[ Page 1301 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Purchase of pensionable service. Mr. Hanson –– 1301

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 1301

Federal grant to Solidarity. Mr. Mowat –– 1301

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Reynolds

Highgrading by MacMillan Bloedel. Mr. Lea –– 1302

Motion 28.

Mr. Rose –– 1303

Mr. Nicolson –– 1304

Mr. Cocke –– 1305

Mr. Howard –– 1305

Motion 29.

Mr. Kempf –– 1306

Mr. Cocke –– 1307

Mrs. Johnston –– 1308

Mr. Rose –– 1308

Mr. Lea –– 1310

Mrs. Wallace –– 1311

Mr. Mitchell –– 1312

Ms. Sanford –– 1315

Mr. Skelly –– 1317

Mr. Passarell –– 1320

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

On the amendment

Mr. Parks –– 1321

Mr. Lockstead –– 1322

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, situated in the gallery this afternoon is a good friend of British Columbia, and despite his tender years he has served many years in municipal government in this province. I would like the House to welcome Alderman Vic Stusiak from the municipality of Burnaby.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF PENSIONABLE SERVICE

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary which relates to senior employees purchasing pensionable time for work done outside government service. Will the minister advise the House when the policy of permitting senior employees to purchase pensionable service for work done in the private sector was first put in place?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was a few years ago, Mr. Speaker. I'll get the more precise date and bring it back to the House.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary question. Would the minister explain who is eligible to purchase pensionable service for work done outside any government agency? I believe that in the past workers could apply military and university service and so on. My question refers to employment in the private sector.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The most senior managers of government.

MR. HANSON: Will the minister advise who has applied recently to purchase pensionable service for work performed outside any government agency, and which of these applications have been approved, particularly for work done years ago in law firms or large development corporations?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question in itself would be better placed on the order paper. It is a very detailed question.

MR. HANSON: Perhaps I could pare it down, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise who has applied to purchase pensionable service for work performed outside any government agency and been granted permission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would have to take that question as notice and bring the information back to be precise on the thing. There is a maximum time-frame for which they can get credit for work outside of the public service. I explained a little earlier that senior managers of government have that privilege; however, there are limitations to the privilege.

MR. HANSON: I have one final supplementary, I heard the minister state that a certain time would be purchasable into the superannuation plan. Would eight years of service outside of government service be regarded as a reasonable pensionable time to buy in?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. That would go beyond the guidelines.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to that same minister. Four weeks ago today the minister began to stonewall the question on whether McKim Advertising is presently the agency of record for the provincial government's advertising program. In view of this important milestone, has the minister decided to provide the House with this information at this moment?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is there a limit to the number of times a member can ask a question on the same issue that has been taken on notice" The issue is becoming quite tedious and repetitious to me.

MR. BARRETT: Why don't you answer the question?

MR. COCKE: I will ask the same kind of rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. Is this not contempt of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we can ask questions, but we cannot insist on answers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Read the rules.

MR. COCKE: I would advise you to do the same.

FEDERAL GRANT TO SOLIDARITY

MR. MOWAT: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. I understand that the federal government has given a grant of $600,000 to the so-called Solidarity movement. I am wondering whether the provincial government was consulted before $600,000 of the taxpayers' money was given to a political organization.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I certainly thank the member for that unexpected question. I have been out of town for the last two weeks and have only had the opportunity to be brought up to date over the last few days. No, the provincial government certainly wasn't consulted about taxpayers' dollars being tunnelled through the federal government into a very partisan political activity. I am reminded of the famous old triple play in baseball that used to be known to all of us: the famous Tinker to Evers to Chance play. We now, see the Kobe to Barrett to Trudeau play and it's a triple play on the taxpayers of Canada. We were not consulted% It is certainly a blatant abuse of taxpayers' money, and again that's losership.

[2:15]

MR. BARRETT: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Was the federal government informed that the provincial government intended to spend taxpayers' money to hire a weatherman to boast about Social Credit programs? Did you consult the federal government through Doug Heal before you allocated that money?

Interjections.

[ Page 1302 ]

MR. BARRETT: I just like to boast about federal programs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members. when we seek the floor on a supplementary, it would be nice if the question somehow referred to the previous question.

MR. BARRETT: The work-sharing program, which reporters found out later was not true.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a supplementary question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General advise this House whether any police forces are investigating the spending of moneys received from the federal government, how they're being spent and if they're being spent legally?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member also for this unexpected question. I would think that that is a matter of federal jurisdiction, but I will be pleased to look into it.

HIGHGRADING BY MACMILLAN BLOEDEL

MR. LEA: Just think how quick they would be if they had had notice.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. On August 81 asked the minister about MacMillan Bloedel cutting on the Queen Charlotte Islands, near Alliford Bay, and about reported waste on the ground, At that time the minister said it would be decided whether MacMillan Bloedel would be ordered to go back and clean up or pay a penalty stumpage 1nstead. Since then I have found out that there is no penalty stumpage. Has the minister decided to order MacMillan Bloedel to go back and clean up the area to which I refer?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member for Prince Rupert seems to be assuming that the waste assessment has demonstrated in fact that excess waste was left on the floor. Waste assessment work has been done, but the information has not yet been compiled. So I cannot assume that MacMillan Bloedel is guilty of exceeding utilization standards until I see the numbers. When I have those numbers I'll be very happy to share them with the member.

MR. LEA: I thank the minister for that. I understand MacMillan Bloedel are going to have those numbers to you shortly.

The second question is this: has the minister decided to stop the burn order which has been ordered for that area until both he and I get a chance to go over those waste assessment sheets? I understand some contractors have made some bids to go in there and utilize some of the wood on the floor. Has he decided to stop the burn order until that information is in?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I certainly have not, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that MacMillan Bloedel in that area.... I think it's cutting permit TFL 39 in the Alliford Bay area. My understanding is that Misty Mountain Cedar have an ongoing arrangement with MacMillan Bloedel to recover unused cedar material from the area. If it is possible to conduct a satisfactory burn — and these opportunities don't come along too often on the rather rainy Queen Charlotte Islands — it will be done. No, I don't intend to order the cancellation of an opportunity to use that very important silvicultural tool, the broadcast burn, on that particular area.

The member for Prince Rupert seems awfully anxious. I understand that there have been other people approaching MacMillan Bloedel to see about the possible salvage of some of the cedar material. MacMillan Bloedel don't feel they should do that, because they do have this ongoing arrangement with Misty Mountain Cedar. I believe Mr. Jim Abbott wanted to get in there. There are areas closer to his small sawmill which can be made available for salvage. I understand that he and MacMillan Bloedel are talking about that.

This business of burning, Mr. Speaker. Burning or broadcast burning is an important silvicultural tool. One of my colleagues disagrees with that from time to time. In an area like the Queen Charlottes where it is wet, the opportunity to conduct a successful burn is only rarely presented. We do have to take advantage of that when it happens. Through advice given me by the ministry, by MacMillan Bloedel and by some of the salvers, it does not preclude salvaging some of the cedar, because it can be salvaged after a light broadcast burn has been conducted.

MR. LEA: Yes, I also understand that with the cedar, but it's not only cedar that we're questioning — it's hemlock and spruce sawlogs. I've been into that site recently and witnessed it even on the landings; it doesn't even have to be pulled out of the bush. It would seem a shame to me to go in there and burn rather than try to salvage all we can from that cut. Would the minister make himself aware of whether there are spruce and hemlock sawlogs in there too? If that's the case, would he reverse the decision to have the burn order go ahead?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure that the member for Prince Rupert is an expert at determining what is a usable sawlog, what is a pulp log, what is economically usable and what is not. That information will be available to me as soon as the waste assessment data is compiled, as I mentioned to the member. There's no way that we will burn economically usable material. I'm sure that member, as soon as he sees a piece of wood that tends to be rather round in shape, will assume automatically that it's a sawlog and it's of value to someone. In fact, if it costs more to recover that log to manufacture something out of it than can be recovered in value from the product sold, it is not a commercial log at all.

I would hope that the member would team something about what is and what is not commercial wood in the forest before he makes assumptions. Like I say, Mr. Speaker, I'll be very happy to share that information on the waste assessment and the compilation of that data once I have it in hand. I'm sure the member will be very happy to receive that information.

MR. LEA: Yes, I would. I also, Mr. Speaker, would like to mention that I had a qualified scaler and grader with me when I made that tour.

Would the minister answer this: does he think there may be some credence to the fact that the major companies will not let smaller companies into those areas to log because, if it were proved to be economical, those major companies would have to answer to the people of this province as to why they're leaving that waste on the floor of the forest?

[ Page 1303 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if the member would please repeat that question. I heard a statement, but I didn't hear a question.

MR. LEA: Would the minister say whether he believes or doesn't believe that the major companies may, in fact, not be allowing small operators into areas such as Alliford Bay because they would prove that it is economical to go after that timber? The next question that would be asked is: why didn't MacMillan Bloedel and the majors do it in the first place when it would have been even more economical?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't agree with that at all. In the forest sector in British Columbia, members of the opposition automatically assume that because a company is large it is necessarily inefficient and a bad company. They assume that because a company is small, it must be a good company. I'll have that member know that there are good, efficient operators in both the large and the small category, and there are inefficient and poor operators in both the large and the small category. Being large does not necessarily mean the company is bad and inefficient, nor is it a guarantee that they are efficient and good operators. Similarly, being small is no assurance that a company is good. So I would hope the member does not categorize all companies in that manner, and will really assess each on its individual operating merits.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Leave to proceed to adjourned debate on Motion 28.

Leave granted.

On Motion 28.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak at great length on this matter, and I'm sure that that statement will be greeted with some approval if not outright appreciation. I don't think there's any really good reason this party could decide to oppose sending this matter to a committee. I don't think it's a matter of tremendous import, necessarily.

I had an opportunity once upon a time to serve on a municipal council; I served there for two years and felt that two years was reasonably adequate for a councillor or alderman to become — if he had any interest, dedication or devotion to the job — reasonably knowledgeable, proficient and efficient in his job. I've known, for instance, people right here in this room who never served in public office at all until they practically became a Premier. So it seems quite obvious to me that if a person can learn on the job and learn rapidly, probably in two years he can become pretty well briefed on the various aspects of government of one kind or another.

So I don't think two or three or four or five years is really the crucial matter. I think what it really amounts to is the kind of dedication the person puts into it. Why was two chosen in the first place? In the past we used to have people elected for two years, the idea being that if you elected half your council for one half of those two years and you had alternating elections, you would have that kind of long-term experience overlapping on the council. We got rid of that system because it was pointed out that legislatures do not have overlapping elections, that somehow the experienced and the inexperienced, the bright and the not-so-bright tend to get re-elected sometimes, and that that doesn't make any particular difference to the continuity of the legislation. I think that that has very little do do with it, We can't oppose it just on some kind of principle. If it's two years it would seem to be reasonable. The minister asked me whether I'm in favour of it or against it. I don't know whether he means whether I'm in favour of the two- or three- or four-year terms for municipal councillors or whether I am in favour of the concept of sending it to committee. Obviously, from the minister's questions, if he meant the former it would mean that the minister feels that the answer is already there. Therefore we wouldn't really need to send it to committee at all. What the debate on Motion 28 is, Mr. Speaker. Is whether or not this subject matter should be sent to the committee for study. I've already said that I do not oppose that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then what are you filibustering for?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, if saying something about the legislation means that I am obstructing or filibustering, I would ask the minister to listen to his remarks next time he makes a speech, because frequently — and I don't mean to be unkind, because I know he is a gentle fellow and an eloquent orator — sometimes a mite of repetition creeps into his remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. ROSE: Occasionally — not often. I think, in the main, that the minister is the soul of brevity, if not wit, and very seldom does he stray beyond the point — unless we're describing his head.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I was trying to make is that I don't think a councillor or an alderman or any municipal official is going to be that much smarter after a two-year term or a three-year term. It can be said, though, I think, that if you don't have as many elections. It is not going to be as costly for the government or for the people who are electing the government. That's why I would suggest that maybe we shouldn't have a three-year cycle: maybe we should go for a four-year or five-year cycle municipally as well as provincially. I don't think we should do it the next time, though. We might do that as a pattern following that. I am a bit suspicious of this move. I think that there are two or three things such as Bill 9 taking away the right to planning on behalf of regional districts and a number of other moves municipally, like the fear of perhaps not getting the grants so that this particular....

[2:30]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Order, Mr. Speaker. He thinks he's in Ottawa supporting the Liberals.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker. you'll have to really try to protect me from this minister, because he was up there singing the praises of that Liberal. Jean-Luc Pepin, not two weeks ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Hon. member, the Chair has allowed a fair amount of digression from the motion....

[ Page 1304 ]

MR. ROSE: I'm told he's fond of Ron Basford as well.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether these interjections go into Hansard, but the Premier suggests that he was talking to me while I was riding in first class and while he was showboating back in the Connoisseur class. What I want to know is what he was doing up there without permission. It's getting so that a person who buys a first-class ticket has no protection from those who buy Connoisseur. [Laughter] How do I know? He might have been back in Connoisseur and came up for a free drink, for all I know. I don't know that. But since he mentioned it and he was riding on his cheapie ticket on his way to his first-class hotel suite, because nobody could see him in that one.... He raised the issue, not me, and I treated him with the utmost civility and hospitality when he came up there, even though he had no reason to be up there in the first place.

