1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 21, Number 2

[ Page 15447 ]

The House resumed at 6:50 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: In the House, I call committee on Bill 25. In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 25; A. Warnke in the chair.

On section 1.

J. Weisgerber: As I read the addition to section 1, it prevents anyone from driving a vehicle for which they don't have an appropriate class of licence unless they are accompanied by someone authorized by the superintendent to examine them for that purpose. I'm curious to know how that relates to someone taking driver education. For example, with someone who holds a class 4 licence wants to learn to operate a truck with air brakes -- a semitrailer -- and is engaged in taking driver education, or someone who only has a learner's permit and is taking instruction at a driving school, how does that relate to the prohibitions under this section?

Hon. J. Pement: This section is not related to the issue that the member brought up. This is related to unlicensed drivers -- those drivers who are driving without a licence in the case of...should the vehicle be impounded for those purposes. It's not to relate to those who are driving with the wrong class of vehicle.

J. Weisgerber: Just for clarification again, I refer the minister to the last part of the sentence under the new subsection (2.1). It refers to the "ability to drive and operate motor vehicles...on a highway, a motor vehicle of a category other than the category designated for the class of driver's licence held by the person." That certainly suggests to me that what we're talking about is that it's an offence to drive a vehicle for which the driver doesn't have a designation. There doesn't appear to be any provision here for someone taking driver training while holding no licence, perhaps, a learner's permit or a less encompassing class of licence. Again, I'll go back to the example of someone with a class 4 licence taking driver training for a class 1 licence. It would appear to be an offence under this section, unless the person were accompanied by someone authorized by the superintendent to examine, and obviously the driver trainer would not fall under that category.

[7:00]

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to a driver who's in an educational situation, when a driver is going from one classification to another, they have to have a learner's permit or a person with them during that time of learning. This does not relate to that particular instance; this relates only if you do not have a driver's licence.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps, then, the minister could direct me to the section that would cover that situation with respect to a driver's licence.

Hon. J. Pement: We have deemed that under section 24(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and it's with regard to authorization of learners' licences.

D. Symons: On this same issue, I do remember when the tragic accident happened in Horseshoe Bay a couple of years ago. In the press that covered it at the time, I believe I read somewhere that the young man who was driving the truck did not have a test -- in the sense that we go into the motor vehicle branch and have a test there -- but rather he was given his licence by the driving instructor through the driving school where he was taking his truck-driving lessons. There's something in the question that was asked by the hon. member for Peace River South that gives me the impression.... It says: "...accompanied by a person authorized by the superintendent to examine persons...." Are there driving schools where the instructors are authorized to test somebody and issue them a driver's licence -- particularly for commercial vehicles?

Hon. J. Pement: The schools are not authorized to test; it's not a test that they are authorized to do. They are audited by the motor vehicle branch on the content of their curriculum and the standards of their inspectors. They then can either take a test or be certified through this situation, whereby the superintendent will accept that certification.

D. Symons: I'm gathering from your answer that it is possible that if a driving school is certified in the ministry's viewpoint, it can recommend, so a driver will be issued a test without taking another test through the motor vehicle branch.

Hon. J. Pement: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

D. Symons: My concern here is that by the use of the word "may" in two or three places, this seems to be enabling legislation. Over its tenure in office, the government has brought in a fair amount of enabling legislation. In a sense, we are voting in the dark when we vote on one of these sections, because when the minister "may" or the superintendent of motor vehicles "may," we're not quite sure.... I will give something so the minister can respond as to whether I'm correct in this, just so it will be on the record that at least that was the intent of what we are passing today.

It would seem to me that it is implied here that we're going to have a waiting period, so we're dealing with a graduated licence system for licensing drivers. In subsection (b) they can reduce this minimum waiting period if somebody has taken a prescribed driving course and has passed that course, I assume. I would gather.... I'm not quite sure what it means in section 2, where sub-subsection (6.1)(a) says: "...approve driver education courses given by a driver training school licensed under the regulations...." From speaking to your advisers prior to the meeting today, I gather they are saying that this is not saying we are bringing in a regulated driving school system; it is simply saying that driving schools that meet certain standards will be approved, and those people will be eligible to offer to their people a reduced graduated driving period. Is that the intent of this particular section?

[ Page 15448 ]

Hon. J. Pement: What we are looking at here is developing a curriculum for the schools before we say that they are certified in terms of that type of curriculum. That development has to be done and implemented before we will go to the three-month option. Right now schools are regulated under the motor vehicle branch -- division 27. Schools are bonded. They have a particular training standard, which we have just increased in the last while. We certainly can look to further regulations under that division.

[7:15]

D. Symons: Maybe I misunderstood something from the briefing session we had earlier. From what you are saying, all driving schools have certain standards for what they teach their clientele. Therefore all schools would enter into this -- that have taken a driver's lesson.... That seemed to be what the minister was implying, and I thought it was otherwise.

Hon. J. Pement: Just to be clear, that is not regulated in the curriculum content at this point. That's one of the issues with regard to the option of the three-months' probationary time. We want to see that curriculum be the same throughout the system. Driving schools are regulated in the sense that they are bonded, and their training instructors are now having to go through a number of hours of education, etc., before they are allowed to train new drivers. That's where the regulations lie right now: in bonding the school and in the instructors themselves. The curriculum is not the same across the board, and we want to ensure that we have a good, concise, full curriculum. No matter what institute you go to, you will get a good standard.

D. Symons: Just one further question on that topic. I would gather by the amendments to this particular act that this doesn't address the issue of the driving schools being regulated, in the sense that they must all reach a certain standard. You would be able to give them.... You mentioned three months. I was going to ask, in (6.1)(b), about where it says: "...reduce the minimum waiting period...." You're suggesting that reduced period might be three months if they've taken an appropriate driving course.

Right now it says in that same subsection: "...successfully completed a driver education course approved under paragraph (a)." But there could be other driving schools out there, even given what you've said, that will not necessarily be approved. They're ones you're going to look at. If their course curriculum and their training of the driver trainers are satisfactory, then they will be approved. Their people will be eligible for this reduced waiting period, which you're suggesting is three months, and others might not be eligible because they don't meet your standards.

Hon. J. Pement: Yes. If the driver school will incorporate this curriculum that we will be developing through the motor vehicle branch, then they will be approved to be able to do this option of the three months. That learner driver will be able to take that three-month option. If the school does not have that approved curriculum, then that will not be an option.

D. Symons: There's just one last question on this particular part that I think deals with what's commonly called a graduated driver's licence. Will this period of probation, when they're going through getting their full licence, involve the beginning driver being limited in the hours in which he can operate the vehicle? In other words, is it envisioned...? None of these rules are spelled out here. You have spelled out some, but I didn't see any sort of proscription about them driving, say, from 1 a.m. through to 5 a.m. -- driving at night. Nor did I see anything there about the number of people who might be in the car. I'm concerned that there may be young people who have just got their driver's licence and that, according to this, it would not preclude them from being out late at night partying and having a carload of young people, which all too often in B.C. has led to tragedy.

Hon. J. Pement: It will not limit the hours or the number of people in a vehicle. However, we will be looking, of course, at the blood alcohol situation, which is in a different section. Again, we were trying to set up a process whereby the learner has the opportunity to have the experience of driving -- looking at the full province, with regard to the different conditions that we have in British Columbia as well.

D. Symons: I might just suggest, then, that since this is enabling legislation, it's quite easy to change it at some future date. You might consider that a young person who has just got his driver's licence, driving with a carload of people at 3 a.m., might be less than attentive -- both because of the number of people in the car and the fact that it's very late and he's probably tired. I think that it might be something you may consider.

L. Hanson: The restriction, I suppose, is not an age restriction. It's a learner's licence restriction and also the number of years of experience, so it wouldn't necessarily just apply to young people. I'm sure I'm correct in that, and the minister can answer that in a second.

Secondly, how does the minister deal with a situation where people holding licences in other jurisdictions come to apply for one here?

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the probationary time and the new licensing process, it is focused on the new driver. Any driver who's new to driving will fall under this legislation, so it's not age-oriented.

With regard to other jurisdictions, there are provisions for credit for experience. Therefore if you come from another province or another country, the proof will be upon the driver to show that they have had that experience. It would quite likely come from the licensing authority of that other jurisdiction.

L. Hanson: I suspect that, because British Columbia is such a popular place to arrive in, it may provide some difficulty in getting a history from that other jurisdiction. By the same token, as I understand what the minister is proposing here.... First of all, when a new driver applies for a licence, there will be a probationary period before they can take the test to get the licence, and that probationary period can be reduced if they've taken a driver's licence course that is recognized as a qualified driver's licence course by the superintendent. But even after they get their licence, they would be subject to some other restrictions mainly, that there would be zero blood alcohol allowed in any situation where a driver has 

[ Page 15449 ]

that probationary licence. Is that a different form of licence that will be renewed on a permanent basis after a period of time? Do they have a temporary licence in that period?

Hon. J. Pement: The probationary time -- the full time -- before you get a full-fledged licence is a two-year period, and during that time it's called a probationary licence.

L. Hanson: Then does that same probationary licence apply to the higher classifications of licence -- the more sophisticated ones?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pement: This probationary time is for the new driver -- not for going from a class 5 to a class 1, for example.

L. Hanson: The final question I have on that is: will you establish the time for this probationary period by regulation?

Hon. J. Pement: Yes.

L. Hanson: A final question: do you anticipate at this time that that might be in the vicinity of two years?

Hon. J. Pement: Yes.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4, section 76.1.

J. Weisgerber: Under section 76.1(3)(b), there is a reference that the owner is not liable for a speeding violation if "the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence in entrusting the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle." So the question, obviously, for everybody in British Columbia who ever let someone else drive their car is: what is entailed in exercising reasonable care and diligence? It seems to me that it will be absolutely critical for people to understand what reasonable care and diligence would be. Could the minister perhaps describe for us or advise...? Will there be information available? Will one be able to know at a glance whether they have exercised due care and diligence?

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the legal aspect of reasonable care and diligence, that will ultimately be tested in the court; that's basically how the system works. However, if one wants to express to a car owner what they should ensure that they do, I suggest they ask if the driver they are lending the car to has a valid driver's licence, if they are not prohibited to drive, and perhaps what type of driving record they have.

[7:30]

J. Weisgerber: I'm a bit surprised to hear that we're going to have to go to the courts first. It seems to me reasonable that the Crown would describe due diligence and the reasonable exercise of it, and then expand on it if someone wanted to test it in the courts. I get a sense from the minister that if I were to loan my car to someone who had a valid driver's licence and who told me at the time that they had never had a speeding ticket, for example, that would be exercising due care and diligence. So I would apparently not be subject to the penalties that are described later on in the act. The only defence that I would need when going to court to absolve myself of liability would be to have proven that I had exercised due diligence and care in loaning my vehicle to someone else. Is that the way this reads?

