[ Page 2863 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On section 7 –– 2863

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

On section 9 –– 2869

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 19 –– 2870

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Ree

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Kempf

Mr. D'Arcy

On vote 20 –– 2876

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Appendix –– 2878

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

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

Leave granted.

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

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

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

Section 1 approved.

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

Amendment approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 7, in a sense I suppose I want to make an admission, one that many, many hundreds of people in this province would make; that is, for quite a number of years now — I don't know how long — I haven't had an inspection sticker on my automobile. I've never had it inspected. I've never been approached about having it inspected. I think that what I'm saying now, a great many people in the north are saying: that so far it has been a kind of meaningless thing in terms of inspections. They just do not take place.

We are now proceeding in an area where the cabinet may make some regulations in this matter, requiring an inspection as to safety and repair of motor vehicles. We're all very favourably disposed to having on the highway motor vehicles that meet safety standards and that are kept repaired and in good condition so they're not a hazard either to the driver or to other drivers or pedestrians. The question that arises is, now that the government wants to move in this particular direction of embracing the whole of the province in a formal way on the inspection system, how much is it going to cost the individual motor vehicle owner? The regulations, presumably — if they say so — will require the inspection and the like, and will prescribe the fees payable to the province. Oh, that one was altered. What's all of this going to cost the driver?

HON. A. FRASER: Really, I don't think anybody knows. There's a lot of speculation regarding that. We've had written offers and so on, but I think the costs will be fully discussed in the committee that's set up. I've even seen advertisements, since this bill, from the commercial sector, saying: "We will do your inspection if you'll buy such-and-such from this station." So I guess we're in a competitive market, and that's what hopefully will happen in the private sector: a fee based on a competitive market for the charge.

MR. HOWARD: Usually where there's a demand by law for something to be done, and in order to have that done the person needs to approach the private sector, the competitive factor is whatever amount the market will bear. There is no competition in that kind of scenario, and there hasn't been in the past. Where something is demanded to be done, the theory of the so-called forces of the marketplace that tend to offer a service of better quality, or whatever, at a lower price disappears. You end up paying whatever the person who provides the service, either by himself or in concert with others in that locale, determines the market will bear. So the competitive aspect of it is nonsense. It's just not going to prevail.

I submit that the movement of the cost of following out the requirement here is going to be upwards, to a level where those who are providing the service feel it's going to be profitable to them. There will be a tendency, as there is in similar circumstances where there is a demand factor by legislation for something to happen, for conspiracies to develop to charge as much as possible. Unless the minister, taking that into cognizance, is prepared to put into effect some price limitations or controls on this kind of activity, the poor individual who owns the motor vehicle is going to have to pay through the nose for something that previously — in some parts of the province only — had been paid for out of tax dollars spread all across the province, because it was absorbed totally therein. This is what's going to occur, I submit to you.

Some sort of price control needs to be put into effect on this. It would seem to me that the cabinet, in making those determinations, should protect the consumer so that he or she is not ripped off by unscrupulous elements — and they do exist in our society — that could very easily, and probably would if the opportunity presents itself, take advantage of the demand factor of the law in order to move the price up to suit them rather than the consumer.

[8:15]

HON. A. FRASER: The member raises a good point here. It is the intent to set the rate that will be allowed. I might point out that we've had an inequity going on in the province. A lot of discussion and speculation has been taking place in the media and so on, but from what we can ascertain it's been costing about $15 to run the lower mainland and Vancouver Island testing stations, and we were charging $5. So the people of Skeena have been subsidizing those stations by about $10 per vehicle.

MR. HOWARD: What else is new?

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

MR. HOWARD: That may well be, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) knows as well, as does the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan)

[ Page 2864 ]

and other members in the House, that we've been paying through the nose to provide whatever it is that's provided in the lower mainland, including things like B.C. Place, as an example.

There may be some rationale for doing it this way, if taxes were to be reduced. But what I see happening here is that everybody throughout the province is now going to be paying the same, or higher, taxes for a service that they're not getting, because the service is being wiped out. Taxes aren't going to come down by that $10 per vehicle subsidy, or whatever it was. So what will be happening now is those of us in Skeena will still be paying the $10 into the treasury, plus paying the extra amount, whatever it might be, that the inspection stations will charge. We're not any better off in this situation; in fact, we are worse off. If the minister can say to the people in Skeena who are putting in $10, as they were before, that their tax is going to be reduced by the $10, I'm sure we'll go for that. But without that all he's asking the people in Skeena, Prince George South and Cariboo to do is to continue paying the high level of taxes, and on top of that to pay for this mythological thing called privatization which is going to reduce costs. It is nonsense; it is not going to reduce costs. We'll just be paying extra.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't that it was for difficult times.... The allocation of government money from taxpayers is very hard pressed. Even with restraint, with a $1.6 billion projected deficit, obviously taxes can't be reduced. The saving in providing equity for the people from the interior, whether it's South Okanagan, Kelowna, Prince George, Nelson or Quesnel, in subsidizing a service that was only provided in the lower mainland, means that those dollars are freed to help our health care system and those programs that are being maintained in Human Resources. Certainly the Chairman would know that as much as it's been difficult to make decisions on preserving essential services by eliminating some which while desirable may have to have the tough decision to remove them while we come through this difficult period.... Because of this, because these sorts of things are providing equity and at the same time leaving responsibility with the individual on an equal basis around the province, and where the inspections can take place in the lower mainland as they do in the interior.... I have personal knowledge of the inspections that do take place in the interior on a regular basis to reinforce everyone's own responsibility to try to keep their vehicles in safe and working condition. It is the sort of thing we must do at these times, these types of decisions, which have assisted our Minister of Human Resources to have this allocation. Perhaps the member for Skeena might think it's small, but I think our people would like to see that money reallocated to preserve what programs we can in Human Resources. Many people, of course, know for a fact that British Columbia has more social programs under the Minister of Human Resources than any other province...

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...other than Alberta, because of savings that are made by decisions such as this by the Minister of Transportation and Highways bringing this equity in...

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the inspection stations, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and ending an inequity around the province, but making sure that these dollars can be better spent. Yes, they can't be shown, as the member for Skeena says, in tax reductions right now, but they certainly have been of great assistance to the Minister of Human Resources and the people who need assistance at this difficult time.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that all members would say that the people of the lower mainland are no less responsible than those people of the interior have been in maintaining their vehicles. I think it would be folly to suggest that the people of the interior, while they haven't had subsidized public testing stations, have left their vehicles in disrepair and have been unsafe drivers. That certainly would be an unfair charge against the people of the constituency I represent or the constituency that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) represents. In fact, some of the arguments suggest that the government must continually take the place of individual responsibility.

Here we have the benefits of both worlds: a chance to challenge our people, end inequity, and make sure that the savings that have been made can go into those very essential programs for people that the Minister of Human Resources is noted for fighting for.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 43.

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

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

I take this particular debate — and I have from the very beginning of the introduction of this bill — as a very serious debate. I think the argument made by the Premier was a very specious, vacuous argument. He was attempting to pit the rural areas against the city, to try to put across this obsession that the Social Credit government has with privatization.

The point that we're concerned about, and I say this to the minister in charge of the bill.... I realize we're discussing it clause by clause, which the Premier obviously completely ignored. This particular clause is suggesting the regulations and so on that will guide the movement to the privatization of motor vehicle inspections. Mr. Chairman, the minister has tried to suggest to us that this will bring about a more even safety inspection.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. Number one, did you do any studies on this before this was brought in? On what did you base this major move to dispense with government motor vehicle testing, moving towards privatization? Do you really believe that it is fair to bring in a bill which is going to impose a substantial sum of money on every citizen who has to go to a private station to have their car tested? You are unable to give the House any estimation of the cost.

You hide behind the same philosophy as the Premier which I frankly think is disgraceful — that the government has no responsibility in the area of traffic accidents and traffic safety when it comes to vehicle investigation. The Premier

[ Page 2865 ]

keeps saying, and you have too, that it's up to individuals to look after their own cars. What a ridiculous argument in 1983! This is the very government that insisted that everyone in this province wear seatbelts, which I happen to agree with. I gave credit to the Social Credit government for bringing that in. But at the same time, you are now turning around and saying to us that it's up to individuals to look after their cars mechanically, without any inspection. The Premier of the province actually said to us in this House that his government no longer cares about whether a car on the highway is safe or not. I say that is abrogating your responsibility as a government. You should be ashamed of yourselves for presenting us with this bill.

