seen fit to partake in irrelevant and tedious

repetition of his own arguments, never mind the rest of the speakers

from the opposition ranks.

[11:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That might be the opinion of the hon. member.

However, the debate has not gone on that long, and as long as we are

relevant to the motion before us, the debate can continue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank that member for paying attention

and having called me to some order. I didn't realize that I was making

such an impact that after listening once he finally got the point. The

point is that they have closed the testing stations, put the public at

risk, while we are debating this motion, without a substitute at hand.

The money has already been spent. The government is morally culpable at

this point. If any child or adult is injured by a car that has not gone

through testing during this gap, if it is public safety that.... This

motion instructs that it has to be completed by December 16. What is in

place between now and December 16? Absolutely nothing, and that member

and every member on the government side is directly responsible for

having that vacuum there in terms of the gap. If I have to say it a

number of times it is only to impress the point on the Chair. Far be it

from me to try to influence the dense pack back there. It is beyond my

capability to even penetrate IQs that have no opening for that kind of

rationale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. There have been some

unparliamentary references, and I will ask the Leader of the Opposition

to please avoid them in future debate.

[ Page 1291 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I need instruction from the Chair. What specifically was unparliamentary? "Dense pack."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That I found offensive, yes. I have found

other terms offensive which the records will show I have cautioned the

members against. So if we can remain parliamentary, with moderate and

temperate language, the Chair will be well served.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, there is a list somewhere that

lists all the words that are supposedly unparliamentary. With all

respect to the Chair, I don't think it is the prerogative of the Chair

to decide on his own what is unparliamentary and what is not in terms

of an expression. "Dense pack" is not on the list, I am sure. I quite

understand why the Speaker may find it unparliamentary, but the fact of

the matter is that it is not unparliamentary. The Speaker may find it

personally offensive but that doesn't make it unparliamentary. I would

ask that the Speaker not make rulings that he finds an expression

unparliamentary strictly on the Chair's own opinion. It has to be on

the list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it does not have to be on the

list. Sir Erskine May and many other authorities state that when the

Speaker or the Chairman finds a reference unparliamentary or

unparliamentary motives implied to another member, the Chair must

intervene and caution against those wordings. I have so found in terms

of the expressions I have recently heard from the Leader of the

Opposition. There was no withdrawal asked for. I simply cautioned the

member, in the sense of parliamentary courtesy, moderation and

temperance of language, that he refrain from those types of expressions

because they are found to be offensive.

MR. LEA: That really clears it up, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition continues.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to learn that we are now getting these

definitions.

I want to conclude by suggesting that this is a very unusual and

extraordinary motion. As the Speaker has already ruled, there is a thin

line in terms of discussion allowed because of the fact that it is an

instruction and, indeed, a foreclosure. We're not witnessing an open

debate at a committee to discuss the merits of an idea; it is a

committee that is ordered to come up with a way of implementing the

idea. The idea is to turn the testing over to the private sector, and

that idea, while its merits will never be discussed in the committee,

is an instruction from this motion. Furthermore, this motion says that

the committee is to finish its work by December 16. At this present

moment there is no vehicle testing in the usual metropolitan areas

where such vehicle testing took place. I have made the point that the

government, in my opinion, is not sincere — not members, Mr. Speaker,

the government. The government is not sincere in terms of protecting

public safety; if they were, they would have assured that the existing

testing would take place until a replacement was put in there.

At this moment 26 percent of all vehicles on the road in the

province of British Columbia suffer from mechanical default according

to the regular annual statistics of the existing testing stations.

Those statistics will rise dramatically when there is a downturn in the

economy; people have less money in their pockets and will put off

repairs on brakes, windshield wipers and other basic safety

accoutrements to a modern vehicle — unfortunately less available on

older vehicles that are now being driven more frequently simply because

of the economic pressure on transportation.

So I submit that in this time-frame, having had the existing testing

facilities closed down with none put in their place, the government is

morally culpable for accidents that have been caused by neglect of

testing. No other conclusion can be reached. And there will be, in my

opinion, a solid foundation for lawsuits against the government,

because of the closure of these stations, by the innocent victim of an

accident caused by the inability of the car to have had the safety

guarantees, at least up until this committee finishes its work.