Hon. J. Pement: When lending their vehicle, a person must ensure that the person has a valid driver's licence and that they can legally operate the vehicle. I expressed that before. I think that's fairly easily done by seeing that the licence is current.

As to not being prohibited or driving without a record, if those questions are asked by the owner of the vehicle, they are going through the steps of due diligence in that process. When I said that it would ultimately be a court decision, I didn't say "first," as the member came back to me with. I said ultimately it will be an issue that may be in a court situation.

J. Weisgerber: I think it's important for us to spend a few minutes on this, because I believe this whole question of who was driving will be probably the most common reference if the minister proceeds with the idea of introducing speed cameras or radar cameras. Most importantly, did the owner who wasn't the driver exercise reasonable care and due diligence? Could the minister describe for me what remedies the Crown has under the act if I go to court as the owner and say that I loaned my car to someone on a given day and that I saw their driver's licence -- I know from my association with that person that they have a good driving record, a good history; I don't think they've ever had a speeding ticket? Does the court then change the charge and charge the person whom I entrusted the automobile with, even though I assume there could be no way of knowing whether that person was indeed the operator at the time the alleged offence took place? Is the charge dropped if a camera records my car going at excessive speed, but I've proved that I used common sense and due diligence in loaning out my car? Does the liability pass to the person to whom I loaned the car? How does the charge proceed under those circumstances?

Hon. J. Pement: Before we get to any court situation, the owner of the car has an opportunity to identify the driver, if they are aware of who was driving the car. If in the court situation they are deemed to have used due diligence, then the charge would be dropped.

J. Weisgerber: I'm trying to get the scenario. You loan your car to someone. A couple of weeks later you receive notification by mail that you got a ticket for speeding on a given day. You write back to the issuer of the ticket and say you weren't driving that day, that you had loaned your car to somebody, and you identify the person and the period of time you weren't in possession of the car. Does the person issuing the ticket, on the strength of my undertaking, then lay a charge against the person to whom I loaned the car? Am I obliged to provide the driver's licence number, their address -- those kinds of things? Or do I simply write back and say I loaned the car to a person? Am I obliged to name the person? How does one deal with this situation, which obviously will occur many times in the first week of operation of this new undertaking?

[ Page 15450 ]

Hon. J. Pement: There's a whole section on this -- section 18, with regard to the process -- that we haven't got to as yet.

D. Symons: It's on the same topic, because I have some concerns, too, relating to three or four parts of this section. I'll just carry on in this particular one for the moment, because it seems there's going to be some onus on the driver to show that somebody else was driving the car. My concern is that.... I'm going back to more than 40 years ago, when I got my driver's licence. Somewhere in the back of my mind is the impression that either in the test we wrote or in the document we signed for the driver's licence, there was something to the effect of what's in this bill now, and that is that the owner of the car is liable for whatever troubles that car might get into. So, in a sense, the statement in here where that's the case.... I wonder if that's already overkill -- that it's already in the act somewhere.

The second part is dealing with this particular question just raised. Although we might identify who was driving the car other than the owner, is this section where the owner is not liable only applicable in the sense that you aren't able to charge the other person -- either because they've gone out of the country or for some other reason? Is the owner going to be responsible in the event that you cannot find somebody else to be responsible for the obtaining of that ticket -- or whatever the offence may have been?

Hon. J. Pement: In terms of the member's statement with regard to this section being overkill, this section is specific to speed monitoring and therefore has its specific issue that it deals with. With regard to the owner being responsible, the owner is responsible. This is the issue with regard to this section. The owner has the opportunity to identify or dispute.

D. Symons: I'm gathering from that that if you aren't able to charge somebody else, the owner will be on the hook for the offence. That's what I gather you're saying.

[7:45]

I'm just looking back at the actual act. Sections 76(1)(1.1) and 76(1)(1.2) seem to cover exactly the things you have under this new section 4. Sections 76.1(3) and (4) seem to parallel exactly what is in 76(1)(1.1) and 76(1)(1.2). I'm just wondering why you repeat those sections here under the new section 76.1. If we take the parts in the original act that are just ahead of this part that you are inserting, they already seem to cover subsections (3) and (4) quite well.

Hon. J. Pement: It goes back to the specific issue of a "speed monitoring device," as it says in the section. It states: "...the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device." The rest does reflect the process that the driver or the owner of the car goes through with regard to the charge.

D. Symons: I'm just wondering if those words, "prescribed speed monitoring device".... I realize that this section is being brought in to enable the use of photo radar cameras, but I'm wondering if this in any way prohibits the other ways by which people are charged with driving offences. The action of a police officer observing the speed of a car and using some landmarks to estimate its speed or using the speedometer in the police cruiser or something as a speed monitoring device in no way inhibits the normal ways they have been giving tickets prior to this. Am I correct in that?

Just to save time, I'll ask one other question here. In section 76.1(3)(a) it says that the owner is not liable if at the time of the contravention the person in charge of the motor vehicle was not entrusted by the owner with the possession of the vehicle. In the event that my neighbour needs my car, comes in, and, because I'm not home and we're friendly, takes my key off the key board that I have in my kitchen, uses the car and gets into an accident, must I charge him with theft in order that that section would apply? Must there be a charge of theft generally laid for subsection (3)(a) to be an out for the owner not being liable?

Hon. J. Pement: The answer to your first question about the other enforcement issues is no, it doesn't reflect on those issues.

You do not have to charge a person with theft in this situation with regard to the fact that they may have taken the car without permission.

D. Symons: I have the same concerns as expressed by the member for Peace River South about the issue -- related, really, to the owner owning the car but somebody else committing the offence. I was wondering if a way around subsection (5), which seems to talk about it.... Subsection (5) says: "On a prosecution of the owner of a motor vehicle for an offence under this section, the burden is on the defendant to prove that (a) the person in possession of the motor vehicle was not a person entrusted by the owner with possession, or...." What I would like to do is introduce an amendment at that point, which would take subsection (5)(b), move it on to subsection (5)(c) and then insert after subsection (5)(a) the words: "the person in possession of the vehicle at the time of infraction was other than the owner and is identifiable, and the owner is prepared to sign an affidavit to such effect." That sort of answers these questions we may be having; indeed, if the owner will verify that somebody else was driving the vehicle and identify that person, the onus, the responsibility, is taken off the owner of the responsibility for what that person did while he was in charge of the vehicle.

An Hon. Member: He or she.

D. Symons: He or she. I'm hoping that this would be a friendly amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, this amendment is not required. This amendment is actually redundant, and the issue the member raises is actually in the act, in section 18.

R. Neufeld: Just to go a little further along in the bill, how will this bill cover trucks? Let's say a company has six or eight trucks. How will this affect that company?

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

D. Symons: I'm just looking up section 18, which in my copy of the Motor Vehicle Act is about registration of dissolved companies being suspended, so....

Hon. J. Pement: I'm sorry; maybe I confused the member. It was section 18 of this bill.

[ Page 15451 ]

The Chair: The question is: shall the amendment pass?

R. Neufeld: Sounds like it passes.

The Chair: I'm going to ask again.

Interjections.

The Chair: It sounds to me as if the amendment is negatived.

Amendment negatived.

R. Neufeld: Obviously we have to holler a little louder. Anyhow, I'll just ask the minister about this section. Facilitating photo radar cameras is really what the section is doing, and I would like to ask the minister: does this section cover only cars and light vehicles, or does it cover trucks also?

Hon. J. Pement: All licensed vehicles -- all vehicles.

R. Neufeld: So let's hypothetically think about, in the city, a small delivery truck -- I don't know, a two- or three-ton truck. It will have a licence on the back. As I understand it, the photo radar camera will take a picture of the back of the vehicle. It would be fairly easy to distinguish that vehicle. But the owner, whoever that company happens to be.... If they have a dozen of these with different people driving them all day, is it incumbent now on the owner to keep a record of exactly who drove each vehicle at what particular time of the day? This would add a little more burden to small business.

Hon. J. Pement: It's not incumbent upon the owner to do that. However, in order to identify who was driving vehicles at any given time, the owner may want to do so.

R. Neufeld: It's more red tape for small business. Obviously, I guess, that is going to cause a lot more paperwork for companies or small businesses that have small delivery trucks. I think of service stations where customers leave their cars to have work done to them. They are often driven by (a) the mechanic or (b) someone else, moving it from one place to another for whatever reason. It may go across town to a body shop ten blocks away or something. Somebody else drives it. The owner has absolutely no knowledge of who's going to drive it. If you drop your car off at a shop -- let's say, a GM garage -- and they're doing some work there, and they have to take it across town, how does the owner of that vehicle have any knowledge about who's going to drive it across town? Do you have to get that first and get someone to sign a piece of paper that says: "Yes, I'm going to be the driver"? How does it...? It gets a bit difficult, and it gets a bit more difficult as we go along.

Hon. J. Pement: In a situation such as a garage -- GM, as the member pointed out -- my understanding is that usually there's a designated mechanic who's given a certain piece of work. They do the work and usually go out and test the vehicle. I would think the owner of the establishment would know who that was. However, I would also expect, if my vehicle was in a garage, that they would test it within the laws of the road.

R. Neufeld: Well, it becomes more obvious that there hasn't been a lot of thought given to what's going to take place here. There are all kinds of situations. The minister talks about taking a car to a garage. You would assume that the mechanic would have a licence. Well, I don't often go into the larger garages like in the city, but I just took my vehicle into the GM garage downtown here -- Wheaton Pontiac. I didn't see the mechanic; I saw a guy out in the front. There were about eight of them standing there servicing all kinds of people with all kinds of problems. How do you know if they...? Three weeks later you get a ticket in the mail. How do you know who was driving that vehicle? Or do you ask everyone in the garage to sign a slip that says: "I may drive this vehicle"?

[8:00]

Hon. J. Pement: Within most any establishment that do this type of work there is usually an understanding about who is working on the vehicles and who is testing those vehicles.

With regard to the speed-monitoring camera, the speed, time and location will be recorded. It will be fairly specific as to where, when and how much speed was involved. If the owner of the car knows that their vehicle was in a garage at that time, they would be able to take it to the garage owner, and I'm quite certain that owner would be able to identify who tested that vehicle.

R. Neufeld: I have to remind the minister that these garages have more than a couple of mechanics on shift. They may have 25 or 30; maybe some of the larger garages have 50 mechanics on duty. All kinds of people write up work orders for this equipment. The more we talk about this section of the bill the more it becomes evident that the minister or the staff -- whoever drafted the legislation -- didn't think about a lot of these situations that can pop up. I can tell you that if three weeks from the time you've had your vehicle in the garage you get a ticket in the mail -- and obviously that's how it gets to you -- you go back to the garage, where there are 100 employees.... Are you going to stand there and say: "Okay, who was driving it? Stick your hand up"? The only way you can do that is that each employee of that business would have to keep an absolute record of what they drove, where they drove it, what time, and for how long. Is that what we're asking small business to do?