I ask the minister: on what studies did you base your change to privatization? We haven't heard what studies this was based upon, and yet at the same time we have heard that a study has been presented to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by people in his own ministry stating that it is going to increase accidents on the roads. Has the Minister of Highways, who is bringing in this bill, been made privy to that study?

Why have you brought it in? What studies have you based it on? Will you tell us what right you have to impose an extra cost on the citizens of British Columbia, forcing them into private stations? I'd like to have answers to those questions.

HON. A. FRASER: I think I've already answered some of those questions. The member mightn't have been here. I'll go back again. First of all, the attack on the Premier wasn't warranted. You're correct, though, in saying that he and I talk the same language, and that's to privatize the inspection of the motor vehicle branch and try to get the government to some extent off the backs of our citizens. But we're not abandoning motor vehicle inspection; we're going to do it in a different model. Furthermore, we only had half the province, or less, covered under the old system. We didn't have the rest of the province covered as far as motor vehicle inspections are concerned. I'm talking about the private car, not the commercial vehicles or the school buses; they're all covered and remain covered under the proposals here.

Regarding studies, yes, certainly a lot of things were looked at. I reported to the committee on second reading that in studies that I have seen, mechanical failures contribute to about 7 percent of the accidents we have. I have already reported that. Maybe the member missed that, but it's certainly a factor that we have to look after. But it also is in the Motor Vehicle Act — and always has been even prior to these testing stations — that the individual is responsible for the mechanical condition of his vehicle. That's not changing, and that's a fact of life.

[8:30]

As far as cost is concerned, you say: "What extra cost is it to our citizens?" Well, that's what we have a committee study about, and I hope it isn't too much of an extra cost to the citizen, if any. I have reported further here that of all the figures that have been battered around, we were charging $5, but it was costing the treasury of British Columbia $15 a vehicle. So that's all cost to the individual taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. That really covers most of what you have asked.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that they want to get the government off the backs of the people. Well, I don't suggest that it's any solution to get governments off the backs of the people only to sick the private mechanics onto the backs of the people. What we've got here is compulsory motor vehicle testing. Motor vehicle testing has been done very efficiently in the metropolitan communities — I think up in Nanaimo; I'm not sure about that, but I know certainly in Victoria and Vancouver. You can go there any time of the day; it doesn't normally take more than an hour and sometimes 20 minutes. There is a convenience. For those of us up in the interior, there hasn't been any kind of testing, but here we are proposing a setup where the government can dictate the fees and decide who will be authorized to inspect vehicles.

Mr. Chairman, normally when it is compulsory for citizens to undergo something that is going to cost them money, there is either the provision of that service by government or there is a review by some type of utility commission. The Public Utilities Commission, for instance, looks at rates for natural gas and electricity. The federal government commission looks after telephone rates and various things like that. For many years in this province, to my way of thinking, we had the very incongruous situation of compulsory auto insurance, but you were compelled to get auto insurance from private companies who did not serve us well. The automobile insurance agents argue that the car insurance system we have right now is the best kind of system, and so I believe it is with motor vehicle testing.

Mr. Chairman, who is going to guard the guardians? How are these fees going to be set? If they are just going to be set by cabinet order, there is no opportunity for intervention. What is the opportunity for intervention of the public in terms of reviewing authorized inspectors' and authorized garages' qualifications for inspection? When does the public have an opportunity to be heard? This does not go before any sort of a public utility commission.

I remember when I was at university there were some people who talked about people in different levels fitting into different niches, and they kind of put mechanics at a low level. I remember this one professor of ours, Jack Regal, who really put the person who suggested that in his place. He said: "Look, we need high-IQ mechanics. As soon as I came to Vancouver, I was looking for a high-IQ mechanic." Similarly I have sought out high-IQ mechanics, and I found a couple of different places in Nelson where there is such a rare prize — well, I hope not too rare — but certainly for me a gift.

Mr. Chairman, what happens when you just arrive in some place? I recall when I first arrived in Nelson. I had a certain brand of car, and the dealer for that brand of car was involved in two court cases where they had been supplying used parts for new parts. I went into that dealership, having worked in a garage for many years of my life, I doped out the situation and soon assessed that I did not have the best service. What is the guarantee? What is the indication? How is government going to decide which garages are providing shoddy service and which are providing good service? I could recommend a good garage right here in Victoria — Bruce Whitten, out there on Fairfield Street, a Gulf station. Fantastic, a good high-IQ mechanic. That was the one I found in Victoria. But I think in terms of motor vehicle safety inspection, we should be striving to retain that which we have.

We talked about getting government off the backs of people. If it costs $15 per inspection, and if you can prove that and if a committee of this House were instructed to look

[ Page 2866 ]

into the actual cost, then make it user-pay. Perhaps automobiles are one area where user-pay would be justified more than anything else — more than the way we have tried to strive toward user-pay on the ferry service and with other utilities that the government provides. Let's go to user-pay, and let's at least maintain that kind of a window on the industry in terms of inspections.

I'm not against authorizing inspectors up in the interior, where we don't have the population to justify a huge motor vehicle inspection station. But I don't see why we should throw out that which we have and that which I can remember, I think, dating back to the thirties. I remember going with my father in his 1934 Ford through the motor vehicle testing station on Georgia Street. That has served us very well, and for this government to say that they can't afford it is an admission of failure and an admission that this government has turned its priorities around.

I can accept, after many of the mistakes that this government has made, that perhaps there is a need for their austerity program. I know that this government has embarked upon the austerity program, but making this move is not based upon economics. We do not have to give this power to government simply to set fees. I can't accept the argument that we have to get government off the backs of people. If the user fee is $15 — which is what the minister said — I would like to see that minister guarantee that the rate would not be more than that for the next.... Since we've only got 5 percent inflation to look forward to over the next two years, I would assume that the minister could guarantee that rates would rise no more than $17.50 over the next two years. I'm sure he could agree to that, because that minister feels that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. If it is true that it is so, then surely the private sector can do it for $15. In fact, they should be able to do it for $10, if we accept the minister's argument.

So I ask the minister: how is the public going to have any input into the fees and the review of fees? What equivalent to the public Utilities Commission is going to be provided to the public? What appeal is going to be provided to the public in terms of shoddy workmanship? What guarantee is the public going to be given that the practices — such as creating little problems for motor vehicles in order to bring people back to the garage again and again, which has been known to happen in the industry — will not occur? The public becomes captive to certain people. I do not want to go to anybody but one of two dealers in the Nelson area, yet they're all going to be authorized.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. NICOLSON: Sure, I want to go either to Bob Tremblay out at Eight Mile on the North Shore Road or to Bill Apostoliuk in Nelson. I want to go nowhere else for inspection of my vehicles. What guarantee do I have that those two dealers are going to be authorized?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think that our very fair-minded and gracious Minister of Transportation and Highways is to be congratulated this evening, not hectored, because he fully appreciates the value of motor vehicle testing. He has very clearly stated in his remarks to the members across the way just a few moments ago that we are not abandoning motor vehicle testing. I'd like to repeat it: we're not abandoning motor vehicle testing. I say thank God for that. If we were, I would have some second thoughts about this bill, I can assure you. He recognizes that testing can be a lifesaver. He fully appreciates that fact, and he is also providing a procedure and process whereby it can be provincewide, where it is not today. This is a forward step. He is a great minister. Nicely done.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of words. He has abandoned it, the House Leader notwithstanding. Maybe sooner or later we may get back into it again. That's what we are discussing tonight, I gather, and that's what the committee is all about.

I just want to ask one question, and that question has to do with the cost. The minister had under him a superintendent of motor vehicles who said that automobile testing at $5.50 as opposed to $5 would have broken even. The minister, on the other hand, says tonight, for the first time, that it cost $15 or more to test a motor vehicle. Who is right? It strikes me that the superintendent has had a fair amount of experience over the years, and I have never known that particular superintendent to be anything but dreadfully honest. So I am really at sixes and sevens with respect to this whole question of testing. Maybe the minister has something to say about spreading it out over the province or this or that or the other thing, but I do know that for the minister to be $10 or thereabouts different from the superintendent of motor vehicles is a major difference, and I would just like the minister to tell us on what basis he is making his prognostication.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the superintendent advises me that he was misquoted. But apart from that, what he did use when he used the figure was only the actual salaries. He did not in any way take into account the rentals of BCBC and all the additional charges. Since that has had a fair amount of media attention I asked for the actual cost, and it comes to almost $15. It wouldn't be $5 and it wouldn't be $5.50 if you consider all the real estate values and so on and add them in there. As you know, in our estimate book they aren't really tied together, but when you tie them together accountingwise that's what happens.

