[ Page 2771 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Hon. A. Fraser –– 2771

Mr. Lockstead –– 2771

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 2775

Mr. Passarell –– 2775

Mr. Davis –– 2780

Mrs. Dailly –– 2781

Mr. Kempf –– 2784

Mr. Mitchell –– 2785

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1983

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. A. FRASER: I take pleasure in introducing this small bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide the necessary authority to allow the establishment of a new inspection program by regulation, in the form desired by the government. In essence, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, would make provision for new vehicle inspection programs that could be implemented by inspectors in inspection stations in the private sector as an alternative to the provincially operated facilities.

The administration of such private sector inspection programs by the superintendent would require that he possess a degree of authority appropriate to the responsibility. Thus the authorization of persons as inspectors and the designation of inspection facilities would be by the superintendent, thereby avoiding the necessity of proceeding by order-in-council. Provisions will be made for the suspension or cancellation of these appointments of inspectors and inspection facilities. The new program being designed proposes the establishment of a commercial vehicle inspection program operated by the private sector and monitored by government; the expansion of the government inspection program provincewide for taxicabs and buses, and the continuation of the school bus inspection program; and an enhanced random and critical-item commercial vehicle inspection program.

Details of a new provincewide inspection program, and how and when the program will be introduced, will be finalized after the report of the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications has been received. You will know, Mr. Speaker and members, that this committee has already been struck and, as a matter of fact, has had two or three meetings. Just for the information of the House, I'll read its guidelines:

"That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications to consider methods for providing for the inspection as to safety and repair of prescribed classes of vehicles, and providing for different types of inspections for different classes of vehicles by the private sector; and this committee shall be empowered to sit during sittings of the House during this session of the thirty-third parliament; and further, to report its findings and recommendations to the House from time to time, and make its final report and recommendations not later than December 16, 1983."

I'd just like to comment, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of the presence of the mandatory inspection program, the privilege of driving or owning a motor vehicle carries the responsibility that a person must ensure that his or her motor vehicle is maintained in a safe mechanical condition. A driver of a vehicle is required by the Motor Vehicle Act to have his or her vehicle equipped in all aspects as required by regulations, as a condition of driving on a highway. Not only must a vehicle be properly equipped, the equipment must be adjusted and functioning properly as required by the regulations.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 23.

[10:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few remarks on this bill. The House may remember that there was some debate on this bill during the course of the minister moving the motion. The terms of reference of Motion 29, to send the matter to committee.... The minister is probably aware that the committee has met, I believe, three times. I'm sure that we'll hear about this from some of the other committee members. As well as me, for our party, our members on the committee are, just for the information of the House, the member for Esquimalt—Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). As a matter of fact, the member for Atlin, who is responsible for carrying this bill through the House, will be along shortly. In the meantime, I'm not sure that what goes on in committee can really be discussed in this House. As I understand the rules, you can't really do that, but I may say that the very competent Chairman of that committee has made arrangements to bring in witnesses, and we've already had the director of the motor vehicle branch before the committee and received some very valuable information.

However, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell the minister right now that we have decided to oppose this piece of legislation. Ordinarily, knowing that, I could sit down, and we could have a vote, and you would win it. However, I think that makes things just a little too easy. So I think we should put forward some reasons and debate on why.... I'm sure that we're going to hear from a number of government members on this particular bill because of the interest in this House in this piece of legislation and the interest in the community.

There is interest in the community in this piece of legislation. It was a bit of a surprise, certainly to our caucus and our party, after the last election when the government decided to introduce this bill. Now I know the minister will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall, during or prior to the last election campaign, the government telling us or the electorate that they were going to privatize motor vehicle testing in this province. I don't recall that being a part of the Social Credit Party policy. However, the reality is that legislation was brought in in the form of Bill 23 as well as the resolution that was brought before this House some time ago.

What's baffling to us and to a lot of people in the community — and in a short while I shall give the minister some quotes — is: why take away this service from the communities affected when they were doing a good job and enhancing motor vehicle safety on the road? We don't know, and I'm sure the minister will tell us when he closes debate in second reading of this bill sometime a month or two hence, or whenever. But why would the government take away this much-needed service? It couldn't have been costs, because we know very well, and it was stated by the former director of the motor vehicle branch.... In fact, I'll quote him,

[ Page 2772 ]

because I have a quote before me attributed to Mr. Whitlock from July 27, 1983, in the Vancouver Sun. He stated that for an increase in fees of 50 cents per motor vehicle, the testing stations would have in fact broken even and required no subsidy out of general revenues whatsoever.

MR. MOWAT: Not true.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) interjects and says it's not true. Well, I've known Mr. Whitlock for many, many years and, quite frankly, I am more inclined to accept his version and his story than that of the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. No offence, but I don't think the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain has been director of the motor vehicle branch for many years; Mr. Whitlock has been in that capacity from time immemorial — ever since I've been here in this House — and I do believe he knows what he's talking about.

MR. MOWAT: It's $50 a car.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That is utterly ridiculous for British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. It's quite common for members to be of contrary opinions, and perhaps if the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain is, he can join in debate after the member for Mackenzie is finished.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, that member only joins debate to move closure.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, that's true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we have the situation under control. To the bill, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. But we get along fine — that member and myself, Mr. Speaker. It's nothing personal.

We're discussing a very serious bill that is going to affect the lives of many people. We'll probably notice the increase in motor vehicle accidents on our roads, and I am going to tell you right now — I'm going to get back to the cost of the service here in a few minutes — that we will notice the increase. It has been estimated, and this figure was more or less confirmed during the course of our committee meetings last week with the acting director of the motor vehicle branch, Mr. Jackman, that approximately 7 percent of motor vehicle accidents can be attributed to mechanical failure. He said there were between 4 and 7 percent in studies done in the United States. However, there were some qualifications to that figure.

That figure, by the way, is pretty well indicated in the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. If you'll turn to the back section of that annual report you'll see lists and lists of statistics. They pretty well confirm Mr. Jackman's statement about the 4 to 7 percent. However, the qualifications to that are that not all accidents are investigated properly. In a serious accident, for example, it may appear as if a driver inadvertently crossed the yellow line or inadvertently tumbled over a bank or hit a bridge abutment, or whatever, and that's often as far as the investigation goes. It would appear that the cause of the accident was that the driver may have lost control of the car for some reason — he was a poor driver, he may have had a couple of beers on the way home, or whatever. Particularly if there's alcohol involved, usually the investigation goes no further, because if there's alcohol involved at all the cause of the accident is usually put down to a drinking driver. But the fact is that because many of these accidents are not properly investigated, we really don't know how many accidents are really caused by mechanical failure — oftentimes brakes. That vehicle may be smashed up and in such a condition that it's absolutely impossible to tell after the accident whether it was brake failure or problems with the system — for example, the brakes. In fact, very often it's not even investigated. I would guess, Mr. Speaker, that there are more motor vehicle accidents caused by mechanical failure than the statistics could indicate, because of improper investigation.

In any event, I want to get back to the cost of this service and then on to the provincewide situation as the government appears to be planning it at the present time. And I might say at this point, particularly since the Chairman of our committee is in the House at the present time, that I hope I am sitting on a meaningful committee. I really do.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, about this type of committee, I almost always have a bit of a problem — I'm suspicious, I guess is the word, that the government has made up its mind even before they call the committee. This is no reflection on the Chairmen or the committee members. But the fact is, having been in politics for quite a number of years — more than I care to admit to — that we often know that a decision is made on these matters and then a committee is formed, or a royal commission appointed, to substantiate and carry out precisely what the government wanted in the first place. Should I find that that's the case with this committee — and I haven't found that to be the case yet — I'm going to raise merry heck in this House, I can tell you that; and in committee, as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Briefly on that point, we are in second reading in the House. Reference to the findings of the committee might be in order, but any reference to politics or the motivation of the committee would not be in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no. It's just a little remark in passing.

I want to get back for a moment to the costs involved and the primary reason the government has given for terminating the work of the motor vehicle inspection stations. An article by Gillian Shaw in the Vancouver Sun, July 27, 1983, is headlined: "Fifty-Cents-Per-Car Loss Cited in Test Halt." I think this is significant to the debate we're putting forward this morning.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) happens to be Chairman of the committee I was referring to earlier. She says the article is insignificant. I really don't think it is. You can't tell me.... I find it

[ Page 2773 ]

difficult to believe that a person like Mr. Robert Whitlock, who was the director of the motor vehicle branch for I don't know how many years....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, he's a good man — first-class. He is one of the senior public servants. In our ridings, particularly large rural ridings, I've had a great deal to do with the motor vehicle branch. Probably most MLAs do. A lot of people have trouble with their driver's licences or whatever with that branch, and he's always very cooperative. However, that is not the point.

I started to quote from the article in the Vancouver Sun but there was an interjection. If, as the members opposite say, this article in the Vancouver Sun is inaccurate, I'm sure that one of the members over there will get up and correct the article or at least put forward their view of this particular article in the Vancouver Sun. It's a significant article.