There are two or three things that need to be said about this particular resolution. I think that it's not necessarily true that we need to have three years, but there's no point in not looking at it. That's the position we take. Certainly it's going to be less costly, but does it give people the same chance to stand for office? Does a three-year term provide the population with the same opportunity to throw out an alderman or a councillor of whom they don't approve? Of course you can't say that, so in that sense it's anti-democratic. But I know this government is all for democracy. They are real big on democracy. They're so big on democracy that they've tossed out and ignored two referenda on the ward system in Vancouver.

If we really want to do something for the municipalities, we won't take away their planning function, we won't throw them a bone about three-year councillor terms and we won't ignore the ward system in Vancouver. We'll do the things that count, not just pass a little resolution which allows and permits a possibility of a three-year term over a four-year term. Somebody could argue that a ten-year term would give the councillors even more experience; it would be cheaper, too, because you wouldn't need any elections. Decennial elections — that would be tremendous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support Rosemary for leader'?

MR. ROSE: I would think that my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) would be a most worthy contestant among potential candidates. Why shouldn't anybody sitting over here run for leadership of our party? They have a perfect right to, just as the minister would have a perfect right to run as leader of his own party. I don't think he'd get elected.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Clearly the din which is echoing across the chamber is making it very difficult to hear the member's remarks, even if they were in order. I would remind the member speaking that we are currently on Motion 28 and that the vast majority of his remarks to date have been very close to being irrelevant on the subject. I would ask the member now if he would deal with Motion 28, and I ask other members to keep their interjections to themselves.

MR. ROSE: I'm very pleased to have that word of advice and your protection, Mr. Speaker, because if an hon. member — especially a brand-new member of this Legislature such as I — doesn't have the protection of the Chair, he is vulnerable to all kinds of barbs from across the floor, and I think that the cause of democracy is not served.

Let me make this point in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. A number of resolutions have come from the municipal organizations such as the B.C. municipal association, and I think that the government is certainly considering these. I hope it hasn't got its mind made up on a lot of things, and I've named some of them, including the ward system. But what I'm suggesting is that we should have an opportunity to study more than just the length of a term of a councillor or alderman. We, as members of the Legislature, should have an opportunity to study the implications of a taxation system, of the absence of planning and of the development of programs of various kinds in, between and among municipalities.

I would say on behalf of my party that I have no objection to this matter going to a committee, but I think that I have a right to lay some concerns before this House, because that's my job, my duty and my responsibility.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion to put one of the select standing committees to work. This is something that I often advocate in this House. I feel that the select standing committees should be assigned tasks, and for that reason I support the motion. However, I do feel that the motion is somewhat restrictive. I feel that to have the committee sitting while the House is in session can be a useful utilization of the time of the members, and I don't object to that. But when one looks at that in conjunction with the other restriction in the motion — and that is that the final report is to be given by December 16 of this year — it tells us that it will be impossible to get even a sampling of the feelings of the average people around this province. I do feel that if the committee is going to sound out feelings on triennial elections in the Municipal Act, people from around the province should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions on this issue. I think that what we're going to see here is maybe.... We have heard from the UBCM. We know how they feel. But are we going to hear anything more than the feelings of the UBCM? I would like people to be given the opportunity to come in and maybe not even give a written brief, but just give notice that they would like to address the committee for five minutes or so, and give a very quick, succinct expression of their feelings about moving toward a longer election period. This is something that's going to be missing.

If the committee is only going to be sitting while the House is in session, and quite possibly the House is going to be in session right through to December 16.... In fact, the committee must report before December 16, which means the House must be in session that day, because obviously the committee can report only to the House. So for those reasons I feel that it looks like this is going to be a rather cursory glance at this issue.

There are many far more important questions, I think, that could be addressed by select standing committees. For instance, I think that one of the most neglected areas of government activity is probably the office of the public trustee. I think that should be sent to a committee. Just in comparing the importance of the two things which government has seen as being worth taking up a committee's time,

[ Page 1305 ]

and the whole issue of the public trustee.... I've discussed this with members on both sides of the House, and some in the middle. I don't want to trivialize the importance of the consideration of triennial elections; indeed, it's a very important step to be taken. So I feel, for that reason, that the motion is unnecessarily restrictive. It seems to be channelling everything towards a quick little report — maybe to keep the back-benchers occupied. Maybe, if there's too much time for the back bench.... I know that their numbers are so large and cabinet positions are so full that it is one way of keeping the back bench occupied. Get them involved in a committee. Prime Minister Diefenbaker did this. That was part of his technique.

So here we see a motion which I would certainly support; but it's something which, in terms of the work that's being referred.... There are many other things that probably should be taking the time of committees. The manner in which the committee is going to be set up is such that it is not going to get a full kind of input. But it's a start, it's a beginning, it's a faltering step back toward using the select standing committees of this House, and for that reason I would support it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: I would agree that one of the refreshing aspects of this is that we're finally, after all these years, seeing some suggestion that work will go to select standing committees. This particular resolution strikes me, however, as being a resolution that is being put forward to take care of the minister's needs. The minister has been under a good deal of criticism from the UBCM for a number of things that he's doing. So he's trying to get them to take their eye off the ball and look at biennial elections as opposed to, for example, robbing regional districts of their planning rights, and municipalities of this, that and the other thing, and centralizing power here in Victoria.

The thing that I wonder is whether or not the minister might make a suggestion as to whether or not school boards should also be included in this discussion. If there's to be an aberration created by virtue of the fact that you have a biennial election for city council and you don't have the same kind of proposition for school board, it strikes me that maybe it should be something that should be looked at at the same time.

The structure of the committee is also certainly a worry to me. Most of the standing committees of this House are now compose of nine; of those nine, six are government members and three are opposition members. That is not the way the House is structured by the electoral process, but that is the w y a, our committees are structured. It strikes me that it might be a good idea for the minister to prevail upon the selection committee to change that structure for this particular committee. It is a question that can be resolved. It is a specific committee of the House, and in terms of numbers it need not reflect the other select standing committees.

If the Minister has a point of order, jump up.

[2:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I detect one. We are reflecting on a vote, and we are discussing a report of another committee.

MR. COCKE: It is unfortunate that that is the structure. I am also concerned that something in this committee may happen that has the potential of happening in the eight and four committee. That is the only one that is distinct; it is Public Accounts. On that committee a government member has put forward a resolution suggesting the only things that can come before that committee are questions that the committee has resolved to hear. An individual member of a committee, under our standing orders. has rights in terms of requesting that the chairman subpoena witnesses, etc. Those rights would still be there but would be denied, in fact, by virtue of the overriding amendment that would say: okay, you can have that right but we can't hear them because the rest of the committee doesn't want to hear them. That is muzzling by the majority, and the last thing I think we require in the democratic process is to see the majority muzzle the minority.

If this committee. like any other standing committee of this House, is to work property. then it should not only be fair but be seen to be fair by the participants, by the House and by the public at large. It would not be seen to be fair if a private member on the committee were denied access.... That person, no matter from which side of the House, no matter who, on this standing committee, must not be denied access to people who may provide testimony that would be important for this committee to hear.

I don't imagine, by virtue of having read the resolution, that the committee is going to be a travelling one. I don't think it need be. It would probably be a waste at the present time, and I think the people who wish to testify before this committee can come here and meet with us in our committee rooms. Another thing, too: it would be very difficult for the committee to travel if it is to be at work only during this period we are in session at this Legislature, and that again is my interpretation of what this resolution says.

With that, I do hope that the committee can come to grips with this situation. As some of my colleagues have said before, they don't feel it is the most important situation confronting our electoral process in this province. For that matter, it is not the most important problem that we have in terms of provincial government and municipal or local government discussions and deliberations.

In any event, the minister will be able to go to the UBCM this week and report that he has successfully put together a committee. That's the reason we are cooperating with this particular proposition: in order to give him that opportunity when he gets to the UBCM meeting in Penticton.

We don't feel that this resolution will in any way impair our provincial situation. But we do think that the minister in his musings, on his way up and on his way back, should think of some of the other criticisms that are being made from time to time by elected people at the local level. There are more of them than there are of us. and it strikes me that they have a good deal to say, especially being so close to the needs of the public. There is a good case, in my view, for decentralization, and it strikes me that this may be part of our better understanding of what goes on in the province. With that, I will support this resolution,

MR. HOWARD: I would just like to put a few words forward in support of the proposition advanced by the minister. You'll recall that we on this side of the House iiave argued on a number of occasions, and more particularly and more recently with respect to a discussion on some bills before the House, which I don't want to get into at this time, that committees of this Legislature can perform a valuable service

[ Page 1306 ]

and function. While the selection of one particular resolution passed by a convention of the UBCM for reference to the committee on municipal affairs may not be the most earthshaking one, nonetheless it is welcome. It does afford an opportunity for the Legislature, through one of its committees, to at least examine something.

I would have much preferred to have that committee study and examine some of the far-reaching and intrusive provisions being advanced by this government in another forum, but it's the government's choice that it doesn't want to deal with those authorities that it seeks to have over municipalities in a broad and open way such as is possible under the committee system.

Within the riding of Skeena there are two regional districts organized under the Municipal Act, and five other municipalities, with the possibility of at least another municipality being incorporated at some time in the future — I know it has been talked about at different times at the community level. So there is more than a passing interest in the subject matter of triennial versus some other period of time for election of municipal councillors.

It would seem to me that the committee might as well look at another question. It may have to stretch itself somewhat to do this. I suppose it would come down to what the interpretation is of the relevant sections of the Municipal Act, and whether there are any cross-references in those relevant sections to provisions of the School Act. It would seem to me that if we were embarking upon examining a three-year term of office for municipal councils, we might well give the same consideration to school board elections as well and have some continuity of balloting take place within communities. If this proceeds in a favourable way — and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't — and we do have three-year terms for municipal councils and two-year terms for school boards, we'll have that conflict and that overlapping, and the consideration of referenda, perhaps, within the two.

We're now able to incorporate all of the ballots at one time in the course of the same election. If they're looking at this from the point of view of one cost of running an election — and presumably this would reduce it by one-third, if that's the way the finances of this work — and they don't do something similar with other public bodies such as school boards, I don't think we'll be much further ahead. In fact, we'll be further behind because within a period of, say, four years, we'll have three electoral processes going on — one in the second year at a school board, the third year a municipal council and the fourth year the school board again. I think the cost to the taxpayer would be more than it is now by running them both at once.

So I would hope the committee would examine the possibilities of marrying the ideas together. I don't know what the School Trustees' Association have passed with respect to that, but it's worth examining if we're looking at length of office and at costs. I would certainly urge the committee, even within the limited scope the government sees fit to afford it to conduct things, to look at that other question as well.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Motion 29.

On Motion 29.

MR. KEMPF: As I was saying prior to adjourning this debate last Friday, I fully support Motion 29, because I'm very strongly in favour of it. I very steadfastly support the private sector and individual enterprise.

I am very surprised to find them in support of the resolution that was just passed in this House, after having spoken out last week against this resolution. I am sure they will speak out again against this resolution this afternoon. Unlike our friends opposite, who support the concept of Big Brother government and its womb-to-tomb philosophy, which believes that nothing is done properly unless it's done by government, I'm not of that philosophy; for that reason I support Motion 29. That socialist philosophy of the members opposite, which they believe in and which they believe still excites the public of British Columbia, even after a multitude of failures in other jurisdictions.... They still think it will fly in this province and in this country. It is absolutely not so. On May 5 the citizens of this province said so; they have said it over and over again since that time. The members opposite have still not gotten the message.

[3:00]

I will vote in favour of this resolution, not only because I believe strongly that the private sector is able to do a better job than government, but also because, unlike the Leader of the Opposition — I listened to his speech in this debate last week — I realize that there is more to the province of British Columbia than the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

For several years now my taxpaying constituents and others have paid for the six lower mainland testing stations, which are now being shut down, and they derived absolutely no service for their tax dollars. Privatized, yes, you bet; at least we in the north and in many other areas of this province will get what we pay for. Even if we have to pay more — and I've heard members opposite say that this move is going to cost more than what is now being paid out — in the north, we'll get something for our tax dollars expended which we haven't been getting. We paid for the six lower mainland testing stations, but we derived no service whatsoever from them. At least we'll get something.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a dumb argument.

MR. KEMPF: You think it's a dumb remark. You too don't believe that there's anything north of Cache Creek in this province. Mr. Speaker, he's as intelligent in that respect as his would-be leader.

The members opposite have suggested that to close the six testing stations would in fact endanger our citizens. What about the other 80 percent of the province that wasn't served by these six testing stations? What about the northerners, who haven't had that service but who will have it?

The members opposite can, if they like, turn a blind eye to what's happening in the province. I'll tell you a little lower mainland story about what's happened since the closing of those testing stations. Individual enterprise is already stepping in, and it's not costing anyone anything. I'm sure it will catch on. Just last week, as I was driving out of Vancouver, heading for the B.C. Ferry system to return to Vancouver Island, I was driving along Burrard Street and I came to the corner of Burrard and Broadway, where there was a very nice-looking service station. And what did I see? A big sign advertising a free safety check with every oil change or grease job. Mr. Speaker, that's free enterprise. It is not costing anyone anything; not even tax money is being spent to

[ Page 1307 ]

obtain those safety checks which are free to the motorist who must regularly go in for an oil change and a grease job.

MR. ROSE: It's a loss leader.