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

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

Back to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). You made a lot of statements, Mr. Member. First of all — maybe I haven't made this clear — the government will set the rates. They will also administer the program, and if we have shoddy operators in the system they will just have their licences rescinded.

Interjection.

[8:45]

HON. A. FRASER: When does the public...? Well, we're right in that sphere now, and I think your party agree that we're committing with the House committee.... The public can come to that, and they are coming to that, as a matter of fact, next week. That is certainly the most public place in the world. The other thing is I always get a kick out of hearing that everything will be decided by the cabinet behind

[ Page 2867 ]

closed doors. That's correct, but it's always made public, and then the public certainly have their opportunity to complain, and they certainly do. Decisions made there are made public, as you know. That's decided by the public out there, but they have access to the administration and to the government to make their complaints. We have the same system, really, going on now about ferry rates, as far as that goes. That is recommended by the B.C. Ferry Corporation to the cabinet — they stamp their approval on it and that's it. So I don't see that we're departing from a great principle in this setup here.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the minister. Does the minister believe in mandatory inspection of cars in this province?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, but I'd like to see some changes in the actual plan. I think we can improve on the plan. One thought, and I guess it will come up in committee: I am not so sure that a brand-new vehicle needs to be inspected every 12 months, as was the case before. I think we can vary it as to the age of the vehicle and things like that. But on that basis, yes.

MRS. DAILLY: I understand that the minister is saying that in his opinion.... I realize there is a committee set up, but you are the minister and would opt for the fact that every vehicle in B.C. should still go through mandatory testing, except for certain exemptions for those of a certain age. Is that correct?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, because of the safety factor some control should be done, and that's what this proposes. I used to be in the business. I don't think new vehicles — I'm talking about passenger cars — need to be government inspected once a year; possibly every two years. Older vehicles need it more often than every 12 months, maybe twice a year. We are continuing with the commercial and school buses; that's going to continue on as it always has. As a matter of fact, we intend to step it up.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I must say I am pleased to hear that the minister believes in continuing, mandatory testing. That wasn't quite clear in some of the reports that have come out re his government's change to privatization. If the minister believes in mandatory testing for the majority of vehicles in B.C., would he then answer this question: does it mean that every vehicle which is not exempted will have to go to some private station in British Columbia for a test?

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

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

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

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

HON. A. FRASER: e have capable administrators; hopefully, they will find out what it really should cost, what the reception in the private sector is and arrive at a figure that they can make a dollar at. It will be at an economic price to the motorist.

MRS. DAILLY: Does the minister say, then, that his government believes it is right to force a citizen of British Columbia to go to a private dealer to have a car tested, which they must pay for individually? In other words, that person is being forced to pay money to a private operator in the province of British Columbia. They have no choice. They must go and give their money to a profit-making institution. Is that correct'?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is yes.

MRS. DAILLY: Do you mean that there is no choice and that every person in British Columbia is now going to be forced to go to help someone else in this province? Are they going to be forced to go to a private station, without any choice at all? Do they have to go to a private station and pay a certain sum of money? The money that they pay is not going back into the tax revenues to help all the people of this province. Instead it is going to go to one individual operator. Is that correct?

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

MRS. DAILLY: So you mean to say that we are now turning back a plan where everyone who could went within the area that was already set up and paid their money and whatever it cost we knew at least that it was going through general revenue. But now we know you are being forced to go to a private operator. That money will go to the private operator and will not benefit all the citizens of British Columbia. Yet it is compulsory and set by the government. Is that your philosophy?

HON. A. FRASER: I think the statement you made is that it benefits the vehicle operator as well as the service station. Hopefully it does. They'll have a better and safer vehicle after the inspection. They'll pay the private operator for it. Hopefully it benefits every motorist.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister must be aware that this cost could go up to $50 and that there are many people in the province of British Columbia today who simply are not going to be able to afford that. Mr. Minister, what is going to happen to the individual in British Columbia who cannot afford that increased sum of money? What is going to be the penalty for not being able to go and pay money to a private operator?

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

HON. A. FRASER: I'm sorry. I can't answer that. Whether you're talking $15 where I'm talking $15, it's what our cost is at the present time. I use that figure to try to get some rationales because I've seen in the press $50, $5, $5.50 and so on. But what I'm saying the actual cost is.... Maybe the private operators will bid $10, maybe they'll bid $20. I don't know. The private people are coming to meet the committee next week, so I hope we'll learn from that.

[ Page 2868 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Unfortunately, maybe we're going to pass the bill this evening. If the private sector can't do it for less than $15, say, then why should we taxpayers pay a voluntary tax in excess of what we need? The minister has also said older cars may be required to go twice a year. That means that perhaps a mint 1956 Jaguar is going to have to go twice a year, but a piece of junk from Detroit, right out of the showroom and subject to all kinds of recalls, with brake pedals that go right down to the floor, is going to be allowed to go for two years. Does that make sense, Mr. Minister? What is the rationale of forcing a quality car, maybe by its year, to be classified with all others of that same year? People who drive older cars tend not to have the ability to pay for two inspections a year, as opposed to people who have newer cars getting by with one per year. Where are the dangerous cars? Look at all the recalls we see. Look at Unsafe At Any Speed by Ralph Nader. Remember the Chevrolet.... What was the one with the engine in the rear? Corvair. That was a brand-new car, but it wasn't safe. The Ford Pinto.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

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

MR. NICOLSON: He should at least be sitting down in some seat somewhere. Maybe over here, or over there. Even back here, but to be standing up and heckling, not at his place....

Quite seriously, I find that this thing is quite a mess. I want to ask the minister why he doesn't introduce this concept maybe in the interior, but leave the existing concept where we have the very efficient installations, where we have the infrastructure. You might capitalize the value of all these things and the real estate that they sit on, but after all, those things are there right now, and I think if you put them up for sale they're probably not going to sell this year. Maybe in two or three years when things pick up a little bit, but they're not going to sell this year, so why the haste?

Why don't you experiment up in the interior? Why don't you experiment with this system in Nelson, Creston, Salmo, Nakusp? Why must you remove this window, which you have with the long-established motor vehicle testing stations? That's where I applied for my very first driver's licence. I might say, I went in and took my learner's licence and then I took my driving licence — all in the same day, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

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

But why abandon that? We don't have that in the interior. We do have the one-eyed monsters coming at us, Mr. Chairman. We see these vehicles approaching us. We think they're motorcycles and they turn into automobiles. I just hope it's the proper type of headlight. We also have the ones with one high beam and one low beam. We want to see an end to that but why abandon this good window on the industry and just go holus-bolus into this thing based on ideology, refuting the decisions of this House, which saw Conservative governments, Liberal governments, Social Credit governments and New Democratic Party governments and another Social Credit government supporting the system that I think we can quite proudly point to here in British Columbia? Why do you not just install this in the interior, then?

[9:00]

HON. A. FRASER: Quite frankly, I think we're into a lot of philosophical arguments here. I've said before in the debate, regarding unsafe vehicles, that it's already in the Motor Vehicle Act, and any policeman can yard them off the road tonight. You are now dwelling on why we don't keep open the testing stations on the lower mainland and on the Island. Our government wants to privatize, that's why. We want to privatize the operation, and probably, as far as the lower mainland and the Island are concerned, spread it out further. We are fairly restricted in what we have got on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. We don't even cover the total areas of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island with motor vehicle inspection, and the private sector will achieve that without a big capital investment by the government of British Columbia. The private sector will be making that investment because they will have the shop. Philosophically, we want to hand it over to the private sector, and we want it expanded throughout the whole province.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister is telling us tonight that they want to privatize this whole service, but what he's telling us is that the government is taking a significant step backwards. I recall very well, when we had legislation in this province that required people to take out auto insurance from private companies, the complaints that we received as MLAs or candidates running for election about the terrible service that was provided by these private insurance companies, as far as auto insurance was concerned. Here we have the same case again where the government is going to require that people have their vehicles inspected, just as they used to require that people take out insurance from private companies. What it means is that we're going to receive the same kind of complaints that we had before and that this government is prepared to take a step backwards in order to privatize a service that is very much needed in this province, in spite of what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) says.

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please.