The government says it wants to save money. What a damn-fool way of

trying to save money! It has nothing to do with saving money; it is an

ideological frenzy, in my opinion, committed to forcing people to go to

the private sector to pay ten times the cost that was available by

taxpayers already providing the testing stations. Once in a while, on

occasion, parliaments do do damn-fool things. This is one of those

days. It's pretty stupid. If you want to change it to the private

sector, go ahead and do it, but what is there in the interim? What is

there to check the innocent person out there in a vehicle who may be

the victim of a defaulting car simply because you've closed those

testing stations down and put nothing in their place? We can debate the

merits of what you put in its place, but the fact is that you've left

the community at risk, and that's damn foolishness.

MR. KEMPF: Now that we've had our morning lesson in

socialism, I think it's about time we returned to some reality in this

chamber. I am absolutely aghast to hear some of the words just spoken

by the Leader of the Opposition in this province. It proves beyond a

glimmer of a doubt just exactly how much that member, that Leader of

the Opposition, knows about the province of British Columbia. He spoke

on and on about people being in danger because of six lower mainland

testing stations having been closed. I would remind that has-been

Leader of the Opposition that there's a little more to this problem....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's another word that I find unparliamentary.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, you're going to suggest that I'm out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just the expression, hon. member, and I would

ask you to refrain from using it, in the same manner that I spoke to

another member earlier.

MR. KEMPF: I will try.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: No, I don't like the connotation of "lame-duck" because I think he's worse than that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. That must be withdrawn. That is

a direct reference to a member.

[ Page 1292 ]

MR. KEMPF: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to point out very clearly to the members of this chamber

and also to the people in the gallery here this morning how very little

that member, that Leader of the Opposition — once Premier of the

province of British Columbia — knows about this province. He thinks

that all that exists in British Columbia is the lower 20 percent. He

doesn't realize that never have the people in the remaining 80 percent

of this province ever had testing stations. Never, I might add, do they

want government testing stations in that area.

I was also aghast when the Leader of the Opposition suggested that

if anyone, excepting those working for government, were even to paint

lines on a highway that those lines would not be painted straight.

That's a smear on the private sector of this province the likes of

which I've never heard in this chamber.

I support this motion because for many years — as many years as

those testing stations have existed in the province of British Columbia

— the taxpayers in my constituency were footing the bill and getting

absolutely nothing for their tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a

lesson again from the Leader of the Opposition here this morning that

government is the end-all and the do-all. Well, this motion.... And I

want to tell this chamber that it is supported by, I would suggest, at

least 90 percent of the voters in my constituency, who want smaller

government, who want government off of their backs and who want things

done in the private sector.

I am absolutely aghast as well to find that that opposition won't

even support a motion that would form a committee of this House to take

some of the business of this House, because I've heard them for seven

and a half years now state time after time in this House that they

wanted more of the business taken out of this chamber. We'll have the

opportunity — and I can't speak about it now because it's another piece

of legislation — to speak on the promotion or the abolition of

committees of this House at another time. I really wonder, and I'll be

interested to find out at that time, where those members opposite stand

on committees of this House, because I have never heard anything so

ridiculous as an opposition standing in this chamber this morning and

speaking against the formation of a committee — an all-party committee,

members from both sides of this House serving on a committee to make

recommendations to government. To stand in this House and speak against

that kind of committee — that kind of system, Mr. Speaker — is

hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy in the worst form.

I have all kinds of things to say in regard to this motion, but in

order to give the opposition a little time to think about the error of

their ways, I would adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I call Motion 28, standing under the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

On the motion.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I certainly hope that this motion doesn't

get all of the obstacles thrown in its way the previous one did. I move

Motion 28 standing in my name on the order paper, which reads as

follows:

"That this House authorize the Select Standing

Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider the resolution

of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities of 1982 proposing

triennial local elections for municipal office, and relevant sections

of the Municipal Act;

"And this committee shall be empowered to sit during sittings of the House during this session of the Thirty-third parliament;

"And further, to report its findings and

recommendations to the House from time to time and make its final

report and recommendations by not later than December 16, 1983."

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments in support of this resolution. I

really expect that this will get a clear passage in the House for no

other reason than that it has been very well thought out by the UBCM.