MR. KEMPF: I'll bet that member over there doesn't even know that. I commend that dealer. I'm sure he won't be the only one that will rise to the occasion, but the socialist members over there wouldn't understand that. They speak out against this resolution. I just heard the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), my next-door neighbour up north, argue for the committee system in this House. I agree with him in that regard. If there's anything we need in this Legislature it's more of the business taken outside of this House and into committee. If that were the only reason that I would stand and speak in favour of this resolution today. I would do it, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in a proper and active committee system in this and every other legislature in this land. I heard the member for Skeena speak in favour of that. How can he stand and speak in favour of the committee system on one resolution and then stand and speak against it on another resolution? I don't understand that member speaking against this resolution that would take some of the work of this House into an all-party committee. It is preposterous. It goes against that which even the socialist members opposite believe.

I would hope that in the ensuing debate, which will certainly go on this afternoon and maybe longer, they will see the error of their ways and reconsider what they have said and will stand, speak and vote in favour of taking more of the work of this Legislature into an all-party committee. I seriously support Motion 29.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the foregoing remarks are sufficient for me to say that if I were ever motivated otherwise, I would have difficulty supporting this resolution as it's presently structured after listening to the arguments of the member from Omineca.

Yes, we support committees reviewing policy and directions for government and the people in our province. I've sat on a number of committees over the years in this Legislature as they're attached to this Legislature. But, Mr. Speaker, let's direct ourselves at the limitations that this committee faces. It's not as though the committee is going to be looking at the whole question of automobile testing — not at all. The committee is given narrow terms of reference to the extent that you are only able to look at one side of the situation. What does the resolution say? 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 classes of vehicles by the private sector." Mr. Speaker, why not take into consideration the possibility that the public sector has been doing a darned good job over a number of years, notwithstanding the fact that it's been limited by virtue of the fact that it hasn't been available all over the province. But why put in the limitations in this resolution and then expect the opposition to applaud the idea.

We know that the admission of the motor vehicle branch was that they were under-financed 50 cents per car- in other words, if you took your car in....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, the Premier, whenever he does show his face in this place, always has to joke around. You know, parliament is a serious proposition. The faster you get a handle on that, the better Premier you're going to be. I don't have too much hope for that, but at least try.

Now, Mr. Speaker, getting back to this resolution, it begs the question that the public sector has been doing an excellent job of inspecting motor vehicles as follows: (1) that it's probably costing 50 cents.... Why didn't we raise the rates for inspections? Why didn't we consider the possibility of having a broadening of these inspections beyond the lower mainland and the southern part of Vancouver Island? It strikes me that that would have been a good idea. Or, on the other hand, how about a mix?

Here's the problem we face when looking at other jurisdictions. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says: "It's marvellous for free enterprise. doing all these inspections. Somebody does a grease job on my car, and they're going to give me a free inspection." Mr. Speaker, I defy you to go into garages across the province. service stations or whatever, and find the sophisticated equipment that's required in order to do this. What you're going to be doing is providing a monopoly situation in any event. Not everybody in Quesnel. with respect to the minister's constituency. will be able to put alignment machinery in. Certainly not everybody — or very few — will be able to put in equipment to test brakes.

I rose on the question of brakes....

[Interruption.]

Excuse me. The House Leader for the NDP decided to get rid of his cold, so he gave it to me. In any event. I was criticized in the House when I brought up the fact that I have a 12,000-pound, gross-vehicle--weight motor home. I drove that vehicle to a major automobile dealership in my general area to have it checked up and so on. Then I took it in to be tested. What did I find-' I had absolutely no brakes in one of the back duals. Now that's jeopardizing not just yourself, but also other people on the highway. I defy you to tell me that there's a garage in Salmon Arm or Quesnel that has the capacity to check those brakes the way they're checked at a motor vehicle testing station. They can't. If you want a major check-up on your brakes, and you want to have all the wheels pulled and do all those kinds of things, of course they can check them. Of course they, could have found that there was oil leaking onto the brake drums. But you have to pull the whole darned thing apart. It costs a fortune. You're not going to expect anybody to go out and do the kind of inspection that would be required if in fact we forsake the present means of inspection. It's a mistake to go this route. We should be expanding rather than contracting . In other jurisdictions, in order to get a half-decent inspection.... Ontario's a good example. The minimum inspection there is roughly $28 — in your private sector. Most. however, run $40 to $50. and some as high as $60. We're talking about the difference between $6 — because I'm admitting that $5.50 was too low — and $60.

[3:15]

The member for Omineca says that this is a socialist philosophy, or some darned thing. The point is that these motor vehicle inspections were put in by a previous Social Credit government. Prior to that they were put in. long before even W.A.C. was around — that is, in active politics — by the city of Vancouver. They said: "'We don't want people driving on our streets unless their vehicles are satisfactory

[ Page 1308 ]

and safe." That happened years ago. To suggest anything in terms of one wing vis-à-vis another wing in this argument is crazy. If the member got up and said, "We owe a debt of gratitude to a number of Social Crediters out there who want to have a monopoly on testing cars for 50 or 60 bucks a throw," then that would be somewhat honest debate. But to get up and talk to us about socialism versus free enterprise, this, that and the other thing, in this argument, is nonsense. This was set up in the days when this province was so reactionary that it squeaked. So to bring that kind of fuzzy argument into this question is nothing more than showing contempt for the argument itself.

MR. REYNOLDS: Why don't you get your car tested?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that I would suggest should be of major importance. Having said that, I would suggest that we take another look at it.

The member says: "Get your car tested." I have. I had our large car tested; I had our motorhome tested. I have a little car I just started using again that I can't get tested. It has been pulled behind a motorhome for a few years. Now I can't get it tested unless I go to some private entrepreneur to find out whether or not he proclaims that it's okay. I've done that, but I don't like the idea. I'd like to take it back to the motor vehicle branch.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing to do with Big Brother. This is to do with children in our crosswalks facing the possibility of a car with brake failure. This is to do with safety for all individuals on the highway: pedestrians, those driving cars or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, what we should see here is a broadening of the guidelines so that the whole thing can be discussed. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with our setting up a committee, but the guidelines are too narrow. Why doesn't the minister stand up and amend this so that we can take a look at both aspects, or the possibility of marrying the aspects? Why get rid of something that's working well? Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that would be a resolution easy to support. If we had the guidelines broadened to the extent that we could look at both aspects, not necessarily in contravention of one another but in terms of an opportunity to assess whether it should be done both ways, or one way or the other, then we could have something to argue about. Right now witnesses are going to come before this committee committed, married to the guidelines that the minister has given us. On that basis I think we have to say no.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Resolution 29. I think it is very interesting to refer to some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday, and I would like to refer to the Blues. The Leader of the Opposition stated: "It is required by law to have your vehicle tested. There is now a gap to get that testing done." I would point out that every member of the opposition who has taken his place in this debate to speak against this resolution has very properly pointed out that it could be a matter of life or death if we adopt this philosophy of privatizing the car testing. But I would quote again from the Blues. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a comment made by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who talks 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. Those people who are that irresponsible should be fined and warned.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Who said that? When did he say that?

MRS. JOHNSTON: These are comments made by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday afternoon.

I took the time to go out into our parking lot and look at some of the vehicles out there. It is very interesting to note the lack of stickers on most of the cars, but there were two cars that particularly came to my attention. It's unfortunate that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has left his seat, because I found that the 1971 MG, licence AHD-784, has a sticker on it dated December 1974. I would suggest that the value of the provincial government and the taxpayer providing for the testing of vehicles is really worthless if even the elected MLAs don't take the time or trouble to put their vehicles through the test. I found a 1972 Fiat, CFW-085, in parking space no. 59, the parking spot of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and he has a sticker dated August 1975. There are several others, but I think that really proves the hypocrisy of the arguments that have been put forward. Even if we had a testing station on every corner, it does not necessarily mean that the people are going to use them, as witnessed by the elected MLAs in this Legislature.

I would suggest that we allow this resolution to go to the committee and that we have a lengthy opportunity to rehash and come up with something that everybody can live with. I'm very pleased to speak in support of the resolution.

MR. ROSE: I am pleased to take part in this debate, because I think it's a very important issue. I think it's only fair to point out, though, that when any member goes snooping around a parking lot, they should be prepared to name all the cars and not just have some sort of selective citings and noncitings. A little bird from West Vancouver–Howe Sound whispered in my ear that there were some fairly embarrassing oversights of certain kinds of stickers on perhaps even the cars of members of the government out there. I wouldn't want to point any fingers, because this was told to me in confidence, but I understand that they do exist. My colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) points out to me, and he hasn't got a car here, that the only places that you have these opportunities for stickers is in Victoria, Nanaimo or Vancouver. Somebody — for instance, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is outside the lower mainland — may not have that same opportunity to have a sticker. That would also apply to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), or to the member from Kelowna or some of those other places.

The very fact that someone is unable to get tested because they happen to live beyond Hope or beyond the lower mainland as an excuse to get rid of those testing stations that apply in the lower mainland, I think, is fatuous reasoning. In other words, because you can't have any inspections where there are no public testing stations in areas of the interior is reason enough to get rid of the ones in the lower mainland. I've never heard of such a thing. I think that's absolutely stupid in terms of trying to put forward a valid argument. There may be valid

[ Page 1309 ]

arguments for getting rid of public testing — maybe they lack productivity or maybe they're unbiased or do a sloppy job.

I think there are good and sufficient reasons that could perhaps be drawn up, but not for the fact that they don't exist in part of the province. Where do they exist? They exist where the traffic is the heaviest and where testing is probably needed the greatest. To use an excuse that they don't exist in Terrace, British Columbia, and therefore we should remove them from Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo is to me a specious argument at best and a fatuous one at worst.

I think that probably this party opposes the setting up of the committee because of the timing. We have Bill 23 which deals with this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it.

MR. ROSE: Some oracle on my political right said: "Get on with it." I'd like to point out that the opposition doesn't call the order of business. If the government wishes us to get on with the debate of Bill 23, it has the power to call Bill 23.

My concern here is that we're setting up a debate on a resolution to send to committee the best, most effective methods of privatizing the inspection. The decision has been made, even though Bill 23 hasn't passed. I think the timing is wrong. I would think that if you wanted to set up a committee, it would be to discuss perhaps better ways of vehicle inspection where there are no public inspection services available. That's what I would like to see. I would like to say all right, let's put the one up against the other. If we can figure out some private way to approach this matter in areas of the province that lack testing facilities for the safety of the public, then well and good.

Why don't we leave the existing testing stations open while we develop this other source? Why don't we try it for a year? Why don't we try it where there are no other testing systems available for those people with the big logging trucks that a speaker mentioned in his speech the other day, for areas such as Terrace and Smithers and all these other places that lack these safety testing procedures and facilities? Why don't we do it that way? Why don't we leave these testing stations in operation where they have obviously been quite successful and worked quite well for the past 30 years. Somebody said that only half of the people ever go into them. Well, that isn't the fault of the testing stations. That's the fault of how the inspection and collection of offenders is administered. That's the reason that works.... It's not that the people in the inspection stations do not do their job. It's because it is not policed. It is not a high priority to have people picked up and sent to those stations if their cars are obviously — or maybe not obviously — in need of some sort of improvement.

I'm a little concerned about who is going to do the inspection. How do we determine which car has to be inspected, and who's going to inspect that particular car? For instance, is it going to be on an annual basis? Someone might say that that's what we're going to talk about when we get the thing to committee. But I think there's more to it than that. Somebody is going to have to inspect the inspectors. Suppose I live in Smithers and I take my car to garage X. I have an inspection and there's a certificate attached to it as passing ' The work may or may not have been done. I think we've all heard all kinds of horror stories about people taking their televisions and their cars in to service people for work that has never been done. There is absolutely no end to the horror stories of work that was never really done on these. How would I know if somebody inspected and replaced a lefthanded widget in my carburetor. I wouldn't know that. If you're going to have private inspection of automobiles, what assurance do I have that the private garage-owner who did that has done an adequate job? I have no assurance at all, unless I have another set of non-conflict-of-interest people.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What I've said obviously pains the Premier.

Interjection.

[3:30]

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know if they check widgets or not.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), if not an expert on health, perhaps puts himself forward as an expert on left-handed widgets. But I'll tell you this much: how would the Minister of Health like the butchers to inspect the meat in British Columbia, instead of federal inspectors? Would that be all right? Does the Minister of Health not feel that we need external people with no interest in it at all to make those judgments?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Save the coliforms. Why don't you start a new society? What about the restaurant owners checking the sanitation of.... . "

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Most car dealers are honest.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have to get closer to the mike, because I remember that when he was a hot-liner and people would argue with him, he'd do precisely that: he would get close to the mike.

How about having the restaurant owners inspect the kitchens for sanitation? Would that be all right?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Certainly they do that, but you also have an external inspector when that happens.

What about the backhoe operators inspecting the septic fields when you have a septic tank and a septic disposal field? Would it be all right" Maybe we could get rid of all those health inspectors, because they cause a lot of trouble to a lot of people when they won't let them drain their sewage onto rocks or stones.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Electrical contractors — all right. I've got a better one for you. Would the minister approve, for instance, of the companies that make upholstery for airlines inspecting that upholstery for flammability? That's exactly what you're suggesting here with automobiles.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am sure they could.

[ Page 1310 ]

MR. ROSE: Well, they haven't done it. We just had an Air Canada plane burn up in Cincinnati because they had inflammable material in that upholstery. I think even the minister must grudgingly — and reluctantly even — agree. It isn't a case of socialism or whatever else exists in this world, because I think the whole thing is a lot of nonsense anyway. This government believes in some public enterprise, and we on this side believe in a mixed economy as well, so this nonsense of this disparity and "you're all one thing and we're all the other" is a lot of nonsense. Anybody that believes that ought to have his head examined. It makes good rhetoric.

