[ Page 11107 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Community Tree Protection Act (Bill M231). Ms. Cull

Introduction and first reading –– 11107

Oral Questions

Castlegar airport. Mr. D’Arcy –– 11107

Closure of Duffey Lake Road. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11108

Financial assistance to fruit growers. Mr. Barlee –– 11108

Rent increases. Mr. Blencoe –– 11109

Driftnet fishing. Mr. Peterson –– 11109

Flood damage compensation. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11110

Ministerial Statement

Americans fishing In Canadian waters. Hon. Mr. Savage –– 11110

Mr. Rose

Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 62). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11110

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Solicitor-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 11113

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Pullinger

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Ree

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Jones

Mr. Perry

Mr. Williams

Game Farm Act (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11150

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Perry

Third reading

Food Products Standards Act (Bill 57). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11158

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

British Columbia Wine Act (Bill 58). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11160

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 45). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11162

Ms. Smallwood

Third reading

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 60). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11163

Mr. Lovick

, Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR VEITCH: An old friend of mine from many moons ago is in the members' gallery. His name is Mr. Guenter Raedler and he is a vice-president of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like the House to welcome a visitor from Hemet, California, a young lady by the name of Karyn Larieze, who is here to observe the operations of one of her best friends, our legislative Page Heidi Mueller.

MR. BARLEE: From the lakeside city of Penticton, Mr. David Innes is here. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and on behalf of myself, I would like to make a special welcome today to Gwen and Ray Baker from White Rock, who are visiting in the precincts. Would the House make them welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce my cousin and friend Bill Kitch, and his friend Terri Pleasance, from North Vancouver and Richmond respectively. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

MR. SERWA: Some 32 years ago a friend of mine, Doug Mervyn, and I were wandering in the centre of the North Island of New Zealand. By fortuitous chance we met a very splendid gentleman and we spent a couple of days fishing with him. Since that time the legacy of that relationship has benefited three families over a period of time, and I would like the House to welcome George and Vera Enright from Maraetai, near Auckland in New Zealand.

MR. PETERSON: On behalf of our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House Betty and Bill Fraser of West Vancouver and Dr. Stuart Strachan of Victoria. Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.

MR. JONES: Joining us today is the chairperson of the Pacific region of the Canadian Federation of Students, Brad Lavigne. Would the House please make Brad welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, visiting from the great constituency of Kamloops today are three people I'd like the House to welcome: Rosemary, Charles and Jason Humphrey. Please give them a warm welcome.

MR. PERRY: As is the tradition at least once a year in this House, I'd like to welcome to the gallery all of the other people in the audience who haven't been introduced.

Introduction of Bills

COMMUNITY TREE PROTECTION ACT

Ms. Cull presented a bill intituled Community Tree Protection Act.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Municipal Act by restoring a provision allowing municipalities to regulate the cutting of trees within their boundaries, with the exception of trees in a tree-farm licence and trees that are covered by the provincial forests under the Forest Act.

The bill recognizes that urban trees are public amenities every bit as much as they are private amenities, and it recognizes that mature trees contribute as much to the neighbourhood quality of life as the type, size and scale of buildings, which is already subject to community regulation through zoning bylaws.

The wholesale clearing of trees for urban development and the thoughtless cutting of specific trees by individuals has caused considerable controversy in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. But municipal councils have been unable to do anything about it, because they have had their authority stripped from the Municipal Act through a misguided, ideologically based program to remove their flexibility and creativity.

The bill will satisfy the longstanding request of the UBCM to regain power and will put the power to preserve mature trees back into the hands of local government.

Bill M231 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CASTLEGAR AIRPORT

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The terrain around the Castlegar airport makes it perhaps the most difficult of any in British Columbia for a pilot making that approach. The federal government yesterday announced, in its usual cavalier fashion, that they are withdrawing traffic controllers from that particular airport. The federal government seems bound and determined to abandon most of their services in British Columbia, including post offices and unemployment services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Is there a question here somewhere?

[ Page 11108 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I don't really wish to take up the entire question period with this question, but as long as the government House Leader insists on interrupting, I suppose it'll be spun out.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: If the government House Leader wishes to make a speech, he can always rise in his place anytime he wishes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please continue with his question.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to ask the minister if she opposes this closure, because I take that as a given. I am going to ask her, however, if she has decided to put anything in place to ensure the safety of the passengers and occupants of the some 30,000 aircraft which use this airport every year, in order to fill this gap that's going to be left by the federal government. Quite clearly the actions of the federal government are not adequate in this regard, and it would seem that the province of B.C. is going to have to take up the slack. What has the minister decided to do?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm afraid, hon. member, that I am not familiar with the problem. It seems to me that we could be better served by some of our federal Members of Parliament who would work for us in Ottawa. But I'll take the question on notice and bring back the information to you as quickly as possible.

MR. D'ARCY: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I'll await her reply.

A supplementary to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. He's been sitting there comfortably, waiting for this. As this control tower serves the Selkirk College commercial training program, whose graduates are respected by the aircraft industry throughout the English-speaking world, is he prepared to join with his colleague to make sure that the post-secondary needs of this operation continue to be served, and to assist the Minister of Transportation in ensuring that traffic safety at Castlegar airport is going to be maintained.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the member indicated, I knew this was coming as soon as I heard the question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Selkirk College operates one of the best flight training programs in Canada.

MR. LOVICK: In the English-speaking world.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure. Why not? One of the reasons it's such a good training facility is, as the member indicated earlier, that it's in a mountainous area, and students qualifying in that part of the world really have earned their wings. But no, I take the member's comments and his question with some sincerity, and I will be pursuing that, along with my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways, with the federal authorities — and with some urgency as well.

CLOSURE OF DUFFEY LAKE ROAD

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Native Affairs. In light of the serious crisis that has developed as a result of the blockade of the Duffey Lake Road by the Mount Currie Indian band and their refusal to remove the blockade until they've met with the federal minister responsible for Indian affairs, the Hon. Tom Siddon, will the minister facilitate a meeting between Mr. Siddon and the Mount Currie Indian band as soon as possible?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Last Sunday the deputy minister met with the chief of the Mount Currie band and members of the band. They discussed several issues, but as you indicate, they feel very strongly that their land claim is not receiving the attention it should from Ottawa, and indicated that they requested a meeting with Tom Siddon and some senior people from the Department of Indian Affairs. We've passed that request along as well.

Inevitably, out of this issue, there have been calls made to my offices and, I'm sure, to many MLAs' offices by people wondering why the RCMP moved quickly on the independent truckers at the border crossings but failed to move as quickly with the Mount Currie band. It's important for members of the House to understand that at Mount Currie the roadblock is on reserve lands, that Highways don't have a gazetted right-of-way across the reserve, that in fact the highway at Mount Currie is in trespass of the reserve, and that the band is within its rights to do as they wish on their own reserve lands.

[2:15]

In the wake of Meech Lake and the situation in Oka with the Mohawks, emotions are running very high in the Indian communities across Canada. It's important for us to consider that as we deal with this issue and do what we can to resolve issues and avoid confrontation. That's the approach we'll be taking, and I hope that Indian Affairs Minister Siddon will also respond in a similar manner,

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
TO FRUIT GROWERS

MR. BARLEE: To the Minister of Agriculture. The province's fruit-growing industry is desperately in need of financial assistance and cannot wait on proposals from the Premier, who is only at this late date addressing serious, longstanding problems that have existed since well before the day he first came into office. The question is — and it's a serious question — has the Minister of Agriculture prepared measures to help the fruit growers, such as an immediate extraordinary grant of ten cents per pound for fruit produced in 1989?

[ Page 11109 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The member is from a fruit-growing area and obviously realizes the importance. Let me assure you, this government absolutely realizes the importance as well, because we have launched into discussions — as you can well appreciate — with the industry. I'm sure you've had lots of feedback, Mr. Member. As government, we are very concerned about the future of the fruit industry in this province. I have been working with my colleagues and other levels in our ministry to try and see where we can best assist the fruit industry. I cannot at this stage announce the type or the amount of the help, but you can rest assured that this government does care and will help.

MR. BARLEE: A supplementary to the same minister. Has the minister directed his department to have this legislation completed for presentation and debate in this House prior to the end of the current session?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MR. BARLEE: Clearly what we have is the Premier proposing a body, by which no preparation work has really been done, and ignoring the immediate problems.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE: Members on that side may find it very humorous.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member will please proceed.

MR. BARLEE: Clearly the government members don't realize the seriousness of the problem; I think the tree-fruit growers of the Okanagan and Similkameen do.

Here's the question: has the minister at the very least picked a date by which he expects to announce an extraordinary grant for 1989?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is future policy, as the member may well know. I'll reserve the decision on the date until we have all the details ready to hand out.

RENT INCREASES

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for residential tenancy in the province. British Columbia tenants and their families continue to experience intolerably high rent increases and a government that has so far refused to act to protect tenants.

The latest example is in Kitsilano, on Blenheim Street, where tenants have received increases of between 60 and 126 percent. They have been told that there is no cost-increase justification — the fact is that it can be achieved. The question to the minister is: how long is this government going to sit on the sidelines and let such intolerable increases go ahead without some review or rent stabilization program in British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I want the member to know that the government will not sit and wait at all, but will continue to do as it has done in the past: we will take whatever action we can to help the people who face difficulties in society in whatever way. If his suggestion of rent controls was a solution, we would have looked at that a long time ago. But we know that it is not a solution, that it will aggravate and make the situation even worse than it is. His party has said that repeatedly, but he continues to pursue this as a suggestion. It's a political agenda, and it doesn't work. It won't work, and it won't help the people, so we're not going to become involved in something that does nothing worthwhile for the people who have this problem.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is therefore endorsing 126 percent rent increases in British Columbia. That's what he's saying today. Does the minister think that British Columbia tenants and their families can afford more than a doubling of their rent without any justification, with no bona fide reasons to show that those rent increases are justified?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The minister is not endorsing anything of the kind. The minister does not pass judgment on rent increases. This one appears, from the information we are given, to be very excessive; others are more moderate. They are done between the landlord and the tenant, and we do not endorse or have input into what the increases will be. The only way to deal with the problem of rental supply is to get more accommodation on the market. That's what we're doing, and we're doing a very good job of it — a job we're all proud of.

DRIFTNET FISHING

MR. PETERSON: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Following up on my question of last week, we have now seen the first tangible move by Japan to curtail its driftnet fishery. Unfortunately, it does not affect the North Shore fishery, which is our shared area of concern. I would like to know what steps the minister has decided to take to consolidate our progress in eliminating the ecological devastation of driftnet fishing.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to try and answer as quickly as I can. As you know, this government has taken the lead, from the point of view of Canada, in trying to deal with the driftnet issue, specifically in the North Pacific. In our evaluation, it is a disaster.

For those of you who do not know, we have funded two observers this year to be on board the Japanese fishing fleet. We have put $60,000 in place to

[ Page 11110 ]

pay for those observers. We are participating in meetings with federal officials and are fully briefed, very often, on international issues.

We have met recently, as you can appreciate, with state legislatures, state representatives and Fisheries representatives relative to how we can best attack the problem of the cessation, as quickly as possible, of driftnet fishing in the North Pacific. This type of fishing is totally unacceptable and wreaks havoc on marine life. We will do everything we can as a province to have it cease and desist as quickly as possible.

FLOOD DAMAGE COMPENSATION

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the Solicitor-General. Riverbank erosion from recent floods is forcing ranchers in the Bonaparte and Horsefly area to replace washed-out bridges with substantially longer bridges than were there originally. But government policy states, in one example that I know of, that a 75-foot bridge will have to be replaced by a 75-foot bridge, although the span is now some 100 feet.

Will the Solicitor-General agree that this policy is short-sighted, inadequate, and falls short of helping...?

Interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT: At a time like this there can be nothing wrong with bridge-building questions.

These ranchers need to get to their crops on the other side, and this policy is short-sighted. Can you assure the ranchers that this policy is going to be revised?

HON. MR. FRASER: The policy that the government has in place is very generous. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to help people. We've gone to a lot of trouble and a lot of thought to make sure that people who have suffered losses get compensation We do not, as you know, compensate all losses.

Ministerial Statement

AMERICANS FISHING IN
CANADIAN WATERS

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I rise to make a ministerial statement, albeit at very short notice.

I have received information this morning that the United States is openly contesting Canadian sovereignty in our territorial waters. American vessels have been spotted fishing for salmon south of the A-B line. They are accompanied by an American Coast Guard vessel. Canada has not recognized that the U.S. has rights to fish for salmon south of the A-B line, although American fishermen are allowed to fish around Cape Muzon for salmon and elsewhere for groundfish.

I've ordered my officials to contact Ottawa and demand immediate action. I wish to assure the fishermen of B.C. that this government stands in full support of our territorial boundary. The fishery is one of our greatest renewable resources and it must be protected.

The Premier has advised me that he will be immediately contacting the Governor of Alaska, Steve Cowper, to protest this flagrant provocation of Canadian and British Columbian sovereignty.

MR. ROSE: We would have appreciated it if we had been given a little bit of notice. I don't know; the Americans may be confused. They may think it's just part of the free trade deal.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Some of us on this side of the House feel that free trade is an invasion of our sovereignty as well.

I would like to echo the minister's concerns and say we consider this a very serious matter as well, and would lend any support possible — as a unanimous position, from this side of the House as well as the other side of the House — to put as firm a protest to the federal government as we can.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, our critic is unavoidably away at the moment, and I would like the minister to clarify what precisely this amendment does. The explanatory note says it clarifies the losses and expenses for which compensation may be awarded under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. I guess the germane question is: does it expand the amount which may be compensated or does it narrow it in some way?

[2:30]

HON. MR. FRASER: Actually, it's really straightforward. I don't understand why you had a question on it.

MR. CLARK: As I explained, our critic is away. I'm sure he's more cognizant of the details of this than I am. But I note that this says that it clarifies the losses and expenses for which compensation may be awarded. I'm trying to get a sense of whether it expands or narrows the number of things that may be compensated for under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

[ Page 11111 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: It's a straight clarification.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps the minister could say why it was required to be clarified. Was there a problem in terms of money being awarded which it was felt shouldn't be awarded under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act? Or is it the reverse, that certain things were exempted from the act and this was necessary to clarify it in order to facilitate the compensation of victims of crime?

HON. MR. FRASER: It identifies those types of losses and expenses for which compensation may be awarded. The existing provisions were general. In describing the types of damages eligible for award, in practice the board has tended to refer to the categories for eligible damages for which Canada contributes to the province pursuant to cost-sharing agreements. The new proposed categories reflect those contained in the cost-sharing agreement and will clarify the types of damage eligible for compensation.

MR. CLARK: Is it fair to say that this has the potential of decreasing the amount of compensation to victims of crime, in the sense that now what is to be compensated is specifically defined? Where the general provision may have been interpreted loosely, that option is not available. If that's the case, could he inform the House which kinds of things were compensated under the previous legislation that will not be compensated under this clarification of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act?

HON. MR. FRASER: It is my understanding that there will be no reduction.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. CLARK: I would like some clarification of this section 9 of the Motion Picture Act. As members know, there was a fairly major change in the Motion Picture Act which had the ability of affecting projectionists and others. I wonder whether this has some impact on that. The easiest question is: why is it necessary to repeal this? Is it a delegation now of authority to municipalities and a reduction in the role of the director of film classification? Is that what it does?

HON. MR. FRASER: You are talking about the role of the municipality and the role of the classification board. The removal of this section, really, lets each jurisdiction perform its respective roles.

MR. CLARK: What did section 9 do that requires you to remove it to facilitate the roles of the municipalities and the director of film classification? What are you deleting, and why are you deleting it?

HON. MR. FRASER: The section that was in place obliged municipalities to issue municipal licences to people who had authority from the film classification board. What the change does is say to municipalities: "If you want to do some zoning to make sure the films are shown in specific areas, you may do that. We will classify the film. You can do your municipal work by having licences." The two were in conflict, and that's why it has been changed.

MR. CLARK: Does this enable municipalities, then, to restrict the operation of a particular theatre the municipality finds offensive to the community? Is that the intent?

HON. MR. FRASER: They can zone locations for showing a movie, but they can't deny the showing of the movie if it has been approved by the classification board.

MR. CLARK: So they can, with this, deny through zoning. Can they rezone an existing theatre out of existence, essentially? Does this enable that option now for municipalities? It wasn't there before, because if the film was cleared by the director of film classification, then the person had every right to show that film. Now is the reverse true, in other words, of what you said? They can now, in fact, close down a theatre by using their municipal powers, and the theatre can't rely on the film classification branch to argue that their films are lawfully approved, or something.

HON. MR. FRASER: I advise that it's not retroactive.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. LOVICK: I note in the explanatory note here that the intention of this particular amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act is simply to introduce a region-by-region-basis program for the reduction of motor vehicle exhaust emission. In a very quick canvass of the section, I too must admit that I'm a little out of my league. This isn't my area, and therefore I haven't had a chance to read the entire chunk of the section, but I'm wondering if the minister could just start by giving us a brief explanation of why that's necessary. Is it because we burn higher-octane gas on the lower mainland and that kind of thing?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member is right. There are areas in the province with significant air pollution problems — one of them being Vancouver — so this act makes it possible for us to have emission testing on vehicles in specific areas such as Vancouver.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer. I just wonder what significant differences there are in this act with this amendment as compared to the old act. Is it the case that only in the last year we've recognized a genuine, brand-new need, or is this

[ Page 11112 ]

simply a polishing and clarifying of things that we had in some form before?

HON. MR. FRASER: This is new.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. LOVICK: A couple of us on this side of the House have pointed out that we are without our critic in this area, and I think the public interest would be better served if we were just to slow it down ever so slightly so we can at least understand what the section headings are, rather than just peremptorily saying: "Aye, aye, aye."

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, say "aye" slowly. You could spell it perhaps, Mr. Premier. It might be a struggle. Just give us a moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would explain. Do I understand that section 9 reduces the penalty from three years to two years?

HON. MR. FRASER: You asked me whether it reduces it from three years to two years. You haven't read it?

MR. GABELMANN: Have you? What's the answer?

HON. MR. FRASER: As you probably know, the section is repealed and replaced with a provision that establishes a mandatory prohibition from driving for two years following a conviction for failure to stop when requested by a peace officer. In other words, this particular section has had some problems in that there had to be a difference between a high-speed chase and an omission by a motorist to stop when he or she didn't happen to notice that the policeman was behind.

There was a mandatory conviction, and that was seen to be incorrect by the Charter of Rights and that sort of thing. So it's now saying: "If it is indeed an inadvertent mistake, then obviously this will not apply." However, if it is in fact this way — the way it will be now — the judge can make a decision based on the merits of the particular case.

MR. GABELMANN: I must say I'm not clear on this. If you evade arrest by speeding away from a police officer, under the current legislation, if you get caught you are subject to three years' — as I understand it — prohibition on your licence. This amendment would reduce not the jail sentence, but the penalty of forfeiture of licence to two years — which begins on the day of the conviction. So, if you get a three-year jail sentence, the first two years you're in jail you can't drive. It doesn't seem to make a heck of a lot of sense.

I wonder about a couple of things. Why is it reduced from three to two, if in fact that's correct? Why wouldn't the forfeiture of your licence become effective on the day you get out of jail, rather than while you're still there?

HON. MR. FRASER: The section says that if you do run away and get into a high-speed chase, for example, you get convicted of that and this as well.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would like to try that again.

HON. MR. FRASER: We'll try again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.

The old section said three years; you're absolutely right. It was seen to be extraordinarily punitive. This new one says that if you're guilty under one of these particular sections in the act, then you will get a two-year probation.

MR. GABELMANN: I hesitate to accuse the government of being soft on crime, but that's an impression here. It's a pretty serious offence when you drive at a high speed away from a pursuing police car.

The government seems to want to reduce, the driver's-licence component of the penalty. I don't understand that. Nor do I understand why the forfeiture would occur while you're possibly in jail. The time of your licence being forfeited can be eliminated while you're in jail. You can come out and drive away. That's not a penalty, is it? Or have I misunderstood this?

[2:45]

HON. MR. FRASER: In fact, this was not initiated by us. The courts ordered us to make this change; that's why the change was made.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm glad we're not in the Attorney-General's estimates. Courts don't order legislatures to make changes; they interpret laws made by parliaments. Unless we've got a Charter of Rights violation here.... If it's the Charter of Rights that is creating a problem here, I wonder if the minister could explain how the Charter has affected this.