Hon. J. Pement: I guess it depends on a garage of 30 or a garage of three, where the small business lies and where the issue lies. But from my understanding, more often than not the mechanics sign their work out in those situations. In most places where there is more than one mechanic and you know there may be other people working on it, they usually sign their work out.

R. Neufeld: Obviously I don't know the workings of Wheaton Pontiac, for instance, but I would be quite surprised if each individual that happens to drive that vehicle signs the work order as to the time they drove it. That could be, and I guess all we're doing is putting more regulations and more red tape and more work on business to try to be able to carry on business.

I want to go to the vehicles that are a little larger -- the transport trucks: semitrailers, B-trains, five-axles, whatever. Obviously you're going to take a picture of the back of the trailer. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pement: Yes.

[ Page 15452 ]

R. Neufeld: If you are taking a picture of the back of the trailer, you certainly don't have the licensed motor vehicle that you're going to send the ticket to, because there are trailer-leasing companies that lease out thousands of trailers across Canada. It's unbelievable. There are companies that will change trailers. One tractor will pull it to one place and another tractor takes it some other place, or across town; or a long haul comes in, drops a trailer in a yard and the ladies or men that jockey around town take it from there. How do you determine who was pulling that trailer, and where does the ticket go? Is it going to the leasing company? Is Caravan Leasing all of a sudden going to receive 4,000 tickets in the mail?

Hon. J. Pement: In the case of a trailer situation, as pointed out by the member, I believe that those trailers are under a recordkeeping situation; therefore it would be easy to find out who was actually pulling the trailer.

R. Neufeld: It's obvious that whoever drafted the bill has never had any experience in the trucking industry, or even had the time of day to go to some trucking firms or trailer-leasing companies to find out what kind of difficulty something as stupid as this is going to cause for some of those companies. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I can see by the questioning, as we go along further, that it's getting worse and worse and worse. The minister may know that trailers licensed in Quebec are pulled across the country. Let's just go away from big trucks -- how about a U-Haul trailer? Half of those are registered and licensed in Quebec or Ontario. By the time they get back to Quebec and Ontario and they try to find someone else, you have put all kinds of rules and regulations on leasing and trucking companies that they're going to have a hard time dealing with.

Secondly, it's not the trailer that's speeding down the road. It's the tractor; it's the truck. It's the vehicle that's pulling that B-train or that one single trailer. That's what is speeding. The trailer only goes along behind. So it becomes very hard for those companies. It's not like renting a car from Avis or Tilden or whatever. Those trailers are transferred between tractors constantly, and the recordkeeping is going to be very difficult to keep.

The minister says the ultimate test will be the courts. My goodness. Aren't our courts clogged up enough today? Aren't our courts in enough problems today -- judges dealing with real crime that they can't get to -- without dealing with something like this? It's going to be a nightmare, and it's obvious that the minister, her staff and whoever drafted the legislation haven't thought it through properly. We're only on the fourth section.

Hon. J. Pement: I think it is fairly clear that most companies keep records, and whether you're from Quebec or other provinces, whether you're driving a passenger vehicle or a truck, you're still under the rules and regulations of British Columbia with regard to travelling on these roads.

This issue is a safety issue. It's an issue of people being injured and killed on our system, and that is the focus we should be looking at in this particular discussion.

C. Serwa: As I listen to the debate on this particular section, I suppose it makes me wonder whether this legislation is revenue-inspired or safety-inspired. I prefer to think that it's safety-inspired, although I've never seen any statistics indicating that safety is going to be enhanced by this particular section and by attacking the owner of the vehicle. That gives me a great deal of concern. In order for legislation to actually function, it has to be acceptable by the public and enforceable by the enforcement arm. As my colleague for Peace River North has indicated, in this particular piece of legislation, and certainly in this section, there are so many elements where it's very, very difficult to trace the ownership without a great deal of cumbersome paperwork because of the registration of trailers, for example, and also the recordkeeping of numerous types of vehicles.

It doesn't seem to be reasonable that the definition of owner in subsection 76.1(1) and the responsibility of the owner should be designated simply to facilitate the work of the enforcement arm. It doesn't seem to be reasonable or fair at all, and we're having a great many problems with this particular section and perhaps with more of the legislation. From my standpoint as a member of the opposition, perhaps the best thing we could do is allow the government to go ahead with it. But in all fairness to the travelling public out there, and to the citizens of the province, I think this type of questioning has to go on. But the bill does not seem to be designed with safety first and foremost in mind; it appears to be a revenue generator with a secure access to that. Perhaps the minister would respond.

Hon. J. Pement: It certainly is an area of controversy, but I will say that there are stats with regard to the facts. Speed- related deaths in British Columbia are in the area of 60 lives lost, and $125 million goes out in ICBC claims related to speed. Different jurisdictions have used speed radar cameras as the focus of traffic safety initiatives, Australia being one. Australia has a longer time span of using photo radar, and that is why theirs are interesting stats: 24 percent of their drivers were speeding, and in two years that dropped to 2 percent after the radar cameras were introduced. Over four years these cameras contributed to a 46 percent reduction in fatalities, and a 36 percent reduction in injuries. Those are pretty significant stats.

[8:15]

Interestingly enough, they're just getting their stats in from the small community of Cobourg in Ontario. A particular officer in that community claimed that drivers were averaging 120 kilometres an hour on Highway 401 around that community of Cobourg before photo radar, and now they're averaging 105 to 110 kilometres an hour. In other words, in the short time that it's been in Ontario, they're seeing a significant drop in speed. In the same period the year before photo radar, there were 16 people killed, and now they're looking at a reduction to 11 people, I believe.

The ones in Ontario are not strong stats, because they haven't had enough time; the ones in Australia are strong stats. That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to say that there are other ways to reduce our costs and fatalities and injuries in British Columbia, and one of those ways is photo radar. This whole package will show those reductions. We're looking at a $350 million reduction once all of these packages are implemented. I think that is pretty significant.

Interestingly enough, both in Ontario and Australia the revenues that come in from fines have dropped or are starting 

[ Page 15453 ]

to drop, because people's speeds are going down. That's what you're looking for. You're looking at bringing the high-risk driver down to reasonable speeds, so when there is an accident, it is less severe.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, with respect to the Australian experience, there were a whole host of changes introduced at the same time that the radar cameras were brought in. I don't believe that there is any compelling evidence to suggest that it was the cameras themselves that changed the patterns in Australia.

I'm curious. I know the minister spent considerable time travelling to Australia to examine and observe this experience firsthand. I wonder if the minister also travelled to Calgary, where they've had photo radar cameras in place since 1989. The number of tickets issued has increased dramatically, but safety statistics, accident statistics and fatalities on Calgary streets haven't come down at all. I wonder, indeed, how the minister rationalizes the experience in Calgary. My colleague from Peace River North has more details on that.

From my recollection, in the first year, 1989, Calgary issued about 8,000 tickets on photo radar; they had about 36 fatalities. In the period of time since then, the number of annual fatalities has run between 36 and 40, but the number of tickets issued per year for speeding has increased from about 8,000 to something like 65,000. There is absolutely.... From my examination of the evidence in Calgary, which would seem to me to provide a very good, very logical comparison, the statistics simply don't support it. Aside from being much easier for the minister to get to, I believe Calgary would provide a far better comparison with the circumstances in cities and towns in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on her examination of the statistics in Calgary.

Hon. J. Pement: To take a look at how we sometimes come to comparisons.... With regard to communities, Edmonton and Calgary both have radar cameras, I believe. When you look at what we're doing here in British Columbia, we've put in a total package, which is a whole different scenario. In Australia, they put in a total package, including looking at the new driver, looking at the driver that is drinking, looking at the radar camera with regard to the overall speed factor in those cases, and the whole educational process with regard to putting on the different ads, etc. Also, it's a full provincial picture that we'll be looking at, like what Australia -- similar to British Columbia in terms of urban and rural population -- did as a state. The critical mass is also a part of the issue with 30 cameras, for example.

So I think that what we're looking at here in British Columbia is a situation where we want to reduce.... It's not a case of putting a camera up so you can get fines in and get revenue in; it's a case of putting a camera up to reduce the speed. You know that if you are going on a particular system, the cameras will be there, and you will slow down. And if you slow down, there will not be any revenue.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I'll be curious to know if the minister took the time to travel to Edmonton and Calgary as she was quite keen to do to Australia.

It seems to me that our criticisms -- the focus of our concern with this bill -- isn't with the other sections of the bill, which we will support. The idea of requiring new drivers to go with no blood alcohol for a period of time, and stretching out the time period between obtaining a learner's permit and actually obtaining a licence -- we have no argument with those. The idea that you would reduce that waiting time for people who take lessons from a registered and approved driving course -- we have no argument with that.

The question is whether or not something as intrusive as radar cameras is effective in reducing speed. I think that when the minister was going through the examination, it would have been useful to find a jurisdiction where they just brought in the cameras. The minister is arguing that in jurisdictions where they just bring in the cameras, it's not effective. One might argue, then, that you could achieve the results without bringing in the cameras, that the other measures that were brought in in Australia -- the other measures that perhaps are included in this bill -- are the ones that are effective and that the speed radar cameras are, in fact, not effective and only serve to raise revenue.

I want to go back and read into the record the statistics with respect to Calgary as taken from British Columbia Report of April 3, 1995. In Calgary, where photo radar was introduced in 1989, 8,323 tickets were handed out, and in that year 38 people died in accidents. By 1992, 24,235 tickets were issued, yet there were 47 deaths. Fatalities dropped in 1993 to 36, two less than in 1989 -- roughly the same as 1989 -- despite the fact that 60,408 tickets were issued at that time.

So 60,408 were issued in Calgary in 1993. The use of cameras, whether speeding increased or whether there were simply more and more cameras put out and more and more revenue generated.... The fact of the matter is that measured by driving fatalities, it was completely ineffective in anything other than issuing some 60,000 tickets a year.