"If mandatory motor vehicle inspection fees were raised 50 cents to $5.50 a car, the government would break even on the service, superintendent of motor vehicles Robert Whitlock says. According to the latest Transportation and Highways ministry report tabled in the Legislature, 590,921 inspections were carried out at testing stations in Victoria, Nanaimo and the lower mainland in 1981. At a loss of 50 cents a car on a $5 charge, inspection stations ran about $295,000 in the red in 1981...."

The figures for 1982 are not available at the present time.

"When mandatory testing for vehicles and light trucks was dropped by the government in its July 7 budget, Highways Minister Alex Fraser said the move would save $2.6 million a year. But Whitlock said Tuesday that the $2.6 million figure doesn't take into account the money made by vehicle inspections and it doesn't represent the net loss in providing inspections."

So there you have it. A 50-cent increase per inspection and the inspection stations would not have shown a loss.

Later I want to talk a bit about what is called the Ontario model and the English model, but right now I want to briefly discuss one of the reasons the government has made....

Mr. Speaker, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) has just entered the House. I'm pleased to see him. He's got it made. I'm doing all the work and he gets all the applause.

[10:30]

One of the reasons the government gave for abolishing motor vehicle testing stations is that at some point they want to initiate motor vehicle testing throughout the province by private means. The government and the minister are quite correct when they tell us that many — in fact, most — parts of British Columbia don't have motor vehicle testing. However, I think the government could have accomplished both without firing — or terminating, which is the term used in this House — present employees, and still have initiated private motor vehicle testing throughout the province. If that was the way they wanted to go, they could have done both; however, they chose not to. I think the last motor vehicle testing station will be permanently closed this month. So no matter what we say, they are gone. It wouldn't have been too much trouble, I don't think, if the government had waited before closing these stations, at least until this bill has gone through this House. But they decided to proceed anyway, and here we are.

I presume that at some point we're going to have motor vehicle testing throughout the province by private means and private inspectors, which leads to a lot of interesting questions, Mr. Speaker. I want the minister to answer some of these questions when he closes second reading. How does the government intend to choose which private garages in any given community will receive a licence?

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, the minister must have some thoughts on this matter. In spite of the interjections from across the floor, how.... The government is going to have to make the decision, and I'm very suspicious about whether governments take committee recommendations. I know some of the new members are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. They believe all this committee work is very serious and meaningful. But I've been around long enough to be a bit cynical. I've often found that in spite of committees and royal commission recommendations, governments do what they heck they want to do anyway in the final analysis. Even if they don't, the responsibility is going to fall under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. My question to the minister is very straightforward, and he can answer when he closes debate on this bill in second reading: how do they intend to pick and choose testing stations?

Do you know what bothers me about this, and the reason I ask this question? Because it could be done on a political and patronage basis.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, believe it or not, it's quite possible. I've seen it happen before, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to give the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) an example right now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think if we could avoid comments about possible dishonourable motives, then we could avoid some of the heckling.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the minister of lands, parks, housing, the environment and the world a prime example right now. He looks quite serious and says this will never happen; there will be no political patronage. Let me give you a couple of good examples of where we've seen this happen. It actually happened in the motor vehicle branch, in our view; in fact, questions were raised in this House about this activity not long ago. The government decided at some point to take driving examinations and registrations out of the government agent's office.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, they have and you know that.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that what the member is bringing here has anything at all to do with the bill before us. I think he's completely out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good point. We are on the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act and dealing with testing stations. Perhaps the member could remember that.

[ Page 2774 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were out of order, but I was attempting to make a point on how the private garages around the province that are going to be licensed will be chosen. The minister of lands, forests, environment, parks, housing and whatever interjected and said that no way would these licences be given out on a political basis. I was attempting to illustrate how very recently — this year — the government has done exactly that with driver examinations and licensing in this province. It's a fact. It may have even happened in your own community; certainly it happened in several of mine. the question was raised in this House; it's a valid point, but not under this bill, you're right. I wanted to give one example.... I can give you several if you're interested, but I know they're out of order and I won't get away with it, so I won't dwell on it. But it happens to be an absolute fact — direct political patronage.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would advise the hon. member that if we can stick to the bill, then perhaps some of the interjections might not be forthcoming. I would remind the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), that he'll have every opportunity to present his opinion on this bill to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That was one question. How do the minister and the ministry intend to license and pick and choose? Once they have chosen, say, two or three garages or locations in a small or a large community to inspect vehicles, what will the qualifications be? How do they know that that particular garage has the qualified mechanics or inspection...?

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's the committee's job.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The members keep hollering: "Committee, committee." Is that the reason this bill was put into the committee — to stifle debate? This bill allows us a wide range of questions and topics that can be discussed relating directly to its implementation. It's as simple as that. We could say that everything is going to be discussed in committee, and presumably it will be. And presumably the government will accept committee recommendations when they come down. However, that's presumably; we don't know if that's going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is on a sticky point here because there is a committee which the Chair has been advised of. Nevertheless, I do note in the bill that there are many provisions which allow for exactly what the member is talking about. Perhaps if we can avoid specific reference to the committee and some of its meetings, but maybe bring information from that committee to the assembly without mentioning the committee and also speak to the principle of the bill, then we can delicately find our way through the little icefield that we have here.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No problem at all, Mr. Speaker. I am, in my view, attempting to speak directly to the principle of the bill and asking legitimate questions. When there are interjections across the floor which I can clearly hear and which are probably picked up by Hansard, then I feel, as has been the custom in this House, that I must respond. If I don't, what comes out in Hansard is interjections across the floor with no response, which, when you're reading Hansard, makes those interjections appear correct, but they're not necessarily correct. Every member in this House, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, will have the opportunity to speak on this bill over the next couple of weeks. I'm just making a little parliamentary point there, Mr. Speaker.

I was asking this question of the minister: when he closes debate on second reading, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that qualified people out there in the private sector can provide the services that are being contracted for? How do we know that? How will the minister police that situation? Will there be inspectors appointed by the ministry and employed by the ministry going around to these private garages checking up on them? Any of us who have owned or do own a motor vehicle know from experience that there are good garages and some that we don't care for very much; some where you receive high-quality work for the money you pay and some where the work is very shoddy. We all know that. After owning my vehicle for two years I had a recall on it three weeks ago. Even during the course of manufacturing automobiles there are sometimes built-in flaws within that automobile. So how is the ministry going to inspect that service that will be provided by the private sector?

I want to make it very clear to you that I'm not knocking the private sector.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It sounds like you are.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's absolutely not true. In fact, one of the proposals I would have put forward had the government not dismantled motor vehicle testing in British Columbia as it exists today is that in the large rural areas.... Private sector inspections would have made absolute sense in many of those smaller communities and rural areas. I wouldn't have been opposed to that. To set up a motor vehicle testing branch in a community like Sechelt, Bella Coola, Texada Island, or wherever.... I'm mentioning areas in my own constituency, but all over the province in those types of communities it simply would not make sense. It would be financially prohibitive. I'm asking the minister question number two: how do they intend to police the quality of the inspections?

[10:45]

_{[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]}

I want to tell you one of the things that has happened in other jurisdictions where they've had private motor vehicle testing. One of the things that has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that one way or another a certain garage owner or proprietor had received the licence to test privately motor vehicles. Sometimes, in fact, no real testing took place at all. Although the motor vehicle owner is paying for the inspection, sometimes, as in Ontario, $50 — I believe it's $50 in Ontario for a motor vehicle inspection — I think we can expect to see that eventually in British Columbia; I don't know. Instead of the $5.50 that was proposed, I think we can expect to see it cost $50 somewhere down the road, as they now pay in Ontario, to go and have your motor vehicle tested. Mr. Speaker, what happens if the government doesn't have in place a means of checking up on these establishments in all these small communities if eventually — if I read the bill and the government's policy statement correctly — they attempt to so-called

[ Page 2775 ]

privatize motor vehicle inspections? That is a question the minister is going to have to address himself to.

The third question I have is a question I mentioned in passing just a few minutes ago. I wonder if the minister, when he's closing debate in second reading, could explain to us how the ministry intends to control costs of motor vehicle inspections. We know in other jurisdictions — and I mentioned Ontario a few minutes ago — a motor vehicle inspection once a year costs the motor vehicle owner $50. According to Mr. Whitlock, we could have had the same service here in British Columbia for $5.50 a day, at no cost to the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You believe him.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why wouldn't I believe Mr. Whitlock? What does Mr. Whitlock have to lose — the very respected director of the motor vehicle branch?

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) yells across the House that we haven't got the brains to do our own research. I'm not going to ask him to withdraw that statement. I'll just consider where it comes from. Imagine having a member with loose lips and a fried brain like that in this House as a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. No wonder the people of this province are in trouble when we've got ministers like that. He hasn't yelled an interjection across the floor that makes any sense or that has anything to do with this bill. He just says: "You've got no brains." Mr. Speaker, that's all he can say. Well, he's got as much brains as he's got hair — neither of each.