HON. MR. FRASER: The court said that the previous section was punitive, and as a consequence dismissed a case. This is our attempt to put into the act something in the way of penalty for this crime or infraction.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. LOVICK: Are sections 10 through 12 fairly construed as housekeeping? Okay, 10 and 11 we can let go.

HON. MR. FRASER: Section 10 establishes securement rules that will apply to all roads in British

[ Page 11113 ]

Columbia. That's basically housekeeping to make sure we have safe tie-downs and load securities all over the province.

Section 11 is actually an interesting small amendment. It really says you can take a car from one jurisdiction to another without having to get two permits. You can get one to go from here to Alberta, for example. It is really a convenience for people transferring cars from place A to place B.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. LOVICK: I am wondering if the Solicitor-General could share with us the origin of this. Do these recommendations come from a law reform commission or something regarding parole?

HON. MR. FRASER: This came from our own parole board. It gives a prisoner the right of appeal.

MR. LOVICK: Do I understand correctly then that prior to this particular amendment there was no right of appeal of a parole judgment or a parole board decision?

HON. MR. FRASER: That's correct — not within the statutes of B.C.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. LOVICK: Regarding the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act and the amendments listed here, can the Solicitor-General perhaps give us an overview of the intention of these?

HON. MR. FRASER: This particular section gives the RCMP the right to look for dangerous goods, which they didn't have before. In addition to that, it says we can designate a class of person as opposed to an individual person. So it is by class as opposed to by name, which makes it administratively simpler.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. LOVICK: I am just wondering if the minister would tell us what the situation was before this amendment in terms of the province's ability to recover its own costs.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we would have been obliged to sue.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 62, Solicitor-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker,

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOLICITOR-GENERAL

On vote 61: minister's office, $267,592 (continued).

MR. LOVICK: When we left off the discussion of these estimates last night, the subject of our discussion was commercial vehicle inspection and, more specifically, truck safety. I want to pick up on that for a moment, if I may.

Before that, however, I would like to advise the minister of the document I made reference to last night that I couldn't recall the title of. I am sure he will appreciate knowing it came from the British Columbia Safety Council, and it was a submission offered to the traffic safety directorate. The document, incidentally, was entitled "Traffic Safety Initiatives: A Time for Action," and was submitted, I believe, in September 1989. It is interesting to note that just for the record, because I detected in the newest document published — the discussion papers entitled "Traffic Safety Initiatives" — some evidence of that particular document's influence. It seems to me there are a couple of specific recommendations that have obviously been picked up by the traffic safety directorate, so I think we owe the British Columbia Safety Council some gratitude for its input.

I want to begin by picking up where we left off. Yesterday in answer to my opening queries about traffic, truck safety and highway safety.... I made reference to the very high standards that we have in the province, and the minister was quite confident about that. He also went on to talk about what might be done in order to ensure that the standards are adhered to. It seemed to me he was using some pretty powerful language that suggested some significant action might be taken.

I would refer, if I may, to the Blues of July 17, last night, in which the minister said:

"We will probably increase the auditing of the preventive maintenance programs so that people adhere to our standards. We are prepared to become very difficult and virtually punitive, if necessary, with those who disobey our rules.... If it is necessary for us to lift individual drivers' licences to make the highways safer, we will do that. If it's necessary

[ Page 11114 ]

for us to remove commercial...carrier plates, we're prepared to do that."

Now all those words sound encouraging, I'm sure. What I wondered was whether the minister could give us any indication of specific measures his ministry is looking at to beef up the enforcement of standards to ensure that those standards are being adhered to. Can he give us any specifics?

HON. MR. FRASER: There's no question that we're serious about safety and that we want people to make sure they are Indeed driving safe cars and trucks. We are looking at things such as more spot-checks and bigger fines.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that. I'm wondering if it might be possible to look at some other possibilities. I would just refer him to some correspondence I believe he will have received by now from the Western Owner-Operators' Association. That organization has been through a rather difficult time, a difficult dispute. Their two concerns were essentially (a) that they weren't being paid sufficient money, and (b) safety. You can argue that the two issues overlap. Certainly they made the case that they weren't being paid enough money to do the kind of maintenance on their own vehicles that would guarantee public safety. That was part of their argument.

In the document I'm quoting from now — a letter to the Solicitor-General dated July 10, just in case he wants to make reference to it — they offer a number of suggestions as to how we guarantee that the high standards will be adhered to. They talk, for example, about an apprenticeship program for people taking up the occupation or vocation of truck-driving, suggesting as well that perhaps individuals who have been in the field for a while should be given some refresher courses, some updating, simply because the technology of motor transport is expanding and getting more and more complicated as time goes by.

I'll put a number of these questions at once, if I may. It may expedite matters somewhat.

The other area they suggest is inspections. They argue that we now have a system for commercial vehicle inspection whereby members of the RCMP pre-eminently, though perhaps other police forces — I don't know that — have the ability to stop a vehicle and draw that vehicle's attention to what appears to be a failure to meet the standard. I guess that is based on a visual assessment or something. The argument by the owner-operators is that these people are perhaps not qualified to do that sort of inspection, which must be done only by qualified Inspectors or qualified mechanics. I'm wondering if the minister wants to respond to that.

They also make reference to the fact that contrary to the minister's response that a good chunk of the responsibility must rest with the driver.... To be sure, that's the case, but as these people point out, if you aren't making enough money to make payments on your rig, then you're obviously not going to replace your tires, for example, as regularly as you ought, and the longer the failure to replace goes on, the greater the safety risk. With all due deference, I think the owner-operators might have some difficulty accepting the Solicitor-General's comments from yesterday that a good chunk of that responsibility must rest with the driver himself or herself.

I'm wondering if the minister might like to respond to those concerns and questions expressed by the people actually doing the work of driving.

HON. MR FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the member is correct: we are indebted to a number of organizations for input into the traffic safety initiatives. As we mentioned yesterday, we encourage people to make their submissions to us by September 30 this year, because we want to know their feelings; we want guidance from them and are prepared to consider everything that is submitted. That is the purpose of the document. Indeed, it included things from the Safety Council and other organizations. I encourage members on this or the other side of the House to encourage people in the industry in their ridings or others to submit information.

With respect to the truckers and inspection of trucks on the highways, all inspectors that we send out on the highway are indeed qualified. In fact, we even have a citizens' committee that is assisting us with qualified inspectors on the highway. We are making a concerted effort to ensure that traffic safety standards are met in B.C.

[3:00]

The member talked about rates and the complaints of the trucking people that they weren't making enough money to keep their trucks maintained safely. The fact is that we are not a rate-setting organization. As independent businessmen I think they would want to establish their own rates, and I said so to them when we organized that meeting some time ago. They may be correct in saying they are not making enough money to maintain their trucks safely, but that is not a justification, in my mind, for their not doing it. If they can't maintain their trucks at the rates they're getting, then they should negotiate some other rate in order to ensure safety. I am more concerned about the safety aspects of transportation than about the rates being set by individual truckers.

MR. LOVICK: I share the minister's concern that what they obviously need to do is negotiate a better rate. The predicament, as we discovered in the last go-round, of course, is that those folks had some difficulties in organizing, simply because it is such a scattered industry. I wonder if the minister would be willing to look favourably on the initiative presented by way of a private member's bill from this side of the House, suggesting a slight change to the labour code so that those individual owner-operators can indeed organize to protect their interests. That's a rhetorical question; I'll simply leave that on the record for him.

I notice the minister didn't respond to my reference to the apprenticeship program and the upgrading program. I wonder if he has an answer to that.

[ Page 11115 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm sorry, I didn't make a note of that question. As I say, with all the other Initiatives that are coming forward as a result of our request — or I hope they will come forward as a result of our request — we will consider everything that has to do with truck and truck safety, driver and driver training, and all that kind of thing. We are not going to turn anything down without consideration; we're not going to accept anything without consideration.

MR. LOVICK: I wonder if I could look at three very specific questions, all to do with the issue of truck safety. They are quite direct and quite short.

The first one concerns the recent testing, I believe, in the area of Kamloops of the 100-foot commercial trucks. Some people have expressed real concern about that testing program beyond the obvious reservations one would have about a truck that's going to be some 20 to 25 percent beyond maximum? What's the maximum now? It's 80 feet, I believe. In any event, it's a significant increase, a significant lengthening of the vehicle. People are concerned about the desirability of that in itself.

Also, however, concerns have been expressed, as I understand them, about the fact that our testing, our effort to find out whether this extended-length vehicle should or should not be allowed to operate on our highways, has been done when the vehicles have been empty. A number of people in the profession have suggested that trying to test one of these vehicle's ability to perform when it isn't loaded simply doesn't tell us anything. We don't get any sense at all of how rapidly a vehicle could change lanes, for example, or of what it can do in terms of acceleration up a hill or any grade. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether that testing procedure has been revisited or is being examined with a view to determining whether an empty-truck test is going to tell us what we need to know.

HON. MR. FRASER: I can tell the member that the LVCs he's talking about — the long combination vehicles — are indeed about 105 feet long. The initial highway testing program is complete. We're doing an, evaluation of that, and anything subsequent to what's been done will be considered at a later time.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, but it's not very specific. I wonder if it's the case that the testing thus far has indeed been on empty vehicles — that's (a); and (b) is whether that is satisfactory, given the concerns expressed by people in the industry.

HON. MR. FRASER: We are advised by experts that that was the way to do the testing. That's why it was done that particular way.

MR. LOVICK: My second question, a very specific one, has to do with the coroner's inquest that followed the Kamloops tragedy. We posed this question in question period some time ago, and the minister quite properly said at the time that he wasn't going to answer it because it was future policy. Therefore I deferred the question to the estimates debate.

I just wonder if he can give us an update about what has been done in response to that coroner's inquest. Is there active consideration being given to those recommendations? Can he give us a status report on what his ministry is doing with the recommendations from that inquest?

HON. MR. FRASER: I would advise the member that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and I will be coming down with a combined statement on that inquest. We will have considered everything in the report. As soon as we can get that done.... I'm not trying to delay the delivery of that statement; it just hasn't been done yet.

MR. LOVICK: One of the points that we on this side of the House made was that, given the geographical location of Kamloops and the nature of transportation and the transportation infrastructure in this province, it would be a logical place to establish a 24-hour inspection facility for commercial vehicles. I've stated that publicly, and I am sure the minister is aware that that is the position we've taken on this side. I wonder if he can tell us how his government, his ministry, looks upon that idea. Are you dismissing it out of hand, or is it something that is being given any consideration?

HON. MR. FRASER: The idea of 24-hour inspection stations meets with our approval. We haven't yet decided whether it will be in that area or another one. But in general terms, with respect to safety, we would like to keep moving into the high-tech area with respect to truck safety. We would like to be able to weigh trucks on the move and do all those things that make trucking easier. The driving force behind everything we're doing is to make it easy for people who are obeying the law with respect to roads, securing loads and that sort of stuff to pass through the system, and make it difficult for people who are not obeying the rules. That is the motivation. Whether we have that station in Kamloops or not, I can't tell you now.

MR. LOVICK: The minister and I exchanged a couple of pleasant and harmonious comments last night about the fact that the report had just landed on my desk and I hadn't read it. I'm happy to note that the minister's answer is close to a statement from the report tabled yesterday, in terms of how we approach achieving these objectives. I just thought I'd demonstrate to the world, Mr. Chairman, that I have now read it — at least enough of it to appreciate the point being made.

I want to turn to another area now: the private vehicle inspection program. I do so with mixed feelings, because I have no doubt whatsoever that a vehicle inspection program is necessary and desirable. I accept that premise. The issue is whether the one we've got is everything it ought to be. I want to pose just a few questions about that.

[ Page 11116 ]

I am sure the minister is familiar with the organization calling itself the Association for Vehicle Movement Safety. I believe he has had some correspondence with individuals representing that organization. My reading of the material presented by that organization is that they have essentially two problems with the private vehicle inspection program as it's currently set up. There are two fundamental issues, the first being whether the program requirements are too stringent or perhaps go beyond safety matters, and the second being whether the means of carrying out the program, the method of enforcement, is perhaps not carefully enough defined, so that the regulations make it possible for abuses and perhaps infringements on people's civil liberties. That's the argument one hears.

On the first one, whether the program is too stringent, the basic contention is that we're looking at some cosmetic things that don't necessarily have much to do with safety. We all know that if we impose a vehicle inspection program, it is more likely that the older and cheaper vehicles and those owned by people with less money are going to be rejected than are new vehicles. In that sense, the program is necessarily going to be discriminatory against lower income people. That's a given; there's no point in lamenting it. It's a fact of life, and we can't do much about it. What we can do, though, is ensure that the requirements we put into a program do indeed make sense and are defensible for safety reasons, and guard very zealously against any requirements that don't have any justification based on safety but rather seem to, be cosmetic or, dare I say, almost aesthetic.

To make that point, I'd like to quote from a letter from the Association for Vehicle Movement Safety and ask for the minister's response to it. I'm quoting a paragraph that tries to make the point that the inspection program's requirements — or some of the criteria, at least — seem to be as much cosmetic as based on safety concerns:

"The criteria upon which vehicles are to be judged are deep in the realm of the ridiculous. This program is endeavouring, under the guise of 'safety,' to have us accept that a musical horn, a torn seat cover, a worn accelerator pedal, rust holes in the fender, worn weather-stripping, a loose battery-mount, a failed accessory switch, etc., etc., are legitimate excuses to force these mechanical conditions to be fixed!"

Clearly the individual is pointing to some things that don't appear to have a heck of a lot to do with safety; they have a great deal to do with what I referred to earlier as cosmetic or even aesthetic things. I'm wondering if the minister would care to respond to that criticism of the program.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's a very timely question, because there has been some confusion about the private vehicle inspection program. Essentially, cosmetics don't play a role. It really doesn't matter if there's a hole in the fender. What really matters is: does it have the capacity to stop, and can you steer it and drive it safely? The cosmetic reference probably refers to the taxi section, in which there is some cosmetic requirement, so that people who come to Vancouver will not be offended by the shabby condition of a taxicab. The private motor vehicle, of course, is a different thing.

The program, as you know, is not mandatory; it's voluntary. We do want people to take part in the program. But in view of the fact that about 2½ percent of the accidents, or less, are caused by vehicles that are not in perfect condition, it did seem to us to be an imposition on the motoring public to have a mandatory testing program. If it turns out, of course, that the volunteer program is not working, then we may have to rethink that particular decision. But we didn't want to impose on people an expenditure that was unnecessary, if the vehicle was safe. That is why, as I say, it does accommodate people who are not financially capable of all sorts of extraordinary spending. Maybe they could save the $25, $30, $40 or whatever on inspection and spend it on things that are more necessary, providing that the car they are driving is actually safe.

The biggest problem with traffic safety, as you know is the driver. It's the people who fail to think just for that split second. You've heard me say before that every snowfall in the city of Vancouver costs an extra million dollars in damage. It's inevitable, year in and year out. It's hard to believe, but it's actually true. People just know they can make it home or to the office or wherever they are going without damage; inevitably, they can't. The inspection program doesn't solve some of those problems.

We are anxious for people to enrol in the program on a voluntary basis. It does seem to be working. We have inspections on the highway, and cars that look suspicious are pulled over. It's apparent to the police that some of the cars should be tested, and they are. If they have no tread on the tires, for example, that is not legal; therefore you must get it inspected. When we do an inspection on vehicles with trained mechanics, we are empowered to pull cars off the road and take them away with a tow-truck. And we do that.

[3:15]

The private motor vehicle thing is actually working quite well. We're encouraged by the results, but we'll see what happens. If it requires us to impose a cost on the driving public that we would rather not impose, we will consider imposing it in any event.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: I'm encouraged to hear from the Solicitor that cosmetics don't play a role. I'm wondering if he could clarify for me that those items I referred to, such as a torn seat cover, rust holes in the fender, worn weather-stripping and a failed accessory switch, are matters that can be used to reject a particular vehicle. My understanding is that it is part of the inspection manual. Perhaps it's the case that that belongs just to commercial vehicles — taxis. If so, could you clarify that? It does sound on the face of it that those items I just listed here do belong to the realm of cosmetics, doesn't it?

[ Page 11117 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Some of the items you mentioned, of course, are cosmetic. As I said, my understanding is that they are not part of the private vehicle inspection program. However, I will direct a letter to clarify that particular question.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that. We'll look forward to receiving it.

The other area I made reference to had to do with whether the enforcement mechanism for this particular program was all it ought to be. What I'm referring to is the arbitrariness of things.

Let me give you a specific example, again just quoting from information that has been submitted to me. You can respond accordingly. A particular incident, as it happens, was reported in the Vancouver Province, I believe — does Keith Morgan write for the Vancouver Province? Yes. In the Province of June 1, 1990, he describes the tale of the Vancouver police officer who sees a vehicle and perceives that it is speeding and is missing a tail-light. The first infraction the officer sees isn't terribly significant, but then he sees others as he follows.

I recognize I'm treading on pretty dangerous ground here, because one has some sympathy for the officer who says: "Look at that person who is clearly violating the law and scaring the heck out of everybody, and we ought to be watching." I have some sympathy for that, but what seems to have happened in this case, according to the newspaper story, is that the officer, when he finally pulled over the vehicle after a number of perceived infractions, decided to act the part of judge and jury and, as it happened, executioner. He piled on fine after fine to teach this guy a lesson.

I'm prepared to forward the particulars of this case, too. The question that comes to my mind, as somebody who has some concern with civil liberties but who is also committed to the notion of the need for a public safety program, something to protect the public interest, is whether there might be too much discretionary power vested in the individual police officers by this particular program. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on that subject, whether that's been a complaint he's heard before, and if there are some answers that have been drafted to those kinds of concerns.

HON. MR. FRASER: It’s probable that no program is perfect in its conception, and therefore no program is perfect in its execution. There's no question that, depending which officer pulled over a car, you may have different results.

There is some discretionary power with that particular program. If indeed it is a tail-light, I would presume that the officer would say: "Your tail-light is out. Get it fixed." There's no difficulty with that. If the vehicle is deemed to be unsafe, it is sent in for an inspection. If it has been sent in for inspection, then they have to report back that the inspection was done and any necessary work completed.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's room for discretionary differences, and that's part of the human problem. The thing that I was trying to impress upon the police force with this program — the radar speeding program and others — is that it is very important not to discredit a valuable program by being overzealous. We're not looking for speeding infractions of one kilometre per hour; we're looking for speeders. It's the same with this program: "We want you to get unsafe vehicles off the road, but don't discredit the program by being punitive. If it is something simple that is not a safety hazard at the moment, such as a tail-light which can be fixed immediately anywhere...."

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer, and I take some comfort in the knowledge that this message has indeed gone to the enforcement agency, saying: "Look, we mustn't be perceived to be punitive or vindictive, because if we do, we'll kill the credibility of the whole program." I think that's a good response. I would dearly hope that that will be well and truly known by the people working in the field.

I have a last question on the same subject. The association I referred to, the Association for Vehicle Movement Safety, has been behind a campaign to get individuals to write in either to your office or to my office. They produce a quite formal-looking and professionally printed little card. It's headed, "To the NDP transportation critic, " and then it names me. The card has a very short message: "The new private vehicle inspection program is oppressive to lower-income groups in B.C. Vehicles ten years and older will be rendered financially unviable. I request you" — I think they mean you, Mr. Minister, rather than me — "make public facts and statistics that could possibly justify this program." End of message.

I would like to ask the Solicitor-General to help me with that predicament. In other words, would he or his staff undertake to provide me and my colleagues with a nice, succinct, detailed answer that will satisfy the concerns and allay the fears of the people who are sending me these cards and perhaps sending him similar cards? I am wondering if I could have that assurance from the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we can.... Let me put it this way. We are not trying to make the program punitive. We are trying to make it improve the safety conditions on the streets. If we can assist you with some information to get the message out, then we will do that. Obviously no class of car can be excluded from safety, whether it is ten years old or less or more.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a number of questions. This may take some time, I guess, to go through the afternoon. I didn't mean to scare off my colleagues when I said that.

I think it will become evident why I want to spend some time, together with my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), in raising an issue of some significance. The issue relates to events which occurred at the end of March of this year when

[ Page 11118 ]

a number of children were under the care and control of the program run by a group called Coastline Challenge, based in Metchosin and mandated under this ministry to carry out the provisions of probation orders.