As the minister rationalizes this, I'm curious to know how she's able to look at those statistics from Calgary. Perhaps they are substantially different in Edmonton; maybe the minister has some information for us there. But I suspect that everyone wants to reduce speeding. I think that all of us recognize that speed kills, speed causes accidents, and that excessive speed is undesirable and unacceptable from a highway traffic management perspective. However, our argument is that these speed cameras aren't the best way to control it, and the evidence that we have suggests that statistics support that. The minister might, in reflecting on what happened in Ontario, also recognize how motorists and voters there rejected the concept of speed radar cameras. Ontario residents are angry with them; they're not happy with them; they are not satisfied with them. I believe that if they were effective, there would be a lot more support in Ontario than recent events would suggest there is.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case of how one uses the cameras. In Calgary they focused on one or two major roads, Deerfoot Trail being one of their main systems. They have actually shown on that particular system that they have brought the average speeding rate down. We will work on getting you the stats; we haven't got them here at the moment.

They did not focus on the critical mass, as I was talking about before, with regard to a complete and provincewide system. It makes it a different scenario in that case. I'll go back to the Ontario experience. This is from the Peterborough Examiner: "Photo Radar Credited -- Motorists Slow Down for 

[ Page 15454 ]

Fewer Crashes." That is the headline of this particular publication. Just so I have it right, it reads: "Accidents with fatalities went from 11 to four in Cobourg; personal injury accidents went from 154 to 112."

In both these situations -- Australia and Ontario -- where the stats are beginning to come in now, they are looking at a dip in revenue. That is the intent: to slow people down. If you slow people down, you're not looking at a revenue situation at all.

J. Weisgerber: Before allowing other members to continue, either with this or other sections.... It seems to me that the evidence -- the fact that the number of tickets issued in Calgary in 1992 was roughly 25,000, and in 1993 was 60,000 -- suggests that people who drive up and down Deerfoot Trail must be pretty thick. They must not get the message easily if they just keep going faster and faster, getting more and more tickets.

The statistics don't at all confirm the minister's statements. Indeed, they are contrary; they tend to contradict the minister, rather than support her statements. Again, the minister seems to be quite selective in the areas she looks to rationalize this. But I'll let others carry on.

Hon. J. Pement: Perhaps he could let me know where he got his stats from, and we will compare them to where we got our information from.

J. Weisgerber: The stats I have were reported April 5, as I indicated earlier on, in British Columbia Report, in a story that was carried there. Indeed, I suppose the minister would be prepared to table stats that she has, and perhaps newspaper articles from Australia that would contradict this.

[8:30]

D. Symons: As the previous speaker has said, the support or non-support for Bill 25 really hinges on section 4, because this is the one with the introduction of photo radar cameras. In a sense I have some sympathy with the idea if, as the minister reported, it's going to be a safety feature -- it's going to save lives, cut down accidents, cut down claims at ICBC, and in the long run reduce our insurance premiums on cars. If all of that were to flow from this, I would have unqualified support for it.

To assure me that that's the case, there are a few things I want to hear from the minister. One is that when Australia introduced theirs, there was a very strong, hard-hitting public relations and advertising campaign that went with it, and they spent in the neighbourhood of $150 million on that. I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us how much money they are planning to spend on the introduction of this as a hard-hitting advertising campaign that will hit on the idea that speed kills and that these are being introduced as a method of reducing the number of deaths on the highway, rather than -- as has been suggested -- that it might be used by the government to increase revenues. That's where the difficulty with this hinges on the part of the previous speaker. They are concerned about whether this is a safety issue or a money-raising venture. I think our support can really revolve around that particular part.

Also, I would like to know whether these speed-monitoring cameras will be placed only in areas where accidents have occurred and not in other areas just to slow down traffic, if those areas where you're trying to slow down traffic have not had any accidents. If you're trying to cut down accidents and injuries on the road, it seems counterproductive to go after speeders in an area where speeding has not been a problem as far as accidents go. Maybe their concerns are valid. If you're going to use them in areas that have an accident record, then I could go along with it.

I must also suggest that possibly these cameras could be used in areas where accidents have a record of occurring, or as a red-light camera in an intersection where there is some history of accidents. If the minister could clarify, or at least demonstrate that their interest right now is to use them in those circumstances only, I think I could be quite supportive of this.

[S. O'Neill in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the campaign that we have started through ICBC, we'll be spending $3 million this year on our advertising. In consultation with the whole issue of working out the problems on a community level, we are also developing extensive community processes. We are focused on the black spots, where the main accidents are happening in the province. We want to take a look at those areas first, and I've talked about that with community groups and with the RCMP and other police departments. We also want to look at the speed limits and how those limits are set up with regard to some particular areas. I have had some extensive discussions with peace officers with regard to their view that some speed areas could be bumped up because of the particular system they have become familiar with; others they see should be reduced. And the same with community groups. The issue is to slow people down, and we will be looking at those black spots first.

D. Symons: I have a few closing comments on this section. If you have spent $3 million so far -- and I mentioned earlier that the state of Victoria in Australia spent close to $150 million -- it's a drop in the bucket. Since you've used Australia as the example of how effective this is, tied in with the use of photo radar is a whole pile of other things, including a very strong advertising campaign, and $3 million so far seems awfully small. I'm hoping that you're planning on a budget of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million -- if you're going to make this thing really as effective as Australia's, which you're holding up as the example.

The other factor you mentioned was that you're going to use the black spots first -- that is, the areas that have an accident history. I would like to hear you say that we're going to use it there, period. Again, you've used the term, and they're going to use it for slowing down speeds, speed monitoring, and so forth. My concern is.... I'm glad to hear the minister say that they're going to look at speed limits -- and I hope that that will be throughout the province -- to see where they can be adjusted to match the circumstances of the highway and other events so that the speed limit will be more realistic. There are areas where I'm sure it can be raised 10 kilometres an hour or something of that sort. It might possibly cause people to go another 10 kilometres an hour beyond that when they're driving; nevertheless, there are some areas where the speed limit is not realistic for the conditions of the road. I would like to know: are you going to use them at 

[ Page 15455 ]

intersections to check whether people are running red lights and ticket them? Are you going to deal not just with the black spots first but, indeed, use them in those areas that are accident prone, rather than simply using them as a speed- monitoring device?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, black spots are the focus with regard to this particular situation of using the speed-monitoring cameras. If there are particular intersections that stand out, there could be a possibility of working with that particular community, and police officers in those communities take a look at that type of situation.

Again, I really want to remind the members that there's an issue in British Columbia -- a $2 billion issue -- of costs in accidents that we are paying out. With the initiatives that we are putting forward in this bill and with the advertising that we're doing on the photo radar, we hope to bring those costs down -- not only the costs of human suffering but also the costs to our health care system, insurance costs and other types of costs that are related. That's what the issue is here.

R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions arising out of some of the debate. The minister talks about $2 billion. Of course, that's the total for ICBC for the whole year. Can the minister please tell us what portion of that is attributable to straight absolute speed and no other factors? My understanding is that straight speed, of course, causes accidents, but there are usually some other factors involved. How many dollars are we talking about?

Hon. J. Pement: Directly related to speed, ICBC has identified $400 million in costs. What we're looking at is a saving, in the initial implementation, of $125 million.

R. Neufeld: When one gets the picture taken of the licence plate, in comparison to getting a ticket from a policeman on the side of the road, are points assigned to the driver?

Hon. J. Pement: Yes, legislation does provide for points.

R. Neufeld: So points, then, will apply along with the ticket. If one can prove that someone else was driving the vehicle, then the points go to the person who was driving the vehicle. Is that correct? I can see some paperwork coming up for ICBC in the whole process.

Hon. J. Pement: Points are provided for within the legislation.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to refer the minister to subsection 76.1(4) under section 4. It seems to me that it says pretty clearly that the owner is subject to a fine: "...in place of the fine or term of imprisonment specified in an enactment for the offence, a fine of not more than $2,000 may be imposed." So, first, there's a suggestion that points wouldn't apply. Second, can the minister tell us what the maximum fine would be under a normal speeding charge, one in which the driver was given a ticket by a police officer?

Hon. J. Pement: The maximum fine in other circumstances would be $2,000 as well.

[8:45]

J. Weisgerber: I'm wondering if the minister could explain why there's a need to bring in section 4 if the penalty by way of a fine is the same and if the driving points apply -- which I'm surprised at. I must confess that I was under the clear impression that one of the elements of this whole approach was that fines were applied against the vehicle owner and that, because of the difficulty in actually proving that an individual was responsible, points against the driver as such didn't apply. So I really perhaps want the minister to confirm for me that points will be applied to owners and presumed drivers or people identified as drivers. I don't want that; I'm not necessarily promoting that. I just want to make sure that we understand that's the case. And I'm confused at the need to make reference to the fine specifically, if it's indeed consistent with penalties already in place for speeding, for the offence.

Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the area concerned, the reason this particular subsection 76.1(4) is in the act is that it will preclude or exclude the person from being imprisoned, as is in the other area of the act. The legislation does prescribe or allow for points to be issued.

J. Weisgerber: Just one last time, then, I'm surprised that.... If there's a need to bring in specifics with respect to imprisonment and fine limits, as the minister's answer obviously would indicate, why is there no obligation to outline, with respect to points, the penalties that would apply for speeding to an owner or others charged under this particular section or provision of the act -- which allows for photo cameras, as opposed to other more conventional means of issuing tickets?

Hon. J. Pement: I point out to the member that points, in general, are prescribed through regulation, not through legislation.

L. Hanson: I had to put in my hearing aid to make sure I heard what I thought I was hearing. You're suggesting now -- I think it's fairly clear, but I have trouble believing it -- that the owner of a car who is trapped by photo radar is now charged if you or the owner can't identify the driver. As a result of that speeding ticket, the individual gets an assignment of points and, with an assignment of points, a premium charge from ICBC.

Hon. J. Pement: The owner may be responsible. As I said before, the act can provide for points.

L. Hanson: Suppose the person who owns the car doesn't have a driver's licence but gets a fine as a result of somebody driving that car, and then there is an assignment of points through the motor vehicle branch and a fine coming from ICBC as a result of that. Yet the individual just owns the car -- doesn't drive it.

Hon. J. Pement: In the scenario the member has pointed out, yes, the unlicensed owner would receive those points -- and the consequences of such scenarios as insurance, as the member pointed out. Remembering that this is a high-risk issue with regard to premiums, it would be viewed in the same way as points that ICBC identifies in terms of their premiums.

R. Neufeld: I guess, if we're getting back to trucks.... If trailers are moved on permit, how does photo radar catch those trailers?

[ Page 15456 ]

Hon. J. Pement: I'm really not too clear about the question. In regard to a vehicle, whether it be a truck or a car, there would be records as to who has that permit. I would expect that you would able to track it.

R. Neufeld: Again, this reinforces that nobody really did any homework. In relation to permits, there are temporary operation permits, where you buy a permit from the motor vehicle branch to move a vehicle that is unlicensed. What I'm asking is: how do you catch that trailer? I guess that person just goes through the radar trap and can be home-free.