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

[ Page 2869 ]

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

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I recall very vividly that the member for Omineca got up the other day and said that he didn't agree with either the NDP or the government on this issue.

Interjection.

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

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

MS. SANFORD: Exactly — very open.

It seems to me that we're taking a step backwards here, because we're moving towards the same kind of privatization of a service that's required by the government for the people of British Columbia to undertake, and it means that we will be going to these private testing stations, and we will be faced with the same kind of complaints that I recall very vividly receiving as a result of the kind of service that we got from the private insurance companies for car insurance. I don't want that to happen again. I think the minister and the government are making a serious mistake in making this move in this bill.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have had a great deal of latitude, I think, in this debate, for reasons which are out of my control, but I think maybe we can get back to the relevancy now.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments, for argument's sake about Mayor Harcourt of Vancouver and Mayor Lewarne of Burnaby, who are involved in municipal matters and have some authority in this province and in the area....

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

MR. HOWARD: I don't know about the mayor of Maple Ridge, but I know about the mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Burnaby; I know who they are.

What I would like to ask the minister is this: if the minister owned a car, would he permit the mayor of Vancouver to inspect his vehicle?

Interjection.

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

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

MR. HOWARD: But that's precisely what the minister is doing. He is saying that the mayor of Vancouver, the mayor of Maple Ridge, the mayor of Terrace, the mayor of Burnaby and the mayor of every municipality in British Columbia can inspect vehicles. What kind of nonsense is that? I've got a little doubt about some of these service stations inspecting vehicles, but when it comes to asking the mayors of all our municipalities — who knows who they are or what they are — to inspect motor vehicles and make decisions about them, you're asking too much, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

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

In addition to that, in my own town of Terrace the Attorney-General has got a correctional institute established for people who offend against the law. I drive by that correctional institute most of the time when I'm coming from uptown Terrace to my home — that's the usual route that I take. What the minister is saying is that the warden or a correctional officer can come out, flag me down, and inspect my vehicle. That's asking far too much. The minister should make those changes and tell us what his intentions are. This business of saying that Mayor Harcourt, even when the minister wouldn't let him inspect the minister's own vehicle, has the right to inspect vehicles and make some determination about them, is going too far. I hope the minister will correct the whole situation for us.

HON. A. FRASER: Well, it's the intent of section 9 to only let qualified peace officers carry out this duty, and I don't think the mayors of Vancouver or Burnaby would be given the qualification to carry this out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, entering into this type of debate might be reflecting back on section 4.

MR. HOWARD: I wouldn't reflect on section 4. I'm reflecting on section 9. What the minister is saying in the.... It doesn't matter what his intentions are, you know. The road to that nether place is paved with good intentions. The minister isn't going to be the minister forever. But what he's saying here is that the mayor of any municipality can inspect a motor vehicle — regardless of what his intentions are. I think if we're going to make law of that nature we should be somewhat precise about who we're giving this authority to.

Once that's cleared up, I want to argue about the so-called qualified peace officer; that is, the one who in fact is a police officer or a police constable or a sheriff or something of that sort.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member would clearly be reflecting on section 4. If the member would care to read section 4, he'll note that there is....

MR. HOWARD: You're asking me to read section 4. If I do that I will be....

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

MR. HOWARD: It doesn't say anything at all in that particular section to which reference was made a moment ago

[ Page 2870 ]

about the designation of peace officers. This particular section, section 9, says a peace officer may require a person who is the owner or the person in charge of a vehicle to.... He may inspect it. And I think that's improper. If you want to identify what you mean by the persons who have or seek to have this authority, then I'd suggest you do that. You call the person by the proper title. But peace officer is far too broad. Peace officer includes a mayor, a sheriff, a sheriff's officer, a warden, a correctional officer and any other officer or permanent employee of a penitentiary, prison or correctional centre. That means clergymen as well. Men of the cloth who would minister to the spiritual needs of people in jail have the authority under this particular section. I think it's very poor and sloppy draftsmanship to have gone in this direction. The minister has been blinded by privatization and doesn't realize what common sense is.

MRS. WALLACE: If we're looking at the definition of peace officer, that definition is given in the Motor Vehicle Act, which describes a peace officer as an enforcement officer. Now a peace officer, we know, is a pretty broad term and includes a lot of people. The minister is trying to tell us that it's a qualified peace officer, but there is nothing to indicate that that's the case. It's a very broad term, as indicated in the interpretation section of the Motor Vehicle Act. What my colleague from Skeena is saying certainly applies here. A peace officer could include the mayor of any community; that's what the act says and that's what this section says, and unless there is some stipulation in that section there is nothing to indicate that they would have to be qualified or what those qualifications are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with the greatest respect, we are discussing section 4. Members may be confused. Section 4 goes from page 1 over to page 2. If you'll check section 4(e), you'll note that it pertains to the Motor Vehicle Act and the Highway Act, and therefore covers the questions that might be dealt with in section 9.

HON. MR. GARDOM: To assist the hon. members, unless I'm misreading it, in chapter 288, which is the Motor Vehicle Act, the definition of peace officer is quite restricted. "Peace officer means a constable or a person having a constable's powers."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, just let me read what it says a peace officer is here: "'Peace officer' includes (a) a mayor, sheriff and sheriff's officer; (b) a warden, correctional officer and any other officer or permanent employee of a penitentiary, prison or correctional centre; and (c) a police officer, police constable, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace." That's what this says.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where is that definition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, also with the greatest of respect, we're reflecting on section 4, which refers to a peace officer as defined in the Highway Act or the Motor Vehicle Act. It's clearly subsection (e) of section 4.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 12.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

On section 13.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[9:15]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND
CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: I have a couple of questions for the minister. One relates to some correspondence I have had with his ministry regarding certain terms in mortgage contracts. The Royal Trust seems to be the big offender here. They have been writing in a waiver which relates to the payout or changes in payout regardless of any existing legislation or legislation that may be brought into effect. The actual wording is:

"Repayment of this loan and interest may only be made in the manner stipulated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, with no further right of prepayment prior to the maturity date of mortgage loan renewal. You expressly waive any right of prepayment you now have, or

[ Page 2871 ]

hereafter may have, pursuant to section 10 of the Interest Act (Canada) and or any similar federal or provincial legislation permitting prepayment prior to the maturity date of mortgage loan renewal. The original mortgage is deemed to be dated as of the maturity date of the existing loan above captioned."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Now the correspondence that I have from Mr. Bainbridge of the Consumer Affairs ministry indicated that he had come more or less to the same conclusion that I had: that it was invalid because it did deal with contravention of a public act in the public interest. In fact he sought legal advice and forwarded to me correspondence to the effect that a couple of citations which he made — one of which related to a Griffiths v. Dudley (Earl), way back in 1882 — indicated that a waiver like that can be made unless it can be shown that such an agreement is, in the circumstances of the particular case, contrary to public policy. Because the Canada Interest Act or any further federal or provincial legislation would be public policy, there would not be the right to write that into a contract. What he advised was that the people involved see their solicitor, and of course that's what they have done. My question to the minister is whether or not he's prepared to take any action to ensure that such clauses are not written into contracts or innocent victims caught up in this illegal thing, and without knowing it, forfeiting huge sums of money in an attempt to pay out a mortgage contrary to the terms, or else continuing to pay exorbitant interest rates and being unable to finance them. I wonder whether or not the minister is prepared to take any action to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the material the member has, but first of all the contract between the borrower and the lender, I think, should be written in a fairly easily understood manner. One of the concerns I've had as Minister of Consumer Affairs is to see some of the documentation improved — some of the legalese, if you will, brought into modern-day language. However, in regard to some of what you quoted there I have no difficulty with the mortgage lender having a "closed mortgage" having clauses in the agreement that tell the borrower that these funds are available, that there is not a prepayment and it falls due on a certain date and must be paid, because the lender wants to be treated as fairly as the borrower. When the mortgage says you waive all rights to legislation that may be forthcoming or is in place, I think that's more non-enforceable than anything else. I would assume that if they tried to hold the borrower to those clauses in spite of legislation that may come into place, they would have some difficulty. I believe that under the federal legislation you can have a closed mortgage for five years and then after that the lender has to allow you payment subject to, of course, an interest penalty in pre-payment when you are paying it out. But I'm not sure that's what you said. I'm telling you that some of those clauses would be non-enforceable, in my opinion, but they're in there. Anybody who wants to put anything in a contract can, but when they come to try and enforce it, they may find it's just so many words and has no effect.