As the minister knows, there were tragic circumstances surrounding that whole situation. We had a number of young children die and others injured as a consequence of what transpired on March 30 and 31. I am sure the minister has some familiarity with the situation, so I don't have to go into detail. All of the young women in this program were required to be in attendance as a consequence of a court order that had asked them to participate in this type of program.

I know from one of the young women who was in the program that she was required to be on this program. As I understand it, because there was an absence of programs of this type for females, it took some time for there to be a sufficiently large pool of young females who could participate In this program before they could go out and serve their required community work — if I can put it that way — under the provisions of the program. In one case, the time from sentencing to the time of actual participation in the program was somewhere in the neighbourhood of ten months. In other cases it took a lot longer than that, and in some cases it was shorter. But there was some time-gap between behaviour and consequence. Be that as it may, I will be talking a little more about that situation.

After reviewing the situation — and I read the newspaper accounts of it and have also had the opportunity to discuss the situation with the parents — it occurs to me that something went seriously wrong here. When you have seven young females involved in a program under the care of these people and taken from the local community off on some trip somewhere else, very quickly there seems to be — from what we can see from the public record — a breakdown in communications between the young women in the program and the people who were supervising the program. Tensions were heightened, communications broke down and the young people in the program became increasingly frustrated with the experience they were partaking in.

Eventually the situation broke down to the point where a number of the young people in the program decided to leave. They made a decision on their own that they wanted out, and they weren't content with the type of supervision they were getting from those running the program. That may be valid; it may be an invalid conclusion. That was the conclusion they arrived at, and once they arrived at that conclusion, they decided to leave on their own. It is at that point that my concerns begin to arise.

They left on their own, and they were followed for some time — as we now know from the evidence that has been publicly recorded — by an individual who was responsible for the supervision of the kids on the program. He had to let them go.

It seems to me that one of reasons he had to let the kids go was that he had no authority to apprehend the children in question. He didn't have the authority to apprehend the children in question because the program had been privatized. I don't want to get into the politics of privatization, but I'm going to ask the minister a question that relates to privatization and how it relates to this situation.

[3:30]

Prior to the government privatizing these programs, government workers who were responsible for the supervision of children on these types of outward-bound programs — if we can put it that way — had the ability to apprehend children. After privatization they did not have the ability to apprehend children. When the children decided to make a break, previously they could be handcuffed and brought back. Because of the changes that occurred due to privatization of this program, the ability to apprehend was denied. As a result, four youths would normally have been taken to a detention centre and put in custody immediately or to a remand centre where they would have been held, and within 24 hours they would have been brought before a judge or a justice of the peace. Under no circumstances, prior to privatization, would they have been allowed to simply walk off on their own. The authorities, prior to privatization, had that ability.

I have a number of questions I'm going to ask the minister, but I'm going to start on this one first: does he agree that as a consequence of the privatization program, the ability to apprehend these children and contain them was denied to those who were in supervision of the children?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the program in question is one that is very imaginative. We have on the board of directors of that particular organization people like Chief Snowdon, chief of police of the city of Victoria, and we can indeed take some pride in that particular program.

With respect to the specifics of the issue, as the member knows or will now know, there is going to be an inquest, and it has been delayed at the request of the family. Accordingly, it would be improper for me to comment on anything related to that specific event.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister is missing what I'm saying. I'll just put my question aside and come back to it in a minute.

Of course I realize that there is going to be a coroner's inquest into the situation and that therefore the inquest will get into some of the factual considerations. Separate and apart from that, Mr. Chairman, are the policy considerations, the practices of this government. So I want to let the minister know in general terms where I'm going, and then I'll go question by question. I want him to know that the purpose of my raising this matter in the House is to discuss the policies of his ministry as it deals with children, using this situation as an example: the policies with respect to the timeliness of probation orders; the practice of enforcement of probation orders; the matter of timing between the time that the behaviour occurs and the time that the consequence is provided. Those are all appropriate policy ques-

[ Page 11119 ]

tions that are not part and parcel of the coroner's inquiry.

However, let's deal with the inquiry first. There was a significant time-gap, in my mind, between the events that occurred at the end of March 1990 and the announcement by the coroner that there would be a coroner's inquiry. It seems to me that it must be — I don't think I can find words for it, to be frank — traumatic for anybody to have learned through the news media that their children were involved in an incident that resulted in death or injury. They may have been told in this case by the people in the program first; it may not have been from the news media. But the point is that it's a traumatic thing to have come and fall upon you. Yet these parents had to fight with the authorities to be able to get a coroner's inquest into the matter.

There were some comments made by the BCGEU; there were some comments made by the minister. Those were in the realm of politics. I'll get to some of those comments later, but the point is that it took some time. Is the minister satisfied now, on reflection, having reviewed the situation, that a decision to have a coroner's inquest of this matter was made as speedily as it could have been under the circumstances? Or does he regret that there was such a delay and that it was only through public pressure, editorials and the parents' demanding that that occurred?

HON. MR. FRASER: Let me just say this: no one could regret more than I the death of those two children. I also want to assure the member that the coroner is an independent authority, as he knows. Finally, I want to assure the member that, because of the forthcoming inquest, I have no intention of saying anything about that particular incident. If he wants to talk about policy, of course, that's another matter.

MR. SIHOTA: What does the minister have to say about the time delay?

If the minister wants to jam out and not answer any questions as simple as that, I guess we'll just start asking some tougher questions, and hopefully he'll come back and recognize that that one's fairly basic.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister wants to get into debate — the minister behind you, Mr. Minister — he can stand up and get into it, but if he wants to....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't hear that, but it's probably better that I didn't.

The minister said that this was an imaginative program. This program used to provide services for kids on a weekend basis. This was the first time that that program decided to provide a ten-day intensive program for young females.

Has the minister's ministry investigated why this program was changed in this instance to go from a weekend-only program to an intensive ten-day program?

HON. MR. FRASER: That'll all be part of the inquest, as the member knows.

MR. SIHOTA: In one of the cases involved in this situation, one of the youngsters had a ten-month waiting-period between the time that she was sentenced, May 1989, and the time that she began to participate in this program, March 1990. Does the minister consider, as a matter of policy, that that is an appropriate time-gap between sentencing and consequence?

HON. MR. FRASER: I have as much time as the member has. If he wants to continue to ask questions that will be a subject of the inquest, then he can go ahead. I'm not going to answer them.

MR. SIHOTA: Putting aside this incident, will the minister answer this question? As a matter of policy, is he satisfied that it takes ten months from the time a child is sentenced to the time that a child is in a program that deals with the consequence of the child's behaviour? As a matter of policy, is that the type of time-gap his ministry considers to be acceptable, in general terms?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: As a matter of policy — putting aside this incident — does the minister consider it proper that there should be a ten-month gap between the time that a child is sentenced and the time that a child serves the order and satisfies the provisions of the probation order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Question to the minister: does the minister think that six months is satisfactory? Does he not think that there should be a shorter time-gap — whether it's six months, one month or three months? In his view as a minister, where would he like to take his ministry? What guidelines does his ministry have in place? What target does his ministry have for what they would like to see be the period between the time a child is sentenced and the time the child participates in a program? What does he think is an appropriate time-period?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: I want the minister to know that that is a question of policy he should be answering, and that his ministry should have some targets with respect to the amount of time that elapses between when they're sentenced and when they participate in a group program.

[ Page 11120 ]

Does the ministry have a stated target?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: This reminds me of the time I was involved in the Knight Street Pub and watched ministers sit there stonewalling, stone-faced and ill-prepared to answer any questions.

Let me ask the minister another question, putting aside the specifics of this case. Given the fact that since privatization the people who supervise these programs no longer have the authority to apprehend children, place them in custody and handcuff them so they can't walk away, does the minister, as a matter of policy, now not regret that privatization has taken that ability away?

We're talking about privatization, Mr. Minister. We're talking about the consequences of privatization. We're not now talking about the specific case that I raised. Does the minister not regret that the authority that used to exist prior to privatization for these correctional officers to be able to apprehend children has now been denied to those who are participating in the supervision of these programs?

HON. MR. FRASER: All of these issues are probably going to be central to the inquest that will be held. Obviously none of us in this chamber wants to prejudice the outcome or the result of any work to be done as a consequence of the inquest. The member believes, I suppose — according to him — that I'm stonewalling his questions, but the fact is that I don't want to interfere with the natural flow of justice or with the inquest in this case. As a consequence, I'm going to take extreme care with questions that relate to that event. If you want to talk in general terms, I'd be quite happy to do that. We consciously devote a lot of effort to youth and youth programs in the ministry, and I'm proud of that.

MR. SIHOTA: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that I'm asking some questions with respect to general issues. They're very basic, simple questions that relate to the practices and policies of your ministry. There are other kids beyond the ones involved in this incident that I referred to who are under the supervision and care of the ministry. There are other kids who are exposed to the policies — and the inadequacies — of this ministry.

We don't have to deal with this situation; not every situation is under review. I've said to you: "Okay, fine. I won't ask specific questions, at least this time, with respect to that situation." But I want to ask some general questions in terms of where your ministry is coming from, because I think those other parents who have kids under your ministry's supervision — under your correctional programs — deserve an answer. They want to know, Mr. Minister, whether or not your ministry now regrets that the privatization program denies those who look after the kids the ability to apprehend the kids. Does the minister not think that that ought to be reviewed and revisited by his ministry?

HON. MR. FRASER: I guess I'm going to have to answer the question the same way every time. Undoubtedly the whole circumstance will be canvassed by the coroner's inquest. I think it would be best if we left it until then. Perhaps if these estimates were going to be done in October, or whenever the inquest is finished, we could discuss the incident in question more fully. But the fact is that I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of this particular inquest, and I have no intention of doing that. I've got all the time in the world to sit here. I can sit here, and I presume the other member can as well. I would think that he would want to be more careful than most not to prejudice the outcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll move on to another line of questioning instead of listening to that crap.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think that reference should be withdrawn, Mr. Chairman.

[3:45]

MR. SIHOTA: If the word "crap" offends the minister, I'd be happy to substitute another word.

My question to the minister is this, then: is the minister satisfied that probation officers in this province have sufficient ability to ensure that children are in compliance with probation orders? When they are not in compliance with probation orders, is he satisfied that there is a means to deal expeditiously with the enforcement of probation orders that may be violated?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, we cooperate with Crown counsel.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't ask you, Mr. Minister, whether or not you cooperate with Crown counsel, but I'll still applaud the fact that you at least chose to answer something. Maybe you will be able to answer the question.

Under the Young Offenders Act, probation officers are required to supervise young children and supervise court orders which require children to do A, B, C or D. Is the minister satisfied that probation officers in this province can expeditiously enforce violations of probation orders?

HON. MR. FRASER: It's possible that not every probation officer is happy with every event. The central fact remains that our youth programs are the envy of the rest of the country. We can take great pride in this ministry in their effort in that regard.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the minister is not of the view that young offenders go out and violate probation orders, and generally have a view that nothing is going to happen to them if they are in violation of probation orders. I take it it's the minister's read on the world that that's not the case.

[ Page 11121 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: That's correct.

MR. SIHOTA: What does he base that on?

HON. MR. FRASER: As I said, we cooperate with the Crown, and we prosecute where necessary.

MR. SIHOTA: That doesn't answer my question. What does he base that on? Does he have statistics? Can he quote us statistics in this House with respect to compliance and enforcement? Does he have any of that kind of information?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'll put it to the minister this way: does he not think that, in light of the matter of March 30, 1990, that I referred to in this House, there is a serious question as to whether or not probation orders are being complied with?

Well, I see the minister just not wanting to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this situation.

Let me ask the minister another question. Let's just put this situation aside. With respect to people who seek to do this work.... I take it that this work is put out to bid, and individuals have been asked to bid on providing these kinds of correctional or supervision services. I take it that that is the way it works, and I know the minister will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong on this matter. How does the minister deter mine whether or not the people engaged to do this work are qualified to do the work?

HON. MR. FRASER: We have very comprehensive contracting standards. The inspection and standards branch reviews contracts.

MR. SIHOTA: Provide us with a little bit more detail. What work do you do, first of all, to determine that these people are qualified to do the kind of work that they do? What are the criteria that are employed by your ministry? You've got your deputy there; I'm sure he knows that information. What steps do you take to ensure that what people say they're going to do with respect to the programs is indeed what they do, and that once they get the contract, they follow through? If they say to you that there will be a ratio of three counsellors to seven kids, what steps do you take to ensure that there is a ratio of three counsellors to seven kids, or whatever it is they may say in a contract? What are the criteria that you have in place to assess the programs, and how do you actually monitor to determine that people are fulfilling the contract into which they entered with the government to provide these programs?

HON. MR. FRASER: The best way to provide the member with the information is to provide him with a public document which is the contract policy manual, and I will so do.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the minister has got his staff there. Can he direct his staff to get on the phone and go and get it, so we can have it in the House so we can discuss it? Are you prepared to do that?

HON. MR. FRASER: Whatever the hon. member wishes, but the fact is I thought I'd send it to you. I presume you haven't read it, so I thought I'd send it to you and you can read it at your leisure.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Minister, I'd like to read it in the context of what I'm raising here in the House, so I'd like to have it in the House. You can put it on the record, I can listen to what you've got to say, and we can make some decisions. I would ask that you summon your officials and ask them to bring that forward, and you can tell us what those criteria are, so that we can have this debate.

The second question, that you didn't answer, related to the matter of enforcement. How do you enforce the contracts?

HON. MR. FRASER: The enforcement is done by the inspection and standards branch, as the member knows. But we will secure the manual, and we can go through it line by line if you wish.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to the enforcement and monitoring of these contracts, when people say they will provide certain services, what steps do you take on an ongoing basis? Are you telling me that on an ongoing basis you're checking out all these programs to ensure that they're fulfilling the terms of the contracts? Is that how it works? Do you check daily? Monthly? Weekly? Do you keep a record of the people you're checking up on?

HON. MR. FRASER: We check basically on a demand basis, when we think it is required.

MR. SIHOTA: With respect to that— and the minister says he's prepared to table the policy in the House, and I thank him for that — I want to know if the minister would be prepared to table in this House any indication as to how frequently the Coastline Challenge program had been checked in the past. Are you prepared to do that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: No.

MR. SIHOTA: Why is the minister not prepared to table in this House a document showing just how frequently in the past the Coastline Challenge program had been investigated?

HON. MR. FRASER: Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman: I will not discuss anything that has any contact with the inquest that will be held. As I said to the member a minute ago, if the estimates were being done some time subsequent to the publicity of the inquest, then perhaps we could go into great detail. But no one — and especially you, I submit, Mr. Member — would want to in any way prejudice the outcome of that

[ Page 11122 ]

inquest. I certainly don't want to do it; I don't think anybody wants to do that.

You may persist, if you wish, in asking questions with respect to that particular incident, but I am not going to answer them. I will do whatever I can to enlighten you with respect to the activities of the ministry in general, but I do not want to entertain anything that will prejudice that inquest.

MR. SIHOTA: You know that your ministry has an obligation to check out these programs. You have confessed in this House that you don't do it. What you have told us in this House is that you do it on demand — if someone asks you. That's just great! What does that say to the parents of the kids that are under supervision? "Yeah, we'll let contracts. And if people want to get into bidding for the contracts, that's cool. And if they tell us that they're qualified, we'll believe them. Maybe they are qualified in terms of the list of names they provide at the top of their letterhead, so we will believe it, but we won't check to see whether or not they're doing their job. We're not going to check to see whether or not they are fulfilling the provisions of the contract. We're not going to check if children are getting adequate supervision and care. No, we're going to play ostrich. We're going to put our heads in the sand and wait for somebody to come in and ask us."

What kind of obligation does a government have to children who are under care? Is it fair for government to play ostrich with respect to programs involving children, let alone anybody else? We have seen — over the last three and a half years that I have been a member of this House — all sorts of examples of programs with respect to kids that have a stated intention and they haven't delivered.

I don't need to talk about the Coastline Challenge program, because the minister doesn't want to talk about that program. I know it wasn't in your term, Mr. Minister, so you can duck the question on that basis, but hopefully you will be more macho than that.

There was a program running in Hedley that was supposed to provide services for children. It came under considerable scrutiny and was exposed by the Vancouver Province about a year or a year and a half ago for...failing in its ability to look into the program. And your government — the Social Credit government — stood up in this House and said: "That won't happen again. It was just one bad apple. But we are going to make a commitment to make sure that children are looked after, and we are going to enforce these contracts." Then we got into a debate into this House about privatization.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm mad right now in terms of what this ministry is doing with respect to the care and supervision of children. And this government, believe you me, deserves to be kicked around.

I can only personify what must be only 1 percent of the kind of emotion the parents must feel when they lose a child. We had a debate in this House about privatization in general terms, and in specific terms about this ministry. During the course of that debate in this House, the Premier of this province and all of the cabinet colleagues of the day vowed to this House that if we engaged in privatization we would make sure that all programs are being properly monitored — that there is proper supervision, whether it be Highways, which I don't want to talk about because it's out of order, or this kind of a program, which is in order. We were told in this House, and the public was assured by this House, that there would be ongoing enforcement and monitoring of those types of programs to make sure that once they were privatized, the public got the same level of service they had prior to privatization.

I was talking to a parent today who lost a child under this program. You know what he said to me? I made a note of it. I didn't really quite believe him, but I believe him now. He said to me: "When we talk about this program, we talk about a business." And he went on to tell me that it's run like a business, that there's no accountability whatsoever.

I listened to him and I thought: "Yes, you're right, in some ways it is run like a business; but on the other hand, I think you're wrong in terms of accountability" — so I thought. I thought there would be a mechanism by which programs like this could account to the public for their actions. Then I sit here in the House, and the minister doesn't want to answer any specific questions about this program. That's fine; I'm going to still try, and I will ask you some more questions later.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, this government doesn't have a prerogative to abdicate all of its responsibilities to children in this province. When you stand up In this House and you tell me, Mr. Minister, as you did, that you're going to check on demand, what happened to that vow you gave to everybody in this House — the Premier and all of your cabinet colleagues, because you weren't minister then? What ever happened to that vow? Was there any substance behind the promise that under privatization the government would continue to monitor these programs and continue to provide the same level of care as it had done prior to privatization? Oh, it was good political rhetoric then. But under the scrutiny of a real-life situation, we have the minister come into this House and say that they're only going to check it on demand. It was a lie, Mr. Chairman, for anyone who participated in the debate to suggest that these programs were going to be monitored. The minister has proven that to be the case from his statement.

I'm going to have a drink of water and settle down for a minute. I'll defer to the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger).

But I want to tell the minister that at the end of the day he has to be held responsible for the inadequacies of those programs that fall under his administration. This program failed two kids; they died. Two others were injured, Mr. Minister. And you cannot, under any circumstances, hide behind the statement that your ministry does not have a responsibility to check. You should have been checking. You should

[ Page 11123 ]

have been monitoring that program. You should have assured those parents, before the kids went on that trip, that all of those standards from before privatization would continue to exist. And you shouldn't have said it in political rhetoric; you should have been able to prove it.

John Shields is right. I heard that debate between you and Shields, where you were giving Shields hell for talking about it. But at the end of the day, Shields was right. He was bang on when he said, in his press release, that the teenage deaths were due to privatization. He was right, Mr. Minister. It's about time, for the sake of all those other kids under your care and supervision, that you engage in a better process of checking to make sure that these programs deliver in the fashion they're supposed to.

Go ahead. Have your shot. We'll continue this debate, Mr. Minister. I'm not here, as you said earlier, to waste time. I'm here to get some answers from you, and I'm going to get them.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to advise all members of the House who didn't already know that I accept fully the responsibilities of the work I do as Solicitor-General — as I always did. So that's no problem.

I presume, then, that the member will be pleased to hear that the ombudsman has reviewed the work of the investigation and standards branch, and he has complimented the branch on their work.

MS. PULLINGER: I too want to ask some questions about this program in general. As the minister makes very clear, it's under investigation; there's going to be an inquest. I will refrain from asking questions that are specific to the incident out of which this whole issue arises.