Hon. J. Pement: The member was referring to a temporary operating situation. With regard to displaying that particular permit, it would probably be difficult for a camera to pick it up. There's quite likely.... There may be other instances where that occurs. What we're looking at is the whole of the situation. There will be occasions where perhaps a picture doesn't come through well enough, and this would be one.

R. Neufeld: In the minister's discussions with Ontario concerning the project that they just started, does she have any statistics that show the number of trucks pulling trailers that are caught by photo radar where the licence plate is readable? Is there a percentage? I'm talking about permits also. If you photo- radar 100 trailers, are there 100 trailers that you could send speeding tickets to?

Hon. J. Pement: We certainly can pick up those kind of stats for the member if the member wants them; we don't have them on hand here. What I think is really important is the issue of what we're talking about with regard to the cameras: the fact that we are looking at reducing speed overall in the system within British Columbia. No situation is 100 percent tried and true. We see photo radar as an enhancement to police enforcement. There are still going to be other types of enforcement out there with regard to drivers that are breaking the rules and regulations of the road.

R. Neufeld: I have one final question. Could the minister supply the House with a list of the names of companies, small and large -- and I'm talking specifically about trucking firms -- they consulted with when this legislation was drafted, and also what consultation process the ministry went through with small and medium-sized businesses before this legislation was drafted and who those companies were? I would appreciate that very much.

[9:00]

Hon. J. Pement: Again, we consulted with a wide scope of organizations who are really concerned about this issue: the B.C. Automobile Association, the Vancouver police, the RCMP, municipalities, driving schools and the B.C. Medical Association. It was really an issue with regard to safety on the roads. It's been a safety issue all along -- a safety issue that we want to correct. We want to see speed reduced; we want to see the number of accidents reduced. I would hope that the member would want to see that as well.

R. Neufeld: Obviously, the minister just gave us the names of the organizations and groups that they consulted before drafting this legislation. Not once did I hear mentioned anything to do with the B.C. Trucking Association, small business, the Business Council of B.C. or any of those types of organizations, or about finding out just exactly what kinds of problems they're going to experience with this kind of legislation. It's pretty obvious that the consultation process was pretty slim.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Section 4 of Bill 25, section 76.1, approved on the following division:

On section 4, section 76.2.

L. Hanson: On "certificate as evidence," maybe the minister can enlighten us as to what an actual certificate is. I would imagine it is a certification by an officer that they have a picture that says the vehicle was going beyond so many kilometres per hour in a certain kind of zone. Does that include a copy of the picture? What other evidence does it include?

Hon. J. Pement: The certificate would have the signature of the law enforcement officer. There would be the picture, time, location and speed zone, and the calibration of the camera would also be on there -- those issues, basically.

L. Hanson: So if a person who has been served a certificate -- I would imagine that's the process -- wants to contest that, he or she must have leave of the court to ask the officer to come and testify in court?

Hon. J. Pement: The answer is yes.

[9:15]

Section 4, section 76.2 approved.

On section 5.

D. Symons: I am having trouble following. I was trying to follow all the sections. The last line of the first paragraph of 

[ Page 15457 ]

section 5, section 83.1(1) says: "...under section 24(7.2)...." I can't find a section 24(7.2) in this amendment act, and I can't find it in the original Motor Vehicle Act, so I'm wondering if the minister might be able to direct me so that I can see what conditions have been imposed under that section.

Hon. J. Pement: It's actually under section 2 of this act. Section 24(7.2) is on the first page of this act.

Section 5, sections 83.1 to 83.4 inclusive approved.

Section 6, sections 87.1 to 87.6 inclusive approved.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

D. Symons: I have just a comment, I guess, on section 95.3 -- the part on impoundment. Where it's the police officer, I'm just wondering.... Apparently, by the act under this section, now the police officer basically will be empowered to do what they used to do for a 24-hour roadside suspension. They seem now to be able to impose a 60-day or 30-day impoundment of a vehicle. And that could be at the discretion of the police officer, at the site of catching the person driving while prohibited.

I'm wondering if there's anything matching that in current legislation, where the police officer has those powers. It seems to be an extension of the powers of the police officer. Before they could do a 24-hour roadside suspension, but I don't think they had the power to do much other than that, other than going through the court system to impose a further fine. So what's different here, compared to current practices?

The Chair: Perhaps, while the minister is reviewing that question, I could ask whether sections 95.1 and 95.2 will pass.

Section 8, sections 95.1 and 95.2 approved.

On section 8, section 95.3.

Hon. J. Pement: There is another section where a peace officer has the ability to exercise this power; however, it's more discretionary. In this act, the peace officer must. That is the area of difference, where they have the discretion to do this in other situations. An example is mechanical fitness of a vehicle.

D. Symons: I just emphasize, then, that this seems to be quite a departure, because mechanical fitness is quite different. Where he's basically ruling off the road until the point where that vehicle is made mechanically safe, here you can end up having a vehicle impounded. Now, granted there is a method of appealing, but he can have the vehicle impounded up to 60 days, I believe. That seems to be quite a change from where the police officer can cause a roadside suspension for 24 hours. The 24 hours is now stretched 60 times as long, into a 60-day prohibition from driving that vehicle.

Section 8, sections 95.3 to 95.95 inclusive approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

D. Symons: I just have one question on section 96.2 of section 10. My concern is in subsection (2) of that. A person has a vehicle impounded for 30 days for a first offence. A second offence within two years is a 60-day impoundment. It would seem to imply here that any further offences within that two year period.... I'm not quite sure if it's consecutive in the sense that if you have an offence after the first year of this two-year period, would two years start from the new offence, or would two years continue from the beginning of the first offence? If you had two within a two-year period, does it continue? Are they consecutive or concurrent?

I have a concern that if, after two offences -- the first being the 30-day impoundment and a subsequent one that gives them a 60-day impoundment -- they haven't got the message, isn't there something more you could do after that point? If they haven't got the message after two, I would think that giving them further 60-day suspensions isn't enough.

Hon. J. Pement: In this situation, what happens if your vehicle is impounded is.... In order to designate whether to do a 30- or a 60-day situation, what will happen is that it will go back for the two-year period. If you've had a vehicle impounded from that day back the two years, then you'll get the 60-day impoundment -- if you've had that occurrence before.

D. Symons: Just for clarification, I said that if within that two-year period you've had your 30-day impoundment, you've had your 60-day impoundment and now you have your third offence that involves impoundment of the vehicle, that's where I'm saying that 60-day impoundments are not solving the problem. Is this concurrent? Does it still start from day one of the first offence, or are we now saying that you've got to have another clear two years when 60-day impoundments will apply, or do you go back to the 30 days again?

[9:30]

Hon. J. Pement: The offender would be looking at another 60 days.

I have to remind the member that in terms of impoundment of the vehicle, this person will be paying out storage costs, tow costs, etc., as well. There's more than even losing the vehicle; there's the expense of losing the vehicle as well.

Sections 10 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

R. Neufeld: Just a few brief questions on section 18. This is the section that deals with how you pay for the ticket, or if you get someone else to sign an affidavit. In subsection (e)(iv) it says: "...an affidavit of another person in which the other person (A) swears or solemnly affirms..." and so on, or "(B) indicates whether he or she is responsible...." Is it the responsibility of the person who receives the ticket -- if they're disputing the fact that they were driving the vehicle -- if they find the person who was driving the vehicle, to get that person to sign a sworn affidavit that they were the driver of the vehicle before the responsibility is removed from the owner of the vehicle?

[ Page 15458 ]

Hon. J. Pement: The answer is yes.

R. Neufeld: What that says is that the owner of the vehicle has to get a sworn affidavit from the person who was driving it. There's also a time frame here, which is within 30 days of being served with a ticket or being deemed to have received the ticket in the mail. That's the way, I understand, that tickets are going to be delivered: through the mail. Who decides which 30 days the person has? Is it from the time it is mailed from the superintendent's office, or is there an arbitrary time in place between the day it's mailed until it should be received? How is that decision made? The reason I ask this is that in some parts of British Columbia, our mail service, whether we like it or not, is not that quick.

Hon. J. Pement: I'll refer the member back to section 15, section 14(4.2). I think maybe his answer is there.

R. Neufeld: So obviously that is right: from the date it is mailed, you have 30 days to find the person who was driving the vehicle, have that person sign an affidavit and get it back to the superintendent. Again, obviously, not much thought has gone into this process. When we're talking about dealing with people who operate on the highway, who operate transport trucks or who lease trailers, and with trailer-leasing companies and trailers that are leased in Quebec or Ontario -- and many of them are, in Ontario specifically -- what has to happen, then, if you're lucky enough to get a picture of the licence plate on the back of the trailer, is that in the 30 days from the day that it's put in the mail, it goes to Ontario, and someone there, who leases 4,000 or 5,000 trailers, has to determine who was pulling that trailer and try to find that person in British Columbia to get them to sign an affidavit so that they're not charged and the points aren't on their driver's licence -- all within 30 days. How are you going to manage to do that?

Hon. J. Pement: In fact, the member pointed out the issue with regard to trucking and such. I'd just like to point out to the member that at their convention in Whistler, the B.C. Trucking Association was presented with this full package, and they quite endorsed the whole package with regard to the issues. That was one of the questions the member had asked before.

On the issue of the number of days, if you put section 15, section 14(4.2), together with section 18, section 14(7.1)(e), you actually get a total of 60 days -- 30 days for the mail, and 30 days to get the affidavit.

R. Neufeld: I'm sure the B.C. Trucking Association would approve of it, and so do we. We're not advocating that people should be speeding. We agree. We're just not sure that this is the vehicle to do it and whether some of the sections in this bill really deal with some of the intricacies of what is going to take place. It's fine to have the schooling to write it, but you need the experience to make it work, and that's what we are talking about. I think if you said to the B.C. Trucking Association.... Having been involved in trucking just in my small company in Fort Nelson, I could send a truck away and not see it back for up to three weeks.

By the time you get the ticket and you find the person, your time has elapsed. I don't quite understand how you get the 60 days. I would think that there should be something that deals with people who are long-haul, where leases take place from other parts of Canada and different tractors are pulling trailers around the country and dropping them off at different places and someone else is picking them up. Just because it's leased in Ontario doesn't mean that the same truck takes it from Ontario all the way to British Columbia and back again. It may go all over the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia for a month or two before it goes back -- or it may never go back. I am saying that there is real difficulty, and I can't quite see where the person gets 60 days. No matter where you read in either section, you have 30 days from date of mailing to respond. That is not sufficient time; there's no way.

Hon. J. Pement: In section 15(4.2) you have 30 days to receive the copy after it is mailed. In section 18 you have 30 days to file.

R. Neufeld: Subsection (4.2), in going back to section 15.... I guess we're not supposed to do that, but just to clarify a little bit of what we're trying to deal with here, subsection (4.2) states that if a copy of a violation ticket is mailed to an owner under subsection (4.1), the owner is deemed to have received the copy 30 days after it is mailed.