MRS. WALLACE: That's exactly what I have said; that's what Mr. Bainbridge has said. People who are aware of this are having to go to a solicitor and deal with this situation. Is the minister prepared to do something to ensure that people aren't caught up in this kind of a trap? I know any kind of a thing can be written into a contract, but really to write in something that is illegal.... It seems to me to be a responsibility of that minister to ensure that that doesn't happen, and that's really what this is, because it's illegal, according to the citations that have been given me by Mr. Bainbridge, who has obtained legal advice, to have that in the contract; or at least it's illegal to do that. So surely there should be something the ministry can do to ensure that that's not in a contract. If he can't do that, at least advise consumers that it is illegal so people will know that that is something that, if it's in their contract, they don't have to honour; there is a way out. The way out is a pretty expensive way if you have to get a solicitor to get out. It may cost you more, by the time you get it through court, than you're going to save in refinancing. My objection is that to sit back and allow that kind of thing to be written into a contract certainly to me seems to fall within the minister's prerogative to take some action.

I have one other question that I want to raise with the minister, and this deals with policy in providing or approving liquor distribution outlets. I've had an ongoing request for a liquor distribution outlet since December 17, 1981, which was the first time I wrote to the minister's predecessor. The applicant, a Mr. Sager, had been dealing with the ministry for some time before that, trying to get an outlet in Mill Bay, where he was building a shopping centre.

HON. MR. HEWITT: An agency store?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. It's about 20 kilometres south of Duncan, which is the closest and only other liquor distribution centre in the area. That application had been in for some time. His shopping centre has been going ahead on the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway at Mill Bay. It's nearly complete at this point in time, with a lot of businesses in there. But he was turned down. At the time I was told by the liquor distribution board that of the 12 applications last year, only one new site, which was in Kamloops, was approved. That was as of January 1982.

Certainly at this point Mr. Sager doesn't have a liquor licence, but he has continued to supply them with new information and to pressure for review of his application. The interesting part about this is that we now have another shopping centre being built just across the highway from Mr. Sager's. It's under construction: the road is in; it's not blacktopped yet. It displays a sign that says it will have a liquor distribution centre. I'm concerned about this: a new subdivision just going in, and the owner certainly was displaying signs that weren't orange and black in the last election campaign. I'm wondering if Mr. Garnett, who is the landowner of the new shopping centre, is going to get a liquor distribution licence there.

What I'm asking the minister is: what is the policy? Do first applications come first? Certainly, everything is in place in the other shopping centre. The request has been in since 1981.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: He happens to live in Victoria, and I don't know what colour his sign is. There is someone who has been applying, and now we find this other area with a sign

[ Page 2872 ]

saying that they are going to have a liquor distribution centre. That doesn't seem fair to me. It doesn't sit very well in fact a new shopping centre going in some two years after the other one actually gets the liquor distribution centre, when the other application has been in so long before. If it does, it certainly is going to look like politics have had something to do with it. I'd like the minister's comments.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Let me go back to the problem with the mortage contract. I said earlier today that we have had discussions with my counterparts across Canada concerning standard language in mortgage contracts. I think that's important. We've also had discussions with mortgage lenders concerned about the language used in mortgage contracts. However, I'd like you to send me the material you have on that particular mortgage with Royal Trust. Also, all the legislation in the world is not going to stop lenders from putting in a contract clauses which they feel give them protection, but which they may find are unenforceable because they may be "illegal." I think there is some difficulty with the word "illegal" as opposed to "unenforceable." Those are the problems. I could put legislation in. We've got consumer protection legislation. But there are some contracts that are written in spite of it. We can't solve all the problems, but we certainly can try to improve the contract language in order for people more readily to understand what they are signing.

The liquor store. It is not an agency store; it's a retail liquor outlet. You were concerned about who has priority. Your gentleman, Mr. Sager, you said applied in 1981. Up to this point, there has not been a need for a liquor store in that area as determined by the management of the liquor distribution branch. I refer you to your colleague the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and advise that you are arguing exactly opposite to what he argued this afternoon. You're telling me to put a liquor store in there; he's telling me not to build any more liquor stores.

[9:30]

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: The rules are basically this. When we determine that there is sufficient need for a new store, we will put it out to tender. We will look at the tenders and determine the best location for parking and traffic, the best layout, the best lease fee if it is to be leased, etc. We will then make the determination. So he doesn't have protection just because he was in there in 1981. We have to get the best return for our dollar invested in a new liquor store. I am concerned about what you mentioned in the display across from Mr. Sager in this new shopping centre — that he is advertising that this will be a location for a new liquor store. That does concern me, and I will have that checked out, because that, in a sense, is misrepresentation of that location. He might say "proposed" on the sign. But if he is saying one is going to be established there, I can assure you....

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. He's trying to encourage people to come there and then he'll make his submission. But at this particular time there are no plans for a government liquor store at Mill Bay, although we are aware of the interest that's been expressed.

MR. REE: I'm pleased to stand here this evening on this minister's estimates and ask a few questions or make a few comments with respect to the automobile accident compensation committee report recently been issued by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

It's not too often that I can agree with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), but I have to endorse a great number of the statements he made earlier today. My comments are not directed in the same vein he was putting forward. He seemed more concerned, to a certain extent, with the position of lawyers in the community and what they might lose if ICBC was to bring in a no-fault type of insurance protection for the public of British Columbia. The main gist of my comments, being averse to the no-fault proposition, is that I think it is probably the most extreme, socialistic type of procedure or program that could be implemented by any form of government. I am not averse to having people in need looked after. We do this through our Human Resources. If ICBC is to enter into the no-fault type of benefits, I think it is going to encroach upon the normal benefits provided by Human Resources.

My main concern is that under ICBC's present benefits, a person who is injured in an automobile-related accident, whether at fault or otherwise, still receives far more benefits than a person receiving the same injury in an accident in which a motor vehicle is not involved. In other words, I do not see why a youngster who rides a bicycle into the side of a car and becomes a quadraplegic should receive all the no-fault benefits proposed in this study, under part 7, when the same youngster running into a tree and receiving the same injury would not receive any of those benefits. As I say, I am not averse to the community providing benefits to an injured person who is at fault, but I am averse to the motorist providing benefits to the at-fault person. The at-fault victim should be looked after by the community if he needs that much care, and certainly not by the motorist.

During various meetings of the Committee on Crown Corporations, many people were interviewed, including the police and others, with respect to the causes of accidents and the high cost of damage and injuries within the province of British Columbia. One of the common themes in these committee meetings and interviews is that the attitude of drivers is a great cause of and reason for the extensive accident rate that we suffer in this province. To bring in a no-fault type of benefit, a no-fault type of insurance program, will further increase the adverse attitude of motorists. I am a strong believer in a person being responsible for his own actions, and I don't think that a person who is injured in an accident which he has caused himself should be entitled to the same benefits as the person who is not at fault.

Mr. Chairman, I am strongly averse to the implementation of a no-fault type of insurance and benefit scheme within this province. If the community has an obligation to look after its sick and its injured, which I think it does, it should not be paid for by the motorists. It should be paid for by the community as a whole.

There's one other aspect of the report which I must support, though, and that is a change in contingency fee charges by lawyers. I do agree that this is being misused by the bar. I don't think it's so much for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to look into, but I certain commend the B.C. and the Canadian bar to look into this and modify, or make whatever changes are necessary, so that it shall not be abused to the detriment of injured people in accidents.

[ Page 2873 ]

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

One of the problems with contingency fees, as I see it, is that there probably is a place for them, although sometimes one wonders. But where liability is established, then, as far as I'm concerned, a contingency fee is absolutely out of the question, and somehow or another it should be completely done away with. Yet there are some reputable — in most people's opinions — lawyers who are charging contingency fees. I think it is disreputable, in terms of that situation. However, I'm not an expert on the law, and I'll leave that to my colleagues engaged in legal activities in the past, present or future.

I'm concerned about what is going to happen to ICBC. Not that it's a creature of the NDP, or that it's anything other than a creature of the demand of its time. I recall, vividly, that ICBC was not just wanted but was demanded by some 85 percent of the public at that time. Our memories are short. We forget the fact that there were innumerable young people who had no access to insurance, other than through assigned risk, which was an absolutely outlandish price. Those of us who are old enough and had children at the time certainly remember that. I just hope that ICBC continues on. There are some modifications, and I understand that there was a debate this afternoon, no-fault vis-à-vis no no-fault and all the rest of it. As far as I am concerned I have a particular prejudice. I feel that if you're going to go no-fault you go all the way, and if you're going to go this modest no-fault that I've heard bandied about, forget it, because it's not really going to do the job. If you're going to wind up in court in any event, then what's the point of no-fault?