The point I am trying to make is that you need to have outside arbiters, like external examinations. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is not going to let the school teachers inspect the progress of the students. He is going to bring in external examinations. He makes this point, and he tries to make it strongly, that we have to have certain kinds of standards and we can't put the flocks in charge of the chickens. All I am saying is that you use the same argument on this and you will keep your public testing stations, or at least you will keep some kind of a trial basis until you get something else working more successfully.

A lot of people have suggested Ontario. We found out what they do in terms of their safety. A certificate of safety is required only when registering or re-registering a car in Ontario. That is the only time it is required, not on an annual basis or when it might be needed. Thus a car will not be safety inspected annually, but only when first registered or when sold to another owner. If a car is not resold, it will never require safety inspection under Ontario law. The member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) mentioned how he had a very successful inspection of his automobile in Ontario. It must have been on resale or the original sale, because otherwise it is not required. The cost varies depending upon who performs the inspection. The cheapest inspection available is provided by the Ontario Motor League, which I suppose is the equivalent to our BCAA, for approximately $28. Otherwise, prices in the Toronto region vary from $30 to $50 in private garages.

I suppose that has more to do with how I feel about this. I don't think the private thing is necessarily going to be all bad provided there is an opportunity to have a check on them, but I don't know why you have to close down the public ones before you find out if this thing even works. Just because you have nothing for inspection north, east or west of Hope, is that a reason to close down the inspections you have? Either inspections are needed or they are not. That is the argument, not that other kind of nonsense.

Various service stations can put up loss leaders of all kinds. They can give you a free brake lining, they can give you a free inspection and they can look at your dip stick. They can do all these things that are important for selling oil or brake lining or giving you a tune up. I suppose that would also be a function of private enterprise. I am suggesting that to me it's not a good enough excuse merely to say that because you now have no inspection in part of the province, you have to close down the areas where they exist. There have been hundreds of thousands of documented horror stories on repair. It is my view that unless you have very strong standards, and someone inspecting the inspectors, you are going to have the same thing happen here.

People said in previous debates that it's a payoff. If it improves auto mechanical safety, then I am not opposed to it, but I have a very difficult time swallowing the suspicion that this isn't done for efficiency or safety or anything else. It is done on strictly ideological grounds, and I don't think it is worth it. I am not going to support it.

MR. LEA: I am not going to take too long, because I don't want to repeat the points made by other members in opposition to this resolution.

One of the main points that is being made by Social Credit members is that somehow this will be better for the private sector and that somehow or other the small business community is going to be helped by this resolution. I believe that the small business sector is going to be harmed by this resolution. As it is right now, you take your car in for an inspection and they check your car and they say: "Here's what's wrong with your car: a, b, c, d and e. Take your car down to the garage, get it fixed and then bring it back. That creates work for the private sector. If it is not a requirement that your car be tested, then....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There are no check stands in Prince Rupert, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: When you get Rita to check the parking lot, you better make sure she knows what she is talking about.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You haven't been to Prince Rupert in 20 years.

MR. LEA: Well, isn't that strange, Mr. Member, I wonder how I get such a high vote.

Mr. Speaker, the thing is that it is undeniably going to cost the small business sector money, because if people are not ordered by the inspection branch to take their cars down to the garage to get them fixed, then many times that's not going to happen. So in fact this resolution could end up costing service stations and the small business sector which does the work on cars that have been checked out by the motor vehicle inspection branch.

When the minister.... Does the minister close on a resolution? No? Then I would hope that the government would take a look at that, because I'm not convinced that this is going to be any more work for the private sector. If it was going to be more work for the private sector I might even be tempted to go along with it, with the thought that maybe the people who have been laid off could get hired into the private sector. One might go along with it on those grounds, if some effort were being made on government's part to make sure that those laid off were first in line for the new jobs that were going to be created. But, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that I'd like to see the government bring back some proof. I just don't believe that the service stations are going to get the same volume of work after the inspection areas are closed down. It's common sense that that's the way it's going to go. Here is the Social Credit government trying to help the small business sector, and they are in fact going to harm it, in my opinion. I'd be willing to bet that after these are closed down the service stations don't get the same volume of work out of this kind of procedure as they do out of the old — unless the mandatory part of getting your car inspected is still in effect. But I suggest to you that if it's a mandatory inspection by

[ Page 1311 ]

government, and then each garage would have to keep an administrative chart as to who came in and who didn't. The actual cost of paperwork in dealing with that would probably cost the small business sector more money than right now.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I just don't see any winners in this. I don't see any winners for the private sector, I don't see any winners for the people who've been laid off — that's for sure — and I don't see any winners for the public at large, because there are going to be more cars on the road which have not been inspected. Surely that's not desirable.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Vancouver.

MR. LEA: In Vancouver and in Victoria; that's right, Mr. Minister. But then again, that's where the bulk of the cars are. Probably half the cars in the province — or more — are in the lower mainland and in Victoria. So we're closing down inspection centres that affect probably more than half the vehicles in the province. I suggest to you that the small business sector is going to be one of the losers. The biggest loser is going to be public safety. The second loser is going to be the small business sector, which up until now has had the business of fixing the cars that were found defective at the inspection stations. That is going to die off. If it goes the other way of mandatory inspections by the private sector, then you're going to find out that the administrative costs are going to far outweigh the income to the service stations. Government has never done anything where red tape wasn't involved. I can imagine the red tape that's going to be involved between the service stations and the government if it's mandatory to go to the private sector to get your car inspected.

When you start looking at it, it doesn't seem to make sense from any angle, except from the angle that there is the political residue left out there that the Social Credit government is trying to downsize government and move those things that are possible out into the private sector. The government seems determined to do that whether it makes sense or not, for political purposes. I feel that this is going to be one of those political decisions that is going to harm the public generally, harm the small business sector to a certain extent, and cause a great deal more red tape for the small business entrepreneur to go through in dealing with government. So I don't see any winners in any way whatsoever. I think the minister should have researched what he was doing a little better before making this kind of decision.

For instance, I know that another decision was made about the Systems Corporation where the board of directors didn't know that it was going to be sold any sooner than the general public. I'm sure the minister can't deny that. So these decisions are being made in the cabinet room and in the Social Credit caucus, based on nothing other than political opportunism. They've taken some surveys, they feel that out there people are generally in favour of downsizing government, people are generally in favour of not having government do things that the private sector can do as well or better, and so they're just taking those polling results and are willynilly going around and looking at things they can make some sort of political show about. This is one of them.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, we're now playing with the safety of the citizens of this province, and we're playing with that in a very political way. I think the government would be remiss if they didn't reconsider before pushing this resolution through the House w because it's going to help no one. I can't think Of anybody it's going to help: the private sector, the public at large, or the individual owners of cars. It's not going to help anyone, but it is going to harm people, so what's the point" Was some sort of philosophic rigidity the government has. They don't care who suffers, as long as they can carry out that philosophic rigidity.

[3:45]

I strongly suspect that the minister's heart isn't in this either. If the truth were known, the minister probably fought it and, being a pretty moderate guy, lost out to the hawks. The last election brought in more hawks than doves. They're zooming straight down from 30,000 feet, with blinders on.

This is the result of rigidity: decisions that make so sense whatsoever, from anybody's point of view, are made by politicians. 1, for sure, representing the people of Prince Rupert, will vote against it.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to say a few words in opposition to this resolution. It seems to me that this is another example of setting the fox to watch the chickens, which is something this government is very good at. Here we are in British Columbia where we have, at least in some areas, a well-established set of.... I come from an area where unfortunately we didn't have vehicle testing, and many times I raised it with the minister, asking him when he would be prepared to put a testing station in the Cowichan Valley. But for those people who had a testing station it certainly was a very valuable service; a government agency was able to to make a valid and unbiased decision relative to needs of a specific motor vehicle and whether or not it would be safe on the road.

It's also interesting to note that it cost a modest fee of $5. I don't know whether it was mentioned in this debate — it certainly wasn't while I was in the House — that the former superintendent of the motor vehicle branch, Mr. Robert Whitlock, now retired, indicated that a 50-cent increase in that $5 fee would have caused the whole operation to break even. Certainly I think motorists would have accepted a 50cent increase and continued to use the facility; perhaps even a $1 increase would have allowed areas like Cowichan to have a testing station. Instead, that capital investment of taxpayers' dollars in those testing stations suddenly closed up, just like that. There is no testing available.

The piece of legislation before us.... We're going to privatize it. That's setting the fox to watch the chickens. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you and all members of this House are aware that, generally, business in this province is having great difficulty in surviving. People are not having routine maintenance done on their vehicles; that's just one of the ways in which people are economizing. It's twofold in its effect; it's a two-edged sword. Not only do the vehicles perhaps need maintenance.... Suppose you take in a vehicle that happens to be in good order and doesn't need any maintenance. That shop is wondering how it's going to pay the rent, the power and gasoline bills, its payroll, and the other things. There's going to be a real temptation for them to say: "Well, you know, that could fail or deteriorate, so maybe we better replace it." That's what I mean by setting the fox to watch the chickens. There is ample opportunity for people who are hard-pressed to bend a little bit. There is ample opportunity for those who may not be quite as honest as some of us might

[ Page 1312 ]

wish to simply fake the records. Who would know? It would bring them business. If you have to pay $50 a shot, as the minister indicates it probably will be, it would be very difficult to go out and have another estimate made at some other place just to see whether or not that was the problem.

You know, it's the old story of the TV repairman who always wants to replace the picture tube. There have been jokes made about this. We used to have to go to get our glasses from the some person who prescribed them. So it was in the interests of the eye doctor who examined your eyes to ensure that you needed glasses. We don't do that anymore. We separate those two now. Going back even further, the doctor used to dispense the medication, and we don't do that anymore. Certainly it's a very regressive move to go back to taking our cars to be evaluated as to whether or not they need fixing to the same people who are going to fix them. It's very open to abuse and there is no way that it can be properly policed.

The cost factor. In a time when many people are on restricted incomes, with very little extra cash, and they suddenly find themselves faced with ten times the cost to have their cars inspected, we are going to find a lot less inspection done when it's on a voluntary basis.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not a case of not trusting people; it's a case of people not being able to afford it. You wouldn't understand that, Mr. Member. Neither can they afford to buy a new car. I've mentioned in this House before, on other occasions in other debates, the number of cars that I see stopped beside the road with a hood up or run off into the ditch when I go home over the Malahat. I travel it every day — twice a day. Some of them apparently are just abandoned. I noticed a few there this morning that had the orange stickers on them. They've been there for some time. Cars are not being maintained; they are not being exchanged. People are driving older cars. They are not exchanging them every couple of years anymore. They simply can't afford to do it. If ever there was a time when we needed to have that testing more available at a reasonable price, that time is now. Instead, it's being taken away.

It costs $50 in Ontario. The price ranges from $30 to $50. The cheapest price is actually $28, which is supplied by the Ontario Motor League. Those are very current figures. But what does that testing entail? The only time that it is done in Ontario is when a car changes hands. When you buy a car, it's tested. But if you buy a car and keep it, it's never subject to tests. That's the same thing that's going to happen here when it's on a voluntary basis. We're going to have unsafe vehicles on the road. The 7 percent figure of vehicle accidents that was quoted by my colleague for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is going to go up and up. Already we have far too much useless loss of life and maiming as a result of highway accidents. There are many ways that we can try to control this. Certainly one of the ways is to ensure that vehicles on the road are safe.

This motion and the duties that are being set forth for this committee go in exactly the opposite direction. Under a voluntary private system there is no possibility that we are going to see vehicles tested with the regularity and frequency that is particularly required in a time of economic downturn when less regular maintenance is being done on vehicles and people are changing their own oil, putting in their own antifreeze and changing their own tires rather than going to a shop. There isn't that opportunity for those vehicles to be checked over when the machine is in a shop. Also, those vehicles are being kept on the road for much longer periods of time than has been the case when we were living in a more affluent time in our economy, when people were exchanging their cars every two or three years for new vehicles.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this particular motion and this particular direction which seems to be part and parcel of a general government move which indicates the basic philosophical difference between this government and the opposition. This is just one example. There are certain areas of the economy that tend themselves well to and are best handled by private enterprise. But there are other areas that lend themselves much better to and are much better handled by public enterprise. This is one of those areas. For that reason certainly those of us on this side of the Legislature cannot go along with the principle as set out in this particular motion. I very much regret that a standing committee of this Legislature is being asked to consider such a regressive measure. I believe in the operation of standing committees. I think that that is something that we do not use enough in this Legislature. It is an unfortunate situation that we find now. This government is attempting to create an appearance of utilizing these committees when in fact the terms of reference for the committee are so restrictive and so regressive that it is going to make it impossible for the committee to function the way it should function. What the committee should be looking at, if we have that committee functioning at all on this particular subject, is the whole gamut. If the government wanted to examine the pros and cons of maintaining testing, of doing it privately or publicly, of the costs involved privately or publicly, and come up with a recommendation as to how the thing should be handled, that would make more sense. But to make the decision first and then come in with these very limited terms of reference and ask a standing committee of this House to sit in judgment on such a limited and regressive and restrictive measure really contravenes the whole idea behind the purpose of standing committees in this Legislature.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can only regretfully oppose this particular resolution, because I am particularly concerned that I find myself in the position of opposing an operating and effective standing committee. This committee cannot operate effectively under this resolution and therefore I must oppose it.

[4:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I always find in these debates that the less you know about it the more shouting and screaming you appear to do and the more personal attacks you make on the opposition.