As has already been stated, it was a resolution of that organization

last year. With that backing we should see speedy passage of this

resolution.

[12:00]

Further, Mr. Speaker, of great concern to me has been the lack of

interest at the municipal level at election time. When we see the very

low percentage of turnout for municipal elections it concerns me, and

it should concern all citizens of this province, because it's an

indication that something is wrong. We're missing an opportunity,

somewhere, of attracting the quality of people that we need on

municipal councils. I believe that by going to an election every three

years we will create much more interest in municipal elections and,

therefore, more interest by those interested in serving the public. We

would get a greater and better group of people to pick from.

Another factor here is cost. We have done a very rough study as to

what the saving would be in this respect. Strong indications are that

we could save in the neighbourhood of $6 million during that three-year

period if we go to elections once every three years.

I'm hoping that this will get quick passage so that I may have the

privilege and the honour of advising the UBCM — at their convention

next week — that indeed this has been accepted by the opposition. Mr.

Speaker, I move this motion.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this issue is not, I dare say, a

black and white one. There are mixed opinions about the concept of

going to elections every three years. Over the years in my term in

municipal government, I have discussed the issue with locally elected

officials and, of course, residents. We know UBCM has discussed it and

as a group has endorsed taking a look at the particular concept.

Indeed, this standing committee is to consider the resolution of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities proposing triennial local elections for

municipal office and to be empowered to sit during the sessions of this

House.

I say on behalf of our party that we are quite prepared to

participate in that standing committee. We believe that discussions of

democratic processes and procedures at the local level, and improving

those processes, are a useful task. Our party is of the opinion that if

there is any democratic institution that is alive and well in the

province of British Columbia, it's municipal government and how they go

about their business.

We are indeed quite prepared to participate in this select standing

committee. However, I do have to say that I for one, and probably other

members of our party, will have to take a

[ Page 1293 ]

serious look at elections every three years.

Holding elections every two years, I believe, has worked well. There

are some problems with it and, of course, that's why we are prepared to

participate in the standing committee. But I happen to feel that having

elections every two years and giving the residents and the electors the

opportunity to voice their opinion as often as possible, particularly

when municipalities.... There are always hot issues that raise the

concern of local residents. Having to wait three years to voice their

opinion on some of those critical issues may be detrimental to the

democratic process at the local level. I say that, Mr. Speaker, is an

area that we have to debate and discuss at the committee level, and I

think it will be a healthy debate.

Having participated at the local level for six years, I am of the

opinion that holding elections every two years does give people the

opportunity to respond over issues that they feel strongly about, and

they can go to the polls quickly and efficiently. To elongate that

process, to delete the opportunity for people to go to the polls as

often as possible — say every two years — may hurt the democratic

process at the local level; it may be a hindrance to getting people

involved in the municipal process.

One of the difficulties local government has had for many years is

that there is often not much interest in municipal elections. In the

city of Victoria the turnout is often as low as 30 percent. I think

that that standing committee should look at that particular problem.

How do we encourage people to participate in elections at the local

level?

MR. REID: Get better candidates.

MR. BLENCOE: Speaking for some of you people, I can understand why.

I think it's incumbent on all of us in this House to investigate how

we can encourage people to participate more in local elections. I am

not convinced — and I don't think our party is convinced — that

extending the period that people will sit in municipal government from

two to three years will create more interest. Indeed, I think it may

deter people from taking an interest in municipal politics. They would

have to wait a long time to speak up. Potential candidates with a

concern to bring to the forefront of electors won't get that

opportunity for at least three years. Frankly, I think the voters in

this province — and across Canada — like having the opportunity to go

to the polls as often as possible.

When we look at this particular resolution in the standing

committee, which we will support, I think those reservations that I

have expressed have to be considered.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair heard that comment. The hon. member for New Westminster will withdraw.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I referred to the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — a comment that you didn't like; a comment

that was well bought by that minister, who has been sitting there and

heckling for the last five minutes. I withdraw, and he can withdraw his

insults too, only he just pushes them under his breath.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the Provincial Secretary also come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: In my estimation and that of my party the major

objective of any standing committee and of all of us in this House, in

terms of municipal elections.... The bottom line has to be: how do we

encourage people to take more interest in local elections? I think we

all know that many times the turnouts are very poor, yet the issues are

often critical. If there's one thing that moulds and creates our local

environment and lifestyle — what our cities, towns and villages will

look like, how our families will be brought up, what their

neighbourhoods will be like, what their schools will be like, what

their security will be like in terms of police and fire protection —

it's at the local level that those important decisions are made. It's

those things that people relate to on a daily basis. They are very

important in our daily lives. The critical issue is: how do we improve

that process? How do we get more people involved in local government

and to take an interest in local issues?