I'd like to ask just some questions, just to get some information for myself and for others about the program and how it operates. I wonder if the minister could start by telling me what the objectives of that program are, and how they differ from those of other correctional programs. Secondly, which young people are chosen? Why are they chosen? What is the basis? Is it who they are, the nature of their offence, the number of times that they've been convicted? I wonder if you could answer those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I understand from the questions that the member was referring to the same incident and the same program that were referred to by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I have said a number of times — and will repeat endlessly, if it's required — that I will not comment on that particular case, because there will be a coroner's inquest. I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of that inquest, nor should you. Ask me anything you like about what's in the estimates for the ministry, but I will not talk about that particular program because of the proper constraints, imposed upon me and probably and supposedly and hopefully imposed upon you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest, just before I recognize the second member for Nanaimo, that the Solicitor-General has, on several occasions now, stated quite plainly that he is not prepared to answer questions on this precise matter. It would seem to me that to persist in asking questions on this specific matter is really wasting the time of the House. I would suggest that perhaps the member has some other questions she might wish to put to the Solicitor-General, which he could respond to.

MS. PULLINGER: I made it very clear in the very short preamble to my questions that I'm not asking questions about a specific incident. I have no intention of getting into that specific incident. I don't want to prejudice the inquiry in any way, shape or form. However, Mr. Minister, to ask what the goals, purpose and mandate of a program are as compared to other programs offered for young offenders, or to ask what the criteria are for selecting participants in that program, I don't think would in any way prejudice that case. I'm talking about the program generally, as it goes on. I wonder if the minister would answer those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER: That will all be part of the inquest.

MS. PULLINGER: I find I'm getting the same response as the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew did. It's simply stonewalling questions that are quite legitimate and valid. I'm sorry that the minister chooses to do that.

If the minister won't answer those questions, I wonder if he could answer a few about the kind of training counsellors have in those outward-bound types of programs — not even that specific one. I assume you have more than one. What kind of training in terms of wilderness survival, leadership, first aid and counselling for kids who obviously have had some difficulties are required for counsellors on that type of program?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe the member has another question while the minister is being briefed.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, it's difficult for him to listen to my further questions when he's listening out of the other ear. I'll wait for the response.

HON. MR. FRASER: With respect to any program that we have in the ministry, standards vary from program to program. Some of the people in the programs have university degrees — all those things. Again, I think we're venturing a little too close to the specific event. I know it's frustrating to you; it's equally frustrating to me. I would be much happier if I could answer all your questions with an answer, rather than saying that it's under review and the subject of a coroner's inquest. I think you appreciate that I can't say anything.

[ Page 11124 ]

I want the parents of those children to understand that the process was totally in order and unprejudiced in every way, and that nothing we say here will affect the outcome of what is done by the coroner.

I understand your interest in pursuing this. But as I said, I really am constrained by the circumstances of the day. I can't do anything about it. Obviously the results of the inquest will be a public matter. Everything that you asked today will probably — or possibly — be answered by that inquest.

To persist in this line of questioning, which may in fact complicate a program or an outcome, doesn't seem to me to serve the interests of the parents, you or anyone else. Consequently, as the Chairman has said, I will answer other questions about the ministry, and there are lots of questions to ask. But I cannot, in all conscience, pretend to or attempt to answer questions that would possibly interfere with the result, and as a consequence of that, I can't answer.

MS. PULLINGER: I find it very interesting, Mr. Chairman. I'm not asking about any specific incident, whether rules were bent, broken, adhered to or any of those kinds of things. I'm simply asking the minister to put on the record those — I assume — very standard rules, regulations and practices that are part of the Coastline Challenge program and others like it. I'm assuming that there are some very clear standards — there certainly ought to be — and very clear practices and regulations. I'm simply asking the minister to talk about the program and not about any incident that happened within the program. It seems that he is either unwilling to recognize or unable to understand the difference. That's unfortunate indeed.

I skim-read — it's a very thick volume — the regulations that were alluded to earlier in debate with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. My understanding was that the monitoring of outdoors programs is through probation officers. They are, in effect, the contact with the child and with the program. Is that correct?

HON. MR. FRASER: I've already committed to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that we would bring up the policy manual. It's on the way. So if we want to talk about the policy manual, we can talk about the policy manual.

MS. PULLINGER: I've got that policy manual, and as I say, it's not absolutely clear; in some places it's vague. I'm asking for confirmation from the minister that probation officers are the liaison between the child and the program and therefore are the monitors of the program. Will the minister kindly inform me of that? I have read the regulations, and it's not clear.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the whole issue of all this material will undoubtedly be the subject of the inquest. I've asked all of you repeatedly not to interfere with the natural flow of this inquest. All those questions will be addressed; I suppose they will all be answered. Whatever comes out will then end up in the public domain. I've got all the time in the world to say: "I won't touch it; I don't want to get near it. I don't want to prejudice the case. I will not prejudice the case." I presume that's your motivation as well. You do not want to impose upon those parents an unsatisfactory result as a consequence of asking questions today.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister obviously doesn't want to answer my questions. They're not going to prejudice the case. These are simply factual questions about your regulations, your rules and who does what. They're not difficult questions, nor are they going to in any way prejudice any particular case.

[4:15]

I wonder if the minister can tell me this, then: what's the average caseload for a probation officer?

HON. MR. FRASER: I will seek an answer to that directly.

MS. PULLINGER: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew touched on the difficulty of privatization and the fact that prior to privatization, the people In charge of young people were peace officers who therefore had the power to detain these people; and afterwards, they could not. I find it really interesting that these programs are obligatory and that neither the children nor their parents have any choice as to whether their child goes to this program. They must attend, as the court lays it out. I find it very difficult to understand why the ministry would leave children in a situation of being essentially without any means of being controlled, when these kids have obviously had some difficulties. I find that absolutely incomprehensible and quite amazing.

I have one last question. Again, it's generally about these programs; it's not about any particular incident. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the standard emergency procedures are for young offenders in any program outside the city or the normal place young offenders are kept.

HON. MR. FRASER: The caseload for officers actually does vary. As in other circumstances, averages don't really mean a lot. The essence of the program is that if probation officers have difficult cases, they will not be overloaded with an extraordinary number or a higher number of cases. If the cases are easier, then of course you can do more. So we don't have specific answers on that. The average caseload answer doesn't really mean anything. But I am advised that the workload has decreased from '89-90.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister. Does the ministry have any guidelines for outdoor programs on the ratio between the number of children in a program and the number of supervisors that the ministry requires to be there with them?

HON. MR. FRASER: All those things depend on the nature of the program, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 11125 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I see. Could the minister then tell us, depending on the nature of the program, what would be the appropriate ratios? What are the ranges?

HON. MR. FRASER: It's very much like the answer I gave to the member for Nanaimo. It very much depends on the circumstances and on the young offenders, or the people or the children who are in the program. Again, averages really don't mean much.

MR. SIHOTA: When children are out on an outdoor program for in excess of seven days, does the ministry have any guidelines as to an appropriate ratio of counsellors to youngsters?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll try to put it another way, Mr. Chairman. The programs are, in the main, specifically designed around the needs of the people who are in them.

MR. SIHOTA: My question is: does the ministry have any guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister state what ratios are expressed in those guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER: Common sense.

MR. SIHOTA: Are there written guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER: We try to develop programs related directly to the needs of the individuals involved in the program. Every program could be a little different. That seems to me to be one of the more positive things that the ministry does. In other words, instead of being hard-line, with averages and medians and all those things, which is just a number count basis.... The activity of the ministry with respect to this program has received the compliments of many inside and outside this province.

As I said, the ombudsman has commented favourably on the actions of the inspection and standards branch. As I said earlier, I'm advised that the youth program we have in this ministry is the envy of almost all of Canada.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to hear that it is the envy. The minister, I'm sure, would be anxious to share with us in the House the guidelines, which he says are flexible; he takes pride in that. Could he just tell the House about the guidelines and the programs others are so envious of? Are there written guidelines that lay out staff-to-children ratios?

HON. MR. FRASER: If the member was to look in the Blues tomorrow, he'd see that I've already answered that question.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister is: are there written guidelines? I don't think he has answered that question. If he read the Blues in the morning, he'd see that he didn't answer it. Are there written guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER: I answered that question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll put it this way, then: Mr. Minister, will you table those guidelines in the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't table in committee.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister prepared to table those guidelines in the House?

HON. MR. FRASER: We've gone to some length to demonstrate to everyone on the opposite side of the House — and indeed to the members of the gallery who are here today — that what we do is develop programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the people involved in the programs. As I said, obviously, therefore, averages don't mean much. The average caseloads are meaningless numbers. It's like having an average speed limit when you are going either way below it or way above it; averages don't mean much.

I can't table something that is an individual program. I will just consider that the question has been answered.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the minister is saying he can't table something that doesn't exist. I'm sure the minister will concede that staff-to-children ratios expressed in the form of guidelines do not exist; I'll assume that. If he's wrong, he can correct me. It's wrong for anyone to come into this House and suggest that written guidelines exist.

Let me ask the minister this: is it not true that the driving force — the driving factor — in your deciding which programs you are going to support is really the bottom line, in terms of the amount of dollars they say they will provide the service for? Is that not really the case? Is that not really the way in which you figure it out? You go to the lowest bidder. Isn't that really the attitude of the government?

HON. MR. FRASER: The whole motivation of these programs, which are so serious for the future of all of the young children involved, is to design the program that will be the best for them. This is not, in that sense, a bottom-line ministry. We're concerned about these kids. We have a well-focused and highly motivated interest in making sure that people who are involved in these programs do not become repeaters, in residence long-term, in our institutions around the province. it is important to understand that what we do — everything we do, in fact — is directed towards the best interests of the people involved in the program.

[ Page 11126 ]

MR. SIHOTA: We have ratios for children who are in child care, and they are expressed in regulations. One would think that the same would exist with this ministry with respect to children in its care, but obviously that's not the case; nor are there written guidelines. I would suggest to the minister that all you really do is take a look at the bottom-line dollars.

Let me just ask you this: in terms of your policies, if children are required to go on a particular program — any type of probation-driven program — is it expected that parents will be informed of the itinerary so that they know where their kids are going to be? Is it expected from your ministry that parents will be given a phone number which they can call to learn of the status of their children? Is it a policy of your ministry that parents be given an itinerary, and is it a policy of your ministry that parents be given a phone number to call in case of emergencies?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, again, this is probably going to be part of the inquest. As a consequence, I'm not going to answer that question.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister saying that because he thinks that question may come up at an inquest, he's not prepared to tell us in general terms whether or not the ministry has these kinds of guidelines? Are you saying that that's why you're not going to give us the answer on something as simple as itineraries and emergency phone numbers?

HON. MR. FRASER: You know, Mr. Chairman, it is so important for everyone in this House to do the job right, especially with regard to young children who are in trouble. It's so important that we do it right that it seems to me that we should go to extraordinary lengths to avoid involving ourselves in engaging in a debate that may have an impact on the inquest.

I understand from the members opposite that they don't share my concerns in that respect, but I assure you that it is not my intention to deliver to those parents, because of questions being asked today, tomorrow, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, all of July and the rest of August, something that is less than as perfect as we can make it. You have to understand that I am not going to prejudice that case, no matter what. If it means that we don't get out answers to some questions that don't appear to be significant, then that's the consequence.

If it was October, or if it was some other day after the inquest report was delivered and was a public document, it would be a totally different matter. I don't know what your motivation is, but I'll tell you what mine is. I want to make sure that what is done at that inquest is totally, absolutely proper, and I have no intention of making a statement here that would possibly affect that case. I hope I have made that clear, but if necessary I can repeat it.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I want the minister to understand. All I want to know is what kind of guidelines — what kind of policies — your ministry has in place. I don't see how that can prejudice an inquiry. An inquiry is going to ask what kind of guidelines you've got in place, what kind of rules you set down. They're going to ask you that anyway; you're going to provide that information anyway. It's not going to prejudice the outcome. It's just basic, factual information. It's not a skill-testing question to ask you whether or not parents are required to be given an itinerary.

Let me ask the minister: what requirement does the ministry have for outdoor programs with respect to emergency communication equipment? Do you require it, or do you not require it? Let me tell you before I even ask the question: in this case the person had a radio device that could get them in touch, so you're not going to prejudice it. Just tell me what your policy is.

Vehicles when kids are outdoors — do you have a policy saying that vehicles ought to be there? You're going to have to answer that question anyway. How is your answering in this House going to prejudice it? It's not going to. It's a simple question; it's not a skill-testing question. Do you have to have vehicles if kids are in outdoor programs? Or is it your ministry's policy that it's up to the program to decide?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't seem to be able to get this message over to the members opposite. I am in no way going to prejudice the outcome of that inquest.

The other thing I think you ought to know is that I'm a man of almost infinite patience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, the Chair feels absolutely compelled to tell you.... Perhaps the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) would take his seat; thank you very much.

I've listened very attentively to what's been going on in here for the last hour, and I feel compelled to bring to your attention that this particular point has been very well canvassed indeed, and the Solicitor-General has in the plainest of language made clear his position. I can't see that this House is being served by a continuation of this line of questioning. So I would suggest that in the interests of efficiency and of getting on with our work we move to some other subject.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask the minister a couple of questions I attempted to ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) the other day, and I discovered that they were in the Solicitor-General's area.

I want to ask the Solicitor-General about the licensing of vehicles from out of province. I refer first of all specifically to rental cars. At the Cranbrook international airport, the rental cars are all lined up, and all of the cars belonging to one company have Alberta plates on them. I have brought this up with the motor vehicles people, I believe, and they say they have been unable to do anything about it. Those cars are driving on British Columbia's highways and

[ Page 11127 ]

operating as a car rental service out of the city of Cranbrook. It seems improper that they should be operating with Alberta and not British Columbia licence plates.

The problem, I am told, lies in the Motor Vehicle Act, section 20(l)(e): "...the owner or operator of the motor vehicle...is in the Province for, and uses the motor vehicle...for, other than touring purposes, for a period of 30 days...."

If the company is attempting to say, "All right, we're just bringing our car in for 30 days and we'll whisk it off to the Lethbridge airport for the next 30 days," that is duplicity. If it's not duplicity, we should change the Motor Vehicle Act.

I would like the Solicitor-General to respond, because it is a very busy car rental agency, and the province of British Columbia should be receiving some licence fee for the operation of those vehicles.

HON. MR. FRASER: I am unaware of the circumstance that the member talks about. However, I share with her the idea that if the vehicle is operating in British Columbia all the time, it should be registered in British Columbia. We will send some information to you, and get some from you as well, with respect to what's happening, and try to determine if it's correct, and if it isn't correct we'll take corrective action.

MS. EDWARDS: I thank the Solicitor-General for that, because I believe some action should be taken on it. If the company is simply whizzing their cars in and out, I don't believe it is appropriate for the situation to be allowed to go on.

I have frequent discussions about the various things that happen competitively with contractors in our area, because we live so close to the Alberta border. Besides all the difficulties that contractors have trying to outbid companies from Alberta that are only a few miles farther away and who can also buy everything without a sales tax at present.... It won't be long, I know, before there's a sales tax on things in Alberta, but it won't be Alberta sales tax British Columbia does have a sales tax, and of course anybody who operates out of British Columbia and buys something in Alberta still has to pay the sales tax. That is one problem; I am not asking the Solicitor-General to solve that one. I wish people would stop asking me to solve it. Anyway, it is a major problem.

Along with that come contractors who bring in fleets of vehicles that are licensed in Alberta. It's under the Commercial Transport Act, as I understand it. I think it's section 5(4) and perhaps section 5(5). What happens is that the contractors from another province, nearly always Alberta, can come in; they frequently operate with Alberta plates on their vehicles. I would like the Solicitor-General to respond and say what he can do about this situation, which may be unfair to the province and certainly seems to many of the contractors in my area to be unfair to them. This is not just half-ton trucks, vehicles for the roads. It may well be also dozers and other such machinery that has to be licensed.

HON. MR. FRASER: I gather you're talking about highway construction or that sort of thing where people from other provinces come into British Columbia. We will investigate. I certainly want to make sure that the taxpayers of British Columbia who build the roads and all those things that we all use and enjoy are getting fair revenue for providing those roads. If in fact there is a violation of a B.C. law, we will obviously take action. But first we will investigate, and I will commit to doing that. With your help, I am sure, in providing us with the information, we will follow up and do whatever is required.

MS. EDWARDS: I am pleased the Solicitor-General says that if any of the laws are being broken, he will see there is some follow-up. But I would like to make the Solicitor-General very aware of the problem. It may be that our laws are not adequate to do what we want to do with them.

It is very clear. I hear many people at gatherings and so on — and it's not always cases that are brought to my office and laid out with the documentation — and it is the general talk that they have gone to the motor vehicle branch, attempted to do something and are always told: "There is no protection in our law."

I don't have a solution ready for you, but I do know the problem is there. I wish the Solicitor-General would look into it and consider, if necessary, revising the legislation so that we can see there is a very clear, fair ground — a level playing-field, if you like. I am sure that most of these problems are also experienced in the northeast, in the Peace River country. We seldom get to talk to those people up there because of the nature of our province, but we always find their problems are very similar — living right on the Alberta border. I think it would deserve a good look.

I leave that in the Solicitor-General's hands. I'll ask him if he would investigate and consider some measures to ensure that it is very fair to the people operating commercially, and that the fairness is there when they are going to compete with contractors who are more and more coming in from Alberta and finding it easier to outbid the local contractors.

I want to move on to another issue which was partly addressed by my colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). It is the issue of large, long trucks on the highway. Even on the highways where these supertrucks — as they are called — are not going to be allowed, the experience is very clearly that there are much longer trucks on the road. These trucks are much more numerous than they used to be; they are now commonly travelling in convoys of five or six. I have read legislation that says this is not allowed, but it happens regularly and frequently. Considering the fact that the average driver on the highway may well be driving a much smaller and lighter car than ever before, it seems to me that the danger is much worse than it was before.

[ Page 11128 ]

I have a letter which was written in late May to the Cranbrook Townsman, and it quite clearly describes the problem. It is an example of what the public is saying.

"There was a time when trucks were only two to three times the size of automobiles, and when a pass was executed by a truck on a wet or snowy road, the hazard of restricted vision did not persist too long. The situation today is quite different, especially when a truck is hauling a trailer at least as long as the truck itself. When they execute a pass under wet, muddy or snowy conditions, the windshield wipers on a car cannot cope with the amount of debris deposited. There is no alternative but to drive virtually blind until the truck has pulled far enough ahead to alleviate the situation, all the time hoping nothing is in your way."

I can certainly assure the Solicitor-General that I have experienced that kind of thing many times, because I spend a lot of time on the highway in my riding.

This writer says:

"I have had the experience of having to stop to wash the windshield of mud before being able to proceed, and also of nearly being run into a concrete abutment by the huge trailer when the driver started pulling in before the trailer was clear."

This is not uncommon either. There are lots of problems driving these big trucks around. He talks about railways and the reduction in rail traffic, and says:

"Since the railways are cutting down on many routes, the slack is obviously going to be picked up by the trucking industry. This is like putting railway freight cars on the same right-of-way as automobiles, and I don't believe that is a reasonable situation.'

There is more here. The man is not against trucking per se, but he is certainly against unsafe situations.

I would like the Solicitor-General's response to those problems in safety, which includes the very difficult problem of trucks being there and not being able to be passed, or passing and slopping all the highway slush — salt, mud, stones, rocks and what have you; a great slurry of miscellaneous content — onto your car, and the difficulties of them passing and just manoeuvring on those narrow mountain highways.

HON. MR. FRASER: The question of the use of highways by trucks is actually a very interesting one. It involves a number of things, and first of all is driving manners. There's no doubt about the fact that some people are more thoughtful on the highway than others. We would like to think that over time people driving on the highway will be considerate of other motorists; however, there's no way we can legislate that, although we can try, through driving training and things of that nature.

With respect to longer vehicles, it's actually one that you might want to think about, because the long vehicles we talked about earlier, which were tested on divided highways and two-lane highways so that passing would be easier.... There's no doubt about the fact that vehicles that are 105 feet long will be more difficult to pass than vehicles that are half that length. No one misunderstands that.