If we go down to subsection (7.1)(e), it says: "...within 30 days of (i) being served with the ticket, or (ii) being deemed to have received the ticket in the mail...." That tells me 30 days.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, you are deemed to have received it in 30 days. Once you have received it, you have 30 days in which to file it.

R. Neufeld: My colleague from Okanagan-Vernon tells me that the minister is right. Sixty days is correct, so I'll go along with that.

I want to deal a bit more with subsection (7.1)(e)(iv) -- to get an affidavit signed by another person. I guess 60 days applies here. Does the person who owns the trailer have 60 days to get the affidavit signed and back to the superintendent?

Hon. J. Pement: The answer is yes.

[9:45]

R. Neufeld: I have one more quick question. To be honest, I do find some problem with that. It is not just a matter of going to someone's house and finding this person. If we are dealing with long-haul truckers, that person could be out on the road someplace. Long-haul truckers spend very little time at home. Coming from the riding that she does, I think she understands what I'm talking about. Some of these people may not be home for a month or two at a time. How does the owner of the trailer get hold of the person who is long-hauling around Canada to get them to sign an affidavit? That's the part I'm having difficulty with, and I think the trucking industry will have difficulty with, unless you are not going to photograph trailers to try to get speeding offences against trucking firms.

I can tell you, also from experience, that if you look at the back of most trailer firms' trailers, you'll see: "If this vehicle is exceeding the speed limit, please phone such and such a number -- our office." So of course they agree that speed is 

[ Page 15459 ]

not good: it's not good for the equipment, and it's not good for the highway. But what I'm trying to say is that the actual working of the bill is going to be very difficult.

Hon. J. Pement: Again, there is a specific time frame given -- 30 days to the mailing situation, 30 days to file -- for a total of 60 days. That's basically the process with which we're going to work.

R. Neufeld: I can belabour this all night, but I think it's absolutely unfair. It's obvious that the minister is arbitrarily setting this time frame of 60 days and be damned, everyone is going to have to live with it.

I just want to remind the minister that when we're talking about companies that lease a trailer from Ontario, the mail goes all the way to Ontario, and the person who owns that trailer has to determine which tractor was pulling that trailer at that time, find that person who drove that truck -- who may be on time off or may be someplace else, and that truck may be going across Canada in a different direction -- and get all this back to the ministry within 60 days.

I want to tell the minister what it's like as an MLA to get a response from any minister of this government, and that's within the province of British Columbia. I think with only one letter I've ever written to a minister of this government have I received a reply in less than 90 days. That's how long it takes ministers to respond to an inquiry. And some of them take up to six months.

What you're asking here, my goodness, is for industry to be able to meet these rather draconian rules, and I don't think it's going to work. I just want to get that on the record.

Hon. J. Pement: Certainly the member has pointed out some concerns that are not only particular to truckers, I'm sure. However, there is the opportunity to dispute as well, and I think the member should take a look at the whole process with which one has to work.

L. Hanson: My colleague from Peace River North canvassed the issue of the commercial hauler. What about the issue of the commercial car rental? I suppose the same problems and principles apply. Can the minister tell us how Tilden, Budget, Hertz or whoever they may be are going to process this in that short time? What defence have they got against speeding fines when cars are out on lease?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, I'm assuming he's talking about a lease-type commercial arrangement. It's quite obvious that there are records of who has leased the car and who is going to be driving the car; the licence is usually there. I think that in other types of similar situations with leased vehicles, if a person has leased a vehicle and gets a parking ticket, the company will have to pay up, or they send a letter to the person to say that there is a parking ticket outstanding on that vehicle when they had it.

L. Hanson: I think what the minister is suggesting is that it's the business operation that must beware. I suspect that we're probably going to have some kind of form that's a disclaimer on the part of the car rental company. I'm not talking about long-term leases; I'm talking about short-term leases, where anyone who rents a daily rental car is going to sign some accepted form that the motor vehicle branch will accept, which says: "If this car gets a speeding ticket while I'm out, I'm at fault." You're going to have to commit yourself to being wrong before you've even got the car off the lot. I think that the hon. minister has given less thought to the preparation of this bill and those problems than would probably be appropriate under the circumstances.

Sections 18 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Pement: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on a matter.

Point of Privilege

G. Wilson: I rise on a point of personal privilege. In fact, I was on my feet prior to the resolution of Committee A. My point of privilege is quite simple. Committee A was constituted tonight, commenced action at 6:54 p.m. and was terminated at 7:40 p.m., with only one member of the opposition speaking on behalf of the official opposition Liberals.

Hon. Speaker, this House will know that I have repeatedly raised the issue of two concurrent Houses sitting in committees -- in Committee A and Committee B -- particularly in light of the fact that when legislation is being addressed, individual members may be denied an opportunity to enter into debate on estimates. What has occurred tonight is either an action of arrogance or, if not, incompetence on the part of one member of this House. It has denied the right of all members of the opposition who had issues with respect to the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to have an opportunity to have those matters debated.

I respectfully request that a motion be entertained that the committee not rise and report resolution, and that opportunity be presented to the members of the Reform opposition, the Alliance opposition and independent members to have an opportunity to thoroughly canvass a $383 million budget, which was dealt with in less than 46 minutes today -- which is a shameful record on behalf of the official opposition.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. On this same matter, the Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I would like to take exception to the notion that the length of debate indicates quality. My experience is that sometimes there's an inverse relationship between the length and the quality of the debate.

[ Page 15460 ]

Frankly, I think it's a ludicrous privilege motion. The fact is that the estimates were called; members knew that. A member from the Alliance Party chose not to participate in that debate and was not in the House at that time. A thorough debate was canvassed by the official opposition critic, albeit a briefer debate than normal, and the vote passed.

Certainly, from the government's and the House's perspective, there's no obligation on the House as to the length of debate. It's up to all members to avail themselves of that opportunity. That happened, and these estimates passed in briefer than normal time.

J. Tyabji: It's amazing when we see the Government House Leader stand up and defend the record of the official opposition, in what can only be described as the shortest estimates debate for an important ministry in the history of this Legislature. Forty-five minutes for a $381 million ministry is a disgraceful record, not a record this government should be defending -- a record that the official opposition couldn't possibly defend.

It was the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who was walking into those estimates, and had been told they would take two days to complete. All the rest of us had constituency issues to raise. The critic for the Reform Party was on his feet in this chamber, and one of our members was on his way into the House when it was already closed.

Forty-five minutes is an unbelievable record, especially coming from the official opposition shutting it down that quickly. We know the Finance estimates shut down in record time. We've had a terrible display in this session of absolute collapse by the official opposition, and of the rest of us, being in the minority in the opposition benches, having to pick up the slack. We're having to pick up the slack in the bills. The bills are now in committee stage. We're in night sittings of the House. Everybody's resources are stretched as thinly as they can be. For this minister to stand up and defend that record is shameful.

In the opposition benches we ask that we have the same opportunity that all members would have to bring up those issues within what is reasonably expected. It was not reasonably expected that those estimates would close within an hour. One of our members was on his way into that chamber within an hour of the beginning of those estimates, to get us on the roster, and they were already closed. That is not reasonable.

It is a perfectly respectable motion to ask. A breach of privilege has occurred tonight. The rest of us would like to be able to acquit ourselves in the job we were elected to do.

[10:00]

R. Neufeld: Just briefly to the motion of privilege, we certainly join with the members from the Alliance Party and support them. Our critic for Municipal Affairs was at a different function tonight, obviously thinking that Municipal Affairs estimates would last a little longer -- just a little bit longer than 45 minutes.

It's amazing when you listen to that member speak in the House about some of the things he talks about; he's got lots to talk about in the House. But he obviously doesn't when it comes to estimates. I know that our critic.... I can tell you that if you go through ministry estimates, you do not see hours and hours of time put in by our critics on mundane questions. We usually try to deal with questions that affect our constituencies. Our critic for Municipal Affairs, the member for Prince George-Omineca, is very well aware of what happens in Municipal Affairs and did have a number of questions -- I would think at least an hour of questions -- that he would have liked to have asked.

I think it's discourteous of the official opposition not to at least let other members know that they're going to collapse within a few minutes of starting, in order to allow other members to question and get into estimates. It's obvious that the arrogance that we've experienced from the NDP side is starting to filter over into the Liberal opposition side, and that's unfortunate for British Columbians. I would support what the members of the Alliance say.

G. Farrell-Collins: Somehow that doesn't surprise me. The reality is that the member for Saanich North and the Islands engaged in a significant debate with the minister. He obtained assurances from the minister on a number of written questions that he had.

It's not the job of the official opposition to do the job of the third party or the independents. The official opposition has done its job in Municipal Affairs. We've asked the questions that needed to be asked, and they will be answered. We have the assurance from the minister that those answers are forthcoming.

All members of this House know that the estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs were called. They were on the agenda; they came forward. If those members can't get their act together -- whether it's the third party or the independents -- to attend estimates on a regular basis and monitor what's going on via the television or the squawk box in their office, then that's their problem. It's not the job....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast wants to speak, perhaps he'd get up off his duff and stand in the House and speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is allowing members to make submissions on a matter of concern to all members. In order to....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I think we are seeing an example of the difficulty that the Chair has when members do not apprise themselves of the standing orders by which we are all to be guided.

The hon. Opposition House Leader has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: The opposition has asked the questions that it wants answers to; the critic has asked the questions that he wants answers to. He has received assurances from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the answers to the written questions he gave her will be answered. We're happy with that; we're content with that.

If the members of the Reform Party or the independents have questions, then they should avail themselves of the 

[ Page 15461 ]

privilege that all members in this House have to present themselves in the committee and ask the questions. If they don't have any questions and don't want to show up to debate, that's something that they have to deal with, not the official opposition.

The Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that sufficient submissions have been made on the member's motion of privilege, which will be addressed at a later time. It's not necessary to receive any further submissions, but I would say that on the comments I've heard.... I've listened very carefully to see if someone would suggest that standing orders had been violated or transgressed in some form that the Chair would be able to address. However, rather than making a decision at this moment, I will review the Blues, look very carefully at comments that members have made, and bring a ruling in at the earliest possible time -- perhaps some time tomorrow. That concludes the matter.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on another matter?

G. Wilson: I have a second point of order. It's also one that I would like to have reviewed. In the reviewing of this case, would the Speaker undertake to also review whether or not, at the time of the adjournment of Committee A, they had sufficient quorum? Hon. Speaker, I would point out that the member for Saanich North and the Islands has repeatedly denied the privilege of members to respond to ministerial statements. It is clear, hon. Speaker, that the right of a member to enter into that debate is protected by a quorum. If that quorum is not in existence.... I hope the Speaker will take that into account in his ruling.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. All hon. members realize that unless the question of a quorum is brought to the attention of Chairs of committees or the Speaker, whether there is or isn't one is not a matter of record, because there's an assumption that a quorum is always present. However, I appreciate the member's submission, and the matter will be addressed. I will come back with my decision later.