So it's with a degree of caution that our party takes a look at

triennial elections. It may well be that by doing this we will create a

disservice to municipal government.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member for New Westminster, the Provincial Secretary and the member for Prince Rupert please to stay in order.

MR. BLENCOE: One of the considerations, of course, that the

government may be indeed be giving for triennial elections — and maybe

others in local government are supporting this particular move — is the

concept of saving money. Indeed it may save money. We have to be

extremely careful when we're talking about democratic processes and

procedures, and putting a bottom line on democratic process and

procedure. There are certain things in constitutional democracy and

municipal processes that cannot be subjected to saving dollars. For

instance, in the city of Victoria, to save dollars we decided....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we've had quite enough of this. The second member for Victoria continues.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It really is, I guess, disconcerting, and I'm sure....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could protect me from

some of those senior members across the way. I'm a new member to this

House and am just trying to speak in a reasonably intelligent fashion

to this particular resolution. Please give me the opportunity to do so

without interruptions from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: That's a Curtis interruptus.

[ Page 1294 ]

MR. BLENCOE: A Curtis interruptus. Very good.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you finished?

MR. BLENCOE: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: I hope the government and the senior members of the cabinet....

AN HON. MEMBER: Go to a testing station.

MR. BLENCOE: There is some hilarity and a bit of fun-making

over there over this particular resolution, but there is a high degree

of seriousness about it.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please carry on.

MR. ROSE: That was a pregnant pause.

MR. BLENCOE: I was trying to give an example of the city of

Victoria, and I was talking about trying to save dollars with municipal

elections. Some years ago the city of Victoria, rather than have half

the council up for election one year and half the council up the other

year, made a decision, which I supported, to have everyone elected at

once. That cut out one election and saved a considerable amount of

money. There are times when you have to try to streamline the process

where there is a degree of duplication that is costly to the taxpayer.

[12:15]

But as a member of municipal government for a number of years, I

would urge the government to be very careful with any new procedures

that would hinder or discourage people from either running for

municipal office or taking a deep interest in municipal government and

elections. I haven't heard any really good, sound reasons for elections

every three years. If the logic — or lack of logic — is applied, why

not have an election every five or ten years? What I'm trying to say is

that if you remove the opportunity for people to participate on a

regular basis in local issues — and there are many of them all the time

— you may frustrate those local residents in exercising their

democratic rights as often as possible. I believe people like the

opportunity to go to the polls at the local level every two years.

Every year was perhaps a little redundant and a duplication of effort.

In our opinion as a party, the municipal level of government is

extremely efficient. Their work is highly commendable and they run

their operations in a financially responsible manner.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Sometimes.

MR. BLENCOE: That member says sometimes. I would remind that

member that Vancouver city council has a higher credit rating than the

province of British Columbia. It certainly runs its financial

arrangements far better than your government does. It's going to cost

the taxpayers of British Columbia nearly $10 million this year because

of that Minister of Finance who couldn't run a Kool-Aid stand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, at this point we

are getting quite beside the motion. The motion itself has as its

principle triennial municipal elections, and I'm sure the member can

speak to that principle.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister knows that he

has got the province of British Columbia into some dire straits in

terms of its financial administration.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will advise you once again that the principle of this motion is triennial elections.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what I'm saying is that

this government has to take into serious consideration, when it's

dealing with municipal affairs, that municipal governments are quite

capable of handling themselves well, that they have done certain things

for a number of years — like elections every two years. Maybe one of

the reasons they are financially sound is that the people have the

opportunity to go to the polls as often as possible, every two years,

to voice their opinions on things like financial arrangements. When the

member for Surrey talks about how some municipalities can't run their

own affairs, I would remind that member that on financial matters the

Vancouver city council has a far better rating than this province has.