It's also part of the equation that if you have larger trucks, you will as a consequence have fewer trucks. You will also have less air pollution as a consequence of exhaust emissions and that sort of thing. While the long vehicle train combination has been given the highway test and is now being evaluated, I share your concern about people who are not good on the highway. I would like to think that truckers or cars don't travel in convoys, making it impossible for anyone to pass if they're not going up to a safe speed. In that respect, I would like to make the point that the posted speed limit is the maximum speed limit under the best conditions. You're not always supposed to go the posted speed if conditions are worse.

All these combinations have an effect on traffic. As I say, if we have larger trucks, we have fewer trucks; if we have larger trucks, we have less emission; if we have larger trucks, we encounter different problems on the highway than we would with smaller trucks. All of this is of ongoing interest to the motor vehicle branch, because they want to make sure that whatever we do makes it efficient and, if anything, enhances the safety features of the highways that we have.

[4:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I'd just like to say that it really does get to the point where you wonder, Mr. Solicitor-General, how safe it is in your car on a highway like that, with highballing trucks and whatever else is on the highway — even the cattle that I talked about the other day when I said they had a perfect right to the highway. It does make you wonder how long we will be able to preserve a single two-lane highway for all of this traffic. What about the cost of maintaining the highways and the question of whether or not the trucking industry bears the fair share for the roadbed that the rail does? That question has been put to me. I don't know the answers, but I believe that we should have some good handle on the answers. I hope that the Solicitor-General has that kind of thing. Do you have any of those kinds of figures?

HON. MR. FRASER: No, we don't. But I hope you will be reassured by the response that what is done in Motor Vehicles is not just a mechanical conclusion based on one number being divided by another, average speeds don't mean that you're going the speed limit — that sort of thing. If it's perceived by the general public that long combination vehicles are undesirable, that's part of the deliberation that will be undertaken by the motor vehicle branch. I'm well aware of what the trucking companies want, and I'm well aware of the fact that in other jurisdictions long combination vehicles, trains, are legitimate and legal.

The exercise that we recently have been through is a good demonstration of the commitment of the motor vehicle branch to safety on the highways, in that they were not just legalized on the road; there was a procedure in place to see what would happen on the trip that they took up the Coquihalla. We

[ Page 11129 ]

haven't just adopted standards that have been forwarded to us by other jurisdictions; or, if we haven't just accepted those, we've tried to make sure that what we have done on the highways of B.C. actually suits the highways of British Columbia. Really, more than that, I can't tell you. But I did want to point out that in the motor vehicle branch there's a very human element, and a very great desire to make sure that what is done is reasonable. We appreciate your input.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to remind the Solicitor-General that we don't all have Coquihalla highways in British Columbia. Please remember those trucks on our kind of highway, Highway 3, which needs a lot of work. It can create some real problems.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

A recent article in the Vancouver Sun said that the federal government is considering imposing highway tolls across the country as part of a plan to raise millions of dollars from motorists and the transportation industry. I'm not holding you responsible for any actions of the federal government or any reporting by the Vancouver Sun. I am wondering if, before a decision is made, the government would have to consult the provinces. Has the federal government consulted the province over this? Without referring to future policy, perhaps the Solicitor-General could give some idea of whether he would be happy to have the federal government imposing tolls on our highways.

HON. MR. FRASER: No.

MS. EDWARDS: Have they approached...?

HON. MR. FRASER: The answer is no, I don't want them to impose them without inviting us to participate, and no, they haven't asked us to participate.

MR. REE: I'd like to make a few comments in the minister's estimates, as I had an opportunity to make a few comments in the estimates of the ministry last year. I've rather enjoyed listening to the debate, particularly to the participation of the opposition.

I'd like to extend my pride in the ministry and in the Solicitor-General for carrying out and continuing some of the policies of the ministry, particularly that of traffic safety. I don't know if I could have enjoyed a better 16 months than I did in that office up until last November. At this point I wish to put on the record my appreciation of the dedication and service of various people in the ministry to the ministry and to the public of the province of British Columbia.

First off, one should mention the deputy minister, who has a great deal of the credit for the pride and the esprit de corps within the ministry: Dennis Murray. He put together an administrative group of bureaucrats — I use that term with pride — within the ministry. He couldn't have had better people in the positions to which they were appointed: Jim Graham, the assistant deputy minister of corrections; Jim Kempling in administration; and Val Pattee in police services.

One of the hardest-working members of the ministry with, in some ways, the greatest public profile was Keith Jackman, who is responsible for the motor vehicle branch as the superintendent under whose jurisdiction a great deal of the debate today falls dealing with licensing, motor vehicles, safety on the highways, the rules and administration of the rules on the highways, besides that of the police.

There are many others also. There's Cary Corbeil, who is now a deputy superintendent. He was with the Gaming Commission. There are two ladies within the ministry who have it all together and are very effective, competent and responsible: Lynn Stevenson of parole and Mary-Lou McCausland of film classification.

Another person who worked hard and gave great assistance to the office — and I'm sorry the present minister doesn't have the benefit of his advice, although I'm sure it is available anytime he is called — is His Honour Judge Bruce Harvey, who was chairman of the Racing Commission at the time. Bob Collis is also staff there. I know the minister receives excellent advice on the Police Commission from David Edgar and the other members of the commission as well as Vince Cain, chief coroner.

Comments were made here by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew with respect to the coroner's office and an inquiry. I'm sorry the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — I understand he is a member of the legal bar — hasn't got the intelligence to see the impact of questions he's asking and what they could do in a coroner's inquest. It's quite likely he doesn't have that intelligence of foresight, because he also did not anticipate the damage that has been done to innocent people in the release of all the tapes recently. He will continue to make these inquiries. I commend the minister for standing his ground to see that the coroner's office is not hurt or impacted, and that they may continue on an independent basis as they must do.

There are others who gave great assistance and who I know are still doing the same: Tony Heemskerk, Rick McCandless, Fred Hunt, Hank Mathias and Lorne Newson. I could go on. There are many people who should all be recognized, because they helped in a very large measure to put together a new ministry of this government that has a very high esprit de corps, which they are all proud to serve in. I commend them all for the service that they gave me and that I know they're giving the present minister.

Here is an indication of some of the feelings the people in the ministry had. The young offenders' branch in Victoria heard that there was some difficulty getting a desk that my knees could fit comfortably under. They went and made such a desk, and I've got the desk in my office at the moment. I think it's a credit to the people in the corrections branch that they could get the young offenders to do this type of work and keep them busy and active.

[ Page 11130 ]

My MA, Bernie Smith, and I took a week's tour in British Columbia. We visited youth detention camps, adult prisoners' camps, RCMP establishments, motor vehicle offices, probation officers, anybody in the ministry within the area we were going. Everywhere we found excellent people. We were very pleased with the dedication and with the people in the ministry for the service they were giving to the public of B.C.

I'm extremely pleased to see that the Solicitor-General is continuing the high Impact towards traffic safety within this province. The accident rate, the injury rate, the damage and the carnage on our highways are such that it should not be permitted; are such that every person who uses the highways and the byways of the province should be conscious of them and should work to minimize them.

We are killing roughly two people every day; we are injuring five people every hour. This is unacceptable. The Solicitor-General the other day indicated it was costing the people of the province just over $1 billion a year. I suggested it's closer to $2 billion a year when you take the pain and suffering, lost productivity and other costs involved. It's a loss of moneys which could be put to greater advantage if the people in our province would direct their minds towards traffic safety.

I noticed last night on the news that there are now firms in British Columbia selling what they call "Photo-busters." This is a piece of equipment to go over the front licence plate of a car so that the Multanova camera cannot pick up that licence plate number so that they cannot be charged when they are committing an offence.

I place the Photo-buster in the same category as the radar detector. They are used by people that intend to break the law, and this is part of our problem. This is the attitude of some of the people in this province, certainly the attitude of those who have radar detectors and who are putting the Photo-busters on their cars. The people selling and manufacturing them within this province are accomplices to criminals who wish to break the law. That's what people are when they go out and break the laws on our highways — they are criminals. We kill and injure more people on our highways in British Columbia than are killed or injured in vicious crimes in all of Canada in a year.

[5:00]

We must do something, and I am sure the Solicitor-General is working hard towards it. He has just released the "Traffic Safety Initiatives" to the public to get a reply on by the end of September. I know he will come down with firm decisions and firm action after that.

This paper doesn't go quite far enough in one particular aspect. I agree education is necessary to change people's attitude, but there should also be the punitive aspect for those who do break the rules. One of the biggest problems we have with those who the break the rules on the highways is that they go back and break still more rules when they're not permitted to drive. Those people are prohibited from driving; their licences have been suspended because of infractions that they have committed. I shouldn't say infractions; I should say crimes that they have committed — crimes against the community, their neighbours and their families.

We need to come in with harsher laws towards those people driving when they are prohibited. I suggest the Solicitor-General look strongly and seriously at introducing laws next year to allow the seizure of any vehicle a prohibited driver is driving — have it seized and impounded. I know many people suggest that there is not sufficient storage space for the cars or that the cost of storage space doesn't make it worthwhile. If we have to seize that number of cars, that's an indication of how many people are out there abusing it. Make the rules tight. If they're not redeemed or the appropriate fines are not paid within a certain period of time, the cars are sold, the moneys go to the fine and the difference goes back to the people. We should be hard on this, because it is the innocent people in this province who are suffering, and they have no need to and no right to; it should be the ones who are breaking the laws.

Somehow we've got to change the attitude of people. People certainly look at their car as a social thing. People used to look at the drunken driver as a social thing, so you laughed when you got caught. Today people are realizing that the impaired driver is a criminal on the road. They have now accepted it; they've been educated towards it. I think we can do the same in due course with the speeder and the intersection-runner, light-runner and stop-sign runner. We can get the public to understand that these people are committing crimes. I'd like to see the Solicitor-General — and I know he will — take harsher action in the future on this.

There has been comment about the Horseshoe Bay accident of two weeks ago or so. It was a tragedy, and I'm not minimizing it; the same with the accident in Kamloops. Actually, our truck drivers are probably the best in Canada and the best-trained in Canada. If you look at the nature of the highways we have, the hills, particularly on the North Shore, the area I represent, we have very few truck accidents with trucks running downhill without brakes. That does not excuse the ones who do have bad brakes and who do run away, but we are good on the enforcement with respect to that.

To me, that's part of the overall thing. The two people killed at Horseshoe Bay was no greater a tragedy than the two young girls on Mount Seymour this last week or the two people who are killed every day in this province on the highway. They are all serious tragedies. Unfortunately, the newspapers picked up the one at Horseshoe Bay; they didn't blow the other ones up to the same extent, and they should, to bring to people's attention the number of people being killed and injured and the amount of property that's being damaged in this province every day and almost every minute.

Mr. Chairman, I commend in this report immediate action, certainly, by the Solicitor-General's office with respect to the distribution of alerts throughout

[ Page 11131 ]

the province to all RCMP detachments. They are an excellent aid in establishing who is impaired and who is not when they are driving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, I must inform you that your time has expired.

MR. RABBITT: I found the member's words most interesting, and I would look forward to the member continuing.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, this is probably the longest speech I've made in this House in 11 years.

MR. PERRY: Come over to this side now; you're making good sense.

MR. REE: To the member from Point Grey, who says I am making good sense: with respect to this item, I have always made good sense. The NDP is not the conscience of the people of British Columbia; they are a single group that represents only specific people. The Social Credit Party is more interested in all of the people of British Columbia than that single member from Point Grey, Mr. Chairman. We have made a lot of sense around here.

MR. MOWAT: They're too busy bugging.

MR. REE: Yes, they are too busy bugging.

MR. CASHORE: He was trying to be nice to you and was saying kind things.

MR. REE: To invite me to join the NDP is the greatest insult I could have. It is not kind.

MR. CASHORE: But he was saying kind things before he invited you, so apologize.

MR. REE: Yes, but he needn't wreck the kindness by putting such an insult. Is that the wishy-washy member from the NDP, that he would do this? Can they not be constant? At any rate, Mr. Chairman....

MR. PERRY: I'm prepared to withdraw.

MR. REE: I would appreciate it. I do not wish to join the NDP.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MR. PERRY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I regret any offence I've given to the former minister. I was attempting to compliment him on some arguments that I agree with that he's just made. Therefore...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have the point of order, please, hon. member?

MR. PERRY: ...I'm prepared to gracefully withdraw the remarks I made that offended him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. REE: North Vancouver, Mr. Chairman.

I was commenting on the alerts, and the recommendation in the "Traffic Safety Initiatives" to do that. I feel that that's something the Solicitor-General should act on quickly. I think it would be of great assistance in getting some of the impaired and drunk drivers off the road. It would assist the police and the prosecution immensely and would make our roads safer, and those who have committed offences could be appropriately dealt with.

Fines were brought in for traffic infractions a year ago, and there was some discussion as to the use of those fines. At the moment, they go to the general revenue of this province. I would suggest that a good study be made with respect to the quantum of revenue and how it is coming in, and also that a fair part of that money be used for further traffic safety initiatives throughout the province, under the guidance of the province as a whole and under the municipalities. I think a good, positive program should be developed for the use of that money. I looked at the fines as being a user-pay situation on the highways, and I think they should go back to making our highways safer. I say that as a strong recommendation for the Solicitor-General to consider. Possibly it could come down after September with his final report, when he gives his other recommendations on the traffic safety initiative.

One aspect of the "Traffic Safety Initiatives" is the suggestion of a gold driver's licence. Our laws should not always be punitive; we should also reward. It talks about a gold driver's licence within a period of two years. I think it takes longer to prove your safety record and competence on the highway. That two-year period is a way too short.

To get back to the actual estimates, and not just the Ministry of Solicitor-General's, I commend the Solicitor-General on his efforts with respect to the estimates. I know what he has to do to get it approved through Treasury Board, and I see there is about a 12 percent increase for the provincial emergency program. It is one of the best programs we have. It should receive a lot of attention.

There are well over 7,500 volunteers in the province — people who give of their time because of their love of the community and of the people within the community; people who say, "We are there to help," when somebody is in trouble. A lot of effort should be directed towards the provincial emergency program to fund it, to provide good, safe equipment, and to train the volunteers. As I say, I commend the minister, seeing that there is more than a 12 percent increase for this year, and I would hope that he and the government would look further in the future at strengthening that program.

The provincial emergency program of the government has been shifted from one place to another over

[ Page 11132 ]

the years. I am glad it has a home in the right place — the Solicitor-General ministry — and not in any other ministry. I know it will receive, under my colleague the Solicitor-General, serious and responsible attention.

It has been a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Solicitor-General ministry. For its short life, it is probably one of the most progressive ministries in the province, and I am very proud to see the person who is the Solicitor-General today.

HON. MR. FRASER: I am happy to advise the House that many of the things the ministry is doing today were started when the member for North Vancouver–Capilano was the minister. I commend to you the pride he had, and still has, in the ministry. Mostly I commend to you his attitude towards law enforcement, justice, fairness and equity, for indeed that is the way this country was built. It was built by people like my colleague who tried to do what they had to do, always with the thought that there were other people who needed help — and that help was given freely and without request. I commend him for that, and I thank him for his remarks about the staff that was built when he was the minister, for it is my experience, having some tenure here — very short indeed, but some — that his remarks with respect to the staff are correct. They are good.

It also points out that the Ministry of Solicitor General, like all ministries, is staffed by people who are thoughtful and interested and who do care about what happens in B.C. If I could make any remark that would erase the suggestion that people who work in government service don't care, I would make it Indeed, my experience, whether I was here, there or elsewhere, has been that people who work for governments do care about what happens to the citizens of British Columbia, and go to no end of trouble to make sure that the needs of the people are met to the fullest of their capacity.

I understand there are some frustrations with the motor vehicle branch or another branch of the ministry from time to time, when someone in a desperate hurry to get a driver's licence that they could have picked up anytime in the last six months has to wait 20 or 30 minutes. I've had a few phone calls, believe it or not, on that very subject.

However, there will always be a process in this ministry that says: let us look at what we're doing now to see if we can do it better and make it more efficient, effective and less costly. That, of course, is being done.

My colleague's comments about the Multanova camera are interesting. Clearly it is a violation of the regulations to have a cover on your licence plate. That's been in existence for a long time. You can't paint them or put mud on them. They have to be visible for a number of reasons, and not just that one.

[5:15]

The Multanova camera experiment is going along very smoothly. We are finding, possibly to our surprise, a great acceptance in the community with respect to that particular experiment, which has one camera and one officer by the side of the road taking pictures of cars as they go by, determining whether or not.... It only operates when they speed; it's computer-operated. When you compare that with the usual radar surveillance on highways, which usually entails four or five officers and four or five vehicles, you will see that it is more efficient and effective. I support that project, and I hope when the final research on the project is done it will be acceptable to everyone in the province.

We have looked at the idea of sharing revenue produced by the Multanova camera with municipalities. We are reviewing that, and if it can be shown — as I've said to all the mayors out there — that some costs are imposed by them as a result of the fine system, we will make some accommodation for them when we can.

As the member points out, the CounterAttack program is a very effective combination between ICBC and the police. We have some of the alerts that the member spoke about; not as many as we had originally planned, but we have some. We are certainly putting a great deal of energy into ensuring that people on the road are not impaired, and that those who are impaired are taken off the road.

The member also spoke about the provincial emergency program. Almost within minutes of accepting this job, I was in the Fraser Valley looking at the flood of the Chilliwack River, where I saw in action the very effective people from PEP. I have also seen them in action in the north and in the interior where we had some floods and slides. In fact, the quick action of many of the people in the provincial emergency program not only saved property damage but, more importantly, saved lives. There is simply no question about that.

But certainly the ministry people care. They do the best they can, and they always try to make what they do even better.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Yale-Lillooet has requested leave to make some introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: Today two members of the Lillooet council are visiting Victoria and the chambers, and meeting with ministries and ministers in an effort to resolve problems in their area and in their community. I'd like to introduce to the House the mayor of Lillooet, Joyce Harder, and Alderman Dale Wheeldon. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Yale-Lillooet, do you wish to continue speaking on vote 61?

MR. RABBITT: It will only take a few moments, because the member for North Vancouver certainly hit on many of the items I wished to raise in the House. I must say that the former Solicitor-General worked with me very closely on some of the prob-

[ Page 11133 ]

lems I had in my riding. If he had been in that chair today, I would have been thanking him. As it is, the present Solicitor-General has picked up the baton, carried on and done an extremely good job of carrying out the mandate. So I'm thankful to both.

One of the programs the minister has assisted with recently.... Just to share this with my colleagues, the provincial emergency program has worked very closely with other ministries, and we are now able to facilitate surplus radio equipment. The provincial emergency program is sharing that equipment throughout British Columbia. The Hope area, which is the Chilliwack zone as far as PEP goes, will be installing a network of repeaters so that in the event of a provincial or national emergency, we'll have a communication network that can deliver service to the areas that need it, and especially to that area.

The other area I wish to touch on briefly is one which I have been involved with over the last 20 years: commercial trucking. I believe there has been a myth generated in this House that that particular industry is unsafe. Mr. Chairman, let's put that to rest. I believe British Columbia has one of the safest commercial trucking industries anywhere in North America.

The credentials of the trucking industry are quite often challenged. It should be pointed out that before a driver can obtain a licence to operate a highway rig, he must first obtain an air ticket. An air ticket is certification that an individual is knowledgeable in the mechanics, the application and the adjustments of an air brake system. The following process is that the driver must go through a program which tests not only his knowledge of the mechanical workings of a truck but also his knowledge of the actual operation of that truck. I would compare it to those who have a pilot's licence. Driving a highway rig is very similar to flying an aircraft. A private pilot will go out and obtain the certification to operate. They start out with a limited number of hours and therefore a limited amount of experience. It is similar with the commercial highway drivers. A lot of factors enter into a pilot's life between destination A and destination B and it's the same thing with a trucker.

When we look at the amount of effort that used to go into monitoring to see whether the trucking industry and that unit was safe, it was very limited in the past. Today we have an inspection system which inspects both truck and trailer. They do 92 specific inspections on a tractor unit. Out of those, you can take any one of those items.... There may be a multitude. There may be two dozen items under that one classification. There can be literally hundreds and hundreds of items that are checked on that tractor unit before it rolls out with a certification. Before it rolls out, it has to meet a certain standard laid out by the ministry itself, and that is industry standards. Substandard conditions warrant that the inspection certificate is not given and the truck is not licensed.

The trailer is the same thing. There's a total of 35 items. This goes from even the slightest item, such as the wiring which governs the illumination of the running lights, to the frame of a truck or trailer.