Anyway, all that we hear to date is rumour, and I'm not going to spend all night debating rumour. But I do hear a very strong rumour about the fact that the Insurance Corporation might very well give up their participation in general insurance. For those who are not cognizant of the difference, I'm not talking about car insurance any longer; I'm talking about house, fire, and burglar insurance and all the rest of it. At the outset ICBC set up a voluntary general insurance, really as a window on the industry, and it's worked well, in my view. Not only do I say that, but so do most of the agents in the province of British Columbia, and those agents cover all political spectrums of the province. I would just urge the minister not to go along.

I want to read a line from a letter that the minister sent out some time ago: "The Insurance Corporation's general insurance division has no special advantage over private insurance companies." That may or may not be the case. We can argue that ad infinitum. But what we can't argue is: (1) there are innumerable people in this province who would prefer to deal with ICBC, their company; (2) it is, after all, a window on the industry. And I think that's important. It's not as though you're trying to monopolize that particular area. Yes, there's a case for the monopolization of car insurance, because it's the law that everybody must have it, blah, blah, blah. But this is not a situation where the government or ICBC is capitalizing on the law. What they're saying is: "Those of you who wish to deal with your own company may do so. You may have your money invested in the growth of our province" — which I think is darned important — "and have more of our own people employed." I think in this day and age, in B.C. particularly, where we're concerned about the number of people employed and so on, it's very vital that we carry on with the general insurance aspect of ICBC.

I ask a question of the minister. At this point you are studying this proposition, I take it. Where is the minister's consciousness with respect to this matter? I think it's important to all of us, because I really think that ICBC, under the NDP and under the Socreds, has played an important part in the British Columbia scene. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that seem to go by most people is the fact that there are a tremendous number of dollars invested in the British Columbia economy, and also an awful lot of people employed here.

I come from the insurance industry, as most people in this House know. Most of the jobs are down east, and would be again were we to give up our participation. I just say that it's terrible timing, if in fact it does happen — and I'm not suggesting that it's going to. It would be terrible timing if it did happen. Secondly, I think that they're doing a good job, and virtually every agent in the province thinks as I do. I've talked to an awful lot of them.

I've read the brief. The minister has read it too, I'm sure. Certainly there are briefs coming out our ears on this matter. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know how the minister feels about this particular situation.

[9:45]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want first of all to go back and touch very briefly on some of the comments made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), who is sitting here with me now. Just a point that the study that we're referring to is not under debate at this time, but is a report that I would commend all members of the House to read, so they understand what the committee was attempting to do. The automobile accident compensation committee is an independent committee. It was set up by ICBC in 1979 in response to the growing concern that the compensation system for bodily injury may, by its very nature, produce injustices for the victims of automobile accidents, especially those seriously injured. The committee's mandate was to review the present compensation system and recommend ways to improve it at no substantially greater cost to the motoring public. It is an excellent report, and I think one that we should read, and one that will be thoroughly discussed before any changes are made by government to the type of insurance we have in British Columbia.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano talked about a socialist program, but then he moved to talk about how there should be coverage for everybody, overall compensation for everybody who is injured in an accident. I believe they have that type of system in New Zealand — a social program, if you will.

All that I look at in evaluating this program — I'm not an advocate for no-fault insurance, but I've attempted to approach it in an unbiased way — is that the compensation for the people involved with vehicles and who have accidents, whether at fault or not at fault, would be paid by people operating vehicles. So I can look at that and say it's not a "socialist" program; it's a pooling of funds to create a fund to cover people and provide them with a guaranteed income, if you will, to give them a reasonable standard of living through their years should they be totally paralysed or very seriously injured.

It's very difficult to determine "at fault." You can be seriously at fault if you happen to be breaking the speed limit, under the influence of liquor, and being irresponsible, and

[ Page 2874 ]

cause the accident. I can say you're at fault. But if you're driving down the road and you happen to sneeze, lose control of your car in the centre lane of a highway and clip another car, go across the road and smash into a car and kill three people, were you entirely "at fault"? I think we have to recognize that it's not black and white when you determine fault in accidents. It can be just a minor thing — a bee in the car, whatever — that can cause that one minute of lack of attention, and you've got a major problem.

Mr. Member for New Westminster, what's going to happen to ICBC? We're not talking about the automobile side of it. You're more concerned about general. I've told you that we have a committee that is reviewing the operations of the corporation and will be reporting to cabinet and giving their recommendations. No decision would be made until the thing was thoroughly analyzed. I appreciate your comments and the comments of others tonight concerning the corporation. It's the largest general insurance writer in British Columbia. It's not a window.

MR. COCKE: Guess why.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, if you want to guess why, I guess there are a number of reasons that I could give you, but I'll give you one: it's a nice company for the agents to deal with. I can also tell you that there are a good number of agents in the province who are private enterprisers and who don't feel the government should be in the general insurance field. It writes, I believe, about $36 million a year.

Mr. Member, I might be at somewhat of a difference with my colleague on this side of the House the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), but do we really need it? Or the question may be extended a little farther into general insurance. Do we have the philosophy on this side of the House to say: "Let the private sector do it"? Put in the legislation and regulations that are needed to ensure that there is fairness in the marketplace, but is it necessary that the government is in the business of selling fire insurance on my or your house? I'm not sure. I have difficulty, philosophically, with the position that we are in the general insurance business.

I can concede, as a private enterpriser, the concept of automobile insurance and Autoplan, because everybody who drives a car must and should be insured. I think the Autoplan system works reasonably well. However, it's important that after upwards of ten years we should analyze the system and see whether it is working efficiently for the motoring public of British Columbia. But general insurance is one of the areas that's under consideration and will be reported by that committee. You may find me not much different than my colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) in saying: "Yes, it's privatization." It may well be that the determination is privatization with general insurance. That being the case — if that were the decision made by government — I can assure you that I for one would want to be assured by the general insurance industry that they would be responsible and would ensure that anybody in British Columbia had the ability to get insurance, and that we would have the regulations in place. I think they would know that if they failed to meet their responsibility, the government would have to look at returning to the general insurance business. But, Mr. Member, until that committee reports and cabinet makes a policy decision, it's business as usual at the corporation.

MR. COCKE: I understand what the minister is saying, and I regret that the minister has that kind of a general attitude with respect to the general aspect of ICBC. Let me tell you that this fetish about privatization and private enterprise, and so on, is really just a bit of a smirk as far as I'm concerned. I remember when Lee Iacocca, probably the greatest free enterpriser who ever faced the North American continent — you know, that guy who was the leading Ford magnate — said in those days: "My heavenly days! Keep government out of business, and everything is just going to be fine." Then all of a sudden he finds himself heading up Chrysler, and they got in trouble. What did he do? He had his hat in his hand, and he was out to the federal government of the United States for $500 million so fast it makes your head swim. Private enterprise goes down the tube when the people need to be consulted to help out with the financing of major private enterprise companies. It's a lot of junk.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're not a socialist, are you?

MR. COCKE: Come on, Jim. The fact of the matter is, what we have here.... And the minister says they got 38 percent of the business. Why do you think...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, 8 percent — $36 million.