MR. REID: Thanks to the Social Credit government; thanks to good leadership; thanks to B.C. Place; thanks to B.C. Spirit....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we as a party will participate in

this standing committee. We will participate in any committee which

tries to improve democratic processes and procedures, and allows people

to use their democratic rights. We urge the government to seriously

consider whether every three years will be a benefit. But we are

prepared to take a took at it. We're prepared to discuss it in a

cooperative framework with the government. It could very well be that

because this is now a resolution to be considered by this House, there

may be some further discussion at the UBCM next week.

The overall objective of this House should be — for municipal

operations — to ensure that people are encouraged to participate in

local government, that the process does not hinder that, and that

everyone has the opportunity to voice his opinion as often as possible.

It could very well be that for senior levels of government the

electorate would rather have the opportunity for some voice other than

every four or five years. I know there's a lot of frustration in this

province with this current government over that particular aspect.

As our municipal affairs critic, I say that we are prepared to

participate, but we have some reservations. Hopefully they will be

discussed thoroughly.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

[ Page

1295 ]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. PARKS: It's unfortunate that once again we have to come

back to the hoist motion on this matter. Unfortunately, it's resulting

in untold tens of thousands — I guess now hundreds of thousands of

dollars — being wasted, money that the taxpayers of this province would

much better see put towards social service programs. But this is a tack

that you are seeing taken by the opposition. At least that's a tack

that appears to be advocated, if not by their pro tem leader, certainly

by their de facto leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's that?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. PARKS: I'll keep you in suspense for a moment

It was not but a few minutes ago that the hon. member for Mackenzie

had the audacity to stand up in debate on Motion 28 — or was it Motion

29 — and say that this is a rather logical, straightforward resolution

being put forward by the hon. Minister of Highways, but in this

instance we the opposition are going to have to speak in opposition. It

brought to mind, I must admit, what we have all seen taking place in

the media and particularly on television within the last few days,

because it was Mr. Art Kube, president of the B.C. Federation of

Labour, who very clearly indicated to the public, to the people of this

province, that he was giving direction to the opposition, that he was

saying he wanted this House to sit until the spring. It's not the

Leader of the Opposition in the House that's leading this charade

called....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would like to bring to your attention that we are discussing the hoist on Bill 9. Could you speak to that point?

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely

that is what the member is developing: the reason for the hoist as

proposed by the NDP. They're following orders.

MR. COCKE: Further to that point of order, it's interesting

that a Fraser Institute-directed government should indicate that

anybody is being directed. This has nothing to do with....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's not a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Nor was the Minister of Finance's a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please.

MR. COCKE: On the point of order, the original point of order

is quite correct; the member is saying nothing to do with the hoist on

Bill 9. He's very nervous about Bill 9, because it's the Spetifore

amendment and that's something he has some particular interest in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs on a point of order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have

found it difficult to hear any of those members speak on any bill

that's been before the House during this session. We are talking about

a hoist; this debate is to do with a hoist, and Mr. Art Kube of the

federation has instructed the NDP to hoist. That's what we're talking

about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are talking about the hoisting of Bill 9, and perhaps the hon. member would proceed with his discourse.

MR. PARKS: I am clearly and solely directing my remarks to

the motion on the hoist. I take umbrage with the comments of the hon.

member for New Westminster; there is absolutely no conflict of interest

when one discusses obstructionist tactics of this rag-tag group called

the loyal opposition. Their resolution, as I understand it, is that

this particular bill, Bill 9, should be hoisted — just thrown back on a

shelf — for six months. They have not given any good reason. The only

reason the people of this province have heard is the reason put forth

by Mr. Kube.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Art Kube.

MR. PARKS: Art Kube . yes. We know he is the president of the

B.C. Federation of Labour, but we didn't realize he was in cahoots with

that fellow called Trudeau. We didn't realize that until yesterday.

This is the same person who had the audacity to publicly lie to the

people of this province. He literally, on television. lied that his

B.C. Federation of Labour were taking their $600,000 and not allowing

any of those funds to be funnelled off into Operation Solidarity. Well,

we all know what happened shortly thereafter. But it is interesting; it

is not the only time this gentleman has been found wanting in veracity.