My good friend across the aisle from the northern riding of Omineca (Mr. Kempf) seems to believe that the only way to establish a good argument is to scream and rant about doctrinaire socialism and all the other rhetoric that he appears to think really enforces an argument. I definitely would not like to fall into the same trap that he continues to fall in. I'm hoping, mainly from past experience, that what I have to say will be considered in the light of the actual facts of the motor vehicle public and the type of accidents that do take place because of the new technology that we have in our motor

[ Page 1313 ]

vehicles today versus the technology that was there even 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, before your brakes went, because they were definitely mechanical, you had the scraping and the squealing of metal against metal. Even the dumbest of us who are not mechanically minded realized that we needed our brakes renewed. The problem with the change that has come into the construction of the vehicle today — with hydraulic brakes and steering, plus the new roads and the high speeds — is that the type of damage that can happen to a car is far more dangerous today than it was twenty years ago.

The testing stations that started in Vancouver were not something that some bureaucrat dreamed up to create jobs for certain civil servants. It was something that evolved because there was a need for some type of inspection of vehicles. There was a need, for the safety of the pedestrian public and the drivers, that the rest of the cars on the road should be safe to drive. Vancouver pioneered the evolution in British Columbia of motor vehicle testing, because it is a large, metropolitan city which has a lot of roads, stop signs and one-way streets. It has a different type of a vehicle and flow of traffic than some of the northern roads and backwood areas of the ridings of some of the previous speakers.

We have to look at what we are doing. I understood when the government brought in their first bill stating that they were going to abolish vehicle testing stations, because it was consistent with what they were saying about downsizing government. It was also consistent when the announcement came out that the cost of the motor vehicle testing was too high. It was stated that they were losing 50 cents on an average test, and that for another 50 cents for the inspection the actual motor vehicle testing station would be profitable. It would be profitable in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area, where you have the volume of business.

If the government really wants to enlarge the testing, as they claim, for the northern parts of the province where there are large logging trucks driving on the roads today that are mechanically unsound, and if they feel that these vehicles should be upgraded, then I would say that they should go ahead and enlarge a service that is already there, because it is needed. If you're going to have the postage stamp rate, you are not going to be able to give that type of inspection up in the northern parts of the province where you don't have the volume. You're not going to be able to send out the letters when you have gone over your year. You're not going to have the capability of keeping on top of the transient type of population that do move about in the interior part of British Columbia. It is going to cost more, and there's no way in all practicality that you are going to be able to raise the inspection fees 50 cents or $1 in the lower mainland to cover the cost of additional inspection up in the north, and these are the facts of life.

I know that certain members of the government keep on saying: "We are the majority. We won the election on May 5." But as a member of the opposition, I still represent 45 percent of the voting public of this province. Nowhere in that last campaign did this government who won the election ever state in any of their literature that they were going to raise the motor vehicle inspection 1,000 percent. If it is going to average, as I believe the budget speech said, that we can get an inspection for anywhere between $45 and $50. that rate is approximately a 1,000 percent increase on what we in the lower mainland and on the Island are presently paying.

I don't think we should get into the semantics of figures, but we should look at whether there is a need for inspection. We should face that issue, not whether there is a way of getting something for nothing, because at the present time, with a 50 percent increase, you're not getting anything for nothing. If we are getting something for nothing today.... If you want to take a very hard-nosed position that we get nothing for nothing, then raise the rates an extra 50 cents. Let's raise it, and let's continue to maintain some type of safe vehicles on the roads.

I was, prior to being elected, as I've said before, in the police force. In the last 25 years, because of the inspections, I have watched the improvement in the style of vehicle that is driving our highways today. In an area where there are inspections, you get less one-lighters, as they are commonly called. You get less vehicles blinding you when the lights are on dim, because they are inspected on a regular basis. The people who live in the inspection area are more aware of the type of standards that they must maintain.

The enforcement that is carried on by the police on the highways is a little more stringent when a vehicle does approach a patrol car and you realize that the headlights are on dim but that they are coming right into the eyes of the oncoming motorists. It's not that they go out and lay out the tickets, but they will stop the vehicle and say: "Take your vehicle to the testing station. You have 48 hours to bring it up to a normal condition." These are the facts of what was happening on the highways.

What's going to happen, now that you have wiped out the motor vehicle testing? The attitudes of the drivers are going to be less and less on safety. They are going to look at it solely from a cost point of view. They're going to look at it that taking it to a garage and asking that their vehicle be tested will cost them.... I've heard figures today from $28 to $50. But they are going to hesitate. A lot of the motoring public are going to hesitate to put out that S30 to $50 because they know that if they do find something wrong with their vehicle, the cost of aligning those lights, or checking their hydraulic steering, or checking their brakes is going to be additional. So the travelling public and the safety of the highways is going to get less.

I've heard — I believe I read it in letters to the editor, and I've seen it on TV — that the police should look after the inspection of vehicles. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that with your past experience you know that the police were never trained to be mechanical inspectors. It is not their realm. It is not what they are hired for. Basically it is a waste of their time. If a vehicle was obviously unsafe in the present system — or the system that we are just phasing out — the police did have, in the Victoria and lower mainland areas, an opportunity to send that vehicle to have it properly inspected. With 25 years' experience, I can tell you right now that I am not qualified to inspect a vehicle. If I see a vehicle that has bald tires, I know that the tires are bald. But I can't tell you why they are bald. I don't know if they bought them cheaply and just put them on, or if they were worn out because of improper alignment. I think this is why the special equipment that the testing stations have developed over the years, the special methods that have evolved because of the change in the technology of vehicles, must be maintained.

[4:15]

If this government feels, as the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) states, that their constituents up in the northern part of the province should have the same service that we are getting down in the lower mainland, then enlarge it. But

[ Page 1314 ]

you're not going to get it for $6. You're not going to get it for $7.

MR. KEMPF: We're tired of paying for yours.

MR. MITCHELL: You're not paying for ours. I say, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the member, that there is a certain validity in what he said. I say that because of the mismanagement of the present administration this particular service, with only an additional 50 cents, could have been made selfsupporting. So don't attack the messenger, but attack the message. Attack the people who created this particular situation that.... He says they are tired of paying for ours. We are paying for ours every time we have an inspection and every time we maintain our car in a drivable, safe condition.

Not that I am against studying it. I think that if a committee was set up and had an opportunity to study what is needed to provide the maximum inspection needed for the vehicles on our highways, what is needed to make sure that the logging trucks in Prince George and Vanderhoof are safe to be on the highway.... If that increase is needed, these are some of the issues the committee should be looking at. As I have said, and continue to say in each speech, the legislative committees are a valuable arm of the Legislature. They have an opportunity to bring in the experts, to listen to briefs and to get both sides of the problem. I would not like to see any of these legislative committees with a very restrictive set of guidelines — only to study, for example, the privatization of the inspection service.

As some of my colleagues have said: "Are we going to have the restaurant owners inspect the sanitary condition of their kitchens? Are we going to have the health inspectors not check health, no matter if it is septic tanks or public buildings?" If that argument is sound, then I would say that we get rid of police as a whole because only I or 2 percent of the population are served by the police; the rest of us — 95 or 98 percent — are honest, law-abiding citizens. We are very law-abiding citizens. There are certain cabinet ministers who, I know, go around with their radar equipment on — their warning system — which is just part of the game. It is legal because the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) never had the guts to bring into legislation the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act his own committee was studying. There was a recommendation that radar warning systems be made illegal.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you are talking to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) in the hallways, that I do not possess a radar warning system. I am not saying any of them do or don't. I have never heard of one. It is not my job to investigate my colleagues. It is my job to represent the people of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on this committee, on this resolution for the safety of the driving public, pedestrians and all of us who are out on the highways. I say that it is not only the safety. I think it is important we look at the cost, the idea of giving the best service at the lowest price. That is real competition, and I know every member of the government believes in true competition, in comparison. They want to know that when they get something, whoever they pay their dollars to, they are getting the best service at the lowest cost.

I think it important that — supporting the position of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf); he feels he needs this type of inspection in the north — we look at enlarging the service, and whether it can be provided cheaper or more economically by the private sector. As long as we have something to compare it with.... We can compare it with the particular operation that the minister has been supervising for the last seven years, that has been in operation under the previous Social Credit government. They have a lot of records that go back to the days when the service was available in Vancouver, in the lower mainland.

As one who kind of prides himself on keeping my vehicle relatively safe.... I do. Because of my personal relationship with the garages I have dealt with, I have continually asked them to inspect my vehicle and make sure it is up to grade. Only once, in all the times I've been to the inspection, has it ever failed, and that was because my brakes on one wheel weren't operating up to scratch. That's not because I'm any better but because I have dealt on the highways with what happens when a vehicle is out there that is unsafe. I've dealt with it and I've listened to the arguments that "I didn't know that it was unsafe." A large percentage of these vehicles that were in accidents because the vehicle was unsafe did not have valid inspection stickers on them.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, in deference to the mouthy Minister of Forests: the majority of the vehicles that were involved in accidents had not been through a regular inspection check. They were either out-of-town vehicles or they were vehicles.... In my particular riding when you get fewer than 25 miles out of the city you are no longer in an inspection area. These types of vehicles are continually driven without regular inspections. The majority of those who are driving and are involved in accidents are from that particular segment of the vehicles. The rest of us who live in an area where we have to maintain our vehicles do maintain them.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I have very mixed support or opposition to this particular resolution. I believe that there is the need for inspections, and I know there are members of the government who share my belief that there is need for inspections. They understand that the vehicles that have developed over the last 20 to 30 years are a lot different than they were back in the thirties and the early forties. We know that. We know that somewhere in between there is a happy medium. Maybe in some areas it would be uneconomical to set up a large testing station. It would be an inconvenience to the public. But I would like to be assured that if this government gives out a certain franchise, if you want to call it that, to certain garages in the private sector, their standard of inspection will be every bit as reliable as the inspection service that has developed in the province of British Columbia in the last 20 or 25 years. I want to make sure, although I know I can't amend the minister's motion, that they do make some study of a phase-in period in areas that presently are not involved in inspection so that the problems that were outlined by the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) will be given serious consideration. So when it comes to the vote, Mr. Speaker, under the present wording and under the present attitude of the government that we are going to wipe out inspections where they are now properly developed....They are not going to take a practical position that we are

[ Page 1315 ]

going to raise it so that it is self-supporting. Instead of correcting the issue we are going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm sorry that the government has taken that position, but I still think that there is some merit for areas that are not presently being serviced. Maybe there is a possibility that the private sector could give this service that would guarantee.... Nothing is going to guarantee anything, but it would give a little stronger assurance that more vehicles are going to be safer for the drivers, for the passengers, and for the travelling public.

At the present time, Mr. Speaker, unless I have something stronger in support from the government about why they are taking this particular method.... I'm not sure if it is just to save face from the opposition that they are getting from editorials and groups that are involved in motor vehicles. But even the Prince George Citizen has an editorial telling the Minister of Highways that the privatization of the testing service will not work. I know that is only one example, and many organizations have expressed their opinions to the minister and to the motor vehicle branch. Many people, I know, were shocked to find out that only an extra 50 cents would make it self-supporting; that for $5.50 or $6.... They would not be expecting to get something for nothing, but they would be paying for the service that they were receiving. The majority of us are quite happy to pay for what we are getting. But they were shocked when in the budget speech it was said we were going to wipe out the $5 and $6 fee and replace it with a $45 to $50 fee. This is the way they do it in Ontario, and this is the way we're going to do it here.

For the 45 percent of the voters of British Columbia who supported our party, for the 57 percent of the people of my riding who supported me, we are opposed to that attitude. Unless there is some change, I will be voting against it.

[4:30]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's a tragedy that we're debating this resolution at all, because what it means is that a very excellent service provided by government is being eliminated, and favours are being returned to private industry, which supported the government party during the election. It means that employees who currently are working, or have been working, in the motor vehicle testing stations — employees who had no vested interest and who were there simply to check on the safety of those vehicles — will lose their jobs so that people in the private sector, private garages, will be able to take over the testing of vehicles in this province. Mr. Speaker, they have a definite vested interest.

In addition to the fact that we are now turning over this government service, which government some years ago determined was a necessary and valuable service to the people of B.C.... That we are eliminating it as a government service and turning it over to the private sector means that it's going to cost the people of British Columbia far more. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of the testing is no longer going to be $5, $5.50 or even $6, but two, three, four, or maybe ten times what it currently costs. The people of British Columbia have already paid for the necessary equipment to have the testing done in the lower mainland, Victoria and Nanaimo. Now they're going to have to pay for the new equipment that's going to be required in the various private firms that are going to receive the nod from government as those which will be qualified or accepted to test motor vehicles.

I was interested in the comments of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who complains because there is no testing station for motor vehicles in his constituency. He said he was supporting this resolution because he was tired of having his constituents pay for the testing — in other words, the deficit that occurs in the current testing program — in the lower mainland and Victoria and Nanaimo, which are currently in motor vehicle testing areas. The subsidy is not that great. We had the head of the motor vehicle branch telling us that for an additional 50 cents per car they could probably break even. Yet the MLA for Omineca was objecting to the fact that his constituents pay for that particular subsidy. Well, I can assure you that there are people in various other constituencies who might well object to the costs that taxpayers are paying through the Ministry of Highways for work that's undertaken in his constituency. For instance, they have a free ferry service up in his constituency. I can assure you that all of the taxpayers in this province pay for the subsidy required so that people in his constituency can ride entirely free of charge on the ferry. Surely if it's going to be fair, he should be standing up and saying that that free ferry service should no longer be allowed in his constituency, that people in other parts of the province shouldn't be subsidizing his constituents. Or perhaps he would suggest that it should be privatized so that we can have a private entrepreneur in on that ferry service. I can assure that member that he would then find out that people would no longer be riding free on that ferry.