MR. COCKE: It is, under those circumstances, a window.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It may be the largest, but the fact of the matter is I have been associated with the insurance industry — thank god, not for the last 14 years — for 7 years as manager for a major company for the province of British Columbia, and prior to that I was with them for 13 years, mainly in life insurance, although I had plenty to do with general insurance people. I remember year after year the complaints of people living beyond Hope. Do you know the old story? If you're beyond Hope, you're beyond insurance. If you don't have a fire hydrant right beside your house, you don't get insurance. ICBC changed all that, and, Mr. Chairman, that was a corporation very much appreciated by those people outside of the lower mainland and the areas that are highly serviced by fire protection agencies. I can remember the day when you couldn't buy fire insurance, for crying out loud, if you were in a municipality in the Fraser Valley that didn't have great fire protection. You had to go running all over the face of the earth, and then, if you could find it, the price was absolutely outrageous. I'm saying ICBC has done an absolutely spectacular job in that area. For crying out loud, I think you've got a setup in terms of the people who are studying it for you. I think they have biases coming out of their ears, as I understand it. I just suggest to the minister that he consult with some of your colleagues who are a little bit more progressive-leaning than you and maybe some of the people who are doing the study for you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the remarks of my colleague the minister, and I would certainly like to assure him that I was a free enterpriser probably when he was still in swaddling clothes, My original view was somewhat the same as his concerning the general

[ Page 2875 ]

portfolio held by the Insurance Corporation, but I well remember when I was on the board of the Insurance Corporation. The private sector could not and would not provide a market. People couldn't insure their businesses, and they could not insure their homes via the private side. One always has to remember that the private side essentially had their headquarters in London, in Hartford, Connecticut, in New York, Valparaiso, or wherever, but the people who filled the gap were essentially the private enterprisers in this province who exercised their freedom of choice, and they chose to purchase general insurance from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia which was able to fill that gap. I think they performed a very first-class task there and provided that kind of a window, which is very much needed in this particular area. If we ran into a situation again, which I suppose could happen at any point in time, of the market drying up and not being able to find a source of funds, that would create extreme difficulty for our people who desire insurance in the province.

Another point that I would rather like to mention, because I don't think it has been articulated during this discussion, is to ask why there is a commanding requirement in society in our province for us to insure public buildings. Why not treat that as payment after loss? I fail to see how there is use in putting premiums into the hands of either the private sector — and the private sector, again, insofar as insurance is concerned, is pretty much removed from British Columbia — or into the hands of the Insurance Corporation. I think that could be well and best attended and at far less cost to the taxpayer by virtue of payment after loss.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions with regard to liquor regulations that I was going to ask. I was going to ask them under vote 20, but I might just as well ask them under vote 19.

[10:00]

I also wish to comment on ICBC. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth this evening with regard to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister at this point whether or not he has seen the final report put out by the Committee on Crown Corporations on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, because I think on reading that report, if and when it is ever tabled in this House — and I would certainly hope it would be because taxpayers' dollars have been spent on that very realistic and very in-depth report done on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.... If that report were ever tabled in this House it would allow both sides of this House to better understand the merits — or demerits, whichever way you want to look at it — of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. So I would commend to both sides that they urge whoever it is who now has custody of that particular report to table it in this Legislature for all to see, not only the members of this Assembly but also the people of British Columbia who paid for it.

Mr. Chairman, that was not what I was going to talk about. I wish to ask a couple of questions of the minister in regard to liquor regulations. I am sure the Chairman now in the chair won't rule me out of order for being repetitious because he hasn't been here in the last three or four years.

First, each and every year in this particular minister's estimates I have stood in this House and pleaded for a change in the absolutely archaic regulations as they pertain to neighbourhood pubs in the rural part of this province. I'm talking about regulations which prohibit the opening or the licensing of a neighbourhood pub in any community in this province unless it's more than one-half mile from an arterial highway, or at least one mile away from another such liquor outlet or establishment in that particular community. Anyone who knows the rural area of this province — by rural, I mean the northern 80 percent — would know, as I know in serving eight incorporated communities, that in any one of those eight incorporated communities, to be half a mile from an arterial highway is to be out of town, out in the bush. To be a mile from another liquor outlet would surely be a half a mile from either side of that community. They would know that those regulations are absolutely archaic. They don't pertain to the rural communities in British Columbia.

As I have done in years gone by, I would again not just plead, but beseech the minister to have those regulations changed; and if he does not wish to change the present regulations, then to have two sets of regulations: one for the urban area of British Columbia, and one for the rural area. Not for Houston, but for a couple of communities in my constituency which have for two and a half years now been waiting for the minister to sanction applications for neighbourhood pubs.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs. These are applications which have been sanctioned by the municipal councils in those communities and by the people living in those communities. As you and your staff know, these applications have been sanctioned by everyone in those municipalities.

If you're not going to consider changing the present regulations, at least consider bringing in a set of regulations that would bring the small communities, of which 80 percent of this province is made up, into the twentieth century as far as pub applications and the sanctioning of neighbourhood pubs is concerned.

Secondly, I wish to speak to the minister about a subject which I've talked to him about on many occasions. I know it's difficult, and I know there's a hesitation on the part of many members in this assembly to talk about liquor regulations. We seem to have a mental block when it comes to liquor in the province. All I'm asking is that the minister tell me tonight if there is any consideration being given to the introduction of specialty wine shops in the province of British Columbia. I see the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in the House tonight. We talk a lot about tourism. You say I get a little parochial when I talk about the rural areas of British Columbia. I want to talk for a few minutes about the urban areas of British Columbia, and specifically Victoria, in which this Legislature sits. In talking about tourism and specialty wine shops, I think we should talk about Victoria. If there is anything that we need in order to bring more tourists to this capital city, or to service the tourists that we bring to this city, it's specialty wine shops. Heaven forbid I should talk about liquor in grocery stores or any of those other terrible things that we might do in regard to bringing liquor regulations into the twentieth century. I won't talk about any of those; I'll just talk about specialty wine shops.

As one who has travelled a lot and been in areas where other countries take very good care of their tourists, I think that the introduction of specialty wine shops into British

[ Page 2876 ]

Columbia, specifically for the urban areas of British Columbia, would be a fantastic at least half-step for mankind. I would like to ask the minister during his estimates here tonight if he is giving any serious consideration to the introduction of specialty wine shops.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, as someone from an interior community, I resemble some of the remarks that the member for Omineca has made. However, I want to make it clear that a neighbourhood pub is exactly that; it's a neighbourhood pub. If the member for Omineca is advocating roadhouses along the highways, let him call them roadhouses. If he's basically advocating an unrestricted tavern policy in our communities, let him say an unrestricted tavern policy. I'm not saying those are necessarily bad; I'm simply saying let's not cover up those potential retail outlets for selling booze under the euphemism of neighbourhood pubs, which they most definitely would not be.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I would like the attention of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) with regard to the comments made concerning ICBC. I'll just start my comments, which will be brief, by saying there is nothing as difficult, Mr. Member, as the challenge of change. There were comments made tonight that ICBC brought the private general insurance companies into line. All I'm saying to you is that perhaps now is the time to review what has been put in place and possibly consider that return to the private sector. There were comments made about ICBC selling insurance at reasonable premiums in areas where people couldn't get insurance before. I would hope that some of the people who buy general insurance are not subsidizing areas in the province, but that the ratings on the insurability of that property is done in a reasonable manner, as it would be done in the private sector. In the review, it seems to me that we would have to assure ourselves — myself included in government — that insurance would have to be given and regulations would have to be in place to ensure that people were not denied coverage in this province if general insurance was returned to the private sector.

In closing, I would say to the member for Omineca, yes, Mr. Member, we are considering some of those comments you made concerning specialty wine shops. Finally, to the member for Rossland-Trail, I wholeheartedly agree with him that sometimes the "neighbourhood pub" is being used out of context. If we're going to identify roadhouses and taverns — those establishments — maybe that's what we should be calling them. The original concept of the neighbourhood pub was to serve an area, to serve a small neighbourhood, and not to stick it out on the side of a highway and have the travelling public use it. But if we want to address that question, we can do that.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I can't let the remarks of the member for Rossland-Trail go by, or the last remarks of the minister. If I do, I really haven't made my point tonight, last year or the year before that. That is, if the regulations were changed then surely, in the small communities of British Columbia, you would not have to call neighbourhood pubs roadhouses; they could in fact be built in the communities and not out on the highways out of town. The regulations now prohibit them from being built in areas where people live. According to the regulations that exist now, you would have to build them out of town. And yes, Mr. Member, you would have to call them roadhouses, particularly if you built them on the highway.

Vote 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 11

A hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[10:15]

On vote 20: ministry operations, $18,922,938.

MS. BROWN: I have two questions for the minister, and one has to do with the condominium office. I want to find out whether the minister has given that matter any thought, in terms of reopening it, or whether he's planning to do so, in view of the importance of that office and the kind of job that it has been doing for people who are involved in strata plans in the province.

The other is just to say, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that coming from a riding which has a number of people who live in rental accommodation, I cannot stress too strongly how important it is to both the tenants and the landlords that the office of the rentalsman be reopened as quickly as possible. A number of issues that were handled by the rentalsman's office cannot he settled by the courts at all. Unless he has an alternative to deal with those kinds of cases, I don't think he has any choice other than to reopen the rentalsman's office.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the condominium office service will not be reopening, although there has been some interest expressed by the lady who formerly operated it, and it might well be that the Condominium Owners' Association may be providing a service through their body.