Is it not the same Mr. Kube who time and again said to the public of

this province that he had not spoken to the Provincial Secretary, that

he had not met with the Provincial Secretary, when in fact he had met

with the Provincial Secretary? So not only do we have a de facto leader

who is not sitting in this House, but we have a de facto Leader of the

Opposition who can't tell the truth. This is what is happening, this is

why we have a hoist, this is why we are not getting on with debating

the merits of this bill.

I find it somewhat surprising when we have members of the opposition

referring to ripoff and payoff. I am not quite sure why Mr. Trudeau is

paying off Mr. Kube of the B.C. Federation of Labour, or for that

matter the NDP. Perhaps there is some coalition there. Maybe that

coalition does extend to the more formalized coalition, Operation

Solidarity. It hasn't come to the forefront, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure

momentarily it will. A ripoff like that cannot be withheld from the

people of this province, or from the people of Canada, for that long.

Some $31 billion in deficit and yet they have the nerve to spend

$600,000 and ensure that it is not going to Operation Solidarity. Here

you have a Trudeau government that is totally worn out, totally washed

out, literally going down the drain, interfering with this government,

which has a fresh, clear, unequivocal mandate to save money and to

review the role of government in our society. When are the people of

British Columbia going to get wise

[ Page 1296 ]

and say to the NDP: "Quit this nonsense about hoists, filibuster, stalling

and blatant waste of money"? Eighty-thousand dollars a day are wasted because

the loyal members of the opposition — I have to be somewhat sarcastic at the

moment — see fit to say: "We're going to stall." At least now

we have the public pronouncement that the stall tactics do not come from within

the NDP but from within Operation Solidarity. They are clearly in cahoots, and

they are stalling for the sake of stalling — nothing constructive.

[12:30]

I think it's fair to say that I'm speaking in opposition to the

resolution to hoist this bill for six months. In light of the so-called

debate that we've heard from the opposition, I think it is a totally

futile exercise. Accordingly, I move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We just adjourned the debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. A perfectly good resolution

came to the floor. I called for the question. I heard the ayes; I

didn't hear any nays. So I will say that that resolution is carried.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you did not give the opportunity to alternate sides. You quickly interjected.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have some order, please. I think, hon.

members, that even though I have only sat in this Chair a number of

times, everyone is aware that I try to be fair. I heard a motion that

the debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House. I called

the question. I heard ayes; there were no nays.

The hon. House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate of second reading of Bill 31, the Regulations Act.

REGULATIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, let me say first that this is the

most outrageous behaviour I've ever seen in this House. No warning

about any bills, no warning about anything coming up, adjourning debate

before the opposition has an opportunity to reply, and now the Minister

of Forests is up on a point of order. Let him waggle his tongue for a

while.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's

rather surprising to me that that member of the opposition, that party

which has been doing absolutely nothing in this House except delay the

progress of the government's bills for the last three months, is

suddenly worried about what's coming up in the Legislature. He doesn't

wish to speak about the bill....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister...

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You called Bill 31, Mr. Speaker. That member has not yet spoken on the bill; I demand that he address the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...that is not a point of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, he's not addressing the bill that you called.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Bill 31, please, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: The minister, when he was speaking to whatever he

was speaking to — it certainly wasn't either to Bill 31 or to a point

of order — was suggesting that somehow or other an opposition should be

telepathic.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's Bill 31. Why don't you speak to the bill? Haven't you read it yet?

MR. COCKE: Of course we've read the bill. You'd think we

would have.... What the House Leader would like us to do is bring a

pile of documents like this into the House every day, and they want

cooperation. They will never have cooperation because of the fact that

they are....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. COCKE: How could they elicit cooperation when they pull the kind of stunts they do in this House?

Bill 31 is a bill of many, many parts, a change in regulations, a bill that will take....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's a bill — you got that right! Good for you. You're getting there, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: A really gutsy bunch! They think it's funny that

democracy in B.C. has gone absolutely down the tube. This province has

never seen such a dictatorial group in their lives. Part of Bill 31 is

part of that process. Since I've been here and watching for 14 years —

all but three and a half years of sunshine.... In that 14 years I have

watched details, decisions and every other aspect of the parliamentary

process being taken out of this chamber and moved behind cabinet doors.