We must remember that when the driver gets into that truck, he does his walk around, just as the pilot does a walk around. When he gets into the truck, he has to have a certain amount of knowledge. He'll take that knowledge with him and to the best of his ability make sure his load and his vehicle get to the destination on time and in a safe manner.

The myth that has been created is that we have thousands of trucks on the road that are unsafe. I can tell you, the trucks that are certified in British Columbia are for the most part very safe.

Those suggesting in this House that we should have the government doing the inspections at road stops have not been on the road; they do not even understand the task that they're talking about. It has been estimated by the Solicitor-General that there would be a hundred thousand inspections a day; that's the minimum number of inspections. I can tell you that the average driver does more inspections on that rig than what is required by law.

Conditions that affect a truck while it's travelling from point A to point B are as follows: the condition of the vehicle, which we've just been talking about; the road condition, which we talked to the Minister of Highways on and which covers design and a multitude of other things; and the driver's ability, which is generally good because if they don't have an ability to operate the vehicle, they don't get into the truck. With each change of weather condition, with each change of temperature, the safety conditions change on the truck, and they also change on the highway. They are also dealing with a multitude of other drivers.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to deliver to you and my colleagues in this assembly today, while we're in the Solicitor-General's estimates, is that an unfair blemish has been put on the trucking industry throughout British Columbia. To reiterate one more time, British Columbia has a safe trucking industry. With what has been suggested in the minister's discussion paper on traffic safety initiatives, we can see even more upgrading. I'm certainly supportive of that.

With that, Mr. Solicitor-General, I would like to say I'm looking forward to the changes that are coming forward. I'm sure that the industry — both small-industry owner and operator, the owner-operators and the large operators within the system that run from coast to coast — will want to work closely with you, to see it's made an even safer industry.

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to thank the member for his comments with respect to truck safety. In particular, I want to commend to everybody his comments with respect to the pilot and the airplane, as he equates that to the truck and the driver. There's simply no question that if a hundred thousand inspections a day are needed, that means we need qualified drivers to do them. We, as representatives of the people, will inspect them every six months because we think it's necessary; but the truckers

[ Page 11134 ]

themselves have to ensure every day that the vehicles are safe. The member makes that point well.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to pursue the issue of compensation for damage that I started in question period. I think the principle behind the disaster relief is that you replace what was there — nothing more, nothing less.

In the case of the bridges that I spoke of, there is a question as to whether logging in watersheds increases the flow. In the case of the Bonaparte, there is some evidence that some of the areas are eroded because of faster runoff. I know that's opening another question, but some of the people in the area are definitely feeling that it was more than just an act of God there. There were some man-made land use decisions that affected it.

So in the spirit of replacing what was there, you don't want to replace a log bridge with a steel bridge, of course, but what you're replacing is a span of the river. I know that these requests have been made through some of your officials, so I'd like to ask you again if you are giving consideration to replacing a bridge that spanned the river; and if it's a little longer, are you going to consider replacing the bridge?

[5:30]

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the member's comments with respect to the fact that we have a good program in B.C. are correct and are welcome There is certainly no doubt about the fact that the citizens of B.C. have made a significant contribution to those who have been damaged by floods, mudslides and whatever in recent months — about seven or eight.

The intent of the program is to replace home and contents and immediate needs for those who suffer damages. The purpose is to help people get established or re-established as soon as they possibly can. I think the member will remember that I made a special appeal to get funds for homeowners who lost their homes and contents.

The specific question you asked I presume relates to a private road. As you know, the government, on behalf of the people, does not replace roads and land and does not cover goods covered under other programs such as car insurance, jewelry insurance or that sort of thing. It's home and contents basically, and while that doesn't satisfy your immediate question about how long the bridge is, the fact of the matter is that all claims will be adjudicated, and all claims that are legitimate will be paid. To the extent that we know at this moment, we're already looking for just house and contents in the recent problems in the Okanagan and the northern part of B.C. or central B.C. — I guess the Prince George area.

We're looking at double-digit millions here just doing what we're doing already. I'm not really sure how much more the people of the province should put into it. But let's stop at the point of saying that everybody who has suffered a loss as a result of a flood should submit a claim. If it's legitimate, it will be paid. They will all be reviewed regardless of whether or not they happen to meet the criteria of the program, because we want to make sure that everything that is legitimate is on that claim.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Well, I have had some experience. When we had a little bit of a problem getting out the claim forms and so on, I visited people and assisted there, and I realized officials were very busy.

I have asked that consideration be given in the case of the Minister of Environment to ensure that you coordinate the mitigation of damages funded under your program with those programs that the Ministry of Environment have for streambank rehabilitation. There's really a grey area here, and there's potential for considerable confusion as to — what is restoring, say, a bridge, and what's restoring the bank to prevent the bank from eroding again. So I would emphasize to you that there be some monitoring and ensuring that that coordination is being done.

I recognize the need for a lead agency, but it gets very complicated. For example, in the Deadman Creek situation, there was a common permit put in to replace the different bridges in the area. It's a permit to do work in and about a stream, or something like that. Rather than everybody paying $80 up and down the river, they put in a common application for a common project. That coordination can be cost-effective from the point of view of the government's costs; one contractor can do them all at once.

However, there still is a major problem with respect to the fact that federal Fisheries has given deadlines of, I think, August 15 for all this work to be done. So there's still considerable confusion out there, and the province has to work pretty hard at bringing the feds on-line and being part of this. The attitude that the feds are taking is that nobody can go in and do damage to stream banks and do works in and about a stream, because of the federal fish. But all the spawning beds have been destroyed anyway.

Now's the time to get into the creek and do the work. I'm afraid the slow pace that some agencies are taking is going to give us problems with either the provincial Fisheries deadlines or the federal Fisheries deadlines. It's more the Ministry of Environment that is going to have to take the lead here, and I'm on record as writing to the minister to ask him to ensure that that happens. But to the extent that your program is involved, there needs to be coordination. My monitoring of what's happening in the field is that there tends to be a bit of confusion and you can't get the different officials from the various provincial and federal agencies together in one room. Some monitoring needs to be done and some questions need to be asked as to how effectively that coordination is taking place there.

Having raised the issue of what you replace — and you say legitimate claims will be dealt with — I think it's important that again here you not apply the regulations too stringently and make it prohibitive for people to get back in business. These people — I'm talking particularly about the ranchers on the Bonaparte and on the upper Moffat Creek in the

[ Page 11135 ]

Horsefly area — have lost their crops already. In a lot of cases, they are having trouble getting on to do the harvesting, which they should be doing at this time. They can't get to the crops without having the bridges, and if they get fouled up any more, then they're going to lose what crops they have.

I think some of the restrictions are punitive. I trust that your officials will make some effort to ensure that coordination is happening. When monitoring this, you can deal with your colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds).

If you have any comments on that, I would appreciate it; if not, I'll go to my next question.

HON. MR. FRASER: When it comes to compassion, obviously, governments don't want to be rigid. There should be no doubt about that. There's no question that there has to be some guideline, but we don't want to be rigid and do more damage than we're trying to prevent or resolve.

There's certainly no question that federal Fisheries does cause some problems with respect to streams and rip-rapping of banks and that sort of thing. They actually prohibit it, and they are very difficult.

However, if you are suggesting to me that the Minister of Environment and I should cooperate, I can tell you that we do. I'd be happy to take your suggestions about working with him and federal Fisheries and others to make sure that reasonable and decent actions are taken on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to move to the next question. I'm glad the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) is here also to hear some of these comments.

First of all, the action the RCMP are taking in their road blockades and so on is commendable. There's no question that any of the blockades in the Chilcotin area.... I don't think you could find any fault whatsoever with the behaviour of the RCMP. That stands in stark contrast to what has happened with the Quebec Provincial Police. They are a bit quicker off the mark, and it doesn't help situations.

I would like to ask you to tell us what your instructions are to the RCMP at this time. If more road blockades are put up-not on Indian land or reserve land but on provincial highways-what considerations do you give? As you can appreciate, people are making tactical and strategic moves, and sometimes information pickets serve their purpose. We have been served notice that the B.C. land situation is going to become the subject of some of these pickets.

It's in the interest of all of us to ensure that the roads remain open, but we don't want to exacerbate the situation by overreacting. Can you give us some guidance as to your criteria or what your instructions would be to the RCMP?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member raises a legitimate concern which all of us share. We do not want to have violence in the streets anywhere in Canada, and we share the grief of the people in Oka and of the family of the officer who was slain.

The interesting basis of what we do in Canada is that justice must be seen to be done and must be done; it must be done equally, openly and fairly. That's really the basis of the democracy we live in. it's very important to maintain and to demonstrate that fair for one is fair for the other; it's all equal.

I've made some comments with respect to roadblocks in British Columbia. The comment I made was that I want them down, and that's true; I do want them down. I want those involved in the roadblocks to take them down themselves. There's good reason for me to suggest that they do that, for in the democracy that we enjoy — in which we should take great pride, and which we should protect with great care — there's simply no question that we will permit demonstrations of one sort or another from time to time for short periods; we've seen that recently. That is a privilege of democracy that we enjoy, even though it does occasionally frustrate people. But it also is true that it should be possible for any British Columbian or any Canadian or any tourist from anywhere else to get on any public road and drive anywhere they want In the province of British Columbia, hindered by nothing except the regulations of the road, stopped by no one and diverted by no one. In my view, they've got an absolute right to drive on the highways unobstructed. I don't see that there can be much doubt about that.

The RCMP, as you say, have done a very commendable job in B.C. I would like to see all those little skirmishes diminish. The RCMP, as you say, have done a very good job in keeping it at a low profile. I do not want an Oka in British Columbia; no one wants an Oka circumstance in British Columbia.

You did ask me to tell you what my instructions to the RCMP were. The fact is that the instructions are what you would say: do your job, which they do. Of course, I wouldn't be making any sense if I revealed their plans now.

I think the point made by the demonstrators has already been made. The conversations they want to engage in shouldn't be engaged in on the highway. I am hoping they will come down. I know ultimately the highways will be opened, and my suggestion is that sooner rather than later would be preferable.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Since, in effect, you are on the front line and there is an underlying political problem that needs to be resolved, I just want to reinforce the fact that we do have time now. We know that this is the one exercise of power, other than talk, that they feel they have. They feel they have been pushed to the point of desperation. I would like to see that you, as the minister who has to deal with it on the front line and make the decision which can either escalate or de-escalate the situation, will be trying to work as hard as you can to ensure that the appropriate parties are around the table — the federal government, the provincial government and the representatives of the native people.

[ Page 11136 ]

We have been given fair warning in British Columbia, and we will all be served, as you say, by keeping the roads open but keeping the talks going, and moving those talks just as quickly as we can. I hope it is your intent to use your influence to help remove the underlying causes, which are the aggrieved issues around aboriginal rights and land title. I will leave that for the record.

[5:45]

HON. MR. FRASER: Obviously my job is to keep the system working and not necessarily to solve the problems that are causing the demonstration on the highway. Notwithstanding that, if we can be of some assistance getting those parties who disagree to get to a meeting to find some resolution, then that is acceptable to me.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to canvass some aspects of the joint emergency preparedness program. I know there was some publicity about this a few months ago that was somewhat embarrassing for the government. But in a sense my question is a bit of a soft lob, because the minister is going to be able to stand up and say that some things are underway that weren't underway when the story came out. But I still want to get on the record where we are at in accessing this federal-provincial program.

I refer to an article in the Vancouver Sun of June 17, 1989. That article states that B.C. has lost out on federal emergency preparedness funds because there are no guidelines for submissions. That fits in with a number of concerns I have heard from people who want to access these funds, who say there is a lot of red tape; it is really difficult to get an application through. The director, Murray Stewart, is quoted in the article as saying: "It's not Emergency Preparedness Canada's fault. They're just not getting submissions from B.C." The article points out that in 1988-89, B.C. applied for and received just $5,000 out of the fund. It's my understanding that the total federal fund makes available approximately $6.5 million annually for joint emergency preparedness programs between the federal and provincial sectors.

It's also been stated by another official that B.C. does not have procedures set out for applying for funds. One of the questions I want to ask the minister to make a note of is: are the provincial criteria now in place?

Mr. Minister, if you want to rise and respond to some of these, okay. I thought that since we're trying to move along, I might just say a number of things, and you can respond to them all.

The assistant regional director for the federal program said that the province is to blame for not applying for funding. It's my understanding that some programs are being applied for by municipalities and regional districts. But again, even though they may be cost-shared between the federal government and that municipality—they might put in the bucks that need to be put in to qualify—it's still the province of British Columbia that has to fulfil the red-tape requirements. I think that in some ways it has to go right through cabinet. Perhaps the minister can clarify that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Another question is: what is being done to eliminate the red tape that seems to render this program useless for British Columbians? I just want to read a few statistics into the record. I have a document that I got from the joint emergency preparedness program. It outlines the grants that have been made through this fund to the provinces ever since its inception in 1981-82.

For instance, if we look at British Columbia in 1988-89, the total amount, according to this, is actually less than $5,000. They must be using a different fiscal year. They say here it's $3,312, but it's still close. It says that during that period in which B.C. got $3,312, Saskatchewan, with a smaller population, received $442,838. It states that Manitoba received $409,276 and that Ontario received $1,900,000 — during the year that B.C. received $5,000 or less. Something has to be seriously wrong, Mr. Minister, when we know, given the Grays Harbour oil spill disaster, given the scare that we had with the San Francisco earthquake, given the knowledge that we have that British Columbia is woefully lacking in emergency preparedness equipment, that here is federal money available to us that we are not accessing. I'm sure that everybody would agree that it's a serious problem, when we are not accessing something that we really need.

I recently attended a program on emergency preparedness in Coquitlam. The fire department was there; the ambulance people were there; people representing federal and provincial governments were there. There was a consensus among those people I spoke to in the various displays that we have a serious problem of lack of coordination and that, if there was to be an earthquake in our area, there really is not the coordinating infrastructure in place to give those people the confidence that they will be working together and not at cross purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I know that Prof. Joseph Scanlon, at Carleton University in Ottawa, has done some outstanding work in the research of how emergencies are responded to in various places throughout the country. There is a lot of knowledge and advice that should be readily available to us, so that we can ascertain what is needed to help make our emergency preparedness programs work effectively — to fill in the gaps that need to be filled.

I just noticed in going through this that in the year 1988-89 B.C. applied for one joint project; in that same year Alberta applied for 23; Saskatchewan applied for 19; Manitoba, 16; and Ontario — this is interesting — has an arrangement with the joint emergency preparedness program where they don't apply for anything. What they have negotiated is a flat contract for $1,900,000, which they then decide internally how to spend. That's another question I have to the minister: what efforts has he considered in negotiating a similar deal for B.C.? Little New

[ Page 11137 ]

Brunswick is getting $101,000; little Nova Scotia, $412,000; Prince Edward Island, $947,000; in the same year British Columbia gets $3,312. The minister might say last year was a bit of an aberration, and it's true. The year before that, for instance, B.C. received $220,000. That certainly balances out that picture, and I'm quite happy to put that on the record. But let's look at the total amount of federal dollars accessed by the province, going back to the inception of the program, and make some comparisons. I'll round the figures off. B.C., $770,000; Alberta, $1,875,000 during that period of time; the Territories, $964,000; Saskatchewan, $1,477,000; Manitoba, $2,855,000; and Ontario, $9,879,000.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Wow! That's research.

MR. CASHORE: It may appear to the Minister of Education that that's not very important. But it's this Minister of Education who had a serious problem dealing with school boards that were asking for funds for earthquake preparedness. I know the Solicitor-General takes this very seriously. The minister was not able to access funds and had to put the people of British Columbia through a referendum, when those very funds may have been waiting in the federal coffers for us to access, as fairly as anybody else in the country.

I know it's said that they're still taxpayers' dollars. But if we fail to access those shared taxpayers' dollars, it means British Columbia is subsidizing other provinces to an alarming extent, and it is unnecessary.

I would like to hear the minister's comments. I again say that my research, being good research, also shows that the ministry is working on this. But I would like an update for the record.

HON. MR. FRASER: We acknowledge that efforts in the past have not been up to the standard that we would have liked. As a consequence of that recognition, we have, for example, a JEPP coordinator in place for the specific purpose of pushing the municipalities into doing their job, because you do know that it originates in the municipality and then goes around through to the federal government. Many of the applications that were sent were rejected because they weren't properly done. We have taken the positive step of putting in a coordinator and drafting JEPP guidelines so those projects that are applied for are applied for correctly. We have taken positive action as a result of past circumstances, and I am very proud of that.

Beyond that, the PEP budget has increased by some 50 percent in the last two years; it has gone up by approximately $1 million. So a lot of attention has been devoted to the PEP organization in recent time, and certainly a lot of effort has been put into the coordination, management and organization of JEPP requests. I would expect that we will be much more successful in the future by first of all having awakened the municipalities as to how the process works and then having helped them make their applications through our guidelines.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister is saying about the municipalities. But the fact is that those people in a position to know, who were commenting in that article several months ago, pointed out that it's really the provincial red tape that is the problem. Why would it be that municipalities in other provinces were not having the same problems that they are having in British Columbia? Obviously there's a generic problem in British Columbia, and I would like to hear the minister say a bit more about how that problem is being addressed. I'll just leave it at that.

I want to ask the minister another question. In the estimates book it states that there's an inflationary increase for the budget of the provincial emergency program — I think it comes under police services — and it appears to me to be an inflationary increase. But under the emergency assistance part of it, on page 215, in 1989 the total was $2,403,500; in 1990-91 the total is $1,203,500, which is more than $1 million less. Again, given the fact that we pointed out very clearly in the debate last year under the Solicitor-General that there simply is not adequate equipment up and down the coast with regard to emergency response and to volunteers being able to respond to emergencies, I am really very puzzled that this government fails to access federal dollars and has actually reduced its own amount for these emergency assistance projects in the province. How come?

[6:00]

HON. MR. FRASER: It's a reasonably simple answer, so I'll deliver it to you in very few words. The fact is that the $2 million or the $1,200,000 was simply a guess of how much money we actually needed. You will have noticed, of course, that this year we needed much more than $1.2 million, and you will have noticed that we applied successfully for $10 million this year as a direct consequence of the rain and the mudslides and all those things. The fact that the budget went up and down has no connection to the commitment to the emergency program or to people who suffer as a consequence of disasters in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: I have one last question. We know that when it comes to a disaster such as an oil spill, the major effort has to be in prevention, taking those measures that make sure it doesn't happen. But the fact is that those measures are still not in place, and there's still the statistical likelihood of it happening.

One of the areas that caused somewhat rancorous debate last year under the Solicitor-General's estimates was to do with the infrastructure and equipment that needs to be made available for volunteers. We had the then minister speaking of volunteers and Mr. Dave LeBlanc with considerable disdain. I would certainly hope that this minister doesn't share that opinion.

One of the things we were not getting satisfactory answers on last year is this. Given that you have to

[ Page 11138 ]

have prevention, and that that has to be done properly, and given that there have to be proper kinds of equipment available from a technological perspective — Mr. Minister, you yourself spoke on that during estimates last year and made some good points — the fact still is that when these inevitable disasters occur, the volunteers are still incredibly important. What has happened that is different? What has been learned? What equipment is now in place for volunteers, such as garbage bags and rakes, etc., which we had to get from Overwaitea, 7-Eleven and Canadian Tire last time? What is now deployed and available so that those volunteers can access that equipment and also access an infrastructure that would be able to immediately deploy the volunteer resources, should such an unhappy event occur again?

HON. MR. FRASER: This is déjà vu with respect to last year's speech. The facts are quite simple. We don't stockpile garbage bags and things like that, because they degenerate over time. We buy them when we need them. As you have seen from the Okanagan floods, we bought sandbags so we could sandbag and help the people sandbag their properties in the Okanagan. We want to know where to secure the equipment we need, but only when we need it. There's no sense renting a warehouse and filling it full of rakes and garbage bags over here when the problem might be over there.

In a similar vein, I would refer you to my conversations with respect to a dredge that is in the local waters which the owners are attempting to convert into a vehicle to sweep up oil in the ocean when it spills.

The Ministry of Environment has developed an oil response plan which, as you will remember, was used very effectively in Vancouver harbour, where the Environment Youth Corps, the provincial emergency program people, the Vancouver harbour board people and all those other vessels went through a cleanup that has been described by many as superb When the problem arose, the response was instant, and it was cleaned up. I guess you've flown over the harbour and seen what a good job was done there. We have these things in place, and we put them into place when they're needed.