The rentalsman's office still is there and still is operating, dealing with rent review. The only thing that has happened to date, of course, is by order-in-council; we did away with rent controls, but rent review is still carrying on. You know the residential tenancy legislation before the House. But as of today that office is still operating.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, there are two issues that I would like to bring up to the minister. I have spoken on one in this House before. I have written to the minister, and I

[ Page 2877 ]

still haven't got what I consider a proper answer. That is the problem that faces a lot of people who buy lots that are being developed in the rural areas. They buy it on the strength of a prospectus that is being given out by the real estate people, by the developer.

In this prospectus there are statements made that are false. I use an example of one particular prospectus. I have had three of them, I think, which I brought to the attention of the minister and the government over the last three or four years. They state that all roads in the particular development are up and are approved by the Highways department. This is filed with the minister's ministry, and this is not a fact. The Highways department has turned down the particular locations of the road; they have turned down the grades of the road. I find the problem is that the ministry accepts these prospectuses without even checking with other ministries within the government. I think a phone call should be made before any prospectus is filed and accepted to see if it does conform to the basic regulations of the Highways department.

I have in my own riding this particular situation — and I've been battling through the ministries — where people have bought property from a prospectus. It was stated in this particular case that they had access to Happy Valley Road, which is approximately 14 miles closer to Victoria than the road that is eventually being utilized. I really feel that the ministry is condoning this type of prospectus being used by real estate people and allowing people to buy property when the prospectus doesn't come up to the facts. I've asked the minister what can be done about it. I've asked the person who held that position before. I think the government has to look at it. What kind of protection can the buying public, who invest their life savings in a home, have to feel secure that they have a prospectus that is stamped by his office and enforceable?

The second question I'd like to ask the minister is if he has any facts on what happened to the Northern Union Insurance Co. It was an insurance company registered in Alberta that was selling insurance to homeowners, and all of a sudden they went broke. I believe under the ministry that there are provisions under the Insurance Act that a certain percentage of the premiums must go into trust when an insurance company is dealing with the public's money. There is a certain feeling in the community that when they do buy insurance and an insurance company is policed by the ministry, they are going to be protected.

I had one particular person who had a fire, and the insurance adjusters settled for $7,000. By the time it got worked through the receiver and everything else, it was down to $2,500, when and where they could pay it. What kind of policing is given by the ministry over private insurance companies that are doing business in our province?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response, if false statements are made in a prospectus, an individual can take action under the Real Estate Act. A developer issuing a prospectus with false statements in it commits an offence. If there's a specific instance the matter can be referred to the superintendent of real estate and it would be investigated and prosecuted, or the individual involved could take action due to the false information. If he has specific information — and he may have already done this, because I believe I have received something regarding Happy Valley Road; that seems to stick in my mind — he can send me the material and we can investigate it on behalf of the people who you feel have had misrepresented to them that certain things would be done.

In regard to Northern Insurance, we did take action as soon as we found there was a problem. We advised all the agents who were carrying on an agency for Northern Insurance, and they advised the people they had sold insurance to to reinsure quickly. There are some problems where claims were filed and have not been paid. I have discussed with my colleagues the need for an early warning system across Canada, so that where a company is registered, say, in Manitoba and there is a problem there with the forms that have to be filed, they advise other jurisdictions so we can be aware of a problem that's developing.

We are also exploring that compensation fund for insurance companies, and contributed to by insurance companies, to take care of the situation that you mentioned — similar, I guess, to the travel assurance fund which is contributed to by the travel agents. So it's a possibility that you may see that develop in the not too distant future.

MR. MITCHELL: Getting back to the first one on the property, I've already filed with the minister and with his predecessor all the documents in the prospectus — the statements about where the access to this particular road was going to be, and I got an answer from you saying: "Well, it's too bad. He sold all the lots, and there's nothing we can do now that he's gone bankrupt." This is easy. You can say there is nothing you can do, but there are still 35 to 40 families in the area who should never have been there if the ministry had made a simple check. Before they give a stamp of approval on any prospectus they should at least check with the Ministry of Highways and Transportation to see if that particular network of roads conforms and is up to the standard. In another particular real estate development where they said that there will be power into the site by a certain date the ministry should check that B.C. Hydro has received sufficient funds to put in the power. When a person buys a $50,000 to $100,000 lot and they have been told by their real estate agent that their....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't they incorporate? Then they wouldn't have that problem.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, it is quite a joke that the Minister of Municipal Affairs can make snide remarks like that. It doesn't really matter if they are incorporated or not. It is the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that is allowing prospectuses to be given the stamp of approval, allowing real estate people to go out and sell it when they have not made basic checks that the statements within the prospectus that even deal with Highways, Hydro.... The statements made are not checked first. I really don't think it's a big issue. I'm not asking that you install a whole army of inspectors to go around and look at every field. But you can always make that phone call or send a letter. The regional manager of this particular subdivision, the people in Hydro of another subdivision, were aware of it. Unless your ministry, before they give that stamp of approval, makes those checks, more people are going to lose a lot of money.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has, on occasion, mentioned the office of the rentalsman. I know Bill 5 or some form of Bill 5 will be coming before this House, but

[ Page 2878 ]

I think it might be useful for this House — not only for this House but for all of those 355,000 tenants in British Columbia — if the minister would just explore a little bit some of the intentions of the government. There have been a lot of rumours about what's happening with the office of the rentalsman. We have heard today — maybe the minister will confirm it — that the office of the rentalsman will be continued till the end of November with full staff to continue not only rent review.... He mentioned just rent review, but in my understanding they will also continue dispute resolution at least till the end of November. Perhaps he could give us some indications of what is happening with the office of the rentalsman. Many folk in British Columbia — many tenants — are not sure. Many think it is currently being phased out in totality early.

I'm just going to see if we can get some dialogue from the minister on this particular issue, because there is a degree of confusion out there about what is happening. The press are reporting and you have been saying that there may be some form of the rentalsman left, there may be some review panels discussed. I think it might be useful this evening to perhaps get some indication from the minister if some changes are being considered. Perhaps he could explain some of those thoughts as an early indication of what's happening, just to perhaps alleviate some of the misapprehensions that are happening out there in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've got to remember that we can't anticipate legislation.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

23 The Hon. A. V. Fraser to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 23) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 1.1, by adding the following section:

"1.1 The following section is added:

"Inspection of vehicles

and refusal to issue

licence

"24.2 The superintendent may refuse to issue

    (a) a licence and corresponding number plates, and

    (b) a permit for a motor vehicle or trailer that is required under section 215 to be presented for inspection and has not been presented for inspection or has not passed inspection."

SECTION 7, in the proposed section 215 (1),

(a) by deleting paragraph (e) and substituting the following:

"(e) prescribing

        (i) fees or the method of determining the amount of fees payable to the Province in respect of inspections of vehicles and in respect of applications for and any consultations relating to the issuance of authorizations, designations and exemptions under section 215.1, and

        (ii) charges payable, by persons required to present vehicles for inspection, to operators, other than the Province, of facilities designated under section 215.1, and,"

(b) in paragraph (f) (iii) by deleting "inspection certificate, and" and substituting "inspection certificate.", and

(c) by deleting paragraph (g).

SECTION 11, by deleting "65, 67," and substituting "24.2, 65, 67,".

[ Page 2879 ]

SECTION 12, by adding the following section:

''Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act Amendments

"12. Section 38 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 204, is amended

"(a) in subsection (1) by striking out 'contrary to this section' and substituting 'contrary to this subsection', and

"(b) by adding the following subsection:

"(1.1) No owner's certificate shall be issued for a motor vehicle or trailer for which the superintendent refuses to issue a licence or permit under section 24.2 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and a certificate issued contrary to this subsection is null and void and shall be deemed to have always been void and of no effect.'"

SECTION 13, by adding the following section:

"13. Section 40 (3) is amended by striking out 'by reason only of a suspension of a licence under section 25.10 of a regulation under the Motor Vehicle Act made by Order in Council 30/70, until the superintendent notifies the corporation that the licence and the number plates have been returned to the superintendent pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of that section.' and substituting 'by reason only of the surrender of a vehicle licence in compliance with a regulation made under section 215 (1) (f) of the Motor Vehicle Act, until the superintendent notifies the corporation that the vehicle licence and corresponding number plates have been returned to the superintendent.'"