Again, Bill 31 does exactly that. It moves more of the decision-making

away from the people, away from public discussion, and takes it and

puts it behind those closed cabinet doors.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And you little mouthy folks over there who have so

much to say now are going to have less and less to say too, because

part of your responsibility here is to the Legislature. You don't sit

on the treasury benches.

MR. REID: What about the bill?

MR. COCKE: That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[ Page

1297 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please address the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call Art Kube in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And will the other hon. members please come

to order and let the hon. member for New Westminster continue with his

discourse on Bill 31, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that takes....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You know, the Minister of Forests, who hasn't made

a right decision in his life, who has taken the forest industry down

the tube along with him, is sitting there and making idle remarks in

the House instead of doing a day's work for a change.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, among other things, takes away proclamation. It's a bill that enhances....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, it's exactly the same thing the minister says. The only thing is they don't have to post it — under proclamation they do.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think it's most unusual when

we're debating a bill to have members debating with each other across

the floor. I would really appreciate it, even though we are approaching

that bewitching hour of 1 o'clock, if we could let the hon. member for

New Westminster continue to speak to Bill 31.

MR. COCKE: Let's talk about this regulation in terms of bills coming into force. Regulations to come into force in the day....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The principle of the bill.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests would like to have us speak on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about here is a lack of posting of regulations. The Gazette

is going to become thinner and thinner. It's going to become a thing of

the past. I wonder why the minister of external business wouldn't get

up and tell us that we're wrong.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I am so upset with that House Leader creating chaos in this House the way he has.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is chaos on his feet. If I've created it, I recognize it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, please let's continue.

MR. COCKE: In the Health Act, as it applies to this bill....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I ask you once more, for the

last time, to please let the hon. member for New Westminster get on

with his speech. He hasn't been given the opportunity.

MR. COCKE: Part of this bill applies to the Health Act. It

repeals an aspect of the Health Act, which allows for publishing the

regulation in the Gazette and

in at least one newspaper. Here we're talking about the management of

health units, inspection, treatment of disease, inspection of mining

and lumber camps, epidemics, prevention and suppression of disease. The

Health Act calls for prompt publication of these regulations. It would

appear that the less said publicly the better. That's the attitude of

this government. There is no more important aspect than seeing to it

that the public is aware of what's going on around them.

In driving to work this morning I heard a very interesting ad. It

said that the people who were vaccinated against polio — which was a

worrisome disease about 30 years ago until Salk invented his vaccine —

are now parents, but they are not giving their children the

immunization they should have. The ad went on to say: for heaven's

sake, get your kids in there, or we might have another polio outbreak.

When those kinds of things are made public, it's important. This aspect

of the bill says: "We don't have to publish the changes in the

regulations in the newspapers."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: This act does nothing.

MR. COCKE: This act does nothing? So what the hell are we doing debating it, if it does nothing?

The fact of the matter is that that aspect of this bill repeals an

aspect of the Health Act that required that those regulations be made

public, not only in the Gazette

but also in the newspapers across the province. Let me go over it. This

is with respect to management of health units and inspections — and

we've been hearing a lot about that lately — the treatment of disease,

inspection of mining and lumber camps, and so on. There's no question

in my mind that repealing that aspect of the act must be for some

reason. Now the House Leader says: "Oh, no, it doesn't do that." Well,

I'd like to know why they've got it in there if they're going to repeal

it. They must be repealing it for some purpose. He may say that they're

going to do it gratuitously in any event. How can we believe that? Why

would you have something in statute, repeal it, and then say that

you're going to do it gratuitously in any event? It's sheer nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, there's no question that this particular piece of

legislation makes significant changes.

You know, one doesn't even have a chance to pick up the bill itself

when it's called, because there's no notice, there's no warning,

there's no nothing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Two and a half months.

[12:45]

MR. COCKE: Two and a half months! You see, Mr. Speaker, they

knew that the speaker who was to be in my place right now when we were

discussing this bill would not be here at the moment....

[ Page 1298 ]

MR. REID: He should be here.

MR. COCKE: Should be here! Where's the Premier? When you're here, you're not, so it doesn't make any difference.

I would hope that when the House Leader gets up at some point in

this debate he tells us his impression of what this bill might do. I'm

sure that he sat in the committee rooms across the way, being

instructed by those people who instruct the committee on legislation,

and I'm sure that he is aware that this bill does a number of things

that the opposition have been talking about.