MR. SKELLY: Maybe they'll privatize their MLA.

MS. SANFORD: Even the minister enjoyed that one.

I've heard that there are people within various parts of this province who object to the fact that their tax dollars go towards snow-clearing in areas of the province that receive large snowfalls — areas like Omineca. They are subsidizing those people. So the argument that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was making really doesn't hold much water when you start analyzing it.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Exactly what I'm saying. There are lots of subsidies to lots of people in this province. One subsidy that the constituents of Comox pay for is the free ferry service within the constituency of Omineca, so that argument doesn't hold much water.

We are now going to turn this over to a committee which is going to determine how the privatization of this particular service can take place. I sincerely hope that the committee will recommend that we entirely reject any privatization of that service if it's going to cost people more to have their vehicles tested. It seems to me that this government has been preaching, for months on end, about keeping down costs to taxpayers. If people are going to have to pay five or ten times the cost for a service that's now provided at a nominal rate, surely the government would not allow it to happen. We know there's going to be a huge increase in costs by turning it over to the private sector. I sincerely hope that that committee, when it reports back. will reject — if in fact it's going to cost people more to have their cars tested, and I firmly believe that it will — any notion of privatizing and will recommend an immediate reopening of the government testing stations in the lower mainland, Victoria and Nanaimo. If necessary, they will raise that fee a bit to cover the deficit which, we were

[ Page 1316 ]

told, amounts to about 50 cents a vehicle and also build up a fund so that they can put testing stations in places like Omineca. The taxpayers up there will then have the same kind of service that was available in Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo.

I want to bring to the minister's attention a particular reason why I think it is tragic that today we are even debating a resolution that's going to establish a committee to look into privatizing that particular service. A constituent of mine was in touch with me not too long ago — within the last couple of months. He informed me that he had just moved to Vancouver because, lo and behold, he had obtained a job. He had been looking for a job for months on end; in fact for several years. He finally got a job, left my constituency and moved to the lower mainland. In order to get himself back and forth to work, he purchased a vehicle at a fairly sizeable dealership in that lower mainland area. He was advised by the person who sold him the car that he should take it in for testing at the motor vehicle testing station. Dutifully he did so. He took the car in, went through the test and was informed by the people at the testing station that that car was a pile of junk. It really was not worth fixing and should not be allowed on the road. Now this constituent had already made out a cheque and signed an agreement. He immediately went back to the company in order to let them know that, in fact, the motor vehicle testing branch had told him that the vehicle should not have been allowed on the road and that it was a pile of junk. "Too bad," said the person who had sold him the car. "You have signed the agreement. You have advanced us a cheque. It's in your name now. All the insurance has gone through. Too bad. If you want it to pass the motor vehicle testing station, then obviously you are going to have to have the car repaired as best you can and at your expense. It's in your name. You own the car."

My constituent spoke to the police about this particular situation and they advised him that he should get hold of the consumer services branch of the provincial government, to see whether or not he could get some assistance from them in his dilemma. He phoned up the consumer services branch in Vancouver and a secretary answered the phone and said: "I'm sorry, there aren't any more consumer services officers, because they've been fired." He then decided that the only thing he could do to get some advice was to talk to a lawyer, which he did — he didn't have very much money because he hasn't worked for some time — and the lawyer advised him to take the car back immediately, put a stop order on the cheque and leave the car, abandon it, at the dealership. He did that. Now he is advised that the company will probably sue him. They told him that they would have the car towed away, because all the papers show that it is in his name, and he would then be charged with the towing fee, in addition to having to repair the car so that it would pass the motor vehicle testing.

This is one of these dealerships which is supposed to ensure, through their testing procedures, that that car is roadworthy. There is no way that a car dealer in this province should be selling a car that is not roadworthy. They're not allowed — or are supposedly not allowed — to do that. But unfortunately there are no consumer services officers to take on this case, so my constituent's lawyer advised him the only thing he could do now is wait to see whether or not the company is going to sue him for the money that they claim he owes them as a result of the purchase of this car.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Here we have this conflict of interest which occurs in the private sector. In the private sector they do not wish to take that car back to ensure that it is roadworthy, because they're in there trying to make a profit. We know that. That's why they're in business. As a result we have situations like this, where a car goes out in an unroadwortby condition. They're not interested in helping out this particular young person who now has a job in Vancouver. They are interested in only one thing: ensuring that he pays for that car. They don't care whether it's roadworthy or not. What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that with a government-operated motor vehicle testing branch there is no conflict of interest or profit to be made, but there is a valuable service to be delivered to the people of British Columbia. I certainly support the previous Social Credit government who set up the motor vehicle testing system which is now going to be eliminated.

[4:45]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Am I wrong on that?

MR. NICOLSON: It goes back way before the Social Credit government.

MS. SANFORD: Well, the Social Credit government has been here forever, hasn't it?

MR. NICOLSON: Too long.

MS. SANFORD: Too long, in any case.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to have those public motor vehicle testing stations. I am definitely opposed to any privatization of this particular service. The minister knows that by a slight additional charge he could, in fact, cover all of the costs involved. He could improve the service by setting up additional public testing stations throughout the province, and indeed serve all of those members from places like Omineca, who object to the fact that the people in their constituencies are helping to pay for the small deficit which now exists for the motor vehicle testing.

The other day I heard the MLA for Prince George North — no it was Prince George South, (Mr. Strachan) — speaking in the Legislature, and he expressed concern about the safety of logging trucks.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm aware who he is. I just couldn't remember whether it was north or south.

He was talking about the need to test some of the vehicles, like the logging trucks, to ensure that they were safe when they were on the highways of the province; that could be done, presumably, in Prince George South by the implementation of the recommendations this committee is going to make.

I'm going to make another recommendation with respect to the safety of these vehicles on the road; this, in fact, would be expanding the terms of the committee to a certain extent. Within the constituency of Comox about a year ago — in fact I think it's longer than that now — we had a propane tanker overturn just in that Royston area. At that time we had to evacuate the area. The propane tanker truck was finally

[ Page 1317 ]

righted and was then sent in for inspection, and is now, as I understand it, undergoing repairs or has been repaired, and is probably back on the road at this stage.

But we have a situation in this province which is totally inadequate, in my view, in terms of the inspection of vehicles such as that propane tanker. If the propane tanker is manufactured here in B.C., then the safety branch of the Ministry of Labour undertakes an inspection and ensures that it meets the standards laid out by the American engineers who lay down the standards for the construction of these tankers. But if the vehicle is constructed elsewhere and is then shipped in for use in British Columbia by one of the companies here in B.C., there is no requirement for any further inspection of that particular tanker. As a result, we found that when this tanker which overturned in the Royston area was finally inspected because it had been involved in an accident — otherwise it wouldn't have been inspected at all — there was indeed a manufacturer's fault.

There was also a need to ensure that the tankers manufactured in the future have recessed valves in the tanker truck themselves, and not the protruding valves which this particular tanker truck had, because when the tanker truck overturns, the valve scrapes along the tarmac. As a result, a leak occurs and we endanger so many lives. I believe, and the RCMP and the fire chief in the Courtenay area believe, that we in fact were extremely fortunate in that Courtenay area because the tanker truck did not blow up, there was no fire, people were evacuated safely and they finally righted the tanker truck, although there was a great delay in traffic on the Island Highway in the meantime.

It seems to me that if we are going to ensure the safety of these propane tanker trucks on the highways, the committee should indeed be looking at the kind of necessary testing that I feel should be taking place on a regular basis, even though right now we have, out of Ottawa, legislation which talks about the transportation of dangerous goods and chemicals, and there is a federal-provincial committee that has been established, made up of representatives from every province in Canada, to try to set out some regulations with respect to regular testing and the kind of standards that should be met. But it will be a long time, in my view, before all of the governments of the provinces of Canada agree on a system that can be applied uniformly. I don't think we can wait that long, because since the time we had that Royston accident, we have had another accident in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, plus yet a third one, which received a good deal of coverage in the local papers in Parksville, as a result of a leaking propane tanker that was left at a railway siding overnight. The fire chief in the Nanoose area was indeed very concerned about the safety of the people in that area as a result of yet another leaking propane tanker truck.

I think that this committee's terms of reference should include the kind of inspection and necessary standards to ensure the safety of these vehicles on the highways of British Columbia. In a heavily populated area, if we'd had the same kind of accident as we had at Royston, we could well have had a major tragedy on our hands as a result of the fact that these inspections do not take place on a regular basis. This particular tanker truck was tested in around 1978 in Alberta, and B.C. accepted the testing that was done, even though that tanker truck was subsequently found to have manufacturer's defects.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right. And we will always have that problem. But, Mr. Speaker, what we don't have is any subsequent testing of tankers on the roads of British Columbia once they have passed that initial test. I think it should happen, and I think this is something that the committee should look at, not only the safety of the logging trucks that the MLA for Prince George South....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: What are you talking about?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is hilarious. You are really going to have to hear this. The minister is suggesting that the Teamsters are responsible people and they look after their trucks. There is no doubt about that, but they do not have the qualifications or the expertise to be able to test a tanker, for heaven's sake. After all, we have very highly trained, experienced people to do the kind of testing on a tanker truck. A member of the Teamsters' Union doesn't have that kind of qualification. How on earth is he supposed to do this test? The test takes a good deal of expertise, a good deal of know-how and a good deal of time. The Teamsters are very responsible drivers and they ensure that the tires on the truck are in good condition and they took their vehicle through the testing station when it was open, but the government has now closed that down so they can't even have their vehicles tested for brakes or anything like that. But they don't have the expertise to test a propane tanker truck for safety. That's not within their expertise, and I certainly do not feel that we should ask the truck drivers to undertake that particular task. The minister is really outrageous sometimes, Mr. Speaker, in the comments that he makes.

I feel that in view of the fact that government testing stations have been closed and that no vehicles in the province are being tested at this time.... The government people working at these government testing stations have no conflict of interest. They don't have any sort of hidden agenda, they don't have to worry about a profit and they are the ones who are best qualified to handle the testing of vehicles in this province. I think that the government will probably go ahead with its plan at this point anyway and establish a committee. If they do, they should certainly look at the costs to individual people to have their vehicles tested through the private sector versus the public sector, and the committee should consider recommending the cheaper of the two to the minister. Secondly, they should expand the terms of reference to include areas such as the safety of propane tankers on our highways in British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Motion 29. Like the other members of my caucus, I plan to oppose this resolution for a number of the reasons mentioned. It is unfortunate that the government has already scrapped the regular safety inspection of private motor vehicles in this province prior to considering any alternatives for safety inspections of private vehicles. It is something that should not have been done without a careful examination of the costs and benefits to the province prior to doing away with the testing stations. I know the government will continue carrying on testing of commercial vehicles, but it is unfortunate that we have seen the suspension of testing of private

[ Page 1318 ]

motor vehicles prior to the examination of alternatives for motor vehicle testing, which will be supposedly brought in by this committee.

For example, Mr. Speaker, a cost-benefit analysis should show.... We are told by the Ministry of Finance that they examine all the legislation that is proposed by the government and determine what the costs are going to be to the province and what the benefits are going to be to the people of the province. Yet when the budget was tabled in this House, we saw no budget papers this time around, no examination of the costs and benefits of individual pieces of legislation that were presented, so we really don't know what the impact of doing away with private motor vehicle testing is going to be. Given this government's record in the past, we do know that it is going to result in a loss of government employment and a loss of government service. It is going to result in a loss of a charge against the government, but it is going to result in an increased charge against taxpayers through the private sector. We know that the people out there who own and operate motor vehicles are going to be paying more as a result of the elimination of this service by the government. Not only are they going to be paying more in the direct cost of the testing and servicing of motor vehicles; there will also be other impacts — and I suggest there are in fact impacts occurring right now as a result of the premature eliminating of motor vehicle testing.

For example, how many accidents have resulted from mechanical failure as a result of the elimination of motor vehicle testing up to the present time? How much loss of life and property has resulted from mechanical failure up to the present time? What does that mean to us as provincial taxpayers and participants in the medical plan, in terms of higher medical costs to treat accident victims, higher hospital costs and services to the handicapped, to widows and to children left without parents, etc., all of which are related to motor vehicle accidents, a percentage of which are attributable entirely or in part to mechanical failures which might have been prevented had that mechanical failure been identified in a regular motor vehicle inspection? What is the impact on the province, on all drivers in particular, of higher insurance premiums as a result of an increased number of accidents due to mechanical failure? I'm sure that the minister did not examine any of these possible impacts before announcing that the motor vehicle testing stations would be closed for compulsory testing.

[5:00]

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) looked at it strictly from a parochial, regional point of view, and asked why people in his area should subsidize motor vehicle testing in the lower mainland and other areas where testing stations are located. To some extent that's a legitimate complaint. However, we've been told by people within the motor vehicle branch that a slightly increased charge for motor vehicle tests would make that government service self-supporting. Also, I don't think the member for Omineca was swift enough to take into consideration the fact that motor vehicles are operating more safely in some areas of the province and that accidents had been reduced as a result of the identification of mechanical defects through motor vehicle testing. Injuries were reduced and property damage was reduced as a result of the identification and correction of mechanical defects, and as a result people in his area were paying lower insurance premiums than they would have otherwise, and lower taxes to pay for medical and hospital benefits than they would have otherwise. The member isn't looking at the broad view; he's only looking at the question of the subsidy. Even that isn't a legitimate complaint when you take into consideration the fact that if the cost of motor vehicle inspections were increased by a small amount the operation would be self financing.