Hon. G. Clark: I advise that the House will be sitting tomorrow. With that, I move that this House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:07 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; N. Lortie in the chair.

The committee met at 6:54 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 46: minister's office, $360,514.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's a pleasure to present to this committee the estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the 1995-96 fiscal year.

Before I begin, I'd like to introduce to you the ministry staff who are here today: George Ford, the deputy minister; Ken MacLeod, assistant deputy; Gary Harkness, assistant deputy; Larry Seminiuk, executive director of finance and administrative services; Frances Welch and Juliette Proom of communications; Jim MacAulay from finance; and Don Taylor from the B.C. Assessment Authority.

These are just a few of the people in the ministry who make it possible for the province to meet its commitment to British Columbians, their communities and the local governments that help keep those communities strong and prosperous. Although the ministry is relatively small in terms of financial and staffing resources, the work we do is felt in every community in the province.

The programs that we offer ensure stability, promote safety, generate employment and make community life better. Certainly a large part of the impact we have is a result of the ministry's grant programs which, as in previous years, account for the majority of our budget. The main grants are the municipal general grants, which saw an increase this year under the provisions of the new Local Government Grants Act, the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works grants and a modest conditional grant program.

Administering these programs, while crucially important, is just one aspect of our work. For many local governments, we are consistently the first point of contact, no matter what the issue. They turn to this ministry because there's a very positive, constructive working relationship between this ministry and their local government clients. This has been the case for many decades.

As a result, we provide advice on a wide range of topics of concern to local governments, from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to forms of local governance and lease arrangements. The ministry also acts as an advocate for local governments on specific issues. Staff in the ministry routinely work with their counterparts in other ministries to find solutions that serve the best interests of the ultimate client, the people of British Columbia.

Because local governments look to us for advice and help, our role is to respond to their needs and priorities. This requires a certain degree of flexibility, because issues and priorities change over time. As a result, we continue to realign our resources to offer new programs and quality programs. For the last several years we've put a great deal of energy into developing an improved made-in-B.C. planning system that would support cooperation across the traditional planning boundaries. This policy work was driven by B.C.'s growth rate, the highest in the country. Managing growth has become a major concern for local government in the lower mainland, on the east coast of Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan Valley.

Our work reached another milestone when the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, was adopted by the Legislature on May 8 of this year. Now that the legislation is in place, the real work starts, of course, and we'll be shifting some resources within the ministry so that we can give local governments the support they need to make the most of the opportunities this legislation provides.

[ Page 15462 ]

Our role is to provide legislative tools, policy direction, financial support and advice that will help the people of B.C. create and maintain prosperous communities. I'm very proud of the support we provide to local governments, and I believe the municipal general grants, the infrastructure works and the new growth strategies legislation, to name just a few of our initiatives, are a tremendous help to communities around the province.

I'm proud that we're able to provide the support that we do while continuing to hold the line on expenses, and I credit most of this to the hard-working staff in the ministry. I'd like to thank the staff in the ministry. I firmly believe that they conduct the finest program of local government and community support in the whole country, and they deserve a vote of thanks and appreciation. It's been a real pleasure to work with them, and I intend to continue to do so; we'll be working together with the communities of this province over the next months and years. I look forward now to the debate on the estimates for this ministry.

C. Tanner: Thank you, minister, for your statement. Congratulations; it's about ten minutes shorter than last year and very much to the point. I guess it illustrates to some extent the brevity of my remarks, because I'm going to make it very easy for the minister this year. I'm going to make a suggestion to her, and if she can agree that she and her department heads can manage this, we're going to save each other a lot of time.

[7:00]

In my hand I have the BC Guide to services offered by your ministry, and there are, to my knowledge, 35 programs offered. What I'm going to do is ask you a series of questions. I don't expect your staff to make notes, because this will be in Hansard. If you can get me a written answer later in the session, or even after we are out of session, it would save us a lot of time. This is a fairly extensive list of questions. How many FTEs are employed in each program? How do you measure the performance of the personnel in these programs? How do you measure the effectiveness of the programs? What are the main objects of the programs? Have the objects of any program changed since it was first started, and if so, how have they changed? How many FTEs are full-time employees and how many are on contract? How does this compare to last year? Finally, can you tell me the cost of the major programs?

If your staff could supply me with that information sometime between now and September, you will have answered all the questions that I have to ask you concerning this year's budget.

Hon. D. Marzari: The information can be supplied.

C. Tanner: I have a few questions that came out of last year's estimates and a couple that have happened as a consequence of new legislation.

The first one is with regard to the issue of growth strategies. During that debate the minister made the commitment to the House that there will be no more people employed in her ministry to administer the act. I have some problems understanding that for two reasons. It seems like it's an important piece of legislation to this minister, her government and her ministry, and consequently they are going to be spending time on it. If they are going to be spending time on it and it's going to be fruitful, it's going to take people's work time. If the minister can do it within the ministry now, then what was the ministry doing before?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe I have kept my promise to the communities that asked the same question. The task I was given was to develop growth-management strategies legislation and a program which wouldn't cost the taxpayers any more money and would basically run with the same number of FTEs or staff inside the ministry. It was a bit of a challenge, since in fact the ministry is one of the leanest in government in terms of its mandate and what it produces. When you look at the estimates for the ministry this year, I believe you'll see an increase in the overall staff complement of only two. That has happened largely because we have been able to rearrange priorities inside the ministry and regroup staff around the planning division so that growth management has become part and parcel of the ongoing programs that we do.

In fact, the grants that I am signing off now and shipping out to communities would have been called planning grants last year, but this year with new criteria being applied to them under the Local Government Grants Act, we're now referring to them as managed growth or regional growth management grants. Therefore they are affiliated with strategies that communities will be working on. So we have an additional staff complement of two, but basically inside the ministry, we will be developing a staff of about ten working on growth management.

C. Tanner: If there are ten people within your ministry specifically looking after the implementation of the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, I appreciate that there's a change of priorities. But on the other hand, if their motivation is primarily going to be that act, what were they doing before?

Hon. D. Marzari: A number of the staff coming into the program will be hired new. For example, facilitators hired under the act to work with high-growth regions might be consultants hired outside the ministry or they might be hired from within the ministry. This has yet to be determined, depending on the preferences of the regions themselves.

As for staff that have been allocated or are beginning to work now around regional growth management, these are basically planning staff that have been working and will continue to work on planning grant allocation and on various problems in communities and in regions. It's just that now the focus for many of them will be around working on regional growth strategies as well as on restructures and boundary expansions inside local communities, on other community problems that emerge from time to time and on other programs. We're expanding the role and mandate of the existing ministry to take in the concept of regional growth management. It's a focus and a theme as well as a discreet program.

C. Tanner: Because I'm the opposition critic and I don't have the same responsibilities as the minister, I can have it both ways. In that case, if you're going to have ten of your people working on the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act or oriented towards those objectives, are other programs going to suffer because you're changing your direction?

Hon. D. Marzari: No.

[ Page 15463 ]

C. Tanner: This isn't going to take any time at all if we get those sorts of answers. I believe the minister said they will be bringing people in from outside, and I take it they're contractors. Are you not counting those as an expansion of your FTEs, or are you just saying that a number of them will be contractors?

Hon. D. Marzari: Depending on the nature of what is required for our regional growth strategy in the areas where we'll be looking at developing strategies, we could deliver from inside the ministry -- somebody with the long-term experience of having done planning with communities -- or we have the choice of bringing in a consultant, who may be the right person for that particular constituency or region.

Will that affect the number of FTEs? No, because consultants' contracts are not incorporated in the FTE count. It will be within, of course, a budget for growth management strategies, which is now built into local government grants and is being built into the framework of the ministry.

C. Tanner: In that case, since it looks like we're going to be here for another session next year -- unfortunately, from my point of view -- perhaps the minister could tell us how many employees are presently on contract in the ministry so that we can make that estimation for next year.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: Actually, at the moment, zero. Very often when we take our planning dollars -- and I'll explain this, because it's not a fair answer -- they go to local governments, whether they be regional or municipal. Those planning grant dollars, in turn, very often get turned into contract dollars or internal dollars to fuel the planning departments of municipal councils or regional districts. So when I say there's nobody actually working on contract in the planning area for the ministry right now, that's what I mean: the number is zero. But planning grants that were delivered to Comox-Strathcona, for example, may have been used by Comox-Strathcona to hire a consultant during the beginning of their subregional growth strategy.

C. Tanner: I think I can assume from the minister's answer that although there are no contractors in the planning department of the ministry itself, there are people working in the field who you are financing. Some portion of their income is coming from your department...

Hon. D. Marzari: Through a municipal council.

C. Tanner: ...through another government source. Outside the planning area, are there any contractors in your ministry at all?

Hon. D. Marzari: We have two or three. This excludes some very short-term -- perhaps ten-day to 30-day -- contracts for the purposes of looking at job descriptions in the human resources field. But basically, on a longer-term basis, there are two or three.

C. Tanner: I'm not asking for details, but I take it that somewhere in these figures those will be taken care of and that any others who are anticipated between now and the end of the fiscal year will be in next year's budget.

[N. Lortie in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: There is not a separate budget for contractors, as you know, so each program has its own facility for hiring contractors. They do not show up in the blue book, but the question can certainly be asked on a year-to-year basis, and I'd be happy to give the response.

C. Tanner: The reason I asked the question is that if you're going to answer my first questions, I'll need that incorporated into those answers.

I'm going to change subjects again now, and I would like to talk about the Islands Trust. Last year we mentioned it a little bit, and we both pointed out the problems that the Islands Trust had, particularly in its formation and in the way it's set up. At that time I think the minister recognized the need for changes. Has she contemplated any changes in the Islands Trust setup and does she contemplate any in the coming year?

Hon. D. Marzari: Two things have happened with the Islands Trust in the last year that are worthy of mention, in answer to this question. One is that two of the islands -- in fact, more than two of the islands, but two that are ready to discuss this openly -- are talking about municipalization and incorporation. At least one of those islands, Bowen Island, has had an incorporation vote within the last five years which failed, but is representative of a cross-section of that island. Residents have come to me and said they would like to work toward another incorporation vote. So what I am doing is working with representatives from the island in question and also with the Islands Trust to talk to them about how we might work a transition from the Islands Trust, which is now very much what it is. Basically, it's two representatives from each island, and major land use decisions being made with a third representative from another island coming to fill out a tribunal. With the potential for the incorporation of islands, we'll obviously have to look at a slightly different governance structure for the trust and for the islands. How we do that to preserve the protection function of the Islands Trust if islands municipalize is the question. That's one major effort that we're engaged in now, which will ultimately work with the trust to shift its form of governance and give the local islands a sense of more control over their destinies.