But I'm particularly concerned about the health aspect of this,

because we have been hearing and seeing significant changes to public

health in this province. If in fact public health is going to be

further suppressed by not being able to get the word out to the public

about times of danger.... I'm talking about by regulation and by

statute. I remarked about the gratuitous ad that I heard this morning.

I'm not sure whether it was federal or provincial, but I suspect that

it was provincial. If it was, I applaud it — getting people out to have

their children immunized against polio.

But this particular piece of legislation seems to me to be aimed at

going the other way. Right now the Health Act calls for prompt

publication of regulations or of anything of importance to the public.

You take that away, and what you're actually doing is taking away the

public's right to know. What's more important than an awareness on the

part of the public as to what might be dangerous in the community? From

time to time we have had typhoid epidemics and other outbreaks that

should be dealt with very carefully. The next thing you know, by the

way I interpret this, which may not be the way the House Leader

interprets it, you could very well knuckle under in a community to,

let's say, the "Tourist Bureau."

I can remember one time — as a matter of fact, I can remember a

number of instances — at Qualicum when the area was posted because of a

high coliform count. Do you know what? You had to notify the public, in

those days, of posting, and you do now, but I don't think you're going

to have to after this. You had to notify the public of posting through

the Gazette and also through

the newspapers. That outrages some of the entrepreneurs within the

community, who say that you're going to drive tourists away. My

suggestion is that you tell tourists the truth: we have trouble keeping

some of our areas clean from time to time. But that's neither here nor

there. They have a right to know that if an area is posted, it is

posted, and that means no swimming as it applies to this situation.

Other areas of concern should also be made public, and that's really

what I'm talking about. I'm worried about, for example, the inspection

of mining and lumber camps. We have regulations around that, and we've

seen those regulations — which up until now have had to be gazetted and

all the rest of it — and the public is widely knowledgeable about

these. But when the rumour starts coming down the pipe — and some of it

very heavy rumour — of draft regulations with respect to being more

lenient with some of the forest industry giants and some of the mining

companies with respect to the cleanliness and to the health aspect of

their area, then naturally we get very nervous when we see a bill

before us that says that there is not going to be the freedom of

information we all enjoy.

Freedom of information is something this government seems not to

understand. Instead they feel that the decisions should be quietly made

behind those cabinet doors. Isn't it ironical that the House Leader,

when he was a Liberal in this House, used to get up day after day,

month after month, and scream for legislation he called sunshine

legislation, which is in fact the whole concept of freedom of

information. He used to condemn the old Bennett government, who by

comparison to this group were all sunshine. He at least believed in

using the Legislature for its proper purpose.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'm not talking about the new one. He abhors the

Legislature. He wants to get everything out of here and into that

cabinet chamber where he rules like a monarch. Come on, where is he now?

No, Mr. Speaker, he abhors it. He feels that all the important

decisions made should be made in the cabinet. He appoints every one of

the members of that cabinet, so he can pretty well depend upon the

response that he wants coming out of that cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, that's why, when we see a bill significantly changing

the system of regulations, significantly changing the whole system

around publishing regulations, significantly changing the attitude

toward sunshine and freedom of information, naturally we worry.

I can't tell you about every aspect of this bill, but I can

certainly say that when I see aspects such as the aspects I've been

talking about, I have to really concern myself about Bill 31. Bill 31

has been looked upon differently by different people. I've heard

different people debating this bill. Everybody, however, picks out the

areas of his concern. It's an omnibus bill that covers a tremendous

number of bases. It's a bill that covers regulations in virtually every

department of government. Naturally, when one is charged with the

responsibility of overseeing certain aspects, then those are the ones

that jump out into your view, and for some years I have been most

interested in the whole question of health care. This bill amends the

Health Act, and there is no question in my mind that the Health Act

does require some amendments. But I don't believe that the Health Act

requires this kind of an amendment; I think it should be looked at far

more broadly. It is another question that should be brought up before a

standing committee in this House, rather than introduced in here

piecemeal — little changes here and there. And those changes are

significant ones.

I hope that when the minister, or one of his supporters, gets up on

this bill, we shall have far m