That's one of the problems with the ministry's announcement that compulsory motor vehicle inspection of private vehicles was being done away with. We haven't been able to look at any of the cost-benefit analyses which show how much impact it will have on the province, as a result of the increased number of accidents causing death, injury and property damage. That's one of the reasons we're concerned about this resolution: the government hasn't tabled any information in this Legislature which would show any advantage at all in doing away with compulsory motor vehicle inspection.

There's no question in my mind and in the minds of most members that motor vehicle inspection is a problem. If you live in an area that comes under the compulsory inspection requirement, it's a problem: you have to take your vehicle in once a year and go through the testing bays; if they identify mechanical problems or safety defects, you have to have them rectified and go through the testing procedure again. It's a bit of an inconvenience. But it's a small inconvenience to suffer compared to a motor vehicle accident as a result of a mechanical defect that otherwise would have been identified in a motor vehicle safety test.

That's not to say that the testing procedure is 100 percent perfect 100 percent of the time, because not even the best of testing facilities can always come up with every mechanical defect. That's virtually impossible. But to the extent that those testing stations can eliminate mechanical defects, reduce the incidence of traffic accidents, and decrease property damage and the loss of human lives and health, then those stations are doing a service beyond the motor vehicle safety checks; they're protecting the lives, health and safety of the citizens of British Columbia. They're also reducing the insurance and health premiums that people up in Omineca and other parts of the province, including Port Alberni, have to pay — because we in Port Alberni are outside the area of compulsory motor vehicle examination.

It was brought to my attention one time by one of the motor vehicle servicing centres in Port Alberni that there should be motor vehicle safety checks there, because of the number of steering problems that they identified in that area. Now prior to 1971 we were part of a highways district that had the most roads of any highways district other than Cariboo, and most of those were dirt roads. Whenever you travelled over logging roads and these dirt roads....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, there may not be any longer, but in other parts of the province the government has been a little neglectful, I would say, in servicing the roads.

But also, since the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) brought it up, there are a number of forestry roads in my area. Since we're almost totally surrounded by tree-farm licences, and since some of those roads are the only roads available for people to get from one place to another, or to get from their residences to their places of work, and since those roads are not maintained like other roads, then occasionally

[ Page 1319 ]

we have steering problems, wheel problems, alignment problems and that type of thing. If we did have safety checks in Port Alberni we would be able to correct some of those steering and wheel alignment defects, and improve the safety of vehicles using the roads in Port Alberni. But we were located outside the area of the Nanaimo testing station, so our vehicles went untested. I'm sure as a result of that many accidents take place in Port Alberni. We have one of the highest accident rates of almost any community in the province. A number of people have attempted to resolve that problem by setting up committees like Take the Car out of Carnage — committees similar to the ones they established in Prince George, I'm sure to the Deputy Speaker's recollection. We've attempted a number of ways to try to resolve the problem. But definitely steering problems and mechanical defects are a contributing factor to motor vehicle accidents, loss of life and injuries and loss of property in the Port Alberni area.

Well, when this problem was identified and pointed out to me by this particular motor vehicle service station, I wrote to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and suggested that they set up a testing station in Port Alberni, or else authorize a private facility to do the testing in order to correct some of these steering problems. However, I did realize that there would be a problem of conflict of interest: often when you take a vehicle to a private entrepreneur who also corrects mechanical defects, it is in the interest of that entrepreneur to identify mechanical defects that might not even be there. As a result the procedure would generally cost a lot more than if it had been done through a government testing station which would then send the person off with a list of defects to have them corrected by a private entrepreneur.

So what we should do, Mr. Speaker, instead of doing away with the government-operated motor vehicle testing, is take a look at what they've done in Saskatchewan, and I think what they've done here on occasion, at least with commercial vehicles: that is, set up mobile testing bays which could be located in smaller communities. There's no question in my mind that a community like Port Alberni, with a population of about 20,000, simply cannot support a motor vehicle testing station of the size and complexity that we have here in Victoria or in Nanaimo. It just doesn't make any economic sense at all. But the Saskatchewan government did have the portable testing bays that they moved around the province. In those smaller communities they used those mobile government testing bays to check vehicles and make sure that the vehicles in smaller communities were up to a mechanical standard prescribed by the Department of Highways. That seems to me to be the way to go in this province as well. Yet this government, because of its, I shouldn't say philosophical point of view — it's more like an ideological point of view — instead of examining all of the ramifications of motor vehicle testing, all of the costs and benefits of government-operated motor vehicle testing, have simply fixed it in their minds that they want to privatize the whole operation; they don't want to give it the full and careful consideration that it deserves. They want to privatize it, take it out of the government realm altogether and put it in the hands of private business. A number of speakers on this side have identified the problem with that.

I would like to take Mr. Speaker back to a television program called "60 Minutes" which was shown last night. Among the prescription drugs manufactured by a private company in the United States, Eli Lilly and Company was one called Oraflex, which was put forward to the public as a drug which reduced the pain associated with arthritis. The company was made aware that this drug actually killed a number of people — I think 70 to 90 — during its use in Britain. In spite of that, the company failed to report those deaths when they were seeking to have the drug registered in the United States. Here is a clear conflict of interests. A company wants to sell a certain product or a certain service, they know through the testing of that product or service that it has caused deaths in a number of human beings, and yet they conceal the fact that those deaths took place in order that they be able to market that drug in the United States and profit from the marketing of that drug — a direct case of conflict of interest. Here you have a company which does the testing and is required to report on the testing. but is also a company that wants to market the product it's testing. That seems to me to be what the government is attempting to set up in terms of motor vehicle testing in the province of B.C. Should that testing be privatized, we immediately come into the problem of conflict of interest in which the people who are selling the products and services of car repairs and car parts are also doing motor vehicle testing. On the one hand, they may service a vehicle where that service isn't required or sell parts where those parts are not required. On the other hand, having installed parts or performed a service, they may test a vehicle, find it wanting and yet certify that the vehicle is in roadworthy condition. In situations like this we automatically find ourselves in a conflict-of-interest situation. Then, generally, the government is forced into a position in which they have to audit private testing facilities and we end p getting back into the government testing service and the costs attached to auditing private testing_facilities.

There is no question in my mind that the government testing service performed a valid and worthwhile service for the people of this province where those testing stations were made available. There is also no question in my mind that this government has failed to expand the testing program to include other parts of the province and failed to do it in the most economical way, similar to the way it was done in the province of Saskatchewan, where the government used mobile testing bays to test vehicles in areas where permanent testing facilities were simply not an economically viable proposition. To simply go the ideological route of privatizing motor vehicle testing is fraught with dangers. I don't think it is going to solve the problem of mechanical defects causing accidents, causing loss of life, causing loss of property, increasing insurance premiums, and increasing hospital and health insurance premiums. Those problems are going to be with us with privatizing motor vehicle testing services. I think the government should sit back and take a careful second look at what they are doing, and take a look at what has been done in Saskatchewan and in other provinces in terms of those services which are provided by the governments themselves at a cost very much below the cost as provided by private industry.

[5:15]

The minister is well aware that there is a joint interest in motor vehicle testing between private entrepreneurs and the government. Where the government tests a vehicle and finds it wanting mechanically in some way or wanting in terms of safety — for example, an exhaust system, or lights, that type of thing — the government doesn't do the repair but refers the defective vehicle to private industry for repair. There is a joint interest in the government operating motor vehicle testing

[ Page 1320 ]

facilities. No work is taken away from private industry. In fact, it operates as a service to private industry as well as a service in terms of safety and accident prevention for the people of this province. So I would hope that the government would reconsider privatizing compulsory vehicle testing for private motor vehicles. I don't think that this resolution would be necessary if that were done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for hearing me out on this issue. I do hope the government will reconsider.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty's opposition, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to wrap up this debate this afternoon with just a few comments on Motion 29, which is facing us today.

Sitting here today I have heard some of the best debate on both sides of the House concerning this motion, and I would hope that this kind of feeling and what is happening today would continue through the rest of the legislative session. But I would just like to address a few comments to Motion 29 and one of the reasons that this committee is being set up at this stage when we have a bill such as Bill 23 in front of us — the privatization of the motor vehicle inspection branches, which are set up basically on the mainland, in Nanaimo and in Victoria. One of the concerns that has been raised in debate today is the cost. Cost is important to any government in a time of restraint. The previous method of what was set up under the inspection branch was that it would cost $5. If you lived in an area you got a little notice through the mail that your vehicle was up for inspection, you would come in and it would cost you $5 and would be a very thorough job. The previous superintendent of motor vehicles, Robert Whitlock, said that the cost to continue the program would be 50 cents per car — this was in the Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1983. Now I wouldn't expect any government, regardless of its political stripe, to be doing something that in the long run would be costing more money than what it's costing.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: The article, for the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Hon. Mr. Davis), was in the Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1983. As I go on I would certainly hope that you would understand what the situation is here.

Now they say — just to quote some of the figures, and I'll read from the article, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has questioned this: "At $5 per vehicle, the 1981 figure indicates that almost $3 million was taken in for the 590,921 inspections" — almost 600,000 inspections done in the province. "Using Whitlock's 50-cents-per-vehicle loss, it appears that the inspection service cost to the government is about $3.3 million, resulting in a modest $300,000 loss."

If we could take on what the superintendent, who has now quit, stated about increasing the fee, maybe even by $1, then the government would be able to provide the same excellent service as was being offered and not incur a loss to the rest of the taxpayers of this province.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: On the $15 aspect, I'll get to that, Mr. Member. Mr. Andrew Makin, in the Vancouver Sun, on July 22, 1983 — he's the B.C. Automobile Association president — states that the cost would be $15. The same article on that date in the Vancouver paper states that the minister disagrees with the figure and says it is more like $50.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: The fact still remains that hopefully this committee, once it is approved in the Legislature, will be able to address these problems and situations and see if it is 50 cents or a dollar. That's the important part of the committee's structure, if it is set up.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to dwell in some sense on the statements of the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) today, but I think that would be better left to another time and place. I had a private discussion with her and I think that we....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Never. I think we are both in the same boat on that one, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

The Automotive Retailers' Association also put out an article called "Point of View" in the August 1983 edition of their magazine under the name of the executive director, Mr. Ron Baldwin. Basically the article is in support of the government's position on privatization, but he does have some comments. In the last paragraph he says:

"One of the most significant pieces of legislation being introduced by the government is the elimination of mandatory safety inspections for all non-commercial vehicles. The closure of government testing stations, along with the announcement that the private sector will be asked to consider taking over testing, is cause for a good deal of speculation among garage owners. The ARA has strongly supported the need of compulsory safety testing, and members will now have to determine the amount of support they can offer to this new proposal."

It goes on further to state that the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has asked for suggestions from the ARA to help with the orderly process of keeping our roads safe.

Briefly, as an example of the few concerns I have, in Ontario we see the program of $50 for the privatization of the safety inspection branch. CTV did a program concerning this a few months back in which they talked about some of the problems that can arise when you don't have total control over what's going on and it's left in the hands of some unscrupulous individuals. I'm not making any reference to the government; I'm referring to the vehicle safety inspection testing being handled by private garages. As was explained in this TV report, decals were handed out with cash being transferred from one person to another, and without the vehicle even being inspected.

Another concern I have is for seniors if the increase would be from $5 to $15, or let's say more in the region of $50. Let's talk about Victoria, for instance, where there's a high population of seniors who drive. Will having to pay $50 to have their vehicles inspected have adverse effects upon them?

Personally I would like to see some guarantees. The minister has always been straightforward when dealing with things and I hope, as one of the three NDP members sitting on the committee of nine, that that type of cooperation will continue.

[ Page 1321 ]

MR. REID: Nine?

MR. PASSARELL: Six of yours and three of mine.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I wouldn't go to that extreme, Mr. Member for Surrey. I think that we're all honourable in here, and if we spend a little more time....

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I said I would be brief and I try to keep to that, as all hon. members do when they make statements in this House.

I don't think you'll find a member of this House who feels that this legislation was intentionally brought in to make our roads less safe. We all have a concern about drunk drivers and vehicles that are improperly operated by their owners, in many instances because of laziness, but at times because of the cost. No vehicle should be operated on the highways without having some type of safety. I would like to see the committee formed as soon as possible. I'd like to see more representation, but I think what we have on the committee can operate and bring forward some worthwhile solutions to keep our roads safe, as I know that all dedicated members of this House have that as one of their priorities.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. PARKS: My remarks this afternoon will be addressed to the amendment alone, and I will attempt to be as relevant as the opposition speakers who have spoken so far this day. I trust the hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is not going to leave the House, particularly in light of the very sane and sensible remarks he favoured this House with this afternoon as he closed debate on Motion 29.

Having seen that glimmer of hope of cooperation between both sides of the House, I would like to suggest that the rest of the members of the opposition understand the total, unmitigated futility of carrying on the hoist debate on bills such as Bill 9. I appreciate that they do have somewhat of a problem on the benches of the loyal opposition.

MR. REID: One big problem.

MR. PARKS: Well, they have more than one problem, hon. member. They of course have some difficulty with choosing their next leader, and I know there is much discussion in this province as to who is to be the new leader of the loyal opposition.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Kube.

MR. PARKS: I hear a remark that Mr. Kube is going to be the next leader of the loyal opposition. Although the hon. first member for Surrey is a colleague of mine, and she's usually correct, I have to suggest at this moment that on this very rare occasion she's wrong. Mr. Kube is not going to be the next leader of the opposition; Mr. Kube is the de facto leader of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'll remind you that we are on a hoist motion to a Municipal Affairs bill, and perhaps we could address our remarks to at least that portfolio.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, could you give me some direction? As I understand the resolution before us, it's an amendment to Bill 9. The text of the amendment in effect is to hoist Bill 9 for six months and thus serve as a stall or obstructionist technique of the opposition. If that's the resolution I'm speaking to. then I naturally will be very careful to make sure my remarks are pertinent and relevant.

Having established that we are referring to the obstructionist tactics of the opposition....

AN HON. MEMBER: On what charge? That's terrible.

MR. PARKS: We have minor remarks from the opposition.

Having to keep in mind that the opposition sees fit to take its directions from a non-sitting member in the House, having seen fit that a person who professes to be the voice of moderation and who professes to be....

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: Was that a call to order, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure that the minor interruption from the opposition ranks was not intended. I don't take it as a personal affront if they don't wish to sit attentively by and listen to each and every word that I wish to speak in opposition to their resolution to hoist this bill.

Houses of parliament, be they federal or provincial, have a very important role, for it is in these very respected chambers that matters of important merit such as Bill 9 should be addressed. For some reason the opposition does not wish to address those issues and does not wish to meet the most onerous task that they, I trust, chose to run for. That's lack of leadership.

MR. REID: That's losership.

[5:30]

MR. PARKS: Now, that's a good idea. We'll note them as the losership.... Now that I have Mr. Good Government himself back in the House, I'm sure he can coin losership for me.

Mr. Kube was quoted very recently as saying that he thought it would be in order to have this House sit through the entire fall and winter and perhaps into the spring merely hoisting bills for the sake of hoisting bills and merely obstructing for the sake of obstructing. It's unfortunate that we have a gentleman who has taken part in a very integral way in a masterful stroke of genius, a stroke of sleight-ofhand whereby he has accomplished what many people have not been able to accomplish: once again the opportunity of taking a mere $600,000.... In effect, I would suggest, he is ripping off the people of this province. He is ripping off the taxpayers of this province and also of Canada, because we're talking about federal funds. He has not seen fit to funnel those funds into the very noble task that the B.C. Fed claim

[ Page 1322 ]

they are setting forth — that is, of counselling those who are unemployed in a time of need — but rather with respect to counselling Solidarity. If Solidarity did have some true. useful, sincere purpose in mind, I find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that they would want the House to waste money by sitting here day after day and seeing the taxpayers' money going down the drain. If they really were concerned about the affairs of this province they would want the NDP to stand up in this House and speak to the bill, and they would insist that the opposition not be constantly....

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we're on Bill 9.

MR. REID: The hoist.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, a hoist of Bill 9 — the reasons why Bill 9 should or should not be adjourned. This member is wasting the time of the House and the money of the people in not adverting to the motion before the House. He's being totally irrelevant, and he should be brought to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the Chair has already pointed out to the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, we are in a hoist, which does allow some latitude. However, it should be a hoist to at least the principle of a Municipal Affairs bill. If the member could relate his remarks to that and to that ministry, then parliament would be well served.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, through your good office, I must thank the hon. second member for Vancouver East, who undoubtedly is one of the authorities in this House on how to stall and take these tactics to heart. I will attempt to be guided by your good remarks.

I understood that the question of hoisting was merely whether or not one wished to have a matter debated at this time or to have it stalled for a period of time. Now whether or not this particular bill, Bill 9, should have debate today or have debate deferred for six months unquestionably would be the order or the principle of such a resolution. Well, when you have an individual suggest to the people of this province that he doesn't think there should be debate on this bill or on any other bill that has been brought before this House, then I — with respect, Mr. Speaker — believe that's relevant. If it isn't, then I'll certainly take your guidance. I find it most distressing that we have a situation where we have very few members of the opposition see fit to even attend in the House and take part in this debate. All they wish to do when they have their opportunity to speak to the merits of the bill is obstruct.

If we had a clear example of leadership from the loyal opposition, we undoubtedly would have some meaningful debate as to why these particular bills should not be discussed or debated, and why, in fact, they are speaking in opposition. But we do not have that. It would appear that this opposition is once again falling into the trap of not only taking direction from Solidarity and Mr. Kube indirectly, but I wonder aloud if they are not also taking the lead from Mr. Trudeau. This is part of the triple play we heard an allusion to this morning. We have the triple play, as I understand it, with Mr. Trudeau passing the ball, in the amount of $600,000, to Mr. Kube. And now we have Mr. Kube, in effect, passing the ball to Mr. Barrett. As the hon. Premier has noted, it would certainly appear that the hon. member for Vancouver East has seen fit to drop the ball.

So the triple play is not going to work, Mr. Speaker. The obstructionist tactics are not going to work. The people of this province are not going to put up with the ongoing obstructionist techniques of the opposition. Very shortly we're going to hear the hue and cry from the public. They are going to insist that they get their money's worth, not only for that $600,000, but also for the $80,000 that each and every day, in effect, is wasted because of the opposition's stalling tactics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have the vote.

MR. PARKS: I suggest that it clearly is time for the vote. I would urge the whole opposition to recant and get on with the business of good government, to feet the B.C. spirit....

MR. REID: Hear, hear! The B.C. spirit, leadership, good government....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair finds it hard to hear what the hon. member who has taken his place is saying, Could we have some order, please.

MR. PARKS: I will close my part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, to thunderous applause from the opposition, but in doing that I do implore them to reconsider their position, to think of the people of this province, to think of the money they are wasting. Let's get on with the business of governing this province, and let's have the vote.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to hoist, and generally I will be sticking to the principle of the bill. I might deviate a bit, but I guarantee you I won't stray as far from the bill as that previous member who spoke. One thing I should correct the member on, Mr. Speaker, if I may, is that the member made reference to members' attendance in this House. We have been here now for some three months, and I notice that most of our members have taken every opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents and to represent their constituents at every opportunity. Yet I find very few Social Credit members getting to their feet, and when they do, we have a tirade like we have just heard from this member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who didn't discuss the bill or say anything of substance whatever.

However, I know he is a new member and he has a lot to learn, but one point that the member should be very much aware of — I am sure he will learn — is called the price of democracy. The member referred to $80,000 a day being the cost per day to the people of this province to operate the Legislature, I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you look through the estimate book and figure it out, you will find that is not quite correct, over a year's operation. It's not the figure that he quoted at all. Nonetheless, even if he was correct — I think this is probably the most important thing I'm going to say in the next 15 or 20 minutes — how can you put a price on democracy or the parliamentary system? How can you do that? It just can't be done. What we're talking about here is people's rights and freedoms, exactly what we're discussing in this Legislature. We may not win some of those votes — I don't know that — when that happens. But every member of this House, in my view, has the right to get up and debate every piece of legislation in this House if they

[ Page 1323 ]

so desire, and that's the price of democracy. It's a lot better having that debate in this chamber than having it out in the streets and in the hills with guns and rifles, in my view.

Mr. Speaker, I rose to my feet to speak on a couple of reasons why I feel we should set this bill aside — hoist the bill, as the term is used here in the Legislature — for six months. If I can just reread the three lines on the explanatory note so we'll know where we are: "Official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal governments." Well, if there's ever been a misnomer in a bill, it's that last line: "....to strengthen the autonomy of municipal government." The reason I got to my feet on this bill, quite obviously.... I spoke on the main motion in second reading two or three weeks ago, and I don't want to go through that argument again, but basically, in my view, the autonomy of local regional governments will be eliminated, if not eradicated, if and when this bill eventually passes this House. We have regional boards all over this province undertaking planning functions. Some of them are in the middle of those planning functions; many of those boards have stopped the planning process because they know their plans will have no force in law or in any other way after this bill passes.

[5:45]

But more than that — and I didn't mean to mention this later this week, I believe, the minister will be attending the UBCM meetings in Penticton, I think it is. I wonder why the government chose this time to bring this bill before the House. We have a package here — I think it's Bill 15, Bill 9 and Bill 7, which are in fact a package — and the government has called these bills day after day in this House. We're debating and looking at the merits, pros and cons of this legislation.

I wonder why the minister didn't wait until after his meetings in Penticton later this week to bring this bill before the House, because I'm quite sure that when the minister goes to that convention, he'll be told by the delegates — municipal officials and regional board people — from all over the province: "Please pull this bill back. Let's have some consultation before you proceed with this legislation." We know that no consultation did take place prior to this bill coming into the House, in spite of what we've been told. No consultation really took place on this bill prior to this bill, Bill 7 and Bill 15 coming before this House. There are three bills which are a package.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Bill 17, okay.

In any event, the real point here is that the minister and the government obviously didn't consult with the people affected prior to this bill coming into the House, so I’m speaking in favour of a hoist primarily to give the minister and the government some time to rethink this legislation.

I've got quite a bit to talk about, but I'd like to point out to you something that happened — and that this bill directly relates to — in my riding earlier this year and late last year; well, most of last year, actually. It deals with a proposal put forward by a large international corporation to dump their garbage on Texada Island, which is in my constituency. That was stopped — at least stopped to date. That plan to dump garbage.... I should give you a bit of history on it; I won't dwell on it too long. I admit that people living in the lower mainland have a problem with garbage disposal — there's no question about it — and solutions are going to have to be found. But, arbitrarily, this company had put a proposal before the GVRD suggesting that Texada Island — and they're not making islands anymore, Mr. Speaker.... They are going to use the northern end of Texada Island for a garbage dump to dump the garbage spewed out by a million and a half people in the lower mainland. There is a very serious problem, and it is going to have to be solved and resolved. I'm sure the minister is part of those discussions right now. I know he is. I can see him nodding his head, so I know he is thinking about it. However. I don't want to go through the whole thing because it was citizens' action and local planning on the regional board and the regional board members who were able, collectively. to stop this from happening at the present time. By this I mean the dumping of garbage on one of my islands — or at least one of the islands I represent; I don't actually own the island. I don't even own a little bit of it — well, maybe half an acre.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No gold in that half acre, I'll tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I raised this because I was asked to this past weekend by people on Texada Island. This bill, I do believe, would arbitrarily allow the minister or the government here in Victoria, if Genstar approaches the government, to say: "Sure, I think that sounds like a good plan. It will solve all our lower mainland garbage problems for many, many years. We'll dump it all on Texada Island." Under this act they could go right over the heads of local residents, regional boards, municipal councils and even over the GVRD's head if they wished.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, right. That's exactly what could happen if this bill passes in its present form. This is another reason, Mr. Speaker. why I am suggesting that the government vote with us for a change and move to hoist this bill for some six months.

You know. Mr. Speaker. this bill has been referred to as the Spetifore amendment. I wasn't going to discuss this but I am bringing this into this debate because I have to. In my view, if this bill passes in its present form, no agricultural land in the whole province will be saved. At one time we had a process for making decisions on what farmland should be left in or taken out of the agricultural land reserve. An independent commission made those decisions without interference from government and on a rational basis. The government has decided to make those decisions within a cabinet committee. That's what happens now. On a number of occasions, which have been well documented in this House, the government has directly interfered in the work of the commission. You will recall that one or two commissioners resigned because of that.

The government wasn't satisfied. They found public opinion was against them and that they couldn't get around every regional, municipal or GVRD official. So this session they have taken it unto themselves to bring in Bill 9. It was not discussed during the recent election campaign. During that campaign they didn't go out and tell people that they were

[ Page 1324 ]

going to bring in Bill 9, so that they could arbitrarily take farmland out of the....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier keeps interjecting. He's getting a little twitchy now that we're talking about the Spetifore amendment. I'd be twitchy too if I were in his place.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do you want to tell him about the pipeline in Powell River? We sure are going to get to that, Mr. Attorney-General, somewhere in this debate; but not under this bill, I don't think, because the Speaker is giving me a look here. I'm looking forward to the debate on the proposed natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Unfortunately, Mr. Attorney-General, you are no longer the minister; I have to debate it with the new minister.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the interjections across the floor.... I wasn't going to take the liberties that member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) took with his debate on this bill. I don't think he mentioned Bill 9 once in his debate, but he may have. I want to tell the member who interjected — I don't know which one over there it was now — that I take directions from my constituents and I make my own decisions. Nobody gives me directions. I make my own decisions, just like every other member on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I still have a bit of time left on the clock. One more minute? Thank you. That's no problem, because I haven't got into the meat of my speech yet. I was just warming up.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, no. I am very cooperative. I can cooperate with the opposition House Leader occasionally, and with the government House Leader from time to time — under the right circumstances. But, no, I don't think.... I'm not taking orders from....

MS. BROWN: You decide what you're doing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right. Usually I decide in favour of Frank here, but....

Mr. Speaker, I was going to quote from a telegram, but I don't think I have time this evening because it's quite lengthy. It's a telegram that was sent by the city council of Vancouver to the provincial government. I want to save this one because it's really very good stuff. I really haven't got time to get into it now.

I want to end this part of my presentation by making this very vital point. The primary reason I'm opposed to the bill, and am supporting the motion to hoist, is the serious concern that farmland and agricultural land throughout this province is seriously threatened by this bill. It really is. There's no question about it. Very nearly every regional board — certainly every regional board that we've heard from — is opposed to the way this legislation is currently drafted. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.