Mr. Speaker, back to the bill. I really don't have a great deal more to say at this time on the bill, except to express the hope and wish that the committee, in its deliberations and its recommendations, when they are eventually brought in...that the minister will in fact take those recommendations seriously. I just have this feeling at the back of my mind that the government has in fact made up its mind on this bill. They have in fact determined already what they're going to do and how they're going to do it. I hope I'm wrong. But I strongly suspect, knowing the way this government operates, that they have already made that decision and that they're going to do exactly what they want to do when this bill passes, which it will.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just a charade.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: As my colleague says, it's just a charade. I hope I'm wrong. I know this is going to come up time and time again during the course of this debate. If it's allowed to do its work seriously, they'll get no trouble from me. But if it's not, they're going to get a great deal of trouble from me on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, in closing my remarks, I want to inform the minister once again that we will be opposing this bill. We don't think it's in the best interest of the people of British Columbia. We don't think it's a restraint bill at all. It's going to lead to more motor vehicle accidents in the province, as it probably already has, because some of the stations have closed. I'll be interested to hear what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has to say on this bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will be very brief, as I'm sure that many of my colleagues would like to say a few words on this particular bill. No doubt I will be supporting this bill. However, we can only expect this sort of opposition that we've just heard to it, because that's the role of the opposition. It would seem that the only way that they have been able to come up with some argument against this bill is on a question of costs. I think that if they look deeply into this bill and the needs of vehicle testing in this province, they will realized that it's not a question of costs, but rather a question of greater safety in the province. How can anyone claim that we would be weakening that particular situation when we have a testing program now that does not cover the entire province?

Mr. Speaker, I live in the Central Fraser Valley, where we don't have testing facilities, and I miss that. I believe we should have it. But the horrendous costs of providing total vehicle testing for the whole province I think would be going beyond the ability of the taxpayer to pay for under the present system.

I have much occasion to use the streets of Vancouver and Victoria, and I have never been instructed to have my car go through the testing facilities. So we have a hit-and-miss situation now that is not satisfactory. This bill is long overdue.

As I mentioned, it's not a question of costs, but rather a question of greater safety on our roads.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's why you're closing down testing stations: for greater safety. It's incredible.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to convey my wishes to those who are serving on that committee, because I believe that that committee has an opportunity to come up with some very excellent recommendations to the minister responsible that will indeed give this province well-supervised and total vehicle inspection for the safety of all of us. I'm suggesting to the committee that as they discuss the question of how we go about testing vehicles they discard any thought of this going into any one major company to carry out the function, because that would be wrong. It's done in other countries and it can and should be done here. There should be licensed, qualified mechanics to carry out this function throughout this province. I'm quite sure that not only would that give us total vehicle testing coverage, but it would also stimulate something out there in the local communities where we do have some highly qualified mechanics who really know their business and would do a good job of the testing at a cost that would be fair.

Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill wholeheartedly, and no doubt all of my colleagues will. I think that if some of those members over there get thinking of this seriously they too may change their minds and come in and support this worthwhile bill. My closing remark is my very deep wish that the committee will indeed come in with recommendations that will turn the responsibility for the testing of our vehicles over to the private sector by way of licensing highly qualified mechanics throughout this province in all the small communities to give us total vehicle coverage.

MR. PASSARELL: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to the hon. minister. I'm glad to see him back in this Legislature. It's always a pleasure to see the hon. member and I hope that he's over with his illness and we'll get over with this bill.

[ Page 2776 ]

I have a couple of items here as the Transportation and Highways critic for the party — just a few thoughts on what the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) says. He says the opposition is only opposed to the bill because of its cost. I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I would say more safety would probably come first, costs second, and then the aspect of having vehicle testing stations across this province. We have to be realistic. There's no way that you could put vehicle testing stations across this province. Prior to this bill coming in, if I'm not mistaken, there were five vehicle testing branch stations in the mainland and lower Vancouver Island — Nanaimo, Victoria and three over in Vancouver, which hit approximately 65 percent to 75 percent of all vehicle registrations in the province.

The other aspect the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about was having highly trained mechanics throughout the province. Just at the very end of his speech he said "in all the communities." That's pretty difficult, because as my hon. friend from North Peace knows, you can go into many communities in the Great White North and there are not even gas stations, let alone highly qualified mechanics able to do this work, so that also is a little unrealistic.

But onto the bill itself, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. The first aspect of the bill says it gives a definition of a taxi in the first section. This is welcome information for the public, particularly here in Victoria where there is a major problem coming out with the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, in which we've seen major taxi companies in Victoria not complying with the regulations of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I think the minister's quite aware of it from the correspondence that's been coming across. As a matter of fact, just to touch on it quickly, this matter is going in front of city council this evening to have them make some decisions under the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act about taxis that don't comply with ICBC regulations about paying off their bills year after year.

The second section aspect of the vehicle amendment act is that a definition of "school bus" is repealed. This is welcome information, I'm sure, for school children, particularly if the kid misses the bus, as in a lot of regards this government has missed the bus for a number of years here.

The next section that I'd like to talk about is the note here that says: "strengthens the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's powers to regulate vehicle equipment, buses and school buses and empowers him to regulate taxis." I don't think the government's gone quite far enough. I agree that you have to regulate vehicle equipment, buses and school buses and empower him to regulate taxis. One of the problems that has come up is the aspect of bicycles in the motor vehicle amendment, and I think we should have an aspect covering bicycles on this too. And if we go into bicycles, we could get into rickshaws too.

[11:00]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. Tricycles and one-wheelers and roller skates and dogsleds and skateboards. If you are going to start giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council these kinds of authorities, you might as well give the Premier — whoever the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is that day — total power to cover everything that moves under this vehicle amendment act.

The next explanatory note says: "extends the application of a power to exempt, classify and treat different vehicles differently." I'm glad, to a certain extent, that the Social Credit government wants to treat vehicles differently. It's nice to treat different vehicles differently. It depends on how you're treating them and what you want to do with them, but back onto Bill 23. Section 4(e) says: "empowering a person who is employed by the ministry to exercise the powers and duties of a constable or peace officer for the purpose of enforcing prescribed provisions of this act...." I don't really feel that grader operators out on the highway should have this responsibility or this threat of a responsibility to become a traffic cop. I'd rather see a grader operator out there grading the highway than exercising the powers and the duties of a police officer or a constable. I really don't feel that this section needs to be put into the bill. It's too wide-ranging to say that any employee of the Ministry of Highways can be deputized to become a police officer or a constable. I mean, that would be a tremendous movie, I think: "The Wyatt Earp of Highway 37."

We could see this aspect being — once this bill is passed today — a new work-sharing program by the government, in which construction workers for the Ministry of Highways, grader operators, truck drivers, or whatever would work half the day on road construction and for the second part of the day, the next four hours, they could be personnel to enforce the motor vehicle regulations. I would certainly hope that the minister, before this bill is passed, would have a second look at empowering an employee of the ministry to become a constable or police officer.

The next section of the bill can be stated in certain terms as the most draconian here. It says that it allows private inspection programs. A few weeks ago.... And it's already been discussed: Mr. Whitlock, the 50 cents per car. I don't particularly believe that 50 cents is going to cover the cost. I really don't. If we're going to be realistic, I really do not believe that 50 cents upon the $5 is going to cover the cost to the motor vehicle inspection branch. By the same token, I have to be fair and say that I don't think $50, if it goes into private hands, is correct either. We have to look at a medium in here somewhere. I think the 50 cents going into the $5.... Just to set the record straight, previously it was $5 to get your vehicle inspected. When you received the citation through the mail you would take your vehicle into the motor vehicle inspection branch and it would cost you $5. I think all individuals in the Legislature here who know anything about it would agree that it's pretty difficult to get something done in a garage for $5. You're lucky enough....

I remember when I used to own an old Volkswagen, and for $5 I could get enough gasoline to spend the whole evening out in it. Now in my truck to try to get $5, I don't even think....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, Mr. Member, that's when I was younger. That's right. When you get to be my age, as one of the senior members of the Legislature, you start thinking twice about that stuff. But for $5, really, what can you get done at a garage? I don't even think you can get a windshield wiper for $5 any longer.

So what we're talking about — and I know the hon. Chairman of the committee wants to know about this $5 aspect — is that it's very difficult to get work done for $5, and

[ Page 2777 ]

I know she agrees with me. So saying 50 cents is kind of pushing it. By the same token, I think the figures that have been thrown around by the minister himself, talking about $18 or $19 or $20, or as high as $30.... The media reports $50, using the example from Ontario, which is a little bit too far out of reach. I think the duty of the committee is to find something that isn't going to be super expensive. By the same token, I think we need to have some kind of inspection by the private sector to a certain extent. The $5 fee for the motor vehicle inspection branches, which will no longer be in existence, has cost the government a certain amount of money, and if the government can save some money on it as well as protect people out on the roads, it will be worthwhile.

