[ 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, 1983.

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

NAYS — 16

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 more explanation. The House Leader said that there has been a good deal of debate on this bill and that when it was introduced it was fully explained. Read Hansard. Fully explained, my foot! It was a very brief description....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ask some questions.

MR. COCKE: We'll ask questions in committee; that's when you ask questions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then let's get to committee.

MR. COCKE: Do you think we should? Let's get to committee! That's the very minister who introduced this bill with no notice at all. He has jumped around all morning from

[ Page 1299 ]

Motion 29 to Motion 28, then to another bill and then no reply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want obstruction to be facilitated.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of their overall policy to take matters away from the parliamentary system. They have been continually taking away the rights of parliament to debate, to decide and to put forward ideas with respect to what is going on in our province. That very minister who said how vital it was for the people of B.C. to know is the very minister who is party to the piece of legislation which we now have before us — Bill 31. I don't think that they're serious when they say: "Oh, no, it's not a bill of great significance." If it is not a bill of great significance, Mr. Speaker, it sure covers an awful lot of bases in this province.

It looks after, in my view....

AN. HON. MEMBER: He says you weren't in here when it took place — that's why you don't understand.

MR. COCKE: You weren't here when it was introduced now. How do you like that? It made no difference that the minister responsible for this bill wasn't even in the House when it was brought back on the floor. That is a shocking situation in B.C.

AN. HON. MEMBER: You weren't here for second reading.

MR. COCKE: Do you think I can't read Hansard? I have got all your beastly notes right here. In any event one doesn't have a chance to read them when you get something sprung on you like this, sprung even on the minister. He just thought: "Well, how can we get them next? They had to phone the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and bring him back from Oak Bay. They got him back here from Oak Bay in time to....

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly go over some of the things I have said. I am not going to vote for this bill until I have an explanation about this bill that will make me understand that it is worth voting for.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I am not moving a hoist for six months. Mr. Speaker, isn't this a rather unusual sort of dimming of the day? That House Leader sits here, he and I have a conversation, and only one side of it goes down in Hansard. If you would like me to move adjournment of debate....

AN. HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. COCKE: You wouldn't? Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion.

MR. COCKE: No.

MR. SPEAKER: You haven't heard the motion.

MR. COCKE: No, you haven't heard the motion. I think we might move a hoist. The minister from Oak Bay is just ready to dash out the door and get to that tennis game and I would hate to disappoint him.

But let me just go over this once more. There's an aspect of your bill that makes prey of the health regulations, and I don't believe that those health regulations should be jeopardized — as they are. I think that the public should know everything that's in those health regulations, and that's the situation as I see it. The public will not be informed under the present circumstances: that is, if the government doesn't wish them to be informed.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to old father time — the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, my attention having been drawn to the clock, I recognize the House Leader.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.