[7:15]

The other is that we've responded to the request of the Islands Trust for additional planning grants. I've done the best I can to get special planning grants to the Islands Trust, which is why their budget is slightly larger this year than it was last year. I will be working with the Islands Trust on the special planning grants they need to speed along some OCPs of certain islands so that they can stabilize themselves.

C. Tanner: Is there anything specifically designated in this year's budget in excess of what it normally takes to run the Islands Trust and the grants that come from this budget? Is there anything extra to do anything extra like plan a different structure for the Islands Trust as a whole?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is no explicit provision in our budget right now that says: "Okay, Islands Trust, we're going to do a review of your governance structure." No, we're not at that point.

[ Page 15464 ]

C. Tanner: I have three specific islands I'd like to talk about for just a moment. First of all, could the minister comment on the Galiano situation vis-a-vis MacMillan Bloedel? Two, could you tell me whether you've made a decision on the Gabriola problem? Three, I asked last year and didn't get a definitive answer on whether or not you got an application from the Penders, particularly North Pender, as to whether they would like to go into a municipal form of government.

Hon. D. Marzari: On the Galiano situation, as I might have reported to the estimates process last year, I made a contract with Galiano residents that we would be taking a careful look at the potential of them doing their own subdivision, that we would be reviewing the road standards to make them more compatible with an island way of life and that we would be working with Galiano to ensure they got their OCP completed -- and a number of other provisions that don't spring readily to mind. Nonetheless Galiano paved the way, if you can say that, for some new ways for the provincial government to work together to help an island along. In fact, right now I'm looking at the OCP, and we're reviewing the provincial interest vis-a-vis the Galiano OCP, and that has not yet been signed off. I would imagine that in the next two months we'll be seeing some progress made on that.

On Gabriola, I've just recently signed off the Gabriola OCP as it pertained to the Weldwood plan, and that is, of course, contentious on the island. The provincial ministries put together their reports in terms of the provincial interest on Gabriola and brought the final reports forward through the ministry. They stated basically that there was nothing in the plan, as it was being presented, that prevented the provincial government from signing off on the official community plan vis-a-vis Weldwood.

On the Pender Islands, there has been a tentative approach to this ministry for incorporation, and, in fact, they would be the beneficiaries if they wanted to go that route of a new working relationship between municipal-status islands and the Islands Trust. I have encouraged all such inquiries to hold off a bit until we work with the Islands Trust to come up with the terms of reference, the form of governance and the form of appointment or election that we would have to move towards, were we to have incorporated islands.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell the committee what the date was when she signed off on Gabriola?

Hon. D. Marzari: The sign-off in my office was on May 24.

C. Tanner: I guess one of the most common questions or comments I get in my critic's role is about the Assessment Authority. Generally speaking, we had quite a lengthy discussion on it last year, and quite frankly, I find myself more often than not saying that the Assessment Authority is doing good work and the question isn't valid. I probably save the ministry some time in having to answer questions like that. Although I would say that the B.C. Assessment Authority has been very helpful and they've always been there to help me answer those questions, because I believe that's part of my job as an MLA.

However, there is one continuing problem we seem to have, and that is the public understanding of the courts of revision. I understand the courts of revision are what you might call a people's court and are slightly informal. But the common complaint I have is that in actual fact, the public's perception is that a lot of the appointees are there because they are affiliated to your party, Madam Minister. That's a comment I hear, and I'm passing it on for what it's worth.

The other one, probably with a certain amount of validity, is that it appears as if the people in the court of revision turn to the assessment officer, who is with them all the time, asks their advice and casually says to the person appearing in front of them: "No, we agree with the assessment done by the assessor." I was wondering whether the minister could comment on that. Has she heard the same comments, and is there any way of alleviating the concerns of those people who have that criticism?

Hon. D. Marzari: Dealing with the first concern, I think that the courts of revision are OIC appointments, and consequently, any Minister of Municipal Affairs is dealing on a daily basis with tens of names for appointments to courts of revision, particularly in the spring when the courts reconvene. I myself have never done party breakdowns in terms of who the names are and where they come from. I think we do have, considering that this is a quasi-judicial sort of court arrangement that's done by OIC, one of the best systems in the country. Very few complaints come through the system to the minister's office, and I think they do an excellent job, considering that they are lay citizens convening together to make decisions about their neighbourhood and the assessments in their neighbourhood.

As for the second concern the member has, I have heard the opposite. I have never heard the complaint that the courts of revision are too cosy with the assessment office. I have heard in fact that the courts of revision very often are in conflict with the assessment officers who, according to the complaints I have received, are gung-ho to get out there and prove their case and show why the assessment should remain what it is, and the courts of revision find themselves juggling the assessment officer's case against the case of the complainant. So I've never heard that.

I think we have an excellent court of revision process. Excellent staff in the ministry put together the names and process them through their OICs. I think we have an absolutely first-rate Assessment Authority. From my visitations around the Assessment Authority offices, the assessment officers do a very good job of their assessments. They use a very complete and up-to-date computerized system to do their assessments. In fact, it is a system which they want to market and which will actually become almost an appraisal agency.

C. Tanner: In her capacity of being in charge of the Assessment Authority, has the minister received complaints about the fact that the Assessment Authority is publishing the assessment rolls in various towns around the province?

Hon. D. Marzari: I think it's a major public service to have the Assessment Authority publishing its rolls. I know they've done it in five or six communities. They did it in Prince George in 1993 and 1994. In 1994 we also did it in Penticton and Langley city. These have become bibles for many communities in terms of what house values are. The Assessment Authority, I think, does a remarkable job in being very specific -- right down to the individual house sometimes 

[ Page 15465 ]

-- and giving a very good assessment. In fact, there have been fewer complaints this year and fewer applications to the courts of revision, because the Assessment Authority is improving its techniques on a year-to-year basis.

C. Tanner: If the minister is being consistent, wouldn't it be logical to publish them in every community in the province?

Hon. D. Marzari: At this point it's largely a question of cost. There's no reason why this can't be done down the road. At this moment they're looking at a number of other techniques to get information out to communities. That newspaper roll is obviously one very good technique of informing people of their community values. There are other ways of doing it. Individual citizens can phone and find out the assessed values. The computers can spit out anything on a block-by-block or individual house basis for anyone who wants to inquire.

C. Tanner: This is the last question on this subject. Has the minister's office received any complaints from specific municipalities in which the government advertised in the last couple of years?

Hon. D. Marzari: Not that I know of. No municipalities have complained about the Assessment Authority or any of its functionings.

C. Tanner: Last year we talked about amalgamation. The minister and I have a fundamental disagreement on this, which is not a subject for this committee. Last year the minister said that the amalgamation of Abbotsford was going to cost something between the $3 million that was being asked and, I think you said, the $700,000 that was being negotiated.

[7:30]

First, I must tell you I was surprised that it was a negotiation. I would have thought that there was some formula, and that was that. Perhaps it varies with each community. Could the minister tell us the specific dollar cost of the amalgamation?

Hon. D. Marzari: Some of the pay-outs are over a number of years. Consequently I don't have a detailed number in front of me, and I would like to take that on notice and deliver it to the member at a future date.

C. Tanner: Last year we discussed infrastructure grants. I was having some trouble understanding -- and quite frankly the minister was having some trouble explaining it to me -- what exactly.... While I understand it was a 33 1/3 - 33 1/3 - 33 1/3 proportion, a third for each level of government, how did you determine how much you were going to spend this past year? Could the minister tell us how much she actually spent last year and how much she intends to spend this year on infrastructure grants with the federal government?

Hon. D. Marzari: In the Canada-B.C. infrastructure grants dealing with sewer and water -- in other words, this ministry's share or mandate -- it was $42,030,816. The sewer and water that came out of the ministry's ordinary budget, what we were paying for past projects completed, was about $40 million.

C. Tanner: Is it true to assume, Madam Minister, that we spent $42,030,816 on grants that were generated by the infrastructure plan from the federal government?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that's the amount that was actually spent -- went out the door with cheques cut.

C. Tanner: I want to quote from an article that was in the Vancouver Sun in March:

"There has to be a better way. That's what the Urban Development Institute is telling the provincial and municipal governments when it comes to ever-escalating development costs and charges. Institute represent met with B.C. government officials this week and told Municipal Affairs Minister Marzari that the fees charged to developers when opening up new and unserviced areas of land for housing and commercial development have become critical to the industry's health."

Could the minister please comment on that statement?

Hon. D. Marzari: I've met with the Urban Development Institute on more than one occasion. I've found them to be one of the greatest allies for managed growth strategies in high-growth areas in the province. I think we have a generation of very sophisticated and very knowledgable developers in this community, who have earned their stripes over the last 20 to 30 years of development in terms of doing private-public partnerships and working well with municipal, regional and provincial governments to provide good advice. I think they have generally been a major asset to land use planning and development.

Of course, the UDI is very concerned about an increase in development cost charges. With development cost charges in this province, every lot has a price applied against it by the municipal or local government. We are working with the Urban Development Institute. In our last meeting I promised that we would be sitting down and working with them closely on developing a rational system of DCCs so that they would be given the stability they are looking for as they do their financial planning.

But this is not to say that the province will discontinue its practice of working with municipalities to allow for DCCs. It's obvious that the business of development in this province is becoming more and more expensive, especially in the high-growth areas. The cost of putting up a house is very often matched by the cost of providing services for that house. It's important that the taxpayers not foot the entire bill for growth and development. In fact, it is probably more responsible to look to the private sector and the developer to assist in the infrastructure costs for new housing units. The important thing here is that the dialogue continues. The important thing here is that the province continues to work with the development industry to ensure that as DCCs grow or stabilize or as new techniques are found of funding infrastructure, both social and physical, we continue that dialogue to ensure that what comes in is stabilizing for the industry and not destabilizing.

C. Tanner: Could I reiterate the seven questions that I asked you at the beginning of this process this evening? They were concerning the 35 programs you have in your ministry as defined in the BC Guide and the minister's commitment to 

[ Page 15466 ]

send me that information between now and September. If it could be read into the record that you confirm that, I'd like to hear it once again, please.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm beginning to think there's a bit of a catch here. I'll read the Blues very carefully to see. The staff has all agreed that this would be a delight to prepare for the critic.

Vote 46 approved.

Vote 47: ministry operations, $55,245,086 -- approved.

Vote 48: local government grants, $322,780,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Marzari: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:39 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada