1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1989
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 7069 ]
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.
Mr. Sihota –– 7070
Mr. Harcourt
Polar 8. Mr. Bruce –– 7071
Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.
Mr. Sihota –– 7071
Future of Princess Marguerite. Mr. B.R. Smith –– 7072
Committee of Supply: Minister of Solicitor-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ree)
On vote 67: minister's office –– 7072
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Miller
Mr. Davidson
Mr. Cashore
Mr. Guno
Mr. Perry
Mr. Loenen
Mr. Sihota
Ms. A. Hagen
Ms. Smallwood
Mr. Jones
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a very special guest in Senator David Roberti from California. He is the President of the California State Senate, which means he leads the Democratic Party majority in that body. I'm pleased to say that I had a very good meeting with the senator this morning, at which time we discussed opportunities that exist for us to cooperatively work on trade issues and environmental issues.
Senator Roberti is accompanied in the gallery by Mr. Tom Kemp, president of the Certified General Accountants' Association, and Mr. Bill Caulfield, the association's executive director. The senator was the guest speaker today at the association's annual luncheon for MLAs, and I know that many members enjoyed listening and participating and hearing the message about the importance of closer relations between British Columbia and California. We are indebted to the association for bringing Senator Roberti here, and I would ask all members to bid welcome to these visitors to our House.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislature, I'm extremely proud today to have the opportunity of introducing three residents of the lower Island who are here for a very particular purpose: to ask us to recognize the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society — the ALS Society — better known as the society formed to deal with the problems of Lou Gehrig's disease. This society is a national non-profit organization founded ten years ago. They raise money to provide research and patient services and to create awareness. Each year there is a national ALS week, May 29 to June 3 this year, culminating in a national flower day on June 3.
There is a strong correlation between ALS and retired naval people. In fact, the incidence of ALS among that group is 50 times higher than the national average. For this reason, the Naval Officers' Association of Vancouver Island have adopted ALS as their major cause. There will be 160 volunteers from this organization at various shopping centres on June 3 selling cornflowers as the national emblem of the society.
Mr. Speaker, we have in our presence today Mr. Ken Gibbs from the Naval Officers' Association of Vancouver Island and a member of the society. Mr. Gibbs is a victim of this disease and has volunteered himself in the interest of pursuing further research on the subject. He's accompanied by Mr. Peter Chance, past president of the Naval Officers' Association of Vancouver Island, and Mr. Walter Ashford, president of the Victoria chapter of the ALS Society. I know all members of the House join me in applauding the efforts of these gentlemen in the interests of that issue.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, there are members of Greenpeace represented in the gallery today. Today, on board the vessel Vega in the Inner Harbour, they held a news conference and released a copy of their report "Dire Straits: Pollution in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada." They then took this very important report and presented it to the acting Minister of Environment and also to myself. On behalf of the House, I want to thank them for this excellent work and valuable research resource on this vital issue. They are Brian Killeen, who is the toxics campaigner for this area; Bob Lyons, who is the author of the report; Randy Thomas, Trudy Richards and Gordon MacDonald. Also, the skipper of the Vega is present.
HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure today that I welcome to the House the chairman of the board of Kwantlen College, Mr. Ken Williams; board members George Preston, Andy Milne and Roy Jacques; and the president, Ms. Adrienne MacLaughlin. I know that especially the members from Surrey, Richmond, Delta and Langley, together with all members of the House, will join me in bidding them welcome.
MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, today in the House we have a delegation from the municipality of Powell River: Mayor Don Lockstead, who is a former member of this House; Ald. Arnold Carlson; Ald. Sandy Tremblay; Vic Petersen, administrator; and Ken Needham, treasurer. I would like this House to make them very welcome.
MR. ROSE: On behalf of our side, I too would like to join in the welcome to Mayor Lockstead and his delegation and to say, in case anybody has forgotten, that Mayor Lockstead was the predecessor of the present incumbent from Powell River. He might even be his successor, for all I know. In any event, regardless of whether he is or not, would you please welcome the delegation from Powell River.
MR. ROGERS: As May winds down, so does the month of motorcycle awareness proclaimed by the cabinet at the beginning of May. Today marked what I believe is going to be an annual event, when the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists and the Association for Injured Motorcyclists bring their machines to Victoria and offer rides to members of the press and this chamber. On behalf of the members on our side of the House I would like to welcome all of them. There are too many to read out all their names today, but I'd like to thank them for making the time available to come and make more members aware of motorcycling and motorcyclists and some of the events that they're involved in.
I was somewhat disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that your parade wasn't in a soft-tail Harley today. The fact that you took the opportunity to ride with your robes on really gives some indication to the House.
I would like to welcome these members, and on their behalf — they have asked me to do this — I would like to thank the members of the chamber who
[ Page 7070 ]
took the opportunity to ride with them at lunchtime today.
MR. LOVICK: We on this side would like to add to that expression of gratitude to the members of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. We certainly enjoyed the experience. I want to congratulate them on the wisdom of making the two members for Nanaimo lead the parade.
[2:15]
MR. RABBITT: On behalf of the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I would ask the House to join me in greeting 13 grade 8 and grade 9 students from Cedars Christian School, accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Kibble. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.
MR. PERRY: I'd just like to second, on our behalf, the welcome of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to members of the ALS Society. I think they struggle with an incredibly difficult disease, and they represent a lot of other people with various other relatively rare diseases facing the same challenges. It's particularly nice to have them in the House with us today.
MRS. McCARTHY: Our Minister of Finance has already introduced Mr. Ken Gibbs in his capacity as a tireless worker with the disease that has been brought to our attention today and to many families, unfortunately, throughout this province. I would like to say that Ken Gibbs was one of the guiding lights for Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Beautiful British Columbia was brought to its success through some of his efforts over many years. I think this House owes him a great deal of gratitude, because that magazine is still one of the very best tourist magazines and promoters for British Columbia. I would just like the House to recognize his work in that regard.
Oral Questions
LABOUR MINISTERS INVOLVEMENT IN
ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. Does the Premier condone the Minister of Labour's (Hon. L Hanson's) decision to remain silent as his top officials lied about a matter of political interference, when the minister knew all along that the official was lying?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very satisfied that the Minister of Labour quietly gathered all the information, including that made available to him by the ombudsman, and took the appropriate action. All things have been done properly, we're certainly very pleased with the way it's been dealt with, and I commend the minister for that.
MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says things were done "properly." Does the Premier consider it proper that the Minister of Labour would sit during the course of a press conference, knowing that his official was telling a lie, and not take any steps at that point to correct the lie?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unlike the socialist NDP, I don't try to put myself in everybody's head as to what they might be thinking at a particular time. I'm satisfied with the way it's been dealt with.
MR. SIHOTA: The minister said in Hansard on May 25, 1989, that the official involved was lying. To quote him directly: "I guess that would equate to lying." It's a lie. It raises questions as to the standard of conduct that the Premier would expect from ministers. There's an increasing concern about the blind spot the Premier has with respect to moral and ethical issues and demands on ministers. The question to the Premier is this: could he advise this House what action he intends to take, in light of his minister's improper conduct?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am not prepared to give comment on the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's opinion, because I have too often questioned that opinion and am not about to start commenting on that opinion now.
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. The Minister of Consumer Services has confessed that he allowed a public official to make a public lie to cover up a political scandal. The minister has admitted that he is a party to this deception. Is the Premier now prepared to ask for the minister's resignation?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I said previously that the minister, during those weeks and months, gathered all of the information — didn't run off making wild charges, such as the NDP tends to do, but gathered all of the information — and once having received all of the information, including the report from the ombudsman, made the decisions necessary to address it as the people would wish to see it addressed. And I'm proud of the job the minister has done.
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows there was reason enough to fire his minister last year, when the first suggestion of his role in the cover-up became apparent. Does the Premier not agree that by refusing to ask for the resignation of his minister, the Premier is now giving his public approval to this act of gross public deception?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The only deception comes from the NDP.
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, when the former Attorney-General became aware of representations made by Mr. Poole to Mr. Hick, he immediately notified the RCMP. When the ombudsman became aware of what had transpired, he in his report called it political interference. Could the Premier tell this House what
[ Page 7071 ]
his view is of the communication between Mr. Poole and Mr. Hick? Does he disagree with the ombudsman that it was political interference? Does he disagree with the former Attorney-General that it was a matter worthy of criminal investigation?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The matter has been dealt with.
MR. SIHOTA: It hasn't been dealt with. This is a matter of political interference. This is a matter involving people in the Premier's office. This is a matter involving the Premier's friends, This is a matter involving the Premier's former campaign manager. This is a matter which the ombudsman concluded was a situation of political interference. This is a matter of public deception on the part of the Minister of Labour. My question to the Premier is this: does the Premier, again, agree with the conduct of his Minister of Labour and Consumer Services in remaining silent through that pivotal press conference?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is a matter of the NDP trying to get a cheap political headline two years or a year and a half after the matter has been thoroughly dealt with. This is a matter of cheap political headlining by the NDP.
MR. HARCOURT: This is a matter of a cover-up in the Premier's office. That's what it is. It's a matter of the kind of public morality that the people of British Columbia expect. Is the Premier prepared to say, as he did outside the House, that this whole cover-up, involving his principal secretary, involving friends very close to him, involving what was seen by the ombudsman and the ex-Attorney-General as important enough for criminal investigations and a condemnation of this minister's conduct, is no big deal to the people of British Columbia?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's hardly a matter of cover-up when the two people concerned or mentioned are no longer here, but that's how the NDP reads it for their reasons.
POLAR 8
MR- BRUCE: A few weeks ago the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew castigated the Premier for his diplomatic approach to Ottawa's uncertain position regarding the Polar 8 icebreaker. I am not interested in headlines; I'm only interested in the well-being of the citizens of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. Through this diplomatic approach, can the Premier tell me and the people of Vancouver Island and British Columbia where we stand with the Vancouver Island gas pipeline project and the Polar 8 project?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I too recall the irrational tirade from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew on that particular topic. We have always said we would approach this quietly and rationally, as we did; and we have done so very effectively. Only yesterday I received a letter from Benoit Bouchard confirming that they have now received the necessary design from the B.C. contractor, and the initial difficulties they had with respect to contract definition have been overcome; and that the Prime Minister and the government are committed to constructing the Polar 8 in British Columbia. The working people — certainly those who are depending on this for employment — in constituencies like Esquimalt can be grateful for the quiet, rational approach the government took in resolving this problem.
MR. SIHOTA: The Premier ignored the fact that that letter was written at the request of Dave Barrett, but I'll provide the Premier with a copy of the letter.
I want to return to....
Interjections.
MR. SIHOTA: I'll provide him with a copy of the letter.
LABOUR MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN
ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
MR. SIHOTA: I want to get back to matters of ethics and morality in government and the approach that the Premier is taking with respect to his Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson). It raises questions as to the standard of conduct that is expected from his ministers.
Has the Premier discussed this matter again with the Minister of Labour, since it became a matter of public note, and has he asked for his resignation?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take all the time that you want to give in question period to repeat what has been said time and time again. If we have five minutes remaining in question period, I'm pleased to occupy the five minutes. As a matter of fact, I can occupy the whole of the five minutes right now and save the same question from being asked again and again, and my having to give the same answer again.
As I said earlier, I'm very pleased with the way the minister has handled it. He took all of the necessary steps in keeping with what I think people wanted to see done — and what had to be done — with regard to this matter. So I'm fully supportive of the minister in what he has done. He listened to all of the people, to all of the information that was provided to him, including the information made available through the ombudsman's report. The Minister of Labour and I discuss many things from time to time, and we will continue to discuss many things from time to time. I'm very satisfied with....
Interjection.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Would you stand up and ask that question? I can't hear you.
[ Page 7072 ]
Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased with the action of the minister in this whole situation, and I have every confidence in him.
FUTURE OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE
MR. B.R. SMITH: I have a question for the beneficent Minister of Finance in his capacity as the minister in charge of what remains of B.C. Steamships. There was a very good article in the Times-Colonist on May 26 announcing the expansion plans of B.C. Steamships and their new lines, which I think shows that it was an excellent piece of privatization. But in that article the managing director, Mr. Wesberg, announced that the Princess Marguerite may not be in service after this year. He said: "Stena's plans for her run only until the fall.... Then, who knows? Anything is possible. She won't disappear. She'll stay in Victoria. Maybe as a museum and restaurant." I want to ask the minister, who I recall is an old Maggie fan: will he fight to keep the Maggie on that run for some more seasons and not consign her to the role of the Queen Mary just yet?
[2:30]
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to explain the government's view on this important matter. The fact of the matter is that the Maggie has been a focal point of the tourism attraction industry in greater Victoria for many years, as the member for Oak Bay, being a key participant in that exercise, well knows.
I know I speak for all the representatives from the greater Victoria area in encouraging the owners that the vessel should continue to be operated. It certainly has been a useful device in increasing the volume of tourism traffic that comes to the lower Island area, and as a consequence of the expansion of the service that is now provided by virtue of the privatization initiative — which, once again, was initiated by the member for Oak Bay, and has proved to be extremely successful, I might add — we've considerably expanded the capabilities of the line to serve an ever-growing tourism volume. As a consequence of these measures I, like the hon. member for Oak Bay, was a little bit confused by the alleged statements by the principals.
As a consequence of that, I'm pleased to advise the House and the member from Oak Bay that there have been staff discussions on that subject within recent hours and that we will be attempting to determine exactly what the alleged speaker had in mind when he made the comments that were in the local print media. Obviously these kinds of things come at us out of the blue and therefore do require us to monitor them, and before reporting on the matter in any detail or depth, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to have the facts so that we know exactly what the possible remedies might be.
I can assure the House that we're very serious about maintaining this service, and we'll do everything we can to ensure the vessel stays in service.
Orders of the Day
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
On vote 67: minister's office, $248,681 (continued).
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned debate earlier today, I had posed a question to the Solicitor-General concerning the longest hearing in the history of the Motor Carrier Commission, to investigate the activities of United Parcel Service and its application for expanding its terms of reference in the province of British Columbia as well as in Canada. I posed the question directly about whether the Motor Carrier Commission took into consideration the testimony delivered to that particular hearing suggesting that the activities of that particular company had not, in fact, been as exemplary as they ought, and whether the customs brokerage licence had been revoked by the federal government.
At the same time as that was happening in the federal government, the provincial authority — the Motor Carrier Commission — was granting a licence. The minister said two things in answer to that question. The first was that perhaps the commission didn't have all the evidence that I have alluded to. I can assure him that they did have that evidence. That was brought before the commission.
The second part of the answer that disturbs me somewhat — thus I'm repeating all this for the minister's benefit now — is that as he saw it, the Motor Carrier Commission functioned independently of him to the point apparently where this issue is not one he feels the need to respond to. That seems to be a very significant admission: namely, that in the name of the independent operation of that commission, the minister and this government thereby seem to be disclaiming any responsibility for the activities of that commission.
What we're talking about very specifically in this application is the whole question of deregulation and its impact. I would therefore implore this minister to take a look at that decision and to consider whether what the Motor Carrier Commission did was not — or perhaps was, in fact — in the best interests of the people of this province. I would ask the minister to consider giving us that assurance and conducting that investigation.
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to criticize — or otherwise — the decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission. It is an independent body. I would address the Motor Carrier Commission if it did not follow the policies of the government, but it would be after the event and not before.
In the specific case mentioned and brought up by the member — the United Parcel Service application — I am informed that there is an appeal in process at
[ Page 7073 ]
the present. I will not make any further comment on it.
MR. LOVICK: I hope the minister isn't suggesting that this is a sub judice argument or something, therefore he can't say anything for fear he would prejudice the case. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister. On the one hand you're disclaiming responsibility for it and saying that it's an independent commission. On the other hand you're saying that you can't make a comment, because you might prejudice the case. The two can't go together; they're contradictory. You can't do that. That argument simply won't work.
I see your brow is furrowing, Mr. Premier, in consternation. I'm delighted to see that. I'm delighted to know that you're paying attention. That's a good sign.
The case I'm arguing is that it seems, on the face of the evidence, that the Motor Carrier Commission did something that flies in the face of pretty concrete evidence suggesting there was something wrong with the behaviour of this company. Otherwise, the customs brokerage licence would certainly not have been revoked.
I'm asking the minister to consider asking his officials to get an accounting from the Motor Carrier Commission of what guided them in that decision, because as I say, on the face of it, their decision would seem to fly in the face of the evidence that was presented. That's why the appeal, by the way, offers some six or seven particular contentions as to the specific failings of the Motor Carrier Commission.
This is becoming a kind of cause célèbre. This is going to be a very big case and probably a very expensive legal case. I think the minister responsible for that body, which may involve people in an extremely expensive lawsuit, ought to pay some attention to what is going on. I'm asking him if he'll at least ask his officials in the Motor Carrier Commission to give him a full report on what happened and on their deliberations and then to share those deliberations and that information with this chamber. Would the minister care to respond to that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, it's indeed a pleasure, on behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, to introduce 60 grade 11 students who are here from Delta Secondary School. Would this House please make them welcome.
HON. MR. REE: I can understand the Premier's brow furrowing when he listens to the doublespeak of the member for Nanaimo. As I indicated, the matter is under appeal. The appeal will be the accounting; I will not make any further comments on it.
MR. MILLER: They say that silence is golden, but obviously that's not always the case.
I have a few questions to the minister regarding the Motor Carrier Commission and regulation. There were provincial initiatives to deregulate, along with the federal changes that took place. Maybe the minister could just give me what the current thinking is from the ministry in terms of that issue, particularly in the trucking industry.
HON. MR. REE: It was announced previously that we are not changing the process of licensing within the ministry. There are some moves federally for deregulation of the trucking industry. We have streamlined the application process to speed up the handling of applications, but the actual process of application, the need for it and regulation for it have not been changed.
MR. MILLER: When I was the transport critic in '87, 1 had some dialogue concerning the issue with the then minister, and it is of concern — as the minister must be aware — to the trucking industry particularly. At that time the minister gave me an undertaking that no major deregulation initiatives would be pursued prior to the issue being referred to an all-party or standing committee of the House. I'm wondering if you're prepared to make that same kind of commitment today.
HON. MR. REE: Not at this time. I am prepared to say that we are not looking at any major restructuring of the commission or its policies at this time. Certainly there will be great consultation with those knowledgeable in the trucking industry before we make any changes.
As for referring it to a committee of this House, I always appreciate the value and expertise of members on the committee, but I would feel that such changes would have a bigger impact on the trucking industry, and that's the source I would seek the greatest expertise from.
MR. MILLER: In response to that, I just think, Mr. Minister, that a committee is an excellent way to investigate a particular issue and to report back to the House. But that's fine; if you don't want to, we'll.... We're cognizant that the previous minister responsible was prepared to do that.
With respect to an application by the truckers on the Queen Charlotte Islands to become regulated, I wanted to ask you why they were turned down.
HON. MR. REE: It was not felt there was any need for regulation on the Queen Charlotte Islands, because really the only access for truckers to the islands is across on the ferry. Those on the Prince Rupert side are regulated; the truckers on the islands just felt the need was not there to create an additional body of regulation.
MR. MILLER: The truckers — I believe unanimously — thought that it would afford them some
[ Page 7074 ]
protection, particularly from contractors coming from off-island. As I understand it, there were meetings with your officials; I talked to them at the time. It was my belief that there was no particular reason why they would not be granted regulation; nobody at any time expressed that to me in any official way.
It appears to me that It became a political decision rather than a technical one. I can't think of any particular reason why you would object to those people regulating and trying to obtain some protection in their operating area. It's quite a common thing. You said earlier, I believe, that really those shouldn't be political decisions. Is there some philosophical objection? Why would you not want to allow those truckers to come together and be regulated and to hopefully give them a bit more protection in the kind of business they're in?
[2:45]
HON. MR. REE: I appreciate the philosophical position the member is coming from, which is regulation, more regulation and more regulation, because that is the sole essence of enforcement of the NDP policies and their platforms. They don't realize that the more regulation you have, the more police you have. They may not be wearing uniforms, but there is an expansion of police forces until we eventually get up into Orwell's book 1984.
My chairman of the Motor Carrier Commission went up and spoke to the truckers on the Queen Charlotte Islands and came back and recommended that there would be no appreciable advantage to regulation; that we not do it. I can't see doing something for no good reason.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, while the minister strayed in the philosophy and headed straight for Orwell, I'm not sure how to respond to that. We have a group of small business people in my constituency — I hold no particular brief for them; I don't know whether or not they support me — who, along with most of the rest of the trucking industry in this province, happen to want regulation of their industry. They see that as a means of affording some protection to the people who operate in that industry, some regulation of the business that, in the final analysis, is good for them as businessmen and is good for the rest of the province. It maintains a stable transportation industry in trucking.
We have seen the results of deregulation. By the minister's own admission, he is not eager to rush head-long into deregulation, as the federal government has done. I suspect it's because of the lobby mounted by the trucking industry, which opposes deregulation. So your little philosophical argument doesn't hold a heck of a lot of water, Mr. Minister.
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: To stand up and make the foolish statement that my raising an issue of concern to my constituents somehow represents the NDP wanting to have regulation, regulation, regulation is rather foolish.
Getting back to the issue, I read the documents that were exchanged. I read the minutes of the meetings that took place on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Clearly there was recognition — I don't have them in front of me, so I can't quote them — that regulation would offer some measure of protection for that group of business people. Mr. Minister, perhaps you could be more specific In advising me as to how regulation would not assist them.
HON. MR- REE: As I stated, Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for putting in more regulations if they are not needed.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, would you advise me why they are not needed for that particular group?
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, based upon the recommendations of the chairman of the Motor Carrier Commission.... After being there, discussing with the trucking industry up in the Queen Charlotte Islands, he could not see any appreciable advantage to regulating the industry on the Queen Charlotte Islands — the size of it, the nature of it. I just cannot support putting in regulations where they're not needed.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that I believe that that clearly was not the case. As I said, I read the minutes and I discussed the issue extensively with the spokesperson for the truckers. The truckers had a thorough discussion with the officials and voted to ask to be regulated. They didn't do it because they didn't think there would any protection for them; quite the contrary. They sat down and had a fairly lengthy discussion and arrived at the conclusion with the officials there that regulation would be beneficial to them. It's afforded to other people in the industry throughout the province, and I fail to see how the minister can justify it. He certainly hasn't justified in any kind of substantive way why that same kind of protection should not be afforded to the truckers in my constituency on the Queen Charlotte Islands. What makes them different from anybody else in this province?
MR DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister concerns the tinting of automobile glass. It is unfortunate that there are members of the motoring public who have been ticketed for having a tinted rear window, and I believe the cost of the ticket is around $50. Notwithstanding the fact that vehicles can be ordered with tinted glass and they can have tinted material applied to the windows, these people are susceptible to a traffic ticket which, I must say, at best could be described as rather an indiscriminate manner in which a police officer can issue those very tickets.
It's no secret that there are limousines that travel between the airport and downtown, that are in service virtually everywhere around the province,
[ Page 7075 ]
that have tinted glass. If vehicle A is in contravention of the regulations, then vehicle B is equally in contravention of the regulations. Similarly, every car that comes in from the United States through our borders — they number in the thousands — is also in the same category.
I'm simply saying that if we have police officers who are going to abuse their authority by selective ticketing of automobiles, then somewhere along the line those regulations have to be changed. I know the minister is going to refer to the regulations and talk about vehicles that have come out factory ordered; yet not a day goes by that there is not a full-page or almost a full-page ad in either the local morning paper or the afternoon paper which advertises for tinting of vehicle windows.
If the regulations prevent this, then these people must be charged. Every limousine driver must be charged. Every American tourist that comes in with tinted windows must be charged. Every vehicle that has the tint on their vehicle front, back or side must be charged — or, conversely, the regulations must be changed. Mr. Minister, I am suggesting that all that is required is that the minister give an undertaking that the regulations will be changed and that people who have these tinted windows won't have to worry about indiscriminate ticketing, which, I must say, is virtually all it amounts to.
HON. MR REE: I'm sympathetic to the member's comments with respect to the tinting of windows There are standards for tinting as far as the manufacturing of the cars are concerned. There are no standards available at the moment with regard to after-market tinting of windows which goes on in the industry. The basic requirement is a three-inch tint on the front windshield, the side windows to be clear, and it's ambiguous as to the rear window at this time
There seems to be a problem with ambiguity — requirements or standards — throughout the whole industry in North America. As far as British Columbia is concerned, I'd be happy to indicate that we will give active consideration to bringing in appropriate standards of tinting of windows within British Columbia. I don't know what difficulties we would entail in policing vehicles coming from outside of British Columbia, but we would also work towards a standard within Canada.
MR. DAVIDSON: I appreciate the comments by the minister. I'm just wondering if while we're awaiting this process — which unfortunately sometimes becomes rather lengthy — we could have an undertaking by the Solicitor-General that pending the outcome of a study or some standardized method of interprovincial and cross-border regulation, which may take up to two decades, we could have some assurance from the minister that he will advise the various police departments that certainly, insofar as the rear window is concerned, no traffic summons be issued in the meantime. I think this is only fair.
It's very difficult. For example, I have several letters here from individuals who have written indicating they have received traffic tickets for after-market tinted film. But I must say, the after-market tinted film is nowhere as deep as is the regular tinted film in limousines or in some of the vehicles. Today we have a situation where virtually every car that comes out onto the market has dual rear view mirrors. I would suggest that if the minister were to check the parking lot of members and the parking lot of staff — maybe even his own staff — he might find that there are several vehicles that would have tinted windows themselves.
It seems rather difficult. If we're going to have tinted-window tickets issued, members of the Legislature and members working within the various ministries would find themselves in conflict with the regulations. Certainly when we have full-page ads like this glaring advertisement advertising contrary to the regulations, we should take a reasonable approach. In the meantime, we can simply instruct our police officers to use just a little bit of common sense and allay these fears. Certainly, in the meantime, we should refrain from issuing tickets which are nothing more than pure harassment tickets.
HON. MR REE: I appreciate the member's comment about having staff check vehicles. I'm confident that my deputy minister could find an example fairly simply, if I were to ask him, but I really don't need to direct him to that. I'm confident that there are many windows — as the member indicated — that are tinted. Regretfully, I cannot instruct the police not to adhere to the letter of the law. I can certainly bring the member's concern and my concern to their attention. I'm sure they'll use their best judgment in exercising their duties.
MR. CASHORE: I'm not sure that the second member for Delta is finished. He seems to be carrying on there.
First of all, I enjoyed going biking with the minister this afternoon.
Interjection.
MR. CASHORE: You didn't go?
HON. MR. REE: You're wrong again.
MR. CASHORE: Wrong again, yes. I saw that you were well represented there, Mr. Minister. Members of your staff and some of your colleagues were there. It was quite an experience, and the motorcycle awareness issue is something I'd like to deal with from the perspective of commenting on it, rather than having to spend too much time riding on motorcycles. I think that era has passed me by.
I would like to go back for a few brief moments to the issue of the provincial emergency program. The reason for that is the issuing of the Greenpeace report "Dire Straits: Pollution in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada, " which was released today. I would like to encourage the minister to get a copy of this report and have his staff review it.
[ Page 7076 ]
I think there is outstanding information in it. I haven't had time to read the entire report yet, but it goes through a legacy of history in which Georgia Strait has been used as a dumping-ground from a wide variety of sources.
[3:00]
How does this connect with PEP? It connects with PEP as to what extent these spills constitute a real urgent emergency in the sense of the total accumulation of toxins and other forms of pollution being dumped in the strait. Then there is the more immediate question of actual instances of spills; obviously the mandate of PEP is to respond to those situations and to deal with them In the public interest.
There is something in the report that I find absolutely devastating, which is stated on page 65. The writer of the report is quoting quite extensively from Mike Waldichuk in a document that he wrote in 1983, "Pollution in the Strait of Georgia: A Review." He states that it has been estimated that there is an annual total oil spillage from all Canadian sources into the Strait of Georgia and the Juan de Fuca Strait system of about 22,000 barrels or 3,000 tonnes and an additional 41,000 barrels or 5,600 tonnes from sources in the United States. That's a total of 8,600 tonnes.
That report goes on to say that the sources of oil input included tankers in transit and at berth, storage tanks....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am wondering if this is completely relevant to the estimates of the Solicitor-General. It would seem to me that perhaps the points you are making would be much better solicited under the Environment ministry's portfolio.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I am leading up to the point that this accumulation does constitute an emergency. As I said before, it's an emergency in a sense of a total accumulation, but I am also leading up to spills that have been reported. I am sure you will see, Mr. Chairman, that it all ties together.
So the sources, as well as the ones that I've already mentioned, include pipelines, tank barges, non-oil-transporting vessels and land sources consisting of coastal refineries, municipal waste water, urban runoff and marine and land transportation facilities. We would all assume that most of this spillage is never reported. It's just the type of thing that goes on, and somehow we have to find the political will through education and programs that your government would be involved in to stop the activity that results in toxic substances being placed in the strait.
The report goes on to state that while many spills go unreported, there were several reported to Environment Canada. In 1988, here are some examples of spills that were reported to Environment Canada.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you going to get to the point where we bring PEP into this fairly quickly? I am having great difficulty with the relevancy.
MR. CASHORE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you will appreciate that the connection is that Environment Canada has received reports of these spills. We are getting on to whether or not PEP has received reports of the same spills, and what the follow-up was. I am sure you will agree that the preamble is necessary to set the scene, and the specific question I am coming to now relates to PEP. I appreciate you keeping us close to our task, Mr. Chairman.
On January 31 there was a 984-barrel spill of bunker C in Rosario Strait; on March 23 there was a large spill of jet fuel in the Fraser River; on March 25 there was a 5,500 litre spill of gasoline in Ladysmith harbour; on July 11 there was a three-barrel spill of bunker oil at the Alberta Wheat Pool in Burrard Inlet; on July 18 there was a 1,000-gallon spill of diesel in Dixon Entrance. On July 26 there was a 2,500-gallon oil No. 2 spill at CFB Esquimalt harbour. On August 18 there was a 15-barrel spill of bunker oil at Seaboard Terminal in Burrard Inlet. My question is: are the spills that are reported to Environment Canada also reported to PEP as a matter of course?
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
HON. MR. REE: Sitting in the gallery across from me are 20 adults from the Lucas Centre in North Vancouver. Some of these people are aspiring new Canadians — or some of them are new Canadians, possibly — and they're there learning English as a second language and other things about our community, under the auspices of Mrs. Massey. I would ask this House to give them a warm welcome.
I will apologize to them in that, since the estimates of the Solicitor-General's ministry are on the docket here today, I will be unable to meet with them afterwards. I have asked my ministerial assistant to meet with them and also to extend to them the best wishes of the members and my office.
To the member's question, I think the answer was yes. What was the question now?
Oh, yes. The answer is yes, we do.
I might mention to the member — I know he is anxious to get to his feet and I am anxious to sit down — that the report will be obtained and read by the Interministry Emergency Preparedness Committee, the whole works. They'll look at it very closely, because the aggregate of all these spills over a period of time does become a very serious matter environmentally, ecologically and the rest.
MR. CASHORE: I appreciate that answer and the willingness of your ministry to review this report along with your colleagues.
I would like to ask the minister now to outline for the House just what happens. We have the federal government, the provincial government and Environment Canal receiving a report of a spill, and we received the answer that the information is passed on to the provincial emergency program. I wonder if the
[ Page 7077 ]
minister would track us through the process, to bring us up to date on exactly what happens. Maybe he could take one of the spills that I have referred to as a case in point and advise us of the steps that take place in terms of the PEP role vis-à-vis the Environment Canada role and how these situations are dealt with.
HON. MR. REE: In many instances we receive the first call on the spill, and we will notify Environment Canada. Also, Environment Canada will notify us if it requires a PEP response, such as the oil spill up-Island, where we have to get various resources out to clean it up.
Generally, on oil spills, Environment Canada or Environment B.C. will go to the industry that has caused the spill — where the industry is known — and direct them to do the cleanup or whatever else may be required. If there is no provincial emergency response required, other than ensuring that the ministries of environment federally and provincially have been notified, we will take no further action. If action is required by us, a coordinator of PEP or somebody will be placed on the scene to get a report and recommendations, and the necessary response — depending upon the size of the emergency — will be made.
MR CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister if he would undertake to review those reported spills on page 66 and report back — I realize that it might not be possible during estimates — with information on just how those specific situations were dealt with by PEP and what the juxtaposition was. I think that would be a very useful set of examples for us in seeing just how the system works. I would appreciate it if the minister would undertake that.
I find the phrase "if it requires a PEP response" interesting. I would assume that every time Environment Canada notifies PEP of a spill, there would be a PEP staff person go to that site in person and assess it from the perspective of the interests of British Columbia. Is that the case, that there is actually in each of these cases an individual who goes there to inspect it?
HON. MR. REE: I would think not, because I don't think we're going to have people running all over the province just to take a look at it. There are means of assessment other than having someone actually go and be on the ground.
Friday afternoon I was aware of what had taken place in Britannia. We had a good PEP representative up there and arranged for the evacuations and all contingencies so that everything would be safe. There was one chance that something might go wrong, and we prepared for that contingency. The one chance happened and something went wrong, and there was no major property damage, no injury or loss of life as a result of this preparation. I considered going to see the area, but I got a further report at 5 o'clock on Friday evening, and because of the assessment and the report, there was no need for me to go up.
This, I think, can be the same with information that PEP receives. It will make an assessment as to whether they need further information. If they do, there may be ways of getting it without going on the scene; they may have sufficient information to make an assessment. Or they may have to go on the scene. I won't say that a member of PEP goes out to every report.
MR. CASHORE: Even this one spill with three barrels that we're talking about could be quite a significant problem depending on where it is and whether it's a confined space or not. In the vast majority of the cases that I've cited here, you would need to have somebody on the scene in order to tell you whether or not further work needs to be done on it. Are you saying that you decide on somebody's hearsay whether or not it warrants an intervention on the part of your staff?
HON. MR. REE: That would depend on the reliability, competence, experience and the rest of it of whoever is making the report to us. Yes, there may be times when we would take it upon that report.
The member asked earlier whether we would review the spills labelled on page 66; we will do that and give you a written response. You probably forgot that you'd asked me that question. But I remember your question, and I'll give you that undertaking.
MR. CASHORE: I hadn't forgotten. I had it on my list here. I wanted to hear your answer to the question I just asked.
One other thing on this Greenpeace report here. Under a section entitled "Solutions," they mention that government agencies don't really regulate toxic shipping in the Strait of Georgia. Since his ministry and the PEP program are often the first line of defence in dealing with these situations — granted, there's the Chairman's point that there's an interface here with the Ministry of Environment — could the minister advise the House what the process is for ensuring that the Ministry of Environment is informed, particularly with regard to the need to regulate toxic substances within the strait? How do you make sure that the interface is covered? I'm sure the minister is aware that a debate has been going on — I don't think we should have the debate now in the House — on whether PEP should actually be under the Ministry of Environment. Would the minister describe just how that interface works between his ministry's PEP program and the Ministry of Environment?
[3:15]
HON. MR. REE: It's quite simple: regional coordinators, upon being made aware of an event, are responsible for notifying all parties that may be interested in the event, whether it be the environment, highways, a mud slide, forestry. The regional coordinator is there to notify people the minute he's aware of an event. That's part of his obligations and responsibilities.
[ Page 7078 ]
MR. CASHORE: The reason I asked the question is that there's a statement in the report that government agencies do not actually regulate toxic shipping in the strait; they merely register amounts of dangerous substances coming or going. Since the minister is responsible for dealing with provincial emergencies, does he agree that it's adequate simply to monitor the coming and going, but no actual regulation is taking place?
HON. MR. REE: I agree it's not adequate. That's why we as a provincial government — and our Premier — are actively speaking to the federal government and to the states of Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska to develop certain rules and regulations with respect to the shipping of these dangerous goods down our coast and to have some authority and control. It's also why I've always been a very great supporter of the Mackenzie pipeline, so that we could limit the tanker traffic off our coast and minimize the opportunities for major spills like we had at Valdez.
MR. CASHORE: I would take it from the minister's comments that the minister has said regulations will be forthcoming.
HON. MR. REE: I said we would like to have them. The member is well aware that the jurisdiction is largely that of the federal government. I would hope they would have the regulations. I hope that they would give us some authority over controlling this. But at the moment, it is federal jurisdiction; it is not provincial jurisdiction. I can make no comment with respect to regulations. The member knows that, and I don't know why he would ask such a question in the first place.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, we'll take it from that. As the minister has indicated, the Premier is vigorously working to see that these regulations are brought in— in consultation with the federal government — with dispatch. As he well knows, the environment cannot wait on cabinet meetings.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn now to the question of auto emission inspections. As the minister knows, several weeks ago I asked him a question in the House. The report of the task force on exhaust emissions that was produced by the province of British Columbia, the GVRD and the federal government pointed out that the amount of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere has drastically increased in the last 15 years. I asked if the minister had decided to implement compulsory automobile testing, which would include exhaust emission controls. At that time it was my understanding that the minister said no. I would like to ask the minister if that is still his position.
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is still no. However, I have not decided on compulsory testing, and that's what the "no" refers to; a decision has not been made. As a result of the report you're talking about, I have asked my superintendent of motor vehicles to look at the possibility of checking exhaust emissions on all vehicles that are now required to have annual and semiannual inspections and to develop the feasibility of checking the emission inspections for those particular vehicles and to let me know what the impact is. Those vehicles that require annual and semiannual inspections are 8,500 kilograms and over. Those are, of course, your heavier vehicles that per vehicle probably have more exhaust fumes than other vehicles, because being larger, they consume more fuel.
With regard to smaller vehicles, I would look to that possibly in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment. If and when we bring in compulsory vehicle inspection, possibly the exhaust emissions could also be part of that inspection. In other words, we're not sitting on it; we are actively looking at the vehicle inspection aspect. In fact, as you well know, tomorrow the chairman of the traffic safety directorate, Mr. Keith Godfrey, will be in place in his office, and his office will be open for business. One of the matters he's charged with looking at — as far as traffic safety goes — is bringing in compulsory vehicle inspections throughout the province.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the answer, but we're still left in the dark with regard to what is going to happen. In view of the fact that this has come up in the past, would the minister comment on the possibility of considering roadside inspections?
HON. MR. REE: The member says he's in the dark. I would anticipate that if the opposition were the government, they'd turn around and say: "Tomorrow everybody will be inspected." There will be no facilities available to inspect people, and it would be a sham. I will not operate that way; I'll operate in a responsible manner and see that the two go together: the demand for inspection and the facilities for inspection.
With regard to roadside inspections commencing July 1 of this year, we will be having more intensive vehicle inspection on the highways. A lot of it will be directed to the older vehicles on the highways. It will involve not only motor vehicle personnel; it will involve the police. The police aren't always competent to check emissions, but they are certainly competent to see when a muffler is defective, making a lot of noise or is loose; the same with our motor vehicle inspectors. As I say, we will be enhancing that as of July 1 this year. Should the vehicles appear to be defective, they will be ordered to have them repaired within 30 days, or failing that, their vehicle licence may be lifted.
MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister doesn't see that as being a program that's going to address the incredible problem we have with regard to hydrocarbons in the lower mainland. Is the minister suggesting that these roadside inspections he's referring to, starting July 1, will address the issue of
[ Page 7079 ]
hydrocarbon emissions? I'd like to get you on the record on that.
HON. MR. REE: No, it will not address it 100 percent. But there are not the facilities or programs set up for us to say that effective June 1 all vehicles must be checked for emission control. There aren't the facilities within the province to check all the vehicles. So a program would have to be developed.
As a result of the report you've got, the GVRD, Environment and motor vehicle branch are working together in a program studying that issue, and they're going to be coming back with recommendations. Yes, we are actively looking at it. We are taking some steps now where the means are there. We hope to be taking further steps along the line.
Certainly it's the older cars and bigger trucks that have the biggest exhausts. The newer cars, as you know, have certain built-in catalytic converters — or whatever they're called — to minimize the emissions
I do know there are a lot of repair places and muffler places where when you go in to replace the newer mufflers they will just put in a straight old manifold or exhaust pipe and muffler and not put the converter in it. We've got to look at these things. But it's basically the older cars we've got the problem with and our heavier and bigger trucks, and those we're doing.
MR. LOVICK: I'm sure the minister will agree with me that mandatory and compulsory are synonyms. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? Will you accept that proposition? Mandatory and compulsory mean the same thing. Is that right? You can nod if you wish.
HON. MR. REE: The member for Nanaimo is the authority of the House on grammar, wording, pronunciation, prose and everything else, so I'll take what he has to say — whether it's synonymous or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meaning of the two is obviously not identical or they wouldn't need two.
MR. LOVICK: We could have a little fun on that particular debate if we wished, Mr. Chairman.
The reason I asked that question — and it isn't entirely facetious — is just that I noticed the Solicitor-General bridled at the suggestion made by my colleague about some kind of compulsory testing.
Curiously enough, however, we have a press release dated May 1 in which your colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is quoted as saying: "The report of the task force will be used to develop a mandatory inspection and maintenance program for cars and small trucks in the Greater Vancouver Regional District." Which also, I might add, sounds like a good definition of comprehensive to me. I note further that this particular task force is one comprised of a number of different groups, one of which — surprise, surprise — is the motor vehicle branch under the Ministry of Solicitor General.
The question I would pose is: are you and your colleague still speaking, or are you about to chastise him for the position he's taking, which clearly seems to be different from the one you're taking?
HON. MR. REE: I'm very disappointed in the member for Nanaimo. With his command of the Queen's English he should be able to understand what that report said. He talks about compulsory and mandatory being synonymous, but I would suggest what I have informed the member for the great community of Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) is synonymous with the press release. If the member wishes to read the Blues.... Should I educate him on this? It says, "develop a program." That is basically what I was saying. We are looking at the thing to develop something and take a look at it. We're not going to put it in place tomorrow.
MR. LOVICK: I have no intention whatsoever of belabouring this particular point, but let me clarify for the minister's sake.
He suggested in the House two days after the announcement was made that he was not supportive of any kind of comprehensive testing system.
HON. MR. REE: I did not.
MR. LOVICK: You did so. I can quote you from Hansard. It's here.
HON. MR. REE: I did not; you read it.
MR. LOVICK: I've read it.
Similarly, a few minutes ago — we can check Hansard — you bridled at the suggestion made by my colleague about a mandatory testing system. Instead you obfuscated and waffled around so nobody on this side of the House could tell what it was you are apparently committed to.
[3:30]
Now we discover you're apparently enamoured of the process of looking into a testing system to protect us from emissions. When, however, my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam poses the question, we have to spend ten minutes to get a straight answer. Why did we have to go through that agony? Surely you could have spelled out very clearly in a matter of moments, "This is the proposal we are intending to put forward; this is what my ministry intends to do about the problem of emissions testing." Unfortunately you didn't; thus we had to go through this exercise.
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I did exactly that in as few words as possible. When the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) asked me the other day whether we had made a decision, I used a single two-letter word: no. We had not made a decision at that time. We have not made the decision at this time to make it mandatory or anything else. We are certainly looking at what we're going to do on this, and we are moving to it. The answer the other
[ Page 7080 ]
day, n as simple, short and concise a method as possible, still stood for that day.
MR. LOVICK: I hasten to point out, in all sincerity, that I was not about to quote for the record, but this is too good an opportunity. Let me quote the lucid answer that we received from the Solicitor-General to my colleague's question, the second question in the Legislature, which I defy anybody to interpret: "I think, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question — which is put as the first question was put, as a double: do you think what, when or how? — would be the same as to the first question: no." I don't mean to be unkind, but if you think that's clear, Mr. Minister, you're asking us to make a giant leap that would make Debbie Brill look like a piker.
But that wasn't my reason for standing, Mr. Minister. Instead, I want to pose a couple of very simple and direct questions under this heading. Could the minister please clarify for us the policy of commercial inspection that we now do? That process goes on, of course, for commercial vehicles. I want to know the status of the inspection certificate. In other words, when a particular truck driver goes into an inspection station and has his vehicle — or her vehicle, in some cases — inspected, that individual is then issued some kind of certificate saying they have indeed completed that, they pay a fee of, I think, $120 or something, and that ought to be good for a particular period of time. Can the minister clarify for me whether that is the case?
HON. MR. REE: The inspection is basically one year for smaller vehicles, six months for larger vehicles. The fee charged is commensurate with the weight of the vehicle, and evidence must be produced at the time of licensing the vehicle.
MR. LOVICK: Could it happen that an individual would go to a particular licensed inspection facility and be told: "You have a problem with the kingpin It'll probably be okay for about six months. I'll give you your certificate, but you should get it fixed within a particular period of time"? That individual drives off down the street, sticker displayed proudly and prominently, and is then caught in a random check and told: "No, that particular piece of equipment needs to be fixed right now. We're pulling your vehicle off the road." In other words, your inspection certificate isn't worth the price you pay for it. Could that happen?
HON. MR. REE: Yes, that could happen if the party wanted to be a party to that fraud, you might say, or that misrepresentation of the safety of his vehicle if his vehicle subsequently became unsafe. If he knew the vehicle was going to become unsafe and did not get it repaired, he could be placed in that position. It could also happen that his lights might be good at the time of the inspection, but when he's stopped after the inspection, one of his headlights is out. Mind you, they wouldn't take his vehicle off the road unless there were other glaring faults with the vehicle, but he would be ordered to get his headlight repaired.
MR. LOVICK: To judge from the answer, I'm not sure whether I explained the question clearly enough. I don't think we're dealing with the same question. The issue concerns the individual who goes to the inspection station, is told that a certain amount of work or a certain piece of work needs to be done within a period of, say, six months, and gets the certificate because the certified mechanic has said, "Yes, effective today your vehicle is okay." The individual then pulls out of the station and on the same day is given an official inspection by one of the roving squads and told: "Your vehicle is defective." If that happens, Mr. Minister, then we're also telling that self-same individual: "The inspection certificate you paid for wasn't worth paying for." My question is, could that happen?
HON. MR. REE: Yes, this could happen. Maybe the person who did the inspection didn't follow the guidelines properly; the vehicle is pulled over and might be taken off the road. Even with all good intentions and the driver not being a part of any fraud or other untoward act, this could happen. But I would think the owner of the vehicle would have recourse to the place that did the original inspection and could say, "Look, you haven't followed the guidelines. You have caused me a problem. I've lost money, and I'm going to sue you, " or something like that.
MR. JONES: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. JONES: Joining us today in the gallery are 45 bright young minds from Lochdale Community School in North Burnaby. It's always tremendous to see the bright young minds from my community, and they are certainly welcome in the House. I would ask all members in the House to join me in welcoming those bright young minds.
MR. LOVICK: One is almost tempted to make the observation that bright young minds are really noticed around here. That's perhaps a little subtle.
Just to pursue, if I might, with the minister, do I understand you correctly, Mr. Solicitor-General, that the remedy the individual to whom this happens has is a lawsuit or going to talk to the person who performed the work and saying, "Look, you did me wrong and therefore I want you to fix it or make some kind of amends"? Is that what you're saying, Mr. Minister?
HON. MR. REE: Yes, that is part of the remedy; but we also have senior inspectors. The person that did the original inspection can have his licence withdrawn and things like this. No, we will not recompense the owner of the vehicle for the loss; but we will take the action, if necessary, against the
[ Page 7081 ]
original inspector for not doing his job responsibly. It's up to the owner of the vehicle to get any arrangement with the inspector.
MR LOVICK: How then does the Solicitor-General's ministry or the motor vehicle department learn of the fact that this work, done by an ostensibly qualified inspector, was inadequate. How do they learn that? Is that only by a complaint from an individual?
HON. MR. REE: It can be by a complaint from the individual, but we also would learn probably at the time the vehicle is stopped and looked at by the inspector on the highway. The owner is going to say: "Here's my certificate. I just had my vehicle inspected and I'm told it was right." The roadside man is going to know too. I would hope that he's energetic enough and has initiative enough — most of the people in my ministry are — that he would follow up on something like that.
MR. LOVICK: Okay. I would just leave the question with the minister by saying he is content, then, that there is no great need for improvement to the system; that things are working as they ought.
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: Well, the minister is articulating words to the effect that there is always room for improvement.
My question is to the minister, very directly. Do you see any need at the moment to investigate the system and see if this phenomenon that I describe — and obviously I'm not making it up; it comes from a particular complaint — is perhaps widespread? Do you have sufficient checks and balances to protect the consumers, the purchasers of that service, against bad practices on the part of the certified inspectors? That's all.
HON. MR. REE: I would hope that there is, but there's always room for inspection in any system that we have. It should be continually audited, and that is why we have roadside inspections, and roadside inspections are creating an audit for those inspection places, the licensed inspectors. It's part of the audit system. If we come up with deficiencies, then we've got to look at that to improve upon it. I guess unfortunately — or fortunately — we are all human and we don't have all of the answers all of the time to start with. Events happen that you don't foresee.
Interjection.
HON. MR. REE: I don't fall within the category of bright young minds because of my age. I know there may be a few others who because of age also don't fall within that category. My age excludes me from being young. Sometimes I wish I were 20 minutes younger.
MR. LOVICK: Appropriately enough, that comment was addressed to somebody whose grey locks bespeak his two score years and five, and all that. I couldn't resist.
Just a couple of other quick questions to the minister, and then some of my colleagues have some other issues they want to address.
I'm wondering if I can establish for clarification's sake with the minister exactly what has finally happened with the ongoing saga of pilot cars. I notice a smile crossing the face of your colleague, the superintendent, Mr. Jackman, and that's because we have been involved in this particular casework for about two years now. Indeed, I would compliment your staff. They have certainly been most cooperative in answering my queries and arranging meetings with the various people affected. I appreciate that cooperation and help and would like to commend them.
As I understand it, what has happened is that the policy to effectively change the regulation whereby the allowable width has been increased somewhat is given, is fixed, and is not about to be changed. Where you have met the interests of the industry operators, the pilot car association and others, where you have responded to the concerns that I've expressed — and certainly not me alone — is effectively to stipulate that there are some six or seven roads which are effectively exempted from the pilot car regulation.
I shouldn't say "exempted from." The old system still obtains that vehicles over 10 feet 6 inches in width still require a pilot car. That's the compromise, I take it. Beyond that, we aren't going to talk about any other changes to the policy for roads other than those specified in that particular statement. The rules are now that we no longer need pilot cars for vehicles up to — what is the width now, 12 feet? Is that about right? It used to be 10 feet 6 inches, and now it's 12 or something. Anyway, the minister catches my drift; I don't need to read into the record all the details. Perhaps he can bring us up to date on that.
HON. MR. REE: I have met with the pilot car association or the nucleus of the association. I have also met with the truckers. We have suggested that we pass our comments to each other and that they get together and try to come down with some recommendations or to give us a brief on their concerns on where we can improve this system and on where we may or may not need pilot cars.
With regard to the width, it's 11.6, not 12. The pilot car people asked us to look at certain roads, and we have undertaken to go and look at certain roads where pilot cars weren't required. They suggest that we may need them there because of the width of bridges or some sort of thing, or because of the nature of a curve or tunnel, and we've undertaken to do that. That is the position at the moment; it's a wait-and-see until they come back to us with some information. We will be talking to them. I am meeting with truckers and the truckers' association all the
[ Page 7082 ]
time, and they are keeping me updated on the programs that they are involved in.
[3:45]
MR. LOVICK: I am delighted to hear that discussions are ongoing and that there is perhaps room for other changes to the existing policy which, as you know, has been responded to by large numbers of people, many of whom have expressed concerns about safety, in rather strong terms in some cases, as I am sure the minister is familiar with.
Again, all I can say is that I am very pleased to hear that you are still listening. I am happy to report that yes, indeed, there has been that compromise, that X number of roads have been excluded from the new policy. That's good, and I hope that those ongoing discussions will entertain the very real and serious concerns that people have about certain roads in this province beyond the six or seven stipulated, which in the minds of those who drive them on a regular basis still pose a hazard and therefore ought to be addressed. I am pleased to hear that.
I have a couple of other quick questions, if I might, about the whole area of transportation and the needs of the disabled. Most of this, of course, was canvassed under the B.C. Transit estimates and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) responsible therefore.
One of the areas recommended, however, in those elaborate briefs and discussion papers about what we could do to make access easier for disabled individuals had to do with taxicabs. Insofar as taxicabs and licensing of them come under the regulation of motor vehicle licensing, I am wondering if the minister has given any thought to the idea of imposing some requirement whereby a certain number of taxicabs that come on stream — new licences and so forth — might be required to be handicapped-accessible. Has any thought been given to that? It is a recommendation, I believe, in one of those reports on access for the handicapped. Can you tell me that, Mr. Minister?
HON. MR- REE: I am informed that the Motor Carrier Commission has been actively looking at this, as well as the city of Vancouver in granting their licences. I am not aware of any conclusion on this. I am pleased to note that North Shore Taxi in my riding is now getting vehicles that can take handicapped — wheelchairs, power lifts and the rest of it. I commend the organization for that, because this can fill in and help minimize the demand on the handyDART system.
MR. MILLER: I don't know if the minister responded to my last query before I had to leave the House. He could indicate if he did, and I will sit down and listen to him. No? Well, in that case, I will have to go through some of the documentation I had to go get. I am again referring the minister back to the issue of regulating on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Just for the minister's benefit, I will kind of take him through the steps.
The truckers there got together. They had a public meeting. Pretty well every transportation organization on the Charlottes was at the meeting last August. They had in attendance Lief Bengtsson of the motor carrier branch and Gerry Morris, chairman of the Motor Carrier Commission, along with the local RCMP. As a result of those meetings, there was an exchange of correspondence between the parties.
So here we have this group of independent businessmen who advertised a meeting to deal with the issue of regulation of their industry. All the companies on the Queen Charlotte Islands that are in the transportation business were represented at the meeting. There was a thorough discussion. They set about in a very good fashion to discover what the pros and cons of regulation to their industry meant.
In addition to that discussion they had with the officials present, they also submitted a list of questions which were responded to by Mr. Bengtsson on September 16, 1988. A lot of the questions deal with what the impact is of regulation in terms of, specifically, licence fees, ability to increase rates and new entrants into the market. Particularly, question number one on their list was: "Is it possible to have the Queen Charlotte Islands regulated as a separate zone and not part of the Prince Rupert area?" The response to that was: "Yes." Part 1 of the Motor Carrier Act, regulation exemptions, 1(g), refers to exempting a number of islands lying between Vancouver Island and the mainland. One can simply add the Queen Charlotte Island group to that exclusion. This would take a legislative process. It could quite easily be accomplished.
In conclusion — the final question — the group of truckers asked this: "The Motor Carrier Commission is set up to protect the public. In which way does the commission help the carriers?" The answer is:
"Under section 36 of the Motor Carrier Act, it is the duty of the Motor Carrier Commission to regulate motor carriers with the object of promoting adequate and efficient service and reasonable and just charges for it and of promoting safety on the public highways, and of fostering sound economic conditions in the transportation business in the province. The last statement, I think, would be most applicable to your particular question. When the Motor Carrier Commission regulates the industry, they attempt to issue the number of licences required to service an area in a sound business fashion."
That answer from Mr. Bengtsson really does sum up the philosophy behind regulating the transportation industry. It really has nothing to do with Eric Blair and any books he might have written, Mr. Minister. It has to do with maintaining an efficient industry for the benefit of the users of the transportation service and for the benefit of those in the business.
I think, Mr. Minister, that they have made a reasonable case. I think that they have quite properly followed a number of very sensible steps in learning about the impact of regulation on their businesses, and have come to the conclusion — and really I would contend that Mr. Bengtsson's letter seems to bear out their contention — that regulation would be
[ Page 7083 ]
good for the people in the trucking or transportation business on the Queen Charlotte Islands.
In the face of that kind of logical, reasonable approach, I really do believe that it's incumbent on the minister to offer a full explanation to this group of business people, because I don't think that their demands are unreasonable at all. I just think that the minister standing up and saying, "We don't see any particular benefit," doesn't really deal with the situation they have raised. So I would be pleased to hear the minister respond, now that I was able to get some documents and back up the argument I was making before I left.
HON. MR. REE: As I said, on the recommendations of the chairman, we did not pursue the order-in-council to regulate the Queen Charlottes as an area. At the moment, considering the economics of the area and the amount of freight to be hauled on the highways within the Charlottes, I still support the proposition that it is not warranted. Should the economy develop and you end up with a mine or more heavy-duty industry in there with a fair bit of trucking coming in from outside of the Charlottes, then I would consider deregulating it as a zone in order to protect the truckers on the Charlottes from others coming In.
At the moment, I don't see any particular problem on it. Any trucker now coming into the Charlottes must be registered on the mainland and is already registered to Rupert or to any other communication. I can't see the competition on the Charlottes at this time for the amount of freight there is. We will always continue to look at it. We will always monitor on it. We will continue to talk to the industry on the Charlottes. At this point in time, I have not signed such an order-in-council or requested it.
MR. MILLER: First of all, dealing with the last point the minister made that any trucks coming on have to already be regulated, of course they do. I think the first question and answer I read dealt with that point. Did the minister hear what I was saying when I was reading this letter? Were you aware of what I just read out, in terms of that very point?
Well, I'll read it again: "Is it possible to have the Queen Charlotte Islands regulated as a separate zone and not part of the Prince Rupert area?" The answer is yes. Then it goes on to define the fact that that has been noted. Item 1(g) of the Motor Carrier Act regulations refers to exempting a number of islands lying between Vancouver Island and the mainland. Clearly the commission has dealt with this type of situation before. They have a specific regulation to deal with it. Obviously it probably applies in some other parts of the province. I haven't done that checking. Maybe the minister could advise me whether there are parallels in terms of the situation the Charlottes is in. But clearly these people are faced with competition from off-island.
It seems to me that you could almost make a case, given the mandate of regulation — which, as I read out, is there to promote an efficient industry from the point of view of the users and the owners — that you have a stronger need to regulate on a place like the Queen Charlotte Islands. If the minister's contention is that the volume of business simply doesn't exist to warrant regulation, it would seem to me that those people are in an even more tenuous position when people come from the outside to take what limited business there is. In fact, the arguments you use, I think, you're using wrongly. I think the arguments you're using really back up the truckers' contention and my contention that they are probably more in need of the protection that regulation affords than perhaps truckers in the lower mainland, where there is a sufficient volume of business to allow more competition. Would the minister respond to that argument? It seems to me a pretty valid one.
[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]
HON. MR. REE: We will have my superintendent of motor vehicles or the chairman of the commission meet with them again and look it over again. But as far as I'm concerned, unless there has been some major change, I can't see the granting of making it a regulated zone. It would be a separate zone, as your letter said, and that's what I said — I heard your letter. And it's done by order-in-council under the regulations; that's the process. There is another area of the province also that is not regulated — and I have no intention at this point of pursuing having it regulated — and that's in the Stewart-Atlin area. The Stewart-Atlin area is not regulated, so there is a parallel between the Charlottes and that area.
As I say, we'll look at it again. We'll continue to look at it again. We'll look at it with an open mind. If the argument is there for it, it will have it. But at this point, on the former information I had, the argument is not there. But we'll look for it.
[4:00]
MR. MILLER: Well, just for clarification, Mr. Minister, I appreciate what you're saying, if I'm interpreting it correctly: that you're prepared to have your officials meet again with the people on the Charlottes. I don't know if they've formed an association; I don't think they have. But they obviously have come together as a group. You will meet with them again and revisit the issue, and see if there is sufficient reason to have the area regulated. Okay. I appreciate that very much.
I just wanted to quickly ask you a couple of questions about — and I don't know whether you were canvassed on this — the whole question of driver training and the age question in terms of drivers' licences. I've long held the belief that there should be mandatory driver training for first-time drivers, young people particularly. I suppose I should say that I remain to be convinced that the age should not be increased. I don't know whether your officials have particular statistics that would support that kind of argument: both points, whether mandatory driver training would in fact create safer drivers....
[ Page 7084 ]
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: Compulsory? Yes. And I believe they are synonymous, Mr. Minister. And you can also advise me who Eric Blair is, when you get up. You referred to a book he wrote called 1984.
On those two points. I've seen too many young people of my acquaintance killed in highway accidents in my area, and I'm sure other members could stand up and speak about that in their areas as well. Obviously there is an element, I think, of irresponsibility at times — speed, alcohol. But it really is devastating to me as a parent who is now seeing our last child graduate from high school, and two before that. It really has been devastating to me and to my children to see some of their friends die in very tragic highway accidents. As a parent, I think anybody who's raised children feels very strongly about those things.
I think there should be mandatory driver training I know in some states they do it through the schools. Whether that's feasible or practical, or whether there could be some attempt to introduce some elements of driver training — maybe not the actual vehicle driving — in classroom situations in the high schools, I don't know. Anything that could be done to develop better, more responsible drivers is really worthwhile.
I'm not talking about costs. I don't know what kind of costs we'd be looking at to do that. I'd refer you to the statement of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) who said that the Coquihalla saved 18 lives. I'm not suggesting that seriously, but maybe the minister could advise me whether the ministry has looked at developing any programs perhaps in conjunction with the schools and at the issue of the age at which people can acquire a driver's licence.
HON. MR. REE: I doubt if anybody in this House is more seriously concerned than I with respect to the carnage on our highways. It is unacceptable the number of people we kill and injure out there every year, every day and every minute of every day.
I appreciate the member's comments about having his children graduate and having their friends killed at graduation ceremonies because they haven't got the proper training or the responsibility for operating the motor vehicles. I appreciate his comments that driver training could help. I think driver training could help in a lot of instances, but it's certainly not the end-all.
Unfortunately, we found that where there was driving training, a certain individual might need more hours of training to benefit. But because the compulsory end of driver training said you had to have ten hours, eight hours or something like that, they had their eight hours and said: "Look, I've had my eight hours, and I'm entitled to a licence." But they weren't qualified to drive.
Mr. Chairman, last Friday we installed the first electronic driver-training machine in my riding in North Vancouver. As a test, we will have them throughout the whole lower mainland before the summer is over and in Prince George, Salmon Arm and Fort St. John, I believe. This machine is to test the new applicant, the young driver or the new driver for their assessment of the road, knowledge of the rules and methods of reacting to situations. It portrays actual road situations. The question is asked, and the person has four choices to pick the correct answer from. I've looked at it. It's a great step forward from the written test we had.
What we have to find out is not about compulsory training, but what knowledge that person has of the road and of driving at the time we give the licence. In other words, don't give them a licence because they've had so many hours of training; give them a licence because they're competent and capable of driving. That's the criteria we operate on.
The member talks about age. He's not too convinced yet that it should be increased or otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't think some people at age 16 are ready to drive. There are people at 20 and at 35 who aren't ready to drive. But there are people at 16 who are ready to drive, and we always look to ourselves at times as being the ultimate. I got my driver's licence at 15, and I felt I was quite competent to drive. I think my first year of driving was quite good. It was later that I had some problems in driving. As a novice driver, I think I was far safer than when I wasn't quite as much a novice. My poor father had to suffer a few times, and I have suffered for my sons. Fortunately, they have never killed or seriously injured anybody. I never have either, and I hope none of us here in this House has.
I got the quickest safety driving lesson on July 6 last year when I took over this ministry. I'm very concerned about it, but I don't think compulsory or mandatory driver training — whichever it is — is the necessary solution to it.
MR. MILLER: I think there's a world of difference between being able to pass the test and responsibility. I agree with you that it's not an easy task to define that, but I suppose like everything else, you tend to think that education over a period of time does have an impact. In that regard, perhaps less emphasis on particular driver training.... I don't know what courses they take now in school. Things keep changing a lot, but they used to have a course when I went to school that was part of our physical education — I forget what they called it. Nonetheless, we learned a fair amount of what you'd call life skills things. I'm sure there are probably courses now where there could be an element of responsible driving introduced. But I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, maybe longer, I raised during question period to the Solicitor-General the need to provide condoms to prisoners in the provincial jails. I did this because I thought it was a very serious health issue, and there was the chance that the prisons would become major spawning grounds for the spread of AIDS. The minister replied rather brusquely to that question, and I want to be able to examine the reasons for
[ Page 7085 ]
ignoring the advice of his own experts and one of the top AIDS experts in B.C. My colleague the member for Point Grey will examine this further.
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, the member asked if the government had made a decision, and my answer was no. My answer now is the same. I'm just curious, though. I know if I ask the member for Atlin a question, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will stand up and say that the members on the opposition don't have to answer questions; only ministers have to answer questions. Is it purely for protection against the dreaded disease of AIDS that the member is suggesting that this report be adopted?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we're going to have to wait for other members to advise you of what the responsibilities are. I might refer you to any of the recent editions of Sir Erskine May, which lay out very plainly — and, in fact, even the MacMinn book on parliamentary practice — the responsibilities of a minister during estimates.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue this issue briefly but in a certain depth. As I understood the minister's response just now — and I was having a little difficulty hearing it, so he will correct me, I'm sure, if I'm wrong — it was consistent with his response during question period a few weeks ago, which was that the government has decided not to provide condoms. If I misunderstood, maybe you could state the current position before I go on.
HON. MR. REE: The question was: has the government decided? I said: "No, the government hasn't made a decision." That's what it means. I said no.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, it's an important distinction, and I'm very relieved to hear it and encouraged by that. I would like to deal with the situation in a bit more detail though. I just want to paraphrase first Dr. Norbert Gilmore, who is the former chairman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. He was the first chairman and served as chairman until, I guess, late March or early April when he resigned in frustration, in part with the federal government's response to the AIDS epidemic and to the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee. He is a very distinguished immunologist who works at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. He's also a professor at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
[4:15]
If I can paraphrase him — I think accurately — he points out that paradoxically in our society those people who are most at risk of contacting human immuno-deficiency virus — the AIDS virus — are not being given the opportunity to protect themselves, and our society as a whole is thereby is not taking the necessary measures to protect itself. In the case of the prison system, not only are we not giving prisoners the same human rights to protect themselves against an infection which is uniformly fatal but we're not protecting ourselves as a society from those....
HON. MFL REE: Can you keep going for ten minutes?
MR. PERRY: I think the Chairman has advised that I'm not to answer questions from the minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Absolutely, The Chair will insist on it.
MR. PERRY: With the minister's permission, I'll continue, at the Chair's advice. But I think this is important material for the minister's attention, even if he has to read it tomorrow and not listen to it right now. I think that's a very important point that Dr. Gilmore has made.
Let me quote also from a report by Dr. Gilmore and Margo Somerville of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, entitled "Human Immunodeficiency Virus Antibody Testing in Canada, " published by Health and Welfare Canada this year. There's a paragraph under the heading "Testing of Persons Incarcerated in Correctional Facilities":
"There are strong ethical obligations, indeed imperatives, to provide prisoners with the means necessary to act responsibly, and to protect themselves and others. This includes ensuring prisoners have free and easy accessibility to condoms, education and counselling about HIV infection and transmission, and HIV antibody testing that is voluntary, and that efforts are made to encourage safe sexual conduct and to prevent sharing of injection equipment during drug use when such activities may occur."
They are referring to such activities occurring in prisons.
The National Advisory Committee on AIDS had reviewed the same situation earlier and made a recommendation on April 22, 1987 — recommendation 8.1.6.7, in the official jargon — which is that:
"With respect to inmates in Canadian correctional institutes: (a) that major emphasis be placed on the development and distribution of educational programs for both prisoners and staff; (b) that immediate action, including any necessary change in rules or regulations, be taken to develop and distribute educational programs for all prisoners and staff and improve condom accessibility for persons incarcerated in Canadian correctional facilities...."
Let me also point out that these are not exclusively recommendations from a narrow-focused national advisory committee. I don't think it is a narrow-focused committee; it's wide-based, but some might argue that it represents only one segment of medical opinion.
Let me cite the recommendations of the Royal Society of Canada, a very august and conservative body, which advised the federal government in a report dated April 27, 1988, in recommendation 27: "We recommend that condoms be made available for inmates in correctional institutions and for others who choose not to refrain from sexual behaviours that could transmit HIV." HIV is the AIDS virus. Recommendation 29 says: "We recommend that facili-
[ Page 7086 ]
ties for decontaminating needles be made available to inmates in correctional institutions."
I point out that I'm talking about not only the need to provide protection against sexual transmission with condoms but also the need to protect against intravenous transmission using contaminated needles in prisons. This need has been recognized worldwide.
I quote from a report on the World Health Organization's "Consultation on Prevention and Control of AIDS in Prisons, " which was a meeting held in Geneva in November 1987. I am quoting from the Lancet, the most widely circulated medical journal in the world, of November 28, 1987. This has been read all over the world:
"The Consultation concluded that the general principles of national AIDS control programs should apply equally in prisons as in the general community. The policies and responsibilities of prison administrations should be developed in close cooperation with health authorities and be clearly defined in publicly available guidelines, which include undertakings that: (1) prison administrations, in close contact collaboration with health administrators, recognize their responsibility to minimize the chances of transmission of HIV in prison, and consequently in the general community when prisoners are released; (2) prisoners should be treated in the same way as other members of the community, including the same right of access to up-to-date information on AIDS and education programs designed to minimize spread of the disease, particularly high-risk sexual behaviour, prostitution and intravenous drug abuse, and the prevention measures outlined in those programs...."
It goes on to talk about testing, etc.
The same World Health Organization "Consultation" points out.... This is in the World Health Organization primary document, not the article in the Lancet. I would be happy to make copies of these available to the minister and to Hansard for reference
I quote from section D of the World Health Organization Consultation Report of 1987: "Prison authorities have the responsibility to ensure the safety of prisoners and staff and to ensure that the risk of HIV spread within prison is minimized.... Careful consideration should be given to making condoms available in the interest of disease prevention." The "Consultation" also recognized that "...within some lower-security correctional facilities, the practicability of making sterile needles available is worthy of further study."
I could go on; I've got many more documents here. I think, in the interests of time, I'll spare the minister, but I can pass this on to him if he wishes It's a report of the third national conference on AIDS in Australia in August 1988, published by the Australian Government Publishing Service, and some discussions of the problems in prisons worldwide.
Let me just point out what we know about the extent of this problem. In trying to prepare for these debates, I've attempted to find out what, if any, evidence there is of the prevalence of HIV or AIDS infection in Canadian prisons now. It emerges that we know virtually nothing about this, because we have not been very brisk about testing prisoners either at admission to prisons, at discharge or even in high-risk groups within prisons. But what do we know from the rest of the world?
I'll quote from an article in the same Lancet edition of November 28, 1987, entitled "AIDS in Prison" by Dr. T.W. Harding of the University Institute of Legal Medicine in Geneva. "In Switzerland a cross-sectional study of screening results from five establishments for adult prisoners showed a prevalence of 11 percent of seropositives." That means 11 percent of the prisoners were infected with the AIDS virus, and possibly more were infected but were not detected by those tests. "In France, 500 consecutive entries were screened at Fresnes prison, and 12.6 percent were found to be seropositive." I quote again: "A French prison doctor has calculated that the rate of seropositivity among prisoners is between 50 and 200 times higher than that of the general population."
That again makes the point Dr. Norbert Gilmore of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS makes: prison populations are at least potentially the highest-risk populations, where the chance of transmission may be the highest — perhaps not quite so high as among some other segments of society, but much higher than society at large. Therefore it is a population where we need to focus attention and not hide from the problem.
I quote again from this article: "In Italy, all new entries to prison are tested for anti-HIV, and in Spain at-risk groups have been screened. The rate of seropositivity in Italian prisoners was 16.8 percent; in Spanish prisoners" — that's in a special group of prisoners — "it was nearly 26 percent." Lower figures were achieved in Belgium: only 1.3 percent; in Luxembourg, 2.1 percent. In some countries the AIDS virus infection was not found in prisoners.
So we don't know, in my view, what the situation is in Canadian prisons, except that we have very good evidence to suggest that the AIDS virus is present in prisoners in Canadian prisons including, presumably, some of the British Columbia prisons under the authority of the Solicitor-General. We have every reason to believe, from sociological studies of prisons and from the biology of the disease, that the virus is potentially being transmitted in our prisons now.
I see the Solicitor-General shaking his head. This is not only the advice of the recent chairman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS; it's the advice of the World Health Organization "Consultation" and of many people reporting at the last international AIDS conference in Stockholm. The same message will be repeated next week in Montreal at the AIDS conference. It's the advice, as I understand it, of our own Ministry of Health staff. Those in the sexual disease control division, who have the most relevant expertise, are very worried about the possibility that prisoners and potentially staff will be infected within prisons, and that prisoners leaving our correctional facilities will continue to infect people in the broader community.
I think this calls for the most serious possible discussion. It calls for action as rapidly as one can achieve consensus within the relevant health profes-
[ Page 7087 ]
sions and the corrections branch. It is perhaps not even dependent on consensus, but upon leadership from government. The consequences that we face for every case of AIDS that we do not prevent are monstrous. They're monstrous for the patient who is inflicted with a fatal disease, which imposes suffering for months or years; they're monstrous for the families involved and they're monstrous in financial terms for society, since we know that the cost of caring for an AIDS patient is currently estimated to be in the range of $200,000 over their life and will go up.
I'd like to hear in more depth from the Solicitor-General what actions he and his department are taking, and what coordination he has with the Minister of Health to act responsibly to deal with this problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter has been canvassed very thoroughly,
HON. MR. REE: I thank the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey for his extensive comments on the subject matter, which was introduced and explored by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). But then the critic of the ministry is not as senior as the heir apparent to the Leader of the Opposition, so I presume that that is why the member for Point Grey commenced and took over the questioning when the member for Atlin was in the process of examining the subject matter. Maybe the heir apparent will learn some of the courtesies in due course.
[4:30]
The member for Point Grey did point out that the different communities, different countries of the world have different infected rates as such, and is suggesting that ours are fairly high and fairly serious and demand immediate attention. The rate in our provincial institutions is at 0.02 percent, as far as we have been able to ascertain over the last two years We have had 19 HIV-positive inmates over the two years, with no confirmed active cases of AIDS during that period.
I think that the members from that side do not properly appreciate the provincial institutions under my ministry. They are not long-term institutions which would give rise to the same types of practices you might find in an institution where there are longer periods of incarceration and separation from normal community activities.
At this point we have given very careful consideration to the giving out of condoms, but there is not an institution in Canada that does at this point. There are seven in North America that do, and the majority of those institutions only provide them at times of conjugal visits. British Columbia institutions have no conjugal visits, so there would be no need to provide for that. Inmates may have temporary absences to visit their spouses, and their spouses have adequate access to getting the necessary condoms or other protective devices within their facility, so they need not be given to the inmate as such.
We do provide active counselling courses. Education programs are being developed and counselling is available by the medical staff. The staff of the prisons are being educated on alternative, shall I say, practices to prevent people from getting AIDS on methods that are normally transmitted. In other words, we are suggesting that they look at their lifestyle. We teach them a lifestyle. We try and counsel them on lifestyles to minimize any opportunity of transmission of this vicious disease. As I say, we have given very serious consideration to the matter, and at this point in time do not in our provincial institutions consider it advisable.
MR. PERRY: I think there is a misunderstanding of fact that I would like to clear up. The Solicitor-General just suggested that the prevalence rate of seropositivity in British Columbia prisons, if I heard accurately, was 0.02 percent.
HON. MR. REE: That was .02 percent.
MR. PERRY: That's the same thing — .02 percent or 0.02 percent.
HON. MR. REE: Not 0.2 percent; 0.02 percent.
MR. PERRY: That's what I think I said.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must ask the minister to refrain from answering questions until such time as he has been recognized.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you're not supposed to answer questions until you are recognized, so if the member from Point Grey wishes to have the minister stand up and clarify the issue, then he will have to sit down. Otherwise I think you can proceed. But Hansard must have some hope of trying to record these matters, and the devices we have in this chamber aren't such that they can record comments that are shouted across the floor. So please proceed.
MR. PERRY: I think I got it right: 0.02 percent, and that 19 seropositive inmates have been identified in British Columbia prisons. My information is that no prevalence study has been conducted in our prisons, and I presume that the 19 seropositive individuals were individuals who volunteered for testing because of their at-risk lifestyle.
I presume — I can only guess — that the 0.02 percent figure would come from dividing that numerator by the denominator of prisoners in B.C. correctional institutions. I would just like to clarify from the minister what exactly is the status of knowledge about prevalence of HIV infection in our prisons or upon patients entering or leaving our prisons.
HON. MR. REE: The member is correct that it came from volunteer information, questionnaires. To test inmates is illegal, as compulsory testing is illegal and cannot be forced upon them. So the best informa-
[ Page 7088 ]
tion we have is by asking the person as they are being admitted to the institution, and It is the best that we can rely on at the moment.
MR. LOENEN: I'd just like to briefly comment on a few items related to motor vehicle branches, in particular the one in my own community, which I'm a bit more familiar with than some of the other ones. I have repeatedly, over the two and a half years that I've represented my constituency, received complaints about the delays in service that people experience in the motor vehicle branch in Richmond. People have to wait in line sometimes for two hours on end. Also, in terms of the hours of operation, it's maybe not a big thing in the total scheme of things, but when people have to stand in a lineup for two hours and when they're inconvenienced in getting a very basic service, then to those constituents, to those people, it is a big thing, I can tell you. I'd just like to ask the minister whether his ministry has considered the possibility of more flexible opening hours. It seems to me entirely reasonable to expect that in the modern day and age we would ensure that those services cater to the needs of the people out there and become customer-oriented and customer-friendly.
I notice, for instance, that our colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) has recently announced that the court system is going to sit at night and on weekends. If the courts and the judges can open up on weekends, then perhaps the motor vehicle branch should consider opening on Saturdays, off-hours, evenings and such things, and become more customer-friendly and more available to people who work during the day or aren't able to be there between 9 and 5, as the case is now. I'd like to put in a plea for that, and if the ministry hasn't considered it, I'd like him to urge his ministers to do that, because it would be of great benefit to the residents not only of Richmond but throughout this province. People would be well served by that.
Another minor thing that I've noticed, Mr. Chairman, is that in private industry, in stores and you name it, we see that people are treated as humans That is to say, they don't have to stand in a queue or lineup for two hours on end for fear of losing their turn, because there is a number system. You go into an establishment and pick your number, and you know that when your number is up, you will be served. Well, in the local motor vehicle branch in Richmond, people have to stay in line for fear of losing their place, and a simple device such as a numbering system would make that place far more human. I mean, we treat our people as though they're cattle: they have to stand in the lineup there. Giving them a number system would allow them to go and read a book, do a little shopping, do something else or use their time more fruitfully rather than have to stand in a lineup.
It's a very simple request, Mr. Minister, and it seems odd that we have to take up time in this chamber for such a very basic thing. But I know that my constituents and many people throughout this province would welcome it, and it would put a friendly face on government. It would gain us the gratitude of people throughout this province if we did a simple thing and made government more responsive to the needs of people and recognized that people's lives are often very complicated and complex as it is. If we make it possible to have after-hours, if we get onside and join the judges and open our facilities on weekends, then perhaps there will be greater respect for government in general. I would welcome the minister's response.
HON. MR. REE: I appreciate the member's calm, cool and impassioned comments. Commenting on flexible hours, it is certainly a concern that we are looking at, particularly in a number of instances throughout the province. There are more than 23 locations in the province where you may now obtain motor vehicle licensing at government agents' offices. The possibility of privatization of some of those offices has been looked at, and that may come about. It's not active at this moment, and I don't want to put any fear to the employees in these offices that we're going to come down and privatize them at this point either. But we have recently had an internal audit of service of the motor vehicle licence offices in the province, just an independent audit for the ministry. It has come down that, yes, there are instances of some long waits and other matters, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and the conclusion is that the public is being well served by our motor vehicle licensing offices and the personnel in those offices.
I was in to the North Vancouver one last week, as I said earlier, when we put in the electronic driver-testing machines. There was quite a lineup there. It wasn't a two-hour lineup, yet there were quite a number of people. The people were attended to very promptly as they came up.
They have looked at the number system. It has been used from time to time. The general public coming into the office are coming in for a number of reasons other than just getting a driver's licence. It may be a name change, lost licence, inquiries on testing and getting licensed and a number of reasons that they come in there. The numbering system will hold up those with very minimal requirements, while maybe people getting driver testing are being attended to.
In addition, by bringing in the electronic driver-testing system, we will have additional staff, in a sense. While a member of the public is taking their test, the staff is maybe free to do other things at that time. So it will provide some additional manpower hours within the driver licence office.
I was quite pleased with the audit report that came down with that aspect of my ministry. I was quite proud of the people and staff. I know there's always room for improvement everywhere and in every system. If the member has an instance of a four-hour wait in a specific office, I would appreciate being advised of the time and that particular office.
[ Page 7089 ]
We'll certainly look at it. No member of the public should have an unreasonable wait like that.
[4:45]
MR. LOENEN: I appreciate the minister's response and the seriousness with which he undertook to respond to something that may be considered in the overall scheme of things as somewhat trivial. I was also pleased to have him confirm that from now on, government agents throughout the province will handle the various services that are normally provided through the motor vehicle branch. But I must remind the minister that that is of little use to my community, because we do not have a government agent in Richmond, even though that is a community of some 115,000 people. They would have to go to New Westminster to find the nearest government agent. That is of little use to the residents I represent.
We heard the minister talk about an audit report and how the audit report had indicated that the residents and the people of our province are well served. I can only speak from the experiences that I have in my own community. I don't know whether those experiences were reflected in that report. I know I had no input into the report. I was never asked to make a comment on it. Nobody came to me. I don't know who these auditors were, whether they were independent or whether they were from within the ministry. I'd be interested to know.
The minister ended by saying that if I know of a particular incident where somebody had to wait four hours.... Well, I have a letter, Mr. Minister. I don't have it here, but one of my constituents wrote me a letter with exactly that kind of information, and I would be pleased to make that available to you.
In terms of your comments that a numbering system may be difficult to institute because there are a multiplicity of services provided in an office and people come there for all kinds of reasons, I realize that. I go in there. I see that. There may well be three or four different wickets, and there may well be three or four different lineups. But it is very simple to have a numbering system at least for each of those lineups. That would remedy the situation to a large extent, it seems to me.
I'd just like to close by urging the minister and his staff to seriously consider whether the situation in Richmond cannot be improved upon. I think that there is room for improvement there.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask some questions relating to gaming in British Columbia. There obviously is an agreement in place with Stena Line with respect to conduct and management of the slot-machine operation on the Stena Line. Could the minister tell me who has conduct and management of the machines that are now on this privatized run? Is that the company?
HON. MR. REE: To conclude the remarks to the member for Richmond, the auditors were independent. They talked to many citizens coming out of motor vehicle offices after receiving services there, besides talking to motor vehicle staff, office staff and managers. They spoke to the people who were being served and the people who were serving, and came to their conclusions as a result of this sort of an audit.
In Richmond, we anticipate adding to the staff there within this year. I hope the service will improve, if it has not improved at this point. I would ask the member to pass on the letter to us, so that we might see it and I might have my officers of the ministry look into the particular complaint.
With regard to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I believe it's the Ministry of Government Management Services or the Provincial Secretary ministry that is responsible for the agreements with the Stena Line as to the actual policing of the slot-machines within the Gaming Commission.
MR. SIHOTA: I didn't quite catch that. But as I understand it, other ministries may be responsible for overseeing the gaming activities on it; it's not the Gaming Commission that has responsibility as to the slot-machine operations on the steamship. Am I correct on that, Mr. Minister?
HON. MR. REE: Yes, there are a multiplicity of ministries responsible. The terms of the agreements are not within my ministry, but the actual policing of the slot-machine operations falls within it.
[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]
MR. SIHOTA: I'll engage the other minister on those aspects of it.
The report the Gaming Commission did last year said that two types of casino operations are permitted under section 190 of the Criminal Code: those conducted and managed by the government of a province and those conducted and managed by a "charitable or religious organization pursuant to a licence issued by the province." My question to the minister is this: what advice do you have with respect to the arrangement that exists under Stena? I can appreciate that when it was in government hands it fell within the purview of section 190 of the Criminal Code, which allows a province to operate this type of machine. Now that it's in private hands, I'd like to know what advice you have from your own officials as to whether that operation still complies with the provisions of the Criminal Code.
HON. MR. REE: I would anticipate that legal advice would be coming from the Ministry of Attorney-General to the other ministries responsible for the agreements.
MR. SIHOTA: Given that he's responsible for gaming, does the minister not think it's within the purview of his ministry to determine whether or not the provisions of the Criminal Code are being complied with, or does he believe that it's really up to other ministries? If so, I'd like some guidance on this matter to determine what ministries he thinks are responsible.
[ Page 7090 ]
HON. MR REE: As a member of the bar, the member well knows that the Attorney-General is responsible for legal advice to the Crown, and that would include these agreements.
MR. SIHOTA: I think we got the opposite answer when we asked the Attorney-General that: he told me to ask you. But I appreciate that the ministry has been divided, and there may be some grey areas.
Let me ask the minister this, and then I'll move on to another matter as it relates to gaming in British Columbia. Offshore — if I can put it that way — or foreign sales of lottery tickets has been a matter of some dispute. The province of Ontario has come to the conclusion that that activity is not to be sanctioned. Could the minister tell me why the province has allowed companies to set up to engage in this rather profitable and, some would say, questionable activity, given that they make quite a profit on the sale of Lotto 6-49 tickets in foreign jurisdictions? Does the minister see nothing wrong with that practice, both legally and morally?
HON. MR REE: I think the member is well aware that the Lottery Corporation, which is responsible for 6-49 tickets and the sale thereof, falls within the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, not the Ministry of Solicitor-General. This ministry is responsible for gaming, but not for the Lottery Corporation or the sale of tickets.
The member is probably well aware that the jurisdiction of the province does not go offshore.
MR SIHOTA: Actually, I wasn't fully aware of that. I thought all gaming matters now fell under your purview.
Interjection.
MR SIHOTA: Only bingos?
MR CHAIRMAN: Please make your remarks through the Chair, Mr. Minister.
MR SIHOTA: I'll take up those matters with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) when the time arrives.
With respect to the Gaming Commission, this morning I was looking at the report on the status of gaming in British Columbia. It speaks on several occasions with respect to additional regulation and monitoring of activity, particularly in terms of social clubs, where there was concern about the licensing and selling of social clubs by individuals. It talked about increased regulation in the bingo industry and increased regulation in casino gaming operations.
I think the Solicitor-General and I have the same view when it comes to gaming. I think we're very deeply concerned about the increased level of gaming in British Columbia. I could be wrong, but just looking at his public pronouncements, I feel very uncomfortable with what's going on in British Columbia with respect to the level of gaming activity.
First, I would like to know if the Solicitor-General shares that opinion. Secondly, what steps are being taken in this year's budget to deal with those enforcement mechanisms required by the Gaming Commission in its report? It said that it needed more resources and staff to deal with enforcement and regulation of all the areas that I've enumerated. I'd like to know just what additional funds are being allocated in this year's budget to deal with those issues. I would also like an answer from the minister as to his general concerns about gaming activity In B.C.
HON. MR. REE: Yes, I do have a very serious concern with respect to gaming within the province. I don't think it's the most desirable industry in the world, and unfortunately there are people who become addicted to it. I recognize that we can't outlaw it; we can't do away with it. Even if we did make it illegal, which it was for many years.... It's only recently that it's become legal for the general public to participate in gaming, but it was still there even when it was illegal. I believe very strongly that it should be controlled one way or another by government. In British Columbia we have some of the best of all worlds in our gaming philosophy, in that the proceeds assist many charities, many worthwhile ventures. Basically, the revenue goes towards that purpose, which is a sound purpose.
With regard to the Gaming Commission, yes, as a result of that report we are hiring additional people. We've been doing interviews recently: inspectors, auditors and the rest. Also, we're setting up our computer system so as to feed in far more sophisticated information with respect to charities, gaming and casino companies so that we've got a real handle on it.
MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to pursue this line of inquiry for a brief moment longer.
The minister has just noted that the chief recipients of income from the gaming that has exploded in this province are charities in every community. In fact, we might say that gaming is a source of funding for almost all social policy organizations which at some time or another may have had some income from government. I think we all know that it has replaced government grants as a significant measure in the matter of core funding for many agencies in our communities.
I've had a number of letters over the last two or three months, and I've had some correspondence with the minister on this matter. I think other members of this assembly have had similar letters from organizations concerned about the pilot project on electronic bingo that Is taking place. There's one in Vancouver; there may be others in other parts of the province. The one at the Mount Pleasant Legion is going on under the direction of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Organizations in that particular hall are very concerned about a number of matters, and I'd like to ask the minister to perhaps comment on these.
[ Page 7091 ]
First of all, they are concerned about who is going to have jurisdiction for gaming licences and the authorization of those licences. Presently it's with the Gaming Commission and the gaming branch. It's my feeling that after some initial concerns about how that particular responsibility would be carried out, there is general satisfaction among the organizations I know about that the branch and the commission are functioning well. There's still work to be done, but licensees want a single jurisdiction, one that ensures they will continue to have access to gaming dollars.
[5:00]
The first question is that of jurisdiction for bingo. The second question is the extent of electronic bingo if this pilot project succeeds and how it will enter into the competition for gaming dollars. We all know right now, as I noted a moment ago, that this particular experiment is under the direction of the lottery branch; it is stating that it has full control over that and over the proceeds that come from it. So there is a real concern here that organizations will suddenly see their gaming and their incomes affected by electronic bingo. We know, too, that the method by which the lottery branch distributes its income is really at the whim of government. A lot of it does go out to organizations, but on a grant basis. Much of it is also used to achieve many other agendas, both present and possibly future, that government may have.
Third, there is a real concern about a saturation point in respect to gaming. I know it's a concern of the commission and the branch. I feel that the commission and the branch, which come under this minister's purview, have a real sense of what the market will bear, if you like, in respect to those organizations that depend on the revenue, and of what's appropriate for us as a province. This is in the vein of what the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was commenting about: the proliferation of gaming, how far we are prepared to go and how much we must do to keep marketing something new and changing the system.
We can't put the people who depend on this income — much as it discourages me that that's the source of income they depend on — through another period of instability and change as far as their operations are concerned. It's cruel and unusual punishment. I don't think this province wants to see an expansion of gaming beyond the present level.
One of the things the commission said in its report was that it wanted to tame an untidy tiger. It should have time to do that taming and to do it with regulation, licensing, distribution of the money that comes from this particular activity without the things that are going on right now with the B.C. lottery branch.
I would be interested in the minister's comments about that. He stated in a letter I just received yesterday or today that he was concerned as well to protect the interests of the charities that are presently involved. I'd appreciate his comments about these matters.
HON. MR. REE: I thank the member for her concerns. As I've stated, I have similar ones. The jurisdiction for bingo is still under the Gaming Commission of my ministry. The electronic bingo is under the Lottery Corporation. We still license the paper bingo downstairs at Mount Pleasant under the Gaming Commission. The Lottery Corporation is running the electronic bingo upstairs.
They have just completed a test of the stand-alone electronic bingo. at Mount Pleasant. That test has terminated, and the results are being evaluated. The other overall electronic bingo is continuing. I think the test ends some time in November.
The main purpose is that we have some agreement, I understand, by way of the Lottery Corporation, which, as you know, is under the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and not my ministry. I understand there is some agreement with the manufacturers of the electronic bingo machines, which may have economic benefits to the province. There has been no decision by this government in regard to the installation of electronic bingo other than in the Mount Pleasant hall. There is none other installed in the province. It is the only place. It's still on a test until November, so it's not in a permanent position. That decision has not been made.
I have great concerns with respect to the charities in that, when the time comes — if that electronic bingo machine is terminated, as on the test of the stand-alone electronic bingos.... From what I can gather, there has been a considerable increase in revenue as a result of these electronic machines. My concern is that some of the charities may become adjusted to this increased revenue, which may not be there if electronic bingo is taken out. The presence might be some kind of a windfall, in a sense. By my comments here, I'm saying: take a look at it.
The government is not changing the distribution of proceeds from gaming — that is, from bingo and casinos. I know the charities have a great fear that the rules may be changing, as they changed some time ago when charities used to sell lottery tickets and received a commission. There is no change planned. I am not contemplating any change or plan to alter — shall we use the term — the take of charities out of the normal bingo and casinos. That stays the way it is. I hope all the charities would know that, and that you'd convey it to those that are talking to you. I wish to allay their concerns on that.
I'm always very concerned that if we got into a different type of gaming, other than paper bingo and the casino type of gaming, we would do away with the need for charity volunteers — charity organizations people — coming in and actually doing some work for the dollars they get. I do not agree with the handing out of a cheque to a group, unless they put some effort into it. I support their members coming in as volunteers and assisting with the running of these events so that, in a way, they're earning their dollars.
I recognize there are certain charities that do not have the same number of able volunteers, yet the charity's purpose is extremely community-oriented
[ Page 7092 ]
and well worthwhile for a certain — and maybe selective — group of handicapped people. There you are looking at making adjustments for getting other people in to act as a volunteer group. We prefer and always love to have volunteers in on that particular charity.
Saturation of gaming is a concern of mine. I have made it public that as long as I am the minister, we will not open up any more casinos in any jurisdiction without the consent of the local people and the municipal authorities, that we would consult with them before we would do that. I trust that answers some of the member's questions.
MS. A. HAGEN: I appreciate the minister's comments. This is perhaps something that I can better pursue with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid), and I recognize here we are into the two jurisdictions because of the electronic bingo.
One of the things I hope this minister — who is certainly going to be involved because of his responsibility for gaming — will address apropos his last comment is this whole proliferation of gaming. I don't know whether we're going to call electronic bingo a slot-machine operation or bingo, whether it's going to be in halls or whether it's going to be in every 7-Eleven in the province, but I would hope the minister would consider that his responsibilities with respect to gaming give him every right to have a fair amount to say about proliferation that could go on if it's deemed that this particular endeavour is a success. I don't like the idea at all. I think it simply adds to an already bad situation. Regardless of whether it's bringing in some more dollars, I think we should contain this untidy tiger and keep it within some kind of reasonable context in our province. We don't want another Reno, another Nevada, developing in this province. I think the minister has a real responsibility to speak out, and I hope he will do so.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask the minister about a case that I brought to his attention earlier this month: a constituent of mine, Wendy Ackerman, and her son, who is presently in the House of Concord. I'd like to know if the minister has a progress report on that.
HON. MR. REE: I regret I do not at the moment. I understand that Social Services have been actively looking for a location for the young gentleman. Regretfully, when his sentence is up, our ministry can no longer hold and maintain him. I know the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is well aware of the situation, and I anticipate that he would have the answer. I would ask him to certainly get back to you. I have your comments on my desk, and the lady's letter to you. I can't tell you the exact instance, but I gather he should be released very shortly, if not within the next day or two.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I have been in touch both with the mother and juvenile services, and the situation is that the House of Concord has agreed to keep him for whatever time necessary for Social Services to find a placement. I think that it's quite unfortunate, because basically the story we're getting from the family and from the professionals hasn't changed substantially.
The Ministry of Social Services don't want to take responsibility, because the young man is 17. They don't have a placement for him; nobody wants to take a 6 foot 4 inch boy who is a sexual abuser. They're finding the placement a very difficult one. However, even with the support of the House of Concord, the young man is, I believe, under your ministry's responsibility presently, and will continue to be on probation until November.
I think it would be most regrettable if the family had this situation go on without some kind of remedy offered. For the Solicitor-General to say that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services, quite frankly, is not good enough.
I was quite disappointed to hear some of the ministry representatives quoted in the paper saying that there is nothing available for kids like this young man. Indeed, from what I've been able to discern, there are some programs, and the problem is that there are already waiting-lists for those programs. There is not enough support coming from the ministry to provide the spaces necessary in these programs.
I referred you at the time to programs that were given to me as models: Spectrum Learning Centre in Langley has three beds available for kids such as Wendy's son; and PLEA houses also provide one-on-one supervision for kids.
I wanted to talk about a couple of things that came to my attention in trying to help Wendy and her son. Wendy's son is not alone. At any one time there are five to ten kids in the same situation, who are in need of support. Hopefully this case has brought this situation to the minister's attention. I wonder if he can comment as to why in this day and age we are facing a situation in which the only option for young people in trouble is the street.
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not too sure whether the member wishes my ministry to hold people who are not under a court sentence. Unless we have a court sentence, we cannot hold or detain people in our correctional institutes. I appreciate that there will be individuals, similar to the young man the member is talking about, who are discharged from the system after having served a sentence and who are kind of caught. There may not be limited spaces through Social Services. That is Social Services' responsibility. As far as this ministry is concerned, we can only look after them while they are under sentence.
I understand from what the member is saying that the young man she is referring to is under sentence until November. That is why we can still hold him in the House of Concord. I had not checked into his actual sentence, because I relied on the information I had received from the member and the young gentle-
[ Page 7093 ]
man's mother that he was being released in three weeks.
MS. SMALLWOOD: He's still on probation.
HON. MR. REE: So we can still hold him within our system. But my concern would be more: what happens to him in November? That's when it transfers to Social Services.
Again, it's sometimes up to the judge as to what institution the young person is sent to and where he spends the time for his offence. That limits us in the accommodation of some people. We do have open beds in our youth facilities within the province; but some of these beds would not provide the definite supervision that the mother might wish to have, and it may not be quite the appropriate institution to put him into.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that a couple of things are very clear in this instance. If something isn't done, then this young man is more or less sentenced to a life of one correctional facility after another, because it's very clear from the professionals and from the young man's mother that he is unable to cope in the community. There needs to be a transition. There needs to be some program that gives him one-on-one supervision 24 hours a day and allows him some kind of transition, some way of dealing with his problem in a satisfactory manner.
When I was talking to the professionals, it was pointed out to me that there are several situations where children are sexual abusers and find themselves in correction, and when their term is up, their treatment is ongoing. Often, because of the way the system is set up in British Columbia, kids from off the lower mainland come to corrections facilities on the lower mainland. The treatment programs are on the lower mainland, but there are no support services to provide those young people with housing to allow the treatment to continue. They go back to their community with their treatment only half finished.
There needs to be recognition — looking at Wendy's son's situation and other children's situations in the province — and some kind of coordinated effort between the Solicitor-General and Social Services; otherwise we are going to have a chain of repeat performances. If there is ever to be any relief for these kids and their families, we need to have a comprehensive treatment program with the support necessary for them. Wendy's son is only one example of what is needed here.
It's very clear — I point again to this particular situation — that because of the age of the boy, the offence and the problem he has, there is no one prepared to deal with his problem. Even when the boy turns 18, Social Services will only fund him in an independent-living situation. They will give him welfare to live on his own, and that's clearly not good enough.
Right now this young man is in your custody; he is your responsibility. Right now, rather than waiting for November or for the end of May.... The end of May was the date given. The House of Concord has agreed to continue housing this young man until some remedy can be found, and there doesn't appear to be one coming down the road. But without some kind of attention, this young man is all of a sudden going to find himself, at the age of 18, living in the community by himself, and we can all predict what will follow.
I had hoped that by bringing this to the minister's attention, he, with his staff and resources, could take a look at some of these other programs — I understand that there is a waiting-list for most of those beds — and perhaps consider funding other PLEA houses or Spectrum Learning Centre to provide additional beds for kids in the same situation.
HON. MR. REE: The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Solicitor-General have an assistant deputy ministers' committee that is looking into this particular matter — not specifically for this young man, but recognizing that there are people out there who fall within this crack. There are people who cannot possibly at this time live in the community; but we cannot lock them up, because they haven't committed an offence. We have some custody over this gentlemen because he did commit an offence. It's so hard in our democratic system to try to control people who are not prisoners.
We are looking for accommodation and training for them. I'm informed that $1.6 million of the Social Services budget is being directed towards that for this fiscal year.
I have not introduced him previously to the House, but the assistant deputy minister responsible for corrections in my ministry is Jim Graham, and I would ask the House to welcome him. He has been listening to this debate, and I have asked him to follow it up and get back to me with respect to this specific individual, this young gentleman.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I certainly thank the minister for the introduction and for the attention paid to this specific case. I would hope that while the minister is looking into it, he would pay some attention to the needs of kids off the lower mainland for housing for ongoing treatment. And I am only talking about the kids that fall within your responsibility. Hopefully, because you have custody of these kids at some point, you and your ministry will do some planning and coordination with Social Services, so that when their time of custody has finished, the Ministry of Social Services is ready and provides housing and ongoing counselling support.
Again on the issue of PLEA houses, I want to make it clear to the minister that this program within your ministry — the Public Legal Education Association and PLEA houses — provides one-on-one counselling and supervision for kids as sort of the last step before kids end up in jails. At times, the courts will refer them to a PLEA house for that kind of support. These are street kids who have drug and alcohol problems; street gangs; kids who have very
[ Page 7094 ]
violent behaviours; young prostitutes. These are kids with very serious problems. This program, I believe, is at this point not recognized for its value. It should be looked at and supported, to provide the kinds of alternatives that we would all recognize as being better than prisons or institutions for young people.
At any rate, I know there are other members wanting to talk to you about these issues, and so I'll pass the mike over.
MR. JONES: I wanted to follow the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley because I think she raised a critically important area, particularly for our young people In this province who are in difficulty. The most reasonable approach to dealing with the situation, of course, is prevention. But even with the best prevention in the world, there are going to be some young people who are going to end up under the minister's jurisdiction, under the corrections system in this province.
It seems to me that the term "correction" implies rehabilitation. I think if there's any hope for any of those in this province who are incarcerated, it is with those young people who are incarcerated. If we are interested in rehabilitation, if we are interested in correction and not just in warehousing people, then it seems to me that we have to be serious about the kinds of facilities that we provide for those young people.
I wanted to raise with the minister the question of the youth detention centre in Burnaby. The youth detention centre is a very old facility — I believe it's some 40 years old. The locks in that institution, for example, are so old that new parts must be made by hand. Of course, that's done at great cost and effort.
I also understand that not only was this facility reported on recently as a result of concerns about self-harm and victimization of young people Incarcerated in that institution, but there was also a report by the ombudsman in 1985, in which he said very clearly that that facility is inadequate. The ombudsman has not changed his view on that, although I understand that some recommendations made at that time that I understand were followed. Basically, I think the ombudsman comes to the conclusion that that facility is not just inadequate, but that it really needs total replacement.
I understand that there has been some promise by the government that that will happen, but the response of the minister and the government is, in my view, less than adequate — just as the facility is inadequate. A promise to replace that facility, with a time-frame of four to five years, says to me that we're going to continue with the kinds of problems we've seen in that institution. We'll continue with the ombudsman's investigations, and we'll come up with the same kind of report that that institution is inadequate.
I'd like to ask the minister how he justifies the fact that that institution is not actively involved in the process of being replaced right now.
[5:30]
HON. MR. REE: I appreciate the member standing up and speaking about the Willingdon institution. I had hoped that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) would comment on it; he made some inquiries there some time ago and spouted off at a press conference that he was the authority on Willingdon.
He made many observations with respect to the operation of Willingdon. He said the facility was understaffed, below the ombudsman's '85 ideal level of one staff person to six residents, when actually the staffing level is at the recommended level of one to six residents. He was wrong on that. This ratio doesn't include the special supervisor, management staff, health staff or other people in there. He said the facility was overcrowded, that it was designed to hold 92 and averaged 110 people. So far this year Willingdon Youth Detention Centre has been underutilized, with an average population of 96. Last year's average population was 94.1. He said the facility has high turnover and claimed that the most senior staff member has been there only four years. Of the 160 staff, only four have left in the last six months, and one of those four retired. It's a very low rate of turnover: 48 staff have more than four years of seniority and several have over ten years. So he was completely wrong.
[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]
I had hoped that I could bring all this up. It goes on to about 12 items that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew espoused at his classic press conference about the sky falling in over Willingdon. He was wrong on all of them except one, and that is the replacement of Willingdon. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) was also correct on that one. Yes, it has to be replaced, and I don't argue that at all. As of May 19 the ministry has received consent to proceed with the plan to replace Willingdon: the Burnaby youth containment centre, and the Burnaby community containment centre for youths - the open centre. So that's with respect to both Willingdon and the open centre.
We have received consent to proceed to planning, and this ministry will actively do the planning towards the replacing of Willingdon, seeking an alternative to its present location. At this point I've directed my staff to seriously look at the area south of the Big Bend area, where the women's correctional centre is, as an alternative site for the replacement of Willingdon.
So this government is moving actively in this line, and I hope.... It was a major recommendation of the ombudsman's last report, and I hope we can fulfil that, because nearly every other recommendation has been looked after.
MR. JONES: The minister indicates that certain planning is going on. I don't know for sure, but I guess that could have been the response following the ombudsman's report in 1985. I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate a little on that planning. He's
[ Page 7095 ]
looking for a site now. He has some funding for the planning process. I'd like to know when we can expect a replacement for that antiquated facility that I think the minister knows was not built to house those 96 or 100 young offenders that he talked about. The facility is totally inadequate now, and I don't think we can really afford to spend another five to ten years, or even four to five years, with a facility like that.
HON. MR. REE: The approval we have is for a total of $8.8 million for site selection, deposit on site selection and design up to construction, but it does not include construction cost. If we're fortunate, I would hope to have it probably in late 1991 to replace and close down Willingdon, which will probably be about a year after the closing of Oakalla.
MR. JONES: The minister indicates that $8.8 million is set aside for site selection but that there has been no funding at this point for construction. But he expects that facility construction to be completed by late 1991. Is that correct?
HON. MR. REE: Yes.
MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister has difficulty answering because of the fact that the funds for construction have not at this point been allocated. But I'm wondering what kind of facility the ministry has in mind.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I can call for order on your behalf. Perhaps the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) and others could keep the conversation down a little bit so the rest of us can hear.
MR. JONES: First of all, I wonder about the size of that facility. I think the size is very critical in creating the kind of environment where we can hope for some corrections, where we can hope for some rehabilitation — where there are the kinds of recreational facilities, for example, that would go along with a facility of reasonable size, so that these young people have some hope for rehabilitation. I wonder if the minister has any comment on the proposed size of that facility,
HON. MR. REE: The planning direction would be for 24 open beds and 84 security beds, for a total of 108. It would be a modern, open-living unit concept. Certainly we recognize that these young people — and our young people are our greatest resource in this province — are entitled to counselling to rehabilitate them and get them back into the life stream, to become productive members of the community. I would hope that any new facility would have not just, as you say, recreational facilities, but some teaching facilities and some classrooms, so that we could teach them and not just have it be a recreational time while they're incarcerated.
MR. JONES: I appreciate the comments of the minister. Absolutely, the facility must be adequate not only for recreational facilities but also for educational and counselling facilities, so that these young people have hope for rehabilitation.
Perhaps the minister has answered the question already, and perhaps I just don't understand the distinction between open beds and the others. I think it's important that there be in this facility an opportunity for separation, in particular of those on remand — those who are awaiting trial. I wonder if the minister has proceeded far enough in the design to answer this question: will there be a separate opportunity for segregating those on remand?
HON. MR. REE: I'm sorry, I don't think I quite caught the last comment. Are you talking about segregating the prisoners from the remand...?
On the first part of your question, the 24 open versus the 84 more secure beds, it's a degree of security. Your open-bed people may get temporary absences on weekends and things like that.
A large part of the population in Willingdon at the moment is remand. Regardless of that, we try in the design formation of the building to set it up so that we can segregate groups of youths by nature and temperament, not necessarily by offence or the status of their incarceration. We will sometimes have some serious offenders in sentence, and we've got serious offenders in remand. Mixing them together may not create any problem, so remand and sentence is not the main criterion we have for segregating the youths; and it's the same in our other institutions. It's more the nature of the people themselves. How a particular individual fits in with other groups is the method and reason for segregation.
MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's comments. However, I do think that both are important: that those awaiting trial who have not yet been convicted be separated from those who are resident in that institution. I think they are two different categories of residents there, and it is proper to separate them.
I certainly agree with the minister that, according to the type of resident an individual is, there needs to be a separation based on the kind of individual. Certainly we've seen many instances of victimization there, and I think it's important to separate victims from those who are causing the victimization.
I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions that relate to the interim period between now and 1991, while we function with this antiquated facility. Is the minister prepared to adhere to the recommendations of the ombudsman in the interim, to make some minor improvements to that antiquated facility and to at least address to a degree some of the concerns that affect that facility? I understand that the ombudsman recommended that bars be replaced with Plexiglas, that there be additional short-term holding facilities and that the outside track be se-
[ Page 7096 ]
cured to allow for greater outside sports activity. Is the minister willing to address the recommendations of the ombudsman to improve the existing youth detention centre in the interim, until late 1991 when a new facility can be completed?
HON. MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I take exception to the member's statement of numerous instances of abuse among the youths at Willingdon. I don't think there are numerous instances. We had one among inmates recently, but I don't think that one qualifies as numerous abuses.
With regard to following the ombudsman's recommendations, we have budgeted for this year up to $200,000 for some of the changes at Willingdon he was recommending, to maintain it until its replacement is completed.
MR. JONES: In response to the minister, the victimization rate at that institution is 4 percent to 5 percent, I believe. If there are 100 young people there, that would be four to five people on a regular basis.
In terms of the minister's response to my question, I'm not clear on whether that money will be sufficient to address the concerns raised in the ombudsman's report. Will there be adequate funding to do such things as replacing the bars, providing for a short-term holding facility and securing the outside track?
[5:45]
HON. MR. REE: Yes to bars and to holding, and we're looking at the outside track.
I don't know just what the member means by a victimization rate of 4 percent to 5 percent — the victim of what, and from whom? But to say there's a lot of victimization of one inmate against another, or by the corrections officers of the inmates.... I would take complete exception to saying that Is going on in any serious vein at all. There might be the, odd incident of victimization between inmates — very odd.
MR. GUNO: I regret to inform the minister that we're coming to the conclusion of this estimate debate, but I do have one parting shot. It relates to a series of incidents relating to the arrest of several people as a result of the Sulphur Passage demonstration. One of these demonstrators was arrested last summer for obstructing the construction of a logging road in Sulphur Passage. I think you have a letter in this regard.
She was fined $250 and given the alternative of spending five days in jail with eight others who elected to turn themselves in. It seems she was informed by the sheriffs at the Victoria courthouse that she and the other five women would serve their sentence locally in Sooke or on Dallas Road. However, it later transpired that there was some sudden change of mind, and they were instead taken to Victoria Airport, where they were placed in a charter aircraft, handcuffed to each other and flown to Vancouver.
What I'm concerned about is the transport of prisoners. I'm just wondering if this is the practice; that they remain in handcuffs, and without seatbelts, during transport to Oakalla.
The second incident has to do with while they were in Oakalla. They were placed in a unit with two prisoners destined for Kingston penitentiary who apparently had a long list of criminal and jail records. As a matter of fact, the women were quite in fear for their personal safety. It seems that at one point the two women imported, with the consent of prison officials, a violent videotape about women in prison in which female inmates beat each other up and scenes of rape were prominently featured. The six women apparently found this particularly disturbing.
Arising out of this, to the Solicitor-General, I am just wondering if that is the usual practice in transporting prisoners; that is, to be handcuffed with one another and not allowed to wear seatbelts both in vehicles and in airplanes.
HON. MR REE: Mr. Chairman, the sheriff's policies are laid down by the ministry to which they are responsible; that is, the Attorney-General. They are not part of this ministry. However, I understand that the sheriff's policy would certainly be to have seatbelts and that they go handcuffed. I think that would be a normal procedure. When the ladies in question — being under civil contempt, I guess they were, not criminal contempt — arrived at Oakalla, they were treated the same as any other person being sent to Oakalla, because there was no direction from the court to do otherwise. As soon as they advised the staff at Oakalla that they had some threat to their lives, they were removed to other accommodation. We had no reason to think that they might have a threat to life and limb when we put them in there, because the two other inmates had not shown any tendencies towards that, and we were not concerned. But once the two ladies you're talking about showed their concern to us, they were moved to what they felt was safer accommodation.
MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, I understand that as a result of some inquiries from my colleague the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who wrote you a letter, you indicated that there was some kind of an inquiry being undertaken. Is that true, and will there be any follow-up arising from that report?
HON. MR. REE: When I received the letters I turned them over to my assistant deputy minister and asked him to make some inquiries about it. He provided me with the answers, and I have now provided you with the answers. I will be sending the letters over to the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) for his comment with respect to the transportation aspect.
Vote 67 approved.
Vote 68: ministry operations, $329,890,771 — approved.
[ Page 7097 ]
Vote 69: emergency assistance, $2,403,500 — approved.
HON. MR. VANT: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Vant moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.