MR. CASHORE: Okay, just two comments and I'll leave it alone.

The minister pointed out that some pieces of equipment like garbage bags deteriorate. Last year the government, as far as I know, didn't buy that stuff; it was donated. But basic equipment like boots and slickers, rakes and shovels and some of that kind of equipment doesn't deteriorate. I'm using the shovel I've had for 20 years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: One thing about it, you're still shovelling it.

MR. CASHORE: It's not a Premier's shovel.

We were calling for basic equipment to be deployed in those locations where the volunteers might come, and that still is a valid request. It's not expensive. It just makes a lot of sense, and a lot of the volunteers who were out there on the scene agree that it makes sense.

The minister referred to the spill in the harbour, and I just can't sit down without mentioning that I saw the publicity photo of the minister there. I think the minister was wearing a slicker there, with the youth who were working on that. In that publicity shot it was still quite obvious that the minister was the only one who didn't have oil all over his clothing. I just thought I'd mention that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to change the subject a little bit, Mr. Chairman, and ask the minister about some of the services to kids covered in his mandate. Unfortunately, I want to preface the comment by a couple of things.

First of all, given the fact that this last year the federal government has passed the amendments to the Young Offenders Act and has chosen to try to toughen up some of the regulations and penalties for youth offenders and at the same time ignore the real need for rehabilitation and treatment for those kids.... I find that very unfortunate, and I am hoping the minister can comment on some intervention his ministry may have had during that time and some negotiations they may indeed be having with the federal government along the lines of providing more support and more money for programs for kids.

I would also like to preface my questions to the minister with something that has become all too obvious in this province, which is the direction the Ministry of Social Services has gone in the last number of years. It is only intervening in family and children's services on a crisis management level — far less in the way of prevention and support than we have seen in previous years. What happens all too often is that kids end up before the courts and reliant on your programs as a last-ditch result. Rather than early intervention and support for families, we find kids in real trouble in this province. I have in the past taken a look at some of the statistics — the dollars that are spent on kids with your government, Mr. Minister, and in increasing amounts the money is being spent on very expensive intervention rather than the support these families and children need.

I will stop at that. Perhaps the minister can provide some information about his relationship with the federal government, given this newest legislation. Did your ministry see fit to intervene or advise the government? Or are you in negotiations with the federal government to provide additional funds? What are your plans for the next year for services to children and teens in this province?

HON. MR. FRASER: Let me begin by saying to the member who suggested that my cleaned-up uniform was clean and the kids' uniforms were dirty that I was actually trying to profile the youth corps who were doing the cleaning-up in oil spills. And I thought the vote was going to pass.

[ Page 11139 ]

There is no question that we put up what can only be described as a strenuous fight with the federal government with respect to the funding and capping for young offenders. We have not been successful. However, it was not without a significant amount of effort on our part to make sure we had enough funding for young offenders.

The essence of the program, without going into great detail, is that the focus is on the people and not on the institutions. We make great efforts, with all sorts of programs, to keep people out of the institutional system. I am advised, and am prepared to accept, that we have a program that is the envy of most if not all other provinces because of the great interest in young offenders in B.C.

We direct significant and serious effort in that regard and — like you, I presume — want to do what we can to make sure the people who are stepping over that line and getting in trouble with the law are given a chance to refocus their attention on doing it right and doing it in a law-abiding way. We direct a lot of attention to that, with some success. I don't want to make it sound like it's minimal; I want to make it sound like it's good.

We don't succeed in every case, of course, but we direct a lot of effort towards young offenders in our hope and our desire to make sure they don't get into the system on a repetitive basis. We want to catch them early; get them refocused; keep them out.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am finding it a little difficult to hear the minister when he responds to the questions. I am hoping some of the members who are having conversations could perhaps have them out in the hallway.

The minister talked in general terms about his desire to meet the needs of young offenders in this province. I want to ask a couple of specific questions Are you aware that in the last year there have been two judges, to my knowledge, who have seriously questioned the services provided by the province to young offenders. They have asked quite publicly: "What's going on here? Why are there no services?"

HON. MR. FRASER: Actually, this is a good opportunity to demonstrate the attitude of this ministry with respect to that problem. We are sure that from time to time we will be criticized for what we do. But be aware that every time we hear criticism — and I'm not aware of those two specific events that you mentioned — it is reviewed. If we can make some changes that will make our programs better, then we do. We don't reject compliments or criticisms out of hand; we do make an effort to make use of that information because it is valuable to our directions and our focus.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister can advise. Given the fact that the minister indicated that in those two incidents the ministry reviewed.... Were the reviews specific to those cases or were they systems reviews?

[6:15]

HON. MR. FRASER: I said I didn't have any knowledge of the two incidents to which you referred. If you have some, I'll be pleased to get it from you. As I said, regardless of what the source happens to be, we take the information and try to apply it in a useful way.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm a little disappointed that the ministry is not aware, because that is a considerable departure for a judge to make....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says he is not aware; you have your staff there, and I would have expected that the staff would have made that....

HON. MR. FRASER: It would be useful if you have a specific incident in mind to let us know what it is you are talking about; otherwise, we just go around and around. I mean, I'm prepared to do that, but it probably would be helpful if we knew which event you're talking about.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm speaking in fairly general terms about the problem with the system. If the minister would like the specifics of the comments of the two judges, I will make them available to you after your estimates. I don't know if that is going to be a lot of help to you, because the point I am making — and what I am very resistant to and one of the reasons that I don't have those clippings in front of me right now — is that I don't want your ministry to deal with the situations in isolation. I think they are symptomatic of a problem that we're seeing with services to adolescents in this province. It is very clearly not a matter that these two incidents were the exception. Anyone that has followed services to children in the province understands very clearly that the demand is far greater than the services that are provided.

Having said that, let me talk about one specific situation that has to do with the services provided to juvenile sex offenders. Juvenile sex offenders, as a rule — the majority — have at some point in their lives been victims of sexual abuse. We discussed this thoroughly with the Ministry of Social Services, talking to them about providing services to both the offender and the victim in an attempt to stop that cycle. The ministry very clearly said that they were doing all they could do. Very clearly, it is not enough.

The reality is within your ministry's mandate. The people you end up dealing with are those young sexual offenders. In increasing numbers, we are seeing a phenomenon across Canada of very young offenders. The reality is that the system has not caught up with the cutbacks of '82-83, and certainly it has not caught up with the population growth in the provision of services to young offenders.

Given the fact that your ministry ends up dealing with those kids far along that continuum, either you provide the services for the recovery and the treatment of those kids, or we are going to have not only a

[ Page 11140 ]

continuing problem but a problem that will compound itself. It will become more severe.

Given the fact, again, that the federal government chose to deal with the young offenders by increasing the terms of imprisonment, making the penalties more severe and very consciously — against the advice of most people in the field — not dealing with those services that we're talking about, I would feel a lot more comforted if the minister could at least talk intelligibly about the problem.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes, it would be nice, and I'll give the minister that opportunity.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's no question that in any human endeavour there will be imperfections. But we've got a good corrections service about which we should be very proud.

With respect to the specific question you raised about the treatment of sex offenders, we do have a youth correctional centre, for example, and we do have specialized training for staff who are supervising and managing sex offenders. I guess we could argue about how big it is and where they are and all sorts of things, but we understand what exists. We are taking some steps to address the problem. As I've said in other correctional circumstances, it's difficult to determine whether or not we're successful with the program, but it hasn't lessened our desire to address the problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister aware that once a young person enters a corrections facility, often the treatment prescribed is much longer than the term that child may be sentenced to? While the children are in the corrections facility, they may very well be getting good treatment and good support from the professionals; but once they leave that facility — and we're still talking about sexual offenders — their only support is through community mental health. That is, of course, voluntary. Through community mental health, there are great waiting lists for people needing that kind of support and those kinds of services. There is not only a need to recognize the length of time for treatment but also a need for real coordination with other ministries.

I hope that within the next month or so we will be seeing a report from the ombudsman that will deal with interministerial care of children. Your ministry is very clearly implicated in the care of kids in this province. What I'm hoping to hear from the minister is an understanding of the lack of services, the length of time for treatment, and some indication that the ministry understands and is actively involved in trying to put in place services that are desperately needed.

Having said that, the reality again is that most services that do exist are in the lower mainland. For many of the children and young adults who are off the lower mainland and come down here for corrections and treatment services, once they are released and go back to their own communities there's nothing there for them. We're locking these kids up, and there's no way we are going to be breaking that cycle. It's just a matter of time until those kids are in the adult courts. Without a very good understanding of the services needed and the services lacking, and the geographical disparities between people who live in or off the lower mainland.... Once those young people get out of the correctional facilities, they can't afford to stay to continue the treatment because of the housing situation; and should they go back home, there is no treatment for them.

Perhaps the minister can indicate what this ministry is doing to provide services off the lower mainland.

MR. DAVIDSON: I have a couple of points, very briefly. I just want to let the minister know that not everyone in the province agrees that radar detectors should be banned. There are those individuals who feel that radar detectors are the right of an individual to acquire and install if he or she so desires. Speaking for myself, I don't think there's any need to inflict upon those individuals one more law that....

Some argument has been made from time to time that because the radar detectors are as imperfect as they are, false signals are often given, and this causes a person to more closely pay attention to his speed and to refer to it from time to time. Also, it's not unusual for some police officers to take advantage of changes in speed zones to set up radar detectors and take advantage of situations, and this helps the motorist to counteract those rare occasions where individuals on the police force do take such advantage.

MR. JONES: Who are the bad guys, the speeders or the cops?

MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

The second point I wish to make is in regard to tinted glass. This is a matter that has been raised on the floor of this House before. It is unfortunate that, particularly on the city of Vancouver police force, there are one or two officers who have taken it upon themselves to start a one- or two-man campaign on something to which they take particular exception: they feel no vehicle should have tinted glass. The fact of the matter is that today we are producing automobiles — whether they are produced in North America or are imports — that have tinted glass. Yet the Motor Vehicle Act has a grey area. If an individual takes that traffic ticket to court, chances are about 95 percent that it will be thrown out. What happens is that the individual is inconvenienced — sometimes for a day's work, sometimes for half a day — to go and fight a case that I suggest should never have come to court in the first place. It is so ridiculous that even the owners of limousines have been charged with the tinted-glass infraction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even the little guys.

[ Page 11141 ]

MR. DAVIDSON: No. The little guy is the driver, who isn't the owner of the limousine. He's just working and trying to make a living. Because some police officer has a thing — if I may use the word — about tinted glass, he has used this to inconvenience many motorists. I have raised this matter on the floor of the House before. Nothing has been done about it. I would once again urge the minister to see if there's not some clarification that can be put into the act on this particular section that will more adequately reflect the changing times and different designs in automobiles that are coming into the North American marketplace.

In conclusion, not everyone thinks radar detectors are bad, and the tinted-glass situation is one that is long overdue to be corrected.

HON. MR. FRASER: With respect to the member from Surrey, it's true that some treatments are longer than sentences....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I beg your pardon. I was talking to you, actually - this one over here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) says that he's new here. Who knows about that? I doubt it.

To the lady from Surrey...

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member from Surrey. Sometimes a condition of probation can be attendance at programs that you were talking about earlier. We try to provide correctional services throughout the province. I guess we could argue about the level of service indefinitely. If you want to understand that we have an interest, a concern and a desire to solve problems, then you have that....

[6:30]

To my colleague for Delta. Your comments with respect to detectors were interesting. I've ridden in cars when the buzzer has buzzed quite a lot and it didn't mean a darned thing. I agree with you.

With respect to tinted glass....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: I don't have tinted glass.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) asked me if I have a radar detector in my car. The answer is no — just to keep you happy.

With respect to tinted glass, what we want the police to do is make people feel that they aren't over exercising their authority with respect to the enforcement of the rules. I want them to think about that when they are using the radar camera for detection, when they are looking at the private vehicle inspection program and all other things. Any regulation with respect to vehicles, such as tinted glass or the fact that you should have good tires, is safety-related and safety-driven. While some motorists might not like it, we do want people to have good tires and the ability to see out of the car window.

MR. JONES: I would like to raise an issue with the Solicitor-General about the provincial emergency program. The minister has stated on numerous occasions his desire to vigorously seek to improve the level of emergency preparedness throughout the province. It's certainly a laudable goal and one we all support.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Earlier this year the municipality of Burnaby conducted an exhaustive review to determine the additional resources they would require to ensure that municipal officials would be able to respond effectively to disasters and serious emergencies. The result of that review indicated that the acquisition of a mobile emergency command centre was the municipality's highest priority in terms of their needs and the goals and aspirations that the minister had suggested were desirable. The municipality was interested in the kind of vehicle that would be dispatched to the scene of an emergency and from that location would serve as a principal component of the overall response to that emergency. It would become the on-scene command post from which an inspector from the RCMP detachment and other officials would carry out whatever tasks might be necessary to save lives and protect property. I am sure the minister is aware of the kind of emergency — for example, the Save-On roof collapse and the kind of problem we have actually experienced in the municipality.

After that exhaustive review and clearly conclusive effort on the part of the municipality, and unanimous support of council, the municipality applied to the provincial emergency program under conditions that they assumed were longstanding. To quote from a letter to the director of the program: "We were therefore surprised and profoundly disappointed when you subsequently informed us that, as no JEPP funding has been provided to PEP for fiscal 1990-91, the program is unable to support the 25 percent funding requested." I think it has been a longstanding agreement that these emergency facilities, these vehicles and these kinds of things to assist with the emergency program would be funded 50 percent federal, 25 percent municipal and 25 percent provincial.

It seems that what we have here is a reneging on a longstanding agreement that the province of British Columbia would contribute their fair share to the costs to be expended, in addition to the municipality and the government of Canada, to ensure that the kinds of resources would be available to meet those

[ Page 11142 ]

emergency needs — in this case in the municipality of Burnaby.

My understanding is that it was understood that all three levels of government would participate according to that formula. The kind of situation that the minister wants to see prevented.... The kinds of resources and facilities that are going to assist with those emergency. situations would be in place. Clearly we don't want to see disasters in the municipality of Burnaby resulting in undesirable situations — perhaps loss of life — when, through the provision of these kinds of resources, that could be avoided.

Clearly, if the minister is true to his word in desiring to maintain, promote and improve the quality of preparedness in case of emergencies, then that money would have been provided in this instance. Clearly it was the unanimous desire of the council and the municipality. One can only conclude, in the absence of that kind of support, that the minister's words ring hollow. In fact, emergency preparedness is not the high priority that the Solicitor-General talks about around this province. Had it been a high priority, I think that 25 percent support would have been available to the municipality of Burnaby in the case of this emergency vehicle.

HON. MR. FRASER: I think the member probably knows that there's an annual grant to municipalities to assist in local emergency program development. As the member knows, Burnaby does supply a majority, if not all, of its emergency equipment, such as police cars, fire trucks and those things.

With respect to the command post you're talking about, I presume you're not talking about a great deal of money. Indeed, I guess the municipality could have put in half, and it probably would have got half from the federal government.

With respect to the JEPP funding, as I said a minute ago, we recognized that something had to be done, and we did it. We are assisting municipalities in getting organized with respect to applications for JEPP funding. We have a coordinator doing that; we have guidelines for doing that. In fact, the reason most of them were rejected in the past was that they weren't completed correctly by the municipal level when they went to the federal government. We have, for that reason, hired a coordinator for JEPP requests and prepared guidelines so that municipalities can fill out the forms correctly and thereby secure the money. So we are on top of this one to the extent possible.

MR. JONES: So where's the bucks? That vehicle was a little over $100,000. The federal government is willing to put up roughly $50,000; the municipality is willing to put up roughly $25,000. Where's the $25,000 that should be coming from the provincial government? The municipality of Burnaby doesn't fool around. It doesn't make simple clerical mistakes; it doesn't need help filling out forms. Where's the $25,000? Why has the provincial government reneged on the longstanding cost-sharing formula that's always been used? Where's the beef?

HON. MR. FRASER: Specifically, the municipality of Burnaby is not impoverished. What they really have to do if they want the vehicle is just put up half and get half from the feds; that's the best way to do it. They have lots of emergency vehicles there. We're not talking about a small community desperate for funds; we're talking about a municipality that deals in hundreds of millions of dollars.

MR. JONES: The minister is saying "to each according to his needs." That's quite a new philosophy coming from the minister. So it's only impoverished municipalities that can benefit from that cost-sharing formula. The kinds of emergencies that are likely to happen in large urban centres.... The municipality of Burnaby will pay that money, I'm sure. But very clearly what the minister's answer has indicated to me is that it's lip-service to emergency preparedness. Never again will I listen to those words and give them any credibility at all in terms of his belief in emergency preparedness in this province, because that is a longstanding cost-sharing formula. If the minister was really interested, he would want to participate. He would want to make sure that the mobile command centre was there in Burnaby, and he would not renege on the kind of longstanding cost-sharing formula that has been there.

Mr. Chairman, on February 25 of this year in the Youth Detention Centre in Burnaby a 17-year-old young man hanged himself on the same day he was listed as a high suicide risk. Granted, this was the first suicide ever at this particular institution. As I hope the minister is aware, the institution has been around since 1956 and was established as a girls' industrial school. It was clearly not built to house over 100 young offenders of the type that are housed there currently. The minister can appreciate the kind of wear and tear that would occur in a building of that type. The minister may not be aware that the building is so old that when the locks wear out, the parts to replace those locks have to be made by hand.

The ombudsman, in 1985 and again in 1989, as a result of alarming increases in self-harm, in victimizing and in suicide attempts, reported that this facility was incredibly inadequate to provide the kinds of supervision required for the residents of the Youth Detention Centre. They key recommendation in the 1989 report was that a new facility was "imperative." Although there were additional recommendations for improvements in the facility, some of these have been responded to by the ministry; but not all of the recommendations from the 1985 report have been implemented.

On May 10, 1990, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — who seems to be the spokesperson for your ministry with respect to the Youth Detention Centre because it is in his riding — pointed out that he was determined to close the youth jail. He says in the press: "As far as I'm concerned, it will be closed down. It ought not to be there. The building needs to go." At that point in time, that minister indicated that Burnaby's Big Bend,

[ Page 11143 ]

where a woman's jail is currently being built, would be a good place for a new youth facility.

[6:45]

I raised this question with the minister's predecessor on May 30, 1989, and I would like to report to the current Solicitor-General some of that discussion. The minister of the time indicated: "As of May 19 the ministry has received consent to proceed with the plan to replace Willingdon." He said: "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." The minister went on to say: "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." He goes on to say: "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...." I clarified what the minister meant by that, saying: "...facility construction to be completed by late 1991. Is that correct?" The minister said: "Yes."

So last year, 14 months ago, we had an approval, I assume through Treasury Board, of some $8.8 million. The nature of the design of the new facility was clarified; its size was clarified. The ministry was seriously looking at a particular site, and the construction was to be completed in late 1991.

Where are we now? We're at 14 months past that date, and where is this ministry? Where is this ministry, after the ombudsman in 1985 and again in 1989 indicated that a new facility was imperative? This ministry is still looking. Five years after 1985, one and a half years after the ombudsman's report in 1989, and 14 months after Treasury Board approval of $8.8 million and a strong indication of a site, this ministry is still looking at site selection. This ministry is still trying to decide the location for the new facility to house juveniles in trouble with the law, one of whom recently committed suicide. This ministry has apparently narrowed it down to two sites. That's worse than where you were 14 months ago. You were seriously looking at the Big Bend area of Burnaby 14 months ago.

I've heard of government inaction on serious matters, but the kind of foot-dragging that we see in this particular situation is taking extreme liberty to the ridiculous extreme with the lives of these young people. Why is the ministry not progressing, as the ombudsman indicated five years ago, and one and a half years ago? Is the minister trying to fit everything into some election timetable? Is all this stuff that affects the lives of young juveniles in difficulty trying to fit some big announcement?

I know the minister is upset at that suggestion. I can understand no other explanation. If the minister has followed the sequence of events that I talked about — when that $8.8 million was there 14 months ago for site selection and when a particular location was being looked at seriously by the ministry, according to the previous minister — I don't know what other explanation one could come to for the kind of foot-dragging we see from this minister and this ministry.