A question I have to the minister, which I asked in committee at one stage, is: what about the motor vehicle inspection buildings? After October 31 they'll no longer be in use. What plans does the government have for the five motor vehicle inspection buildings? Are they going to sell them? I would like to know that. Those motor vehicle inspection branches now are full of tools and hoists and that kind of stuff. There's quite a capital inside the motor vehicle inspection branches today, and I'd just like the minister's response regarding what's going to happen to the branches themselves, to the superstructures. Maybe there's going to be an auction of tools or something. I'd like to know about the auction. I could tell some friends who need some tools that maybe if they came down to the motor vehicle inspection branches they might be able to....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: It'll be advertised; I'm sure it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look after your constituents, Al.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, you've got to. Especially when it comes to tools. It's really expensive for tools up north. When I went up there this weekend I had to go to Whitehorse to buy some screws. As the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways knows, because he did not come to the opening of the Atlin International Airport three weeks ago when he was supposed to, the way you go to Atlin on a commercial jet is the way....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I know that; that was when you weren't feeling well. But the fact still remains that.... Just for the clarification of the minister, when you go to Atlin you fly commercially by CP Air to Whitehorse, capital of the Yukon, population 15,397.

Back onto Bill 23. One of the problems with the....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What's in that glass?

MR. PASSARELL: What are you wearing that pink shirt again for? Every time you come in this House, you wear that pink shirt.

Now what are you doing?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's what happens when you become the senior member of the Legislature; you look at things through rose-coloured glasses.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: You mean I'm not the oldest member of this House? Sitting here all night, I would think so at times.

Back onto Bill 23. One of the problems with the Ontario.... It would certainly help if the government didn't use the Ontario legislation — the privatization of motor vehicle inspection branches — because of the increase of the fee from $5 to $50. A few months ago CTV did a program concerning vehicle inspection in Ontario, and it came out that in a lot of situations there was some kind of skulduggery going on between the garage owners and the motor vehicle owners, whereby money was transacted to get their decal. You have to have the decal. And as the CTV program said, it came....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. I share the sentiments of the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet): when you have the mandatory aspect, the decal is more important than the safety of the vehicle. The intent of the bill in Ontario was.... People were just giving $50 or $25, or whatever the fee was, to the licensee to get a decal in place on their vehicle, even though it had not gone through any kind of testing. Really, the only way you're going to keep a car safe when it's in that kind of situation is take it right off the road, pull the plates off it and not allow it to go back onto the road until it has passed some kind of safety inspection.

The cost to the taxpayers, as this Vancouver Sun article said, was that it would take an additional $3.3 million to continue the program. That's how they got the figure of 50 cents. I really do not believe that the 50 cents increase would, as I said earlier, make up the cost of breaking even, and I would like to see some kind of costs being instilled so that there would be a break-even point for the government. I don't believe the government should be operating the motor vehicle inspection branches — which they're not now because they are basically closed — at a loss. You just can't do that. That's my own opinion; I'm sure there'll be other hon. members in this House who'll be standing up and saying that. By the same token, if it's going to cost an additional $5 or $10 or $15 to keep the motor vehicle inspection branches open, I'd rather see that happen than close them right down and turn them into a new program of private motor vehicle inspection in this province.

I asked the minister what was going to happen to the superstructures. Are they going to be turned over to private entrepreneurs, or what?

Another aspect is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) talked about having licensed qualified mechanics throughout the province. Under this legislation, which is more or less retroactive because the vehicle inspection branches are already closed down, I'd like to ask the minister: have the people who were working the motor vehicle inspection branches and who are not working there any longer been transferred to other jobs, or have they just been laid off? We're talking about qualified, skilled mechanics, individuals trained to work with motor vehicles. They're certainly not paper-pushers. I would like to know from the

[ Page 2778 ]

minister what has happened to these mechanics who worked in the motor vehicle inspection branches. Have they been transferred to other positions?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Listen, the more grader operators you want to send up north, the more we'll take. We sure can use them. I know the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) knows the area and would sacrifice.... As a matter of fact, he'd get up publicly and say that North Peace River does not need as many grader operators, and he'd send them over to Atlin.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Who deserves more?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: North Peace.

MR. PASSARELL: Why?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Nice guys always get more graders, is that it? Oh, I see, it's a new rule. If you're a nice guy, you get more grader operators.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no grader love in the Legislature.

MR. PASSARELL: That's right. A poet.

[11:15]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: We don't want bear-track stories yet, do we? It's so early. I'll wait. I've got some real beauts here, but this is too serious a thing to start talking about the cougar facts yet.

When we come to the aspect of using Mr. Whitlock's statement, I would like to read an article from the Automotive Retailer, which is a magazine that I think many members of the House are familiar with. This is by Ron Baldwin, the ARA executive director, and it's called "Point of View"; it's an editorial. This is from the August 1983 edition.

I have just two quotes here. One is the last paragraph of the editorial, and it says: "One of the most significant pieces of legislation being introduced by the government is the elimination of mandatory safety inspection for all non-commercial vehicles." I think that one thing we have to say is that this bill does not take away commercial safety inspection, let's say, of school buses; that's something that has to be said for it. It's for private motor vehicles, the ones that you and I would own to drive back and forth to work.

The other quote says:

"The closure of the government testing stations, along with the announcement that the private sector will be asked to consider taking over testing, is cause for a great deal of speculation among garage owners. The ARA has strongly supported the need for compulsory safety testing, and members will now have to determine the amount of support they can offer to this new proposal. The Minister of Highways has invited suggestions from the ARA as to what type of alternative program for testing would be feasible, and a series of meetings with the motor vehicle department is being arranged so that industry views can be heard. These meetings should prove to be most interesting!"

Now I respect the minister's judgment, and from what I hear from ARA executive members, the minister has started the process of dealing with private industry to find the best ways of getting around the closing of the motor vehicle inspection branches and turning them over to private enterprise.

I went on earlier about the recent television program on CTV which showed the Ontario program as being, in many regards, dishonest because of the problem where people find that the decal is more important than the safety of their vehicle, and would rather, at times, instead of having the vehicle inspected in Ontario, simply pay for it under the counter to get the decal onto their car. In this television program you found a very few dishonest garage owners who were charging higher fees. Instead of performing the work on the motor vehicle, they would simply charge a higher fee, pass the money across the counter, and get the decal put on the vehicle windshield.

Secondly, one of the problems that came out in this program was the aspect of bogus safety work that was being performed on the vehicle. Even using the figure of $50 in Ontario, if you look at a mechanic's hourly fee and the cost involved with doing a total motor vehicle inspection, sometimes the cost can be much higher. One of the problems with the Ontario program is that once you take your vehicle to a garage for the $50 inspection, if the mechanic finds a problem with the car, that car cannot leave that garage until the problem is fixed. Sometimes what has happened, as pointed out in this program, is that a garage owner will tell a little old lady from Pasadena: "You've got some problems on your car; it's going to cost you $150; this vehicle can't leave until the work is performed." In a lot of regards, bogus work has been performed on vehicles in Ontario because of this little section of their act that says the car can't leave until that work is performed.

I think an individual in any type of private enterprise system should have the opportunity to take their vehicle to another dealership to see if they can have the work performed more cheaply. I would certainly hope that when we pass our legislation in this province we put that regulation in, so that you have the right to take your vehicle to another dealership to have the work performed, even if it has to be towed. If you're not driving it.... Let's say, for instance, that you pull your vehicle into a garage and three wheels have fallen off, it's got no lights on it, and every time it hits a bump part of the body falls off onto the highway. I don't believe that that kind of vehicle should be just driven out of the dealership, but by the same token you should have the right to get a tow-truck, pull it out and take it to a friend, another dealership, or whatever the case may be, to have the work performed if it would be cheaper. In a competitive market, you have the right to do this. In Ontario there have been some problems with motor vehicle inspections, where you can't take it out once you bring it in; they say there's a problem.

I think all of us in the Legislature know why we're debating this bill, and that's for safety on our roads. I think all of us are in agreement on that.

Another section I'd like to deal with on this bill — it's quite a long bill — is section 7 on "notification to present the vehicle for inspection." The present system didn't work. You

[ Page 2779 ]

sent letters out to individuals who often would just ignore them. And after sending three letters to the individual, who might have moved ten times in that six-month period, the sheriff could come and take the plates off if the vehicle hadn't come for an inspection. That was extra cost. The new assistant motor vehicle superintendent has said that less than 5 percent of all cars on the road had their plates pulled off for not having been brought in for an inspection.

A problem I see with this bill is that it says: "notification to present the vehicle for inspection." Does the minister believe that once this bill is passed you're going to send letters to residents right across this province to turn their vehicles in for an inspection? I mean, it's going to be pretty difficult for residents in Iskut or Telegraph Creek to present their vehicles for inspection under section 7(1)(b).

MR. KEMPF: It would be a long trip.

MR. PASSARELL: It would be a long trip, as the member for Omineca says. What would you do? It's too wide-ranging to say here that the ministry could send a letter to any individual in this province that they would have to take it to the nearest private inspection branch, which could be hundreds and hundreds of miles away from their home. Up north we pay 64 cents, in some places close to 70 cents per litre of gas, and to drive your vehicle, for instance, from Telegraph Creek to Terrace, which would be the next major centre to have a motor vehicle inspection done.... You're talking a few hundred dollars that the individual would have to put out just to go down and have his vehicle tested.

Safety standards will be taken from the cabinet and given to the superintendent of motor vehicles. Why? I think we as the duly elected representatives of this province should have some say in what the safety standards should be for vehicles on the roads.

Section 8 asks the municipalities, as worded in 215.1(1)(b), to carry out inspections. I could see in some regards why the five empty motor vehicle inspection branches are now asking, in some kind of selling of superstructures, or whatever the case is, to have the municipalities do this. In my riding I have only one municipality, and that is Stewart. I can't see what the saving would be to Stewart if you're asking the municipalities to carry out vehicle inspections. I don't really see how the municipality of Stewart could handle a situation like that without increasing taxes, and I certainly hope this section won't raise the taxes of people in Stewart.

Penalties fall under the Offence Act, chapter 305. The general penalty under section 4 of the Offence Act is that a person is liable to a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Another question to the minister is: why have you included this section in the bill? I think that's pretty steep that individuals can be fined $2,000 or put in jail for six months for failing to comply with this regulation, especially with this act not being that specific on what you're going to do outside the mainland regarding vehicle inspection. That's pretty heavy-handed to put $2,000 over people if they're living in areas where there aren't gas stations or garages and you have to bring in 50-gallon drums to get your gas in isolated areas. I would certainly hope this would not be used as an offensive against people who wouldn't be supportive of you. I wouldn't want to say that the minister would want to put his critics in jail using section 4. I know the minister is quite a jovial individual and would never go to that extreme of saying, if anybody opposed him: "Use section 4 and put that gentleman into jail."

Superintendent's standards and approval, 215.2(a): "prescribe safety standards for a vehicle...that is offered for sale, exposed, or displayed for sale." I don't really understand, Mr. Minister, what you mean when you say a vehicle is exposed. Maybe you could clarify that section. I could see safety standards for vehicles that are sold. Whether it's a private transaction or is done commercially, safety standards should be applicable. But I don't understand what exposed means in this section about vehicles.

The next section I would like to discuss is section 9. Why have a police officer inspect a vehicle? I said earlier that under this act the ministry has the right to deputize grader operators to carry out vehicle inspection on the road. I hope that will be amended somehow to make it a little clearer what you are talking about. By the same token, you can't expect police officers to spend the majority of their day inspecting vehicles. As most of us know, most police officers are pretty hard-working, dedicated servants, and I really can't see them spending their time standing out on the Trans-Canada Highway doing motor vehicle inspections. That is an extra cost to the taxpayers of this province and I don't think it is needed. If this section passes and the act passes whereby police officers are supposed to go out and inspect motor vehicles, which they are not really qualified to do in the first place, do they receive a stipend from the government? Do you receive a little payment every time you go out and...?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Atlin in making some excellent comments on this bill, I must admit, but he is moving from section to section....

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, not this one. I did about five minutes ago but not this one.

[11:30]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I may, he has moved through several different sections. Each time he starts a new line he refers to another section. Good comments, no doubt, but I think better made during committee. Second reading, as I understand it, is to discuss the general principles of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would ask the member to go ahead, please.

MR. PASSARELL: That was the nicest thing the Minister of Forests has ever said. I have to take his judgment there and thank him.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I don't know if we're going to go that far. We need you back here in the next election.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: No, no, don't change. We really want you back now. Bill 23 allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, often the Premier, to make regulations on the installation of components in a motor vehicle or trailer. Now, I really don't believe

[ Page 2780 ]

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the expertise to make regulations regarding the installment of components in motor vehicles or trailers. I would rather see this aspect taken out as a general principle of the bill and referred to the superintendent of motor vehicles, instead of allowing the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council to make these kinds of decisions. I really don't understand why you need that kind of power and that authority.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What section is that under?

MR. PASSARELL: We are not supposed to talk about sections, Mr. Minister of Forests, as you know. If you started doing that I would have to stand up on a point of order and say we need to be in committee to do that. But the principle of the bill states that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who is often the Premier, can make regulations concerning the installment of components in motor vehicles. I really don't think that's needed in this bill. Somebody who has the technical expertise should do this, whether it's the superintendent of motor vehicles or someone in that ministry. I don't think the executive council needs that kind of regulation.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: When that light comes on I've got three minutes. All right? You've been quiet, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). You've sat there and listened to my speech. You're going to follow me in debate here as usual, and I've got three minutes.

There is so much more here that I have to say. If I said I was the designated speaker right now, would that light go off?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I have so much more to say on this, and I know the time is running out. A couple of things. First, as a recommendation to the minister, when you get these decals from the private companies, once this bill is passed, to be put on for safety inspection, please don't make them those "B.C. spirit" things. Okay? Find something else. Put a B.C. flag on it, but not the "B.C. spirit."

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Expo 86? I don't really care, but not that spirit stuff. That's bad.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Sure, I see a lot of spirit around here in the evenings. I know you would, Mr. Minister. Don't use those "B.C. spirit" things on it, because that gets too cheap. We're talking about safety of vehicles. We don't need the "B.C. spirit" on it. As a matter of fact, what I would really like is a picture — you could get a nice little decal — of the minister, maybe with some moose horns behind him. It would really be something unique for British Columbia, instead of this decal that you found down in Georgia or wherever it is you stick around....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Ontario.

Put the picture of the minister on it with some moose horns and a sun coming down behind him, and I think that would....

HON. A. FRASER: How about a grizzly bear?

MR. PASSARELL: A grizzly bear would be fine, or one of those cats that the minister came down 18,000 feet yesterday to pick up.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: The B.C. Lions are doing so well now that we don't want to — as the Premier did to the Vancouver Canucks one time when he jinxed them.... We want the B.C. Lions.... I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It has been a slice. Have a good day.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I did, however, want to speak on this bill, because this is a very important subject. We are talking essentially about people's lives, we're talking about accident prevention, and I think the government is proceeding in the right direction. The general drift of this bill, in other words, is right. We have inspection in this province, but it is inspection in certain areas only. It is inspection which is focused only on non-commercial passenger-car vehicles, and it is confined to parts of the lower mainland and the lower half of Vancouver Island. What we have is incomplete coverage as far as inspection is concerned, and also non-compliance.

I gather that roughly half of the population of the province is covered as far as inspection is concerned. At least the inspection facilities have been available to roughly half of the population. But the compliance has been in the order of 50 percent. In other words, in Vancouver city, for example, only half of the passenger cars will have been inspected in the last 12 months; only half carry valid decals. So half of the population has access to automobile inspection, and roughly half of those who have access comply. To me that adds up to one passenger vehicle out of four in this province carrying a valid decal. In other words, we really have only, on a provincewide basis, something in the order of 25 percent effective coverage. So one of the challenges facing the government and members of this Legislature is how to increase the coverage, how to increase the compliance. I believe this can be done in one of several ways. One, of course, is to make facilities for inspection generally available throughout the province. The other, of course, is to police the compliance where those facilities are available.

As the hon. member for Atlin has said, the circumstances vary considerably from one part of the province to another — from the highly populated, relatively dense area in Vancouver to the far north. So we cannot possibly have government-built, elaborate, well-manned, publicly owned inspection stations all over the province — inspection stations of the type that we've had since the 1930s in Vancouver, taken over postwar by the province, and increased in the sense that there is an inspection station in Burnaby, one in Victoria and one in Nanaimo. We have some inspection stations. They are relatively expensive to man. We have no better than 50 percent compliance. We have stations in existence — they are now being wound up, Mr. Speaker — which cannot possibly be

[ Page 2781 ]

copied in other parts of the province, certainly not in the more thinly populated parts. So it is logical to go to the private sector to recruit the help of competent mechanics in existing garages scattered across the province. Admittedly there are only some 2,500 of them, but they are much more out where the people are than the government stations that have existed are and than some additional stations which might make sense manned by the government could possibly be. So coverage dictates privatization, and going out and using the private facilities.

It's a costly operation to inspect; certainly it costs more than $5 or $7.50, the kind of price that's been charged latterly by the government. One report which has been circulating suggests $15. Surveys of various private garage organizations, chains and so on suggests something in the order of $30 is the cost of a thorough inspection of a vehicle. So we are talking about fees of an order of magnitude several times those which have been charged in the few government-owned and government-operated stations in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I am one of those who believe that the owners of motor vehicles, especially automobiles — but I would also include commercial vehicles operated for profit — should not be subsidized. I don't believe that the taxpayer should pay for the insurance on that vehicle or for the inspection of that vehicle. Therefore, in the case of government-operated stations, I believe that they should have long since raised the charge to something like $15 so that the operation could break even. I believe that if the cost out there is $20, $25 or $30, that is what the owner of the vehicle must pay and that there should be no element of subsidy whatsoever from the treasury, from the taxpayer, from people who don't own cars or who look after their own vehicles. They shouldn't be subsidizing those who need that kind of assistance in any way whatsoever. So: one, privatize; two, allow the private sector to charge a rate which is reasonably compensatory.

There is the obvious problem of policing the adequacy of the inspection to make sure that there isn't any skulduggery — to use the term employed by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). That is a challenge. That is one of the difficulties which we face as a committee. We have to come up with recommendations as to how the inspection in private garages can be properly administered so that those whose vehicles are inspected will get value for their money and will drive away with a safe vehicle, so that their lives and the lives of others on the highway are safe as a result of that inspection.

I think one of the obvious checks — and that is contained in this legislation — is giving police officers the power to stop vehicles and, if necessary, take to some properly authorized garage nearby for an inspection those vehicles which they may be unable to inspect properly themselves. Those spot checks, as long as they are frequent enough out there, will exert a kind of discipline and cause people to get their cars inspected. I gather this is the process which has been used for years in respect to many commercial vehicles. That operation has to be intensified, because, as I understand it, the number of commercial vehicles — trucks etc. — which have been found faulty on the highways by these spot checks is as high as one in four; 25 percent of the commercial vehicles out there, some of them massive vehicles on our highways, are unsafe at any speed, so to speak. So I think the spot-check approach, together with the licensing of private garages with competent staff, is the best way to get coverage across the whole, or most, of the province. Extremely remote areas will always present a great difficulty.

[11:45]

As to the frequency of inspection, there have been various recommendations. Some have recommended an annual inspection, others have said that a brand-new vehicle need not be inspected for the first three years, and then for the next few years every second year — this kind of thing. I gather we have in the order of 1.7 million or 1.8 million vehicles in the province. If we include privately owned passenger cars, taxis, school buses, trucks and heavy vehicles on the highways there is something in the order of 1.8 million vehicles, and if every one had to be inspected annually that would be 1.8 million inspections — that is, if there is 100 percent compliance. That's too many. That is far too big an effort. It has never been achieved in other jurisdictions. That is one of the reasons why I certainly would want to adopt the idea that the brand-new vehicle does not require inspection for a period of several years.

In the United Kingdom, I gather that all vehicles must be inspected prior to the third anniversary — that is before they become three years old — and every year thereafter. If we followed that system we would still have to inspect something like 1.5 million vehicles a year. If we went to the Ontario system, which is essentially inspection on sale — whenever the vehicle changes hands but not otherwise — if everyone was complying we'd be inspecting something like 400,000. Roughly, that's one-quarter as many per year as would be the case if we followed the British system.

Presumably, Mr. Speaker, the committee will be addressing these questions. How frequent should the inspections be? What should be their nature?

Again, the main thrust of this legislation is to have more extensive coverage as far as inspection is concerned and to have more thorough coverage, especially in the area of commercial vehicles. I agree with both of those objectives. I think they're correct. The challenge is how to do this reasonably, not only in the densely populated areas of the province such as the lower mainland, but throughout most or all of the province, and how to do it without imposing costs on people — especially outside the lower mainland — which they would find burdensome and to which they would object.

So, I think privatization to give the more extensive coverage is the route to go; indeed, it is the only route to go. I believe that the individual commercial and non-commercial vehicle owners should pay the full shot. The government should set a price or limit on the fee which is reasonable and sufficient to attract the garages. The government must have a flying squad to check up on these garages and certainly to check up on the condition of vehicles on the highway, regardless of ownership and regardless of whether they're commercial or non-commercial.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this legislation. I know that it's a step in the right direction. I know that we have a long way to go in terms of extensive coverage throughout the province and in terms of compliance. We have to have a reasonable system before we can expect people to comply; that's one of the challenges facing our committee.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I realize that many of the points were made in this debate when we discussed the

[ Page 2782 ]

motion to send it to a committee. But as it is such an important debate — as far as I'm concerned it is one of our major debates that will face this House — I would like you to bear with me, Mr. Speaker, as I repeat a couple of the arguments I brought up before.

First of all, I am only going to deal with one aspect when debating this bill; that is, the aspect of the privatization of the motor vehicle testing. The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) spoke in detail on the other aspects for us. The reason I say that this is such an important piece of legislation is that in all fairness.... I'm going to try to be fair to the government members; they have the same concerns as the members of the official opposition with the tremendous traffic fatalities. I don't think there is anyone over there who hasn't been touched one way or the other, directly or indirectly.

I am not up here to accuse members of the government of not being concerned with traffic deaths. What I am here for is to try to convince the government that the new route they're going to take in moving from mandatory government automobile testing to privatization is going to do exactly the opposite of what they hope it will. It will cause an increase in traffic deaths. That is why the members of the opposition are so concerned with this move, and that is why I am going to attempt.... I know it will be difficult, because I feel that the government, unfortunately, have made up their minds on this. But our duty is to try to bring up a few more points, hoping that the government will take a second look at what I consider to be a very regressive and almost, shall I say, stupid move in the light of statistics. I will point out why I say that.

I realize that the committee will go into details of how this is to come about. First of all, I would like to say that we're all aware of the tremendous problem of traffic safety. Without going through all the details, I would hope that the government members would read the ICBC traffic safety report which was brought out by an all-party committee of the House. Instead of going through it all with you, I would like to mention a couple of facts in starting my debate. First, 859 people were killed in traffic accidents last year in British Columbia. Over 44,000 were injured. One in seven vehicles were damaged in accidents. When you think of it, that would be equivalent to two huge jumbo jets colliding over the city of Victoria. You can imagine the uproar and the write-ups in the papers about the injuries from those deaths in a jumbo aircraft collision. Yet we have this tremendous number of people being killed every day in the province. Unfortunately it does not seem to arouse the public to the same degree.

I do not contend, in any way, that the mechanical failure of a motor vehicle is the major cause of traffic accident deaths. I've studied that enough with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who was on our committee. I know that it is not, but the point is that it is a factor. Mechanical failure is a strong factor in the cause of traffic deaths. Frankly I personally question the percentage as being somewhat low, because many traffic accidents, once the accident has occurred.... Really detailed checks are seldom made on whether the cause was truly mechanical failure. I know it is not always possible.

So, therefore, what are we going to do about it? We accept the fact that mechanical failures do cause many of our accidents. The NDP contend that the best way to solve this aspect of traffic deaths is to ensure that we have mandatory testing and that it be done at the least possible expense to the citizen, who is already overburdened. Of course it cannot put the government in the red; we understand that. But I contend that all those things can be taken care of best through the motor vehicle testing stations. If we start moving to privatization, we're going to juggle figures. There is no question about it. It is going to cost more money once it goes into the hands of private testing. Even the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who just took his seat, said that we had a problem in setting a fee that won't be too onerous because, after all, we have to set it high enough to attract the garage owners. You see, there is our basic difference in philosophy. We put traffic safety on a level where we say that there should be no profit made out of our moves to bring down traffic accidents. Yet this government is so obsessed with privatization that they're taking one of the most important areas that we face, the whole area of traffic accidents, and they're going to risk increasing them by turning them over to privatization. They admit themselves that they'll have to raise the cost because of it.

We hear all but the advantages. In the long run we're going to be able, perhaps, to test more. If the government had been serious about maintaining government testing, they could have expanded testing to a certain degree in other parts of the province, with some ingenuity. One of our members who spoke on the problems of testing in remote areas admitted that even with the move to privatization, it was going to be very difficult to bring cars down from very remote areas for testing. I contend that you're going to have many of the same problems in the rural areas.

But one of the things that really concerns me is that if testing is turned over to the private sector, we are going to have increased costs. What does that mean today? In my opinion, if it gets to the point where it is almost mandatory or semi-mandatory by spot checks, we are going to be putting a tax on the citizens of British Columbia — another tax for having their cars tested. The benefits will not go into public revenue, as they would have done if we had been able to increase our profit in the others. But do you know what is going to happen? That money that is going to go to the private sector will not go back into general revenue. It is going there strictly to benefit the private sector, at the expense of increased taxes on our citizens, who are already burdened with increased taxation,

As far as whether we break even or not in government, my feeling is that government should simply break even on that matter. It could be done, and even if there is a slight increase in the cost to the citizen, I can assure you that the average B.C. citizen would rather carry on with government motor vehicle inspection at a reasonable rate than be forced into paying up to $50 or maybe more to an individual garage owner. They know that that money is going.... Under compulsion, they are being forced to pay a private owner to have their car tested. Philosophically we are opposed to that. I think most of the citizens, who may not be NDP or Social Credit, or may not see this as any philosophical debate, don't care whether you privatize or not, but would consider it somewhat unfair if they're going to be ordered into a private garage for a test which may cost them double what it would under the government.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You have a choice, Eileen.

[12:00]

MRS. DAILLY: I don't understand that, according to the minister's introduction of the bill. We were not told that the owner is going to have a choice. Are we to understand, then,

[ Page 2783 ]

that government testing stations are going to be available if one wishes to use them?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, but you can choose the private one you want.

MRS. DAILLY: Ah, you can choose the private one! You see what we get down to, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe there is an option contained in section 7.

MRS. DAILLY: We're told that we're going to have a choice between one private owner and another. What a specious argument!

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: We are discussing traffic safety. We're not discussing going out and buying gasoline.

There is a basic issue here. We want to ensure that we cut down traffic accidents, and I contend that this move to privatization is going to increase traffic accidents, not decrease them. You know where most of the accidents take place? With our teenagers. I want to bring to your attention one of the other results that will take place when it is moved, if it is, to privatization. Buying a car, as we know, is one of the most important steps in most young people's lives. Often it is a used car. Do I need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the young person who manages to buy a car — gets his or her licence — is certainly hardly ever in a position to keep that car up to mechanical standards? I think we all know of people close to us who are in that position. At least when we had mandatory government testing, we knew that those cars in the lower mainland and Victoria area, where the bulk of the people reside — I know there is a problem in the north and in the other areas, and I am concerned about it — had to go in to be tested. But let's say that it now is mandatory, and we find that you are being forced into a private dealer to be tested.

What is going to happen? As usual, the teenager who happens to have money will be able to find the $50, but the one who doesn't have the money won't be able to do it. There again we have the difference between Social Credit and NDP. They are not concerned that this kind of thing can work in favour of those who have the money over those who don't. That's another problem. I don't think the government has even considered the effect on the low-income person, who, up till now, could take his car in and pay a reasonable amount for testing. Once it goes into private hands, as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) said, we have to make it basically lucrative for the private dealer. Once it happens, up goes the price. You know what we're going to find? More and more people will be unable to go in and have their cars tested. They're going to be driving around in cars that are mechanically unsafe, and everyone is going to be at risk because of this.

I don't think the government has thought this through. They may be concerned about traffic deaths — and, as I said in the beginning, I'm sure they are. But I am positive that this obsession with privatizing everything in British Columbia is going to produce some very serious negative results in traffic accidents. These are my main concerns.

I found it interesting when the member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) spoke –– I know I was accused of being somewhat inconsistent a few moments ago, but I want to give you the height of inconsistency. He stated at the beginning of his brief remarks that he was in favour of privatization and started off by saying: "It's been hit and miss up to now with government testing. It's really too costly." We always get the bottom line with the Social Credit government: "It's really too costly." What price is there on human lives? I am telling the government that if they want to see costs rise, they're going to see them rise tremendously with this move to privatization. Putting aside their concern over traffic deaths and accidents on the highway, if this government is so desperate to save money, I want to point out to them that they're not going to save money by this move, because of the increased traffic accidents that will follow. I notice that the Minister of Municipal Affairs continued to say, after he had opened his speech, that it is really too costly, and that was one reason we have to privatize. Then he said at the end of his speech: "It's not really a matter of cost." If the Minister of Municipal Affairs symbolizes the murky thinking of the government on this bill, all I can say is that the province is in deep trouble if this goes through.

This bill, to my mind, is indeed one of the most important, because if this bill goes through, I can say in all sincerity that the government is going to find that some of the automobile statistics that we have in front of us are going to be even more horrendous than what we face today. I sincerely believe that. Privatization for the sake of privatization is not the answer. Even when they go into their committee, the government is going to find that in moving to privatization they are going to create far more problems than they had ever conceived of before.

I agree that the problem of government testing was a problem when it came to not servicing the other areas of the province, but why on earth should that be the major reason for throwing out mandatory government testing, which, by the way, was known right across Canada as being one of our best programs? It was indeed successful, except for the areas not serviced. But surely a government committee could sit down and work out far more effective ways and means of extending mandatory government testing to the out-of-reach areas. They could far better spend their time doing that than trying to turn the whole system over to private industry.

I think that this committee, which has been mentioned before, will really be a charade, because the government has already made up its mind. But I say to them that in working out the details, they are going to find themselves with a tremendous amount of problems. I don't believe there is any way that it should have been done this way. This government not only goes backward, but it continues to do everything in a backward way. For an example, why did they not set up an all-party committee first to look at the pros and cons, if they had to, of privatization versus government? Instead, they brought a bill into the House that, once passed, turns it over to privatization.

Here again this government does not have a mandate to privatize everything in this province. The public did not ask for the privatization of motor vehicle testing. I don't believe that that was discussed. It might have been brought up on an individual basis by a Socred candidate who happened to feel committed to it, but I can tell you that the majority of people in British Columbia are concerned about making sure that when they go out in their car not only is their own car safe but so is the car coming toward them. There were no great complaints about the basic principle of government testing.

[ Page 2784 ]

Everyone used to complain about lineups, but surely that is not the reason that the government has brought in this bill.

If any bill should be withdrawn and studied and given to the public to come to speak on it, it is this bill. I can almost guarantee that the majority of B.C. citizens would say that they want protection and they want it done through mandatory government testing. They are really going to question why a government that professes to be concerned about traffic accidents would indeed embark upon privatization, which inevitably is not going to decrease but instead cause an increase in accidents. I ask the government to stop this bill. If you want to discuss it, put it into a committee, but do not push a bill like this through the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the next member the Chair will observe to the House that we have an interesting timing situation here with another forum that is discussing similar matters. However, the Chair must observe — and I appreciate the delicacy and finesse that must be observed by all members in debating second reading on this bill — that it would be a discourtesy to that other forum to anticipate some of its findings. I'm sure the members appreciate the problem the Chair will have, and I sincerely appreciate the problems the members will have in debating the bill before us now.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's interesting that you should make those comments just prior to the member for Omineca taking his place.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Hardly. I stand to support this bill. I've listened to much interesting debate this morning, and I find myself in my usual position of disagreeing with both sides.

I stand, I believe, to speak on behalf of northerners, because it is northerners I represent in this House. I would like to say on their behalf that we don't want any testing at all. It is on that basis that I herald this bill and what it does — the shutting down of five testing stations which exist only in the lower mainland at a cost of some $3 million a year plus. No one this morning has mentioned in this House the rental that's paid for those five testing stations to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation by the Ministry of Highways. They cost $3 million a year plus that rental for a service of which no one in the northern 80 percent of this province can partake. Besides that, I say again — and I've had a lot of input from constituents in my riding — that we don't want any testing at all, because we can take care of ourselves, thank you very much. We have taken care of ourselves for years, thank you very much. We have for years ensured that the vehicles we drove on the roads in British Columbia were safe, thank you very much, and we can continue without socialist schemes to do just that. We don't have to have the old womb to tomb philosophy where Big Brother government has to hold our hand. No one would agree with that more than yourself, Mr. Speaker, being from the north.

[12:15]

Again I say we don't want any testing at all, and I would caution the minister and the committee that has been set up in this House to look into what should be done in the area of vehicle testing in this province not to bring in anything that is mandatory as far as vehicle inspection in this province is concerned. I seriously believe that the drivers and vehicle owners of this province can and will look after themselves in the area of vehicle testing. No way should government be involved. Not only should government not be involved in that, but government shouldn't be involved in a whole lot of other things that government is involved in which affect the everyday lives of the citizens of this province.

There's been a lot of talk here this morning about the cost. One of the comments was: "What price is human life?" That's a very valid comment, but I don't think it should be made in the context of arguing or debating this bill. The member that just took her place cited a report brought into this House on July 21, 1982, called "Traffic Safety in British Columbia." It was done by a committee of this House called the Committee on Crown Corporations. I'll go further into speaking in regard to that committee when and if — and I hope it will happen — Bill 21 is called in this Legislature, because I've got a whole lot to say about that committee and the tragedy of it having been done away with in this province. If you read that report — and I'll read parts of it here this morning — on traffic safety in British Columbia, which, incidentally, for those members who do not know, has been heralded as one of the best safety reports in history, it points out very clearly and did a great in-depth study into what it is that causes traffic accidents, particularly in the province of British Columbia. It came up quite conclusively with the information that it certainly isn't equipment and the malfunctioning of equipment that causes traffic accidents in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I'll read just a little from this report: "While these major factors can combine" — and they were talking about human factors, vehicle and equipment factors; problems external from the driver — "in an accident, the most significant is the human factor — errors of recognition-perception, decision or performance...." Human performance is implicated in over 90 percent of all vehicle crashes in the province of British Columbia — not the condition of the vehicle at all. Of the 10 percent remaining, a very small percentage has to do with vehicle failure itself.

So, Mr. Speaker, what are we really arguing here this morning? It's a real fallacy to argue in this Legislature as to whether or not we should be operating government vehicle testing stations. I believe that given the facts of the matter, we shouldn't be arguing that question at all. I'll be able to argue some of that when Bill 21 is called. What we really need in this province, as this report points out quite conclusively, is a proper, valid and working traffic safety committee. That's what we need. We do not need to test the vehicles of this province; we need to educate the drivers. If we can educate the drivers of this province, we can cut down all of the vehicle accidents by at least 90 percent. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, at the same time we can save the $3 million plus that was being spent on the five testing stations, which did the northern communities absolutely no good at all, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) said. That's what we need to be arguing in this chamber. To argue anything else in regard to traffic safety is a complete waste of time of this Legislature.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I heard debate from both sides of the floor talking about the cost of testing stations, the costs of vehicle testing to the people of this province. I have a great respect for the entrepreneur in this province, and I have a great respect for the citizen — the vehicle owner of this province. Given a

[ Page 2785 ]

combination of those two, there is no need for mandatory inspection of vehicles. The member for Atlin talked about distances. Mr. Speaker, we in the north look after our vehicles. If we didn't, it wouldn't be a case of them being necessarily involved in accidents; it would be a case of sitting out in the boondocks 100 miles from nowhere freezing to death in the middle of January. If we didn't take care of our vehicles, that's exactly what would happen to us. We don't have those frills of the lower mainland to have even our very minor roads and highways paved. So we look after them ourselves. I would suggest that we must continue. I would not support any recommendation that was brought into this House that would involve any kind of mandatory vehicle inspection in this province, because I don't think it's necessary and I don't think the people — certainly the people of the north — want it. They do not.

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset I was going to be brief. I will. I think I've said all I want to say on this bill and on the motion which set up the committee which is going to be looking into the possibilities of doing something other than was done with the five testing stations. I just want to leave this assembly with this point: we don't need that "womb to tomb" philosophy, particularly where it relates to vehicle testing. We don't even need vehicle testing, so why are we arguing the point here in this Legislature? What we should really be doing is putting our heads together and thinking seriously. I would commend the reading of this report to all hon. members of this House. This is what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker, not arguing as to whether we should have government vehicle testing stations or not.

MR. MITCHELL: I always find it amusing when I listen to my official critic, the member for Omineca, when he ruins a good speech by his rhetoric and political philosophy. Actually, a lot of what he did say was reasonably intelligent, except that he goes off and has to make some vicious attack on the welfare of people when you're dealing with human resources and pensions and everything else. Testing cars has nothing to do with the "womb to tomb" philosophy. This is where I think the whole government attack on government services has been directed from a politically motivated philosophy. When the cabinet was sitting making up their hit list, the good member for Cariboo, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), had to come up with something that was going to attack something down in the government services that are now being provided. So he came up with this particular attack without giving it the reasonable thought that is needed. If you're going to change something that you have established, then you do it in a reasonable way with some long-range thoughts.

I would say the most positive part of this bill is that they've taken out of the hands of the cabinet and put in the hands of the superintendent the power to make the decisions on where the testing stations will be and what the requirements will be. In spite of what I know the members of the government side will say, the superintendents of the motor vehicle branch, because of their experience, their day-to-day opportunity to see what is needed to correct some of the faults of the driving public, are better prepared to make recommendations than something pushed through the cabinet from a political nature. I think we should review what the motor vehicle stations have done in the past and where we're at now.

Vehicle inspections were started in Vancouver. They were started because somebody wanted to create a bureaucracy for his own particular self or his family, or something of that nature. They were started because back in the thirties a lot of vehicles — maybe because of the Depression and lack of funds — that were being driven on the roads of Vancouver were unsafe. It was just common sense that if we were going to protect the other travelling public, we must have some safety standards on those roads.

In those days the back roads of Omineca and the Fraser Valley weren't as thick and crowded with cars. A lot of the back roads of Dewdney and Surrey back in the thirties were farm roads. A lot of vehicles that were reasonably safe on a quiet road were not necessarily safe to drive in the city of Vancouver at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a double standard.

[12:30]

MR. MITCHELL: There is a double standard. There's a standard of safety. It's not so much a double standard; it's actually looking at the facts as they really are. I think we have to look at the facts of the situation that we have without trying to make one law that's going to cover everything. When you do that, when you try and stamp out every one of us in a mold, so that every situation can be answered by one statement, it doesn't work. The safety standards as developed in Vancouver were then adopted by other major cities as the traffic became heavier and, with the types of vehicles that were on the road, the speeds became more apparent. You must have some group or organization that has the authorization to keep abreast of changing vehicle and traffic patterns, vehicle construction and the economics of what is happening out in the traffic world.

I think the evolution of the testing stations in the greater Victoria area and out into Burnaby and Nanaimo was something that grew from need. I think they recognized that the particular need for testing was more apparent in the heavily populated cities than it was in the rural areas. I believe that that philosophy was sound. I believe it was something that developed.... I know that in the developing stage, for political reasons, the government was not prepared to raise the rates, so that the rates actually represented the cost of giving that service. This has been one of our major problems in British Columbia. If it is going to be a government service, then for political reasons we must keep the rates down. So they were prepared to subsidize it. This is what has happened. Now they are using that political philosophy of subsidization to say: "Well, we are losing money."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know from the vast majority of people I have talked to on a regular basis that as long as you are paying the cost of the inspection the general public is not unhappy. I believe that if there is a need to increase the inspection service, we should take the testing stations out into Prince George and the other more urban rural areas with the same traditions according to which the original inspections stations were set up. I believe the original philosophy is sound, that cars in the real rural areas.... It is not as necessary to have the more sophisticated standards you have in the heavily populated cities. I think that what is going to happen.... I know that the government and members of the Social Credit caucus feel

[ Page 2786 ]

that private enterprise is going to solve everything. But what is really going to happen politically is that the greed of the garages, when they know that not only do they have a monopoly to do an inspection but....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I'll put it on the record. What is going to happen is that once you get....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, what you are going to have and these are the facts of political life.... Once you have the power to give a....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, this debate has been so refined so far. Please, order.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not going to apologize. He's my House Leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Other members who wish to participate may do so when it is their turn.

MR. MITCHELL: You know what is going to happen. As I say, once a particular garage is appointed to do the inspection, you are going to get the greed set in. It has happened in Ontario and in every area where you have the government clout of making something mandatory. Then you have an opportunity for a particular business to add $3, $5, $10, or another 5 percent. It happens consistently. I think if you go back, Mr. Speaker, to when car insurance was really competitive, when you went out and bought your car insurance there was competition. But once the government brought in mandatory car insurance, then the rates started to escalate. The escalation of those rates paved the way.... You know, Mr. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), that once the government brought in mandatory insurance, you had to have a pink slip in those days....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it would be improper for me not to speak on the adjournment motion. As you know, the time motion opens up the availability of debate. I can't help but remind the House that for three weeks or more now we've worked virtually around the clock. As a matter of fact, I recall a debate on a bill recently that was 23½ hours in length. My feeling is that the government in their haste — suddenly that haste has disappeared — provided the members of this House with some situations where there could be health impairment; the well-being of members was not being considered. I think that the debate diminished in its usefulness by virtue of that, and then all of a sudden we find ourselves in a position where we can disappear for four days. I've heard a number of people in this House talking about the objectionable expense for the public when we keep this Legislature open. Yet we find now that that time is available for a four-day break.

I want to speak on behalf of the opposition to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we find this objectionable in context.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: In context. It's not that we feet the Socreds shouldn't go to their convention. I think that's useful and proper. But under the circumstances we feel that it's objectionable — putting it into the context of the way that this Legislature has worked and the way that we've been driven, I contend, by a person who seldom sets foot in this House and certainly hasn't done so for some length of time. Mr. Speaker, that's our objection to this whole situation.

We wish you well at your convention; we wish that you have the success that you want. But we feel abused by virtue of the fact that we have worked around the clock, and then suddenly there's time available for a political convention. I think the facts are there before us all. We all realize that somehow or other the members on both sides of this House have been placed in a position of jeopardy by virtue of the fact that the government, with its weight, has decided to push the opposition right to the wall. We want that on the record. We wish you well at your convention — depart in peace.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it should not go unnoticed that in speaking to this motion.... I understand that for a good number of years — years before I arrived here — this tradition has been fully and completely observed by both parties. That courtesy was extended by the NDP when it was government between 1972 and 1975, and it has been extended by this government on previous occasions.

[ Page 2787 ]

The other aspect is that, lest anyone think that we will have a two-day convention and then two and a half days off, the work of government goes on. It should be observed that there is to be a full-day cabinet meeting next Monday — certainly lasting all day, if not into the early evening — to review matters with respect to the 1984-85 fiscal year. So I wouldn't want interested observers of this House to assume that we will now bustle off to a convention, have a delightful couple of days and then not worry about British Columbia until some time after noon on Tuesday.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Rogers moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.