How many more problems are we going to have to see at that Youth Detention Centre that could be corrected by a facility that was designed to provide sight lines and proper supervision of those juveniles? How many more rapes, how many more beatings, how many more attempted suicides, how many more victimizations and how many more suicides before this government is moved to do something to create that new facility that has been called for for so long?

HON. MR. FRASER: For the member for Burnaby North to suggest that I'm not interested in emergency preparedness, of course, is ridiculous, and so I just cover that off with that remark.

Obviously my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon wants new centres built and old centres closed. That seems to me to be no less than a noble idea.

MR. JONES: Speak up, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: You should listen harder.

To suggest that we delay things of this serious a nature for election purposes is obviously rejected.

I'm not going to comment, of course, on that suicide, for the same reason I didn't do much talking about one other incident today: the coroner's inquest on that particular event is not completed. You may shake your head....

MR. JONES: It is complete.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, that's not what I've been advised. Until we find out for sure, we'll be cautious. That would better, wouldn't it?

In any event, we have a great motivation in this ministry to keep young offenders out of jail. We are trying to develop programs that keep them out of jail. We are trying to do things that will refocus their attention, as I told the member for Surrey a little while ago. While I make no claim to perfection, there is certainly every desire to do what is in the best interests of those people who find themselves in conflict with the law.

MR. JONES: I can't comment on the supercilious platitudes that have come from the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke with the coroner today. I don't have the dates that the inquest and report were completed, but the minister will be relieved to know that the recommendations of the coroner do not specifically point to the site being a problem. When I talked to the coroner about that, he said: "We don't make that kind of recommendation in any event. The kind of recommendations that we make are the kind that are doable."

There were several recommendations. They had to do with training and preparedness for the staff and an emergency door, but nothing major like moving the site. The minister is wrong that he has to hide behind a coroner's inquest, because (a) it's happened

[ Page 11144 ]

and it's complete; and (b) the recommendations of that inquest do not point a finger at moving the new facility.

However, in speaking with the ombudsman and his staff, very clearly they are monitoring the situation, as they promised to do in their 1989 report. They are anxious, as I am, to see that facility moved. Frankly, after three and a half years of watching this government and hearing the garbage promises for improvement that they make and that are reneged on, not lived up to, denied, swept under the carpet, ignored and put on shelves, it's appalling. When we come to this chamber with serious concerns in the estimates of the Solicitor-General about the slowness, in the extreme, of the development of a new facility for which $8.8 million for the initial stages was approved by Treasury Board last year, and the minister gives me the kind of nonsense that flowed from his mouth a few minutes ago about this serious situation.... When are you going to get serious? When are you going to make an announcement? When are we going to see a new facility to replace the Youth Detention Centre? What the minister has provided so far is inadequate, and I want a better response from that minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: I disagree.

MR. JONES: We've had several proposed dates of the announcement. The latest headline on this issue in the Burnaby paper says the Youth Detention Centre decision is delayed two months. Not the Solicitor-General, but the member for Burnaby Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is saying that a site was supposed to be announced this June. A site was virtually announced in this chamber 14 months ago, but we're saying on June 4, 1990, in the local Burnaby paper that we're going to have an announcement this June. So that was delayed two months, and now we're saying that it's going to be towards the end of July. Well, we're getting towards the end of July. Does the minister have a date in mind when the announcement of site selection - lo these 14 months later - will be imminent? Has the minister yet decided on the date of an announcement?

HON. MR. FRASER: No.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, one can only speculate then why the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch) knows more than the Solicitor-General about his ministry, because the Minister of International Business and Immigration said on June 3 that the announcement was going to be made towards the end of July.

I guess we can have another headline now that the YDC decision is going to be delayed another two months, then another two months and then another two months. Is that the game we're playing until we're sure exactly when the next provincial general election is going to be, and then we will make our announcement?

I have watched that same situation transpire for the last 20 years. with respect to the replacement of another penal institution, Oakalla. I have seen the great headlines, great announcements and great billboards of that same Minister of International Business and Immigration, and I've never seen that promise delivered on. The standing line in Burnaby is: "Why ruin a good promise by fulfilling it?" That's what has happened with Oakalla for the last 15 years. And it's what appears to be happening with the Youth Detention Centre.

I am incredibly saddened and disappointed. I harbour no personal animosity to that minister, but I am incredibly saddened by your lack of a serious response to this very serious situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: All my responses about ministry activities are serious, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PERRY: I hope that I can arouse the minister from his torpidity with a safety concern.

MR. MERCIER: Don't use those big words on us.

MR. VANT: Can you translate that?

[7:00]

MR. PERRY: The first member for Cariboo asked if I would translate that remark. Torpidity is a state characteristically observed in lizards when they sit in the sun and adjust their body temperature to the sun temperature, and they relax. They are almost motionless, and it's very difficult to elicit a response from them, even a response to the most scintillating question or damaging stimulus.

May I attempt to elicit an interesting response from this minister, having sat through hours of significant questioning and very little in the way of interesting response? Last year, Mr. Chairman, you may remember that I exchanged correspondence with the former Solicitor-General — namely, yourself — over the experience of a number of young women who had been arrested for civil disobedience at Sulphur Passage on the west coast and who were later transferred from temporary detention in Victoria to Oakalla. They had written to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and to me, among others perhaps, as well as to the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General, complaining that their treatment was inhumane, disrespectful of their person and dangerous to their safety.

I would like to remind the House of some of the circumstances. These were people who turned themselves in voluntarily to serve a brief sentence rather than pay fines which had been imposed by the court. In their cases the court had recognized no jeopardy to public safety. Let me be very clear that these are not people who had spiked trees or who had made intimations of tree-spiking. There was never an accusation that they in any way imperilled public safety.

When they were temporarily incarcerated in Victoria, they were given the impression that they would be allowed to remain in a facility in Victoria close to

[ Page 11145 ]

their homes in order to serve what was in effect a symbolic prison sentence. They were then taken in handcuffs and transported in a group in a van to Victoria airport where they were loaded into a small aircraft, handcuffed, and transported to Oakalla. Once at Oakalla they were incarcerated in the company of some rather hardened women criminals who frightened and threatened them and who were observed by the women who wrote to me to be watching a pornographic and violent videotape. Specifically, the women who wrote to me objected that they were exposed without any choice to videotapes that showed scenes of women and prison guards participating in a gang rape.

I think all members of this House will understand the gravity of the problem raised by those women in their letter to me and will understand how humiliating it was for them to experience that. What may be more difficult to understand is that they also were frightened for their personal safety and that they were able to convince the officials of Oakalla that in fact their personal safety was in jeopardy. Mr. Chairman, when I relayed these concerns to the former Solicitor-General in an exchange of correspondence, I received the answer that this was a situation that would not likely be repeated — that is to say, the experience of these women at Oakalla. I was less reassured by the response you gave me at the time, Mr. Chairman, regarding the safety of prisoners during transport.

This is the question I would like to address to the Solicitor-General. Let me be perfectly clear. Dangerous prisoners must be transported with appropriate precautions. There was an incident about two years ago in which a prisoner who was not so controlled resisted his attendants in a helicopter over Washington State and brought down the entire helicopter, with the loss of life of all of the people in it. If I remember, that helicopter was transporting British Columbians.

I am not speaking about that kind of incident. I am speaking about prisoners under the authority of the Solicitor-General who manifestly do not represent any threat to public safety. In this case the women had voluntarily turned themselves in to serve a jail sentence. In my view, it jeopardizes their safety to be placed in handcuffs while in transit, because in the event of an accident their ability to escape from an aircraft, and the ability of the crew to assist them to escape, could — and would — be jeopardized.

I think this is a very simple point. I had great difficulty in accepting the written response I received from the Ministry of Solicitor-General last year, because it strikes me that the appropriate response, particularly from the present Solicitor-General — and, for that matter, from you, Mr. Chairman, in your former role.... People who have been charged with protecting public safety in the traffic domain ought to have close to their heart a concern for the safety of prisoners during transport.

There's the question. Will the minister tell us how he feels about the safety of prisoners in transport when there is no reason to suspect that they pose a risk to other people? Is it justifiable to handcuff them?

HON. MR. FRASER: Firstly, prisoners being transported back and forth, of course, are under the jurisdiction of sheriffs and corrections people. The decision about whether or not they are a danger, of course, is not made by me.

It's not always possible to serve a sentence where you want to. I must go the other way. We are dealing with people who clearly have a sentence to serve and must serve it. Maybe they were surprised about what it was like to be in jail. I'm looking for the word you used; I'm sorry, but I can't think of it now. This not a demonstration service here. If you are sentenced to serve in jail, you are sentenced to serve in jail.

With respect to your comments about videos that were seen, I have no information with respect to that event. However, I will be in touch with you with respect to that event as you've reported it to me.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, my colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley would like to explore this point briefly, and then I'll return.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You understand, Madam Member, that if no one else is standing, you may stand to speak without deference from another member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I certainly appreciate that.

The comment I want to make with regard to the issues that were raised by my colleague has to do with women in this province who are serving minimal terms, in particular terms that are to be served on weekends.

In this province, as in many other provinces, men serve terms on weekends or on some occasions on evenings, and they are let out during the day to go to work. There are very few facilities — to the point, in some communities, of no facilities — to accommodate that kind of service to women. In many instances, women have to serve their sentences outside their communities in facilities like Oakalla. They don't have the same options.

I'd like the minister to comment on whether he finds that to be a satisfactory situation, and whether he would see that as equal treatment. I'd like the minister to comment, if he does have a problem with that, as to any solutions he might suggest to remedy the problem.

HON. MR. FRASER: Let's start off this particular line of discussion by saying that we recognize that there aren't women's institutions around the province. There is a move to separate sections in traditionally male-dominated and -occupied prisons, making a little section for women so that they can serve in different areas of the province than they presently do.

MR. PERRY: If I may return to the point I was making, the question is remarkably simple. Nobody is arguing that prison is meant to be a hotel. Anyone

[ Page 11146 ]

who has been near one wouldn't have too much trouble making the distinction between most prisons and most hotels.

I see the Solicitor-General laughing. He too must have travelled perhaps in India or some other country where one could be mistaken.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: Even closer to home than that.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: Perhaps even in parts of British Columbia, but not in Victoria.

The question is: is it a good idea to transport prisoners who are not dangerous, handcuffed? A couple of years ago there was an incident in which an Air B.C. seaplane ruptured a pontoon on landing in Victoria harbour and sank. Passengers had to climb out through the escape hatch. I sat beside someone — I think even a member of this House — who climbed out through the roof hatch. There was a man named the Great Houdini who was capable of doing even finer things than that with handcuffs on. The Great Houdini might have even been able to extricate himself from the problems in which the current Premier finds himself. But not all of us are so equipped. I don't know if the Solicitor-General has ever attempted to swim with handcuffs on or with hands tied, but maybe it would be a salutary experience.

The point is a simple one. What if a plane goes down? What if there's a fire in the plane? What if somebody else panics and a disturbance is created? What If there is unseen weather? What if one of the....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: The member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) suggests biodegradable handcuffs. Perhaps his colleagues in the recycling business could furnish the contract to the Solicitor-General's ministry. In fact, they could probably create the North American or world monopoly on biodegradable handcuffs. I'm not sure if all our prison guards would be equally pleased with the idea, because most of our prisoners — even those who have been through the school of hard knocks — would retain the ability to eat biodegradable handcuffs.

We are really getting far from the simple question I asked. Wouldn't it be a good idea for discretion to be exercised so that prisoners who are not dangerous don't have to wear handcuffs when they get into cars and can be seat belted in the van when they're travelling on the roads, just like anyone else? Is it really a good idea that a prisoner should be subjected to risk that would be unacceptable for any other British Columbian on the roads? Is it really a good Idea to have them handcuffed in airplanes if they're not a threat to the public?

HON. MR. FRASER: In fact, although some were amused by my colleague's suggestion that we should have biodegradable handcuffs, there are indeed handcuffs that can be easily clipped so that prisoners can be released.

With respect to the transport of prisoners in general, I think we really ought to leave the decision about how they're transferred to those who are responsible for their transfer. It really isn't for me or for you to decide whether or not they are dangerous. All we really want to know is that they are transferred safely, effectively and unharmed. That seems to me to make a certain amount of sense.

[7:15]

MR. PERRY: May I ask another simple question. I'm not sure if the minister was familiar with this case before the description I gave a few minutes ago. I know, Mr. Chairman, from your own experience with the matter, that if I'd said anything misleading it would have registered on your face. So I think the minister can accept that the facts are substantially as I presented them. They are available for review. There is extensive correspondence on this, and the women who were subjected to this experience are available for interview.

Would the minister consider someone — if not these particular women, someone like them — dangerous? If he were the guard, would he be worried for his own personal safety or that of the pilots or other passengers, if they were not in handcuffs? If I can attempt to once again shake him from that torpidity which so distinguishes him, can he conceive that the world might have been a better place had they been spared the indignity and the risk to their safety of being transported in handcuffs? That would be an advance, if the minister could even conceive or admit to conceiving of that idea.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that when we have experts who do the transferring of prisoners from one institution to another, they know something about their job and they know how to do it right. It would seem reasonable to take some precautions with respect to prisoners transferring from one institution to another. Those precautions are obviously in the public interest. As I said, as long as they are transported safely and unharmed, that is obviously the major interest in this.

MR. PERRY: I confess my failure. I've beaten this figurative lizard, flogged it as hard as I can, and it remains dormant.

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) points out jokingly that those women were very scary. I'll just leave it on the record: they were very scared. They were humiliated by the experience. And I hope that it won't happen to other British Columbians.

I will now turn to another issue, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and ask the minister if he could explain to

[ Page 11147 ]

the Legislature why he fired the psychologists at Oakalla.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 61 pass?

MR. PERRY: I don't mean to interrupt the minister's answer. If he'd like some time to think, then I'll amplify the question.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read from a letter I received from a physician, which the minister received, I presume. The letter is dated July 4 and is addressed to the minister from Dr. Anne Wachsmuth. Copies were sent to the Deputy Solicitor-General, the regional director of corrections, the district director for Oakalla, the deputy district director, the director of psychological services, the College of Psychologists of British Columbia, the director of health services at Oakalla and eight of the physicians working at Oakalla.

This letter has been widely circulated, and part of it should form part of the public record. The letter from Dr. Wachsmuth states:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"In the past two weeks I have been covering for the other doctor here as he has been on vacation. I was present two days a week in the jail and took calls...for the rest of the days.

"The tension in this jail in the past few weeks has been greatly increased due to the fact that the nurses are on strike..."

Fortunately, I add for the record, that dispute appears to have been resolved. But I am referring to July 4.

"...relinquishing many of their duties to the doctors. In addition, the outer buildings in the jail complex have been closed, and the inmates have been forced to all be accommodated in the main jail. There is less space available for these inmates, and the noise level is much higher. Many of the senior security officers have already left to go to Maple Ridge. The junior security officers and the inmates have all been under great stress because of the upcoming move. It was not unexpected that there was an escapee over the long weekend."

"This was a perfect time to fire the psychologists. The psychologists with ten years of training and respect amongst their colleagues came to work and were given papers telling them that their services were not needed, effective immediately."

I understand that occurred on July 1, if I'm not mistaken.

"There was no consultation with the physicians providing the medical care or the consulting psychiatrist, and even worse, the director of health care for corrections, Dr. Murphy, was not notified. There was no notice sent to the doctors, nor to the director of Oakalla, nor to the deputy director of Oakalla regarding the psychiatrist supplying the needed psychological care. The letter that supplied this information was just made available to me today, July 4, 1990. In the interim ten days since the psychologists left this institution, no psychological treatment has been provided."

I correct myself, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the termination of their services occurred before July 1; it was approximately June 24, according to this letter.

"There have been no follow-up arrangements for any of the patients that the psychologists had been seeing on a regular basis. These psychologists were unable to even explain their departure to their patients. I must stress that there has been no follow-up psychological care available to these patients."

"I have called the offices of the Solicitor-General and the assistant Solicitor-General, and no one has responded to my call. I was unable to reach Mr. Jim Graham.

"As medical doctors and well-respected members of our medical profession we, the doctors at Oakalla, are alarmed by the poor treatment of the other health profession and even more concerned about the incredible mismanagement of patient care. We insist on being consulted regularly, and we must have direct input if decisions are to be made regarding health care delivery in our institution."

I made an inquiry, not being personally familiar with this situation, as to the services provided by psychologists at Oakalla. I received a letter from one of the psychologists at Oakalla. I was not able to reach him in time to obtain his permission to use his name, so I don't feel free to use it, given that this might invite retribution on him. But I will read excerpts from his letter addressed to me and dated July 16, 1990.

Under the heading "Psychological Services at Oakalla, " he is responding to my question as to what services were provided by psychologists so brusquely terminated. I quote from his letter:

"There are three recipients of psychological services at Oakalla. The most obvious recipient and the first priority is the inmate population. Inmates are referred to psychologists by the medical staff, nursing and security staff, by other inmates, and some inmates refer themselves. This aspect of our work is typically characterized as crisis management.

'We assist inmates to come to terms with the offences they have committed, assist them in recognizing the factors that contributed to their offences — for example, alcohol or drug abuse, repression of anger — prompt them to make the changes necessary to minimize a repetition of their offences, provide short-term therapy to achieve this end, and refer them to community agencies prior to their release for continuing therapy and follow-up."

He goes on to explain how psychologists assist inmates to come to grips with some of their problems associated with their incarceration; for example, those who have been socially withdrawn in the past suddenly being confined in close quarters with other men. He gives an example, and I quote again:

"An example may illustrate more clearly the nature of this work. Inmate X, a first-time middle-aged offender with a history of community service" — note that: a history of community service — "was incarcerated for attempted murder of his wife, an offence which for him was unthinkable. On admission, he was confused and depressed. Acknowledging his offence and believing himself to be at risk of similar offences in the future put him at serious risk of suicide. Psychological services with inmate X enabled him to come to terms with his offence and understand the factors that contributed to it. Most importantly they helped him recognize the relationship between his failure to give appropriate, assertive expression to negative emotions and somatic symptoms, such as headaches, which threatened to culminate in physical aggression toward fellow inmates. In

[ Page 11148 ]

anticipation of his release, inmate X has requested referral for continuing therapy for his problem of emotional expression.

"The second recipient of psychological services at Oakalla is the security staff."

In a long paragraph, this psychologist explains some of the difficulties experienced by the security staff and services they request from psychologists. I'll quote one excerpt:

"Not infrequently, a psychologist's assessment reveals that the inmate requires a closer degree of supervision within the institution, and the psychologist admits the inmate to the health care centre or, more recently, to a designated area within the institution where greater supervision and nursing care are provided on a more frequent basis."

I will quote briefly two other excerpts, just to give a flavour of this letter:

"Quite recently, in assessing an inmate prior to his transfer to camp, I discovered that he was in fact suffering from a major psychiatric disorder, which made him highly unsuitable for such placement.... In the past few months, I have persuaded an inmate to give up razor blades and one of my fellow psychologists has persuaded an inmate to relinquish a 'shank' or crudely fashioned knife."

This raises a serious issue. The physicians, who have no vested interest in the services of the psychologists, are disturbed that their services were terminated without warning and without any planning of provision of alternative services for the inmates. The psychologist, in the letter from which I've just quoted extensively, describes some of the services that were being provided. May I now ask the minister again whether he will explain why his department fired these people summarily and without notice?

HON. MR. FRASER: Absolutely. Firstly, the psychologists who "were let go last week" were only providing emergency services. The offer made to them was at the level of 10 percent, which they rejected. We're saying that there is a contract dispute between those psychologists and the corrections branch.

In the meantime, however, we are providing services through the mental health psychologists, who are providing the service until such time as the contracts or the arrangements can be resolved. Services are being provided.

[7:30]

MR. PERRY: I can't claim to be intimately familiar with the situation at Oakalla. The minister's response strikes me as surprising, given recent press reports that the mental health psychologists have been extremely unenthusiastic about this assignment. They felt they could only do this at the expense of their own patients. At least one has reportedly refused to accept this assignment because he considered it unethical and specifically because he had no training to work in the field of inmate psychology. He felt those psychologists reassigned to this work were not competent to provide the services of those they were designed to replace.

What assurance can the minister give us that the current program is fulfilling the ministry's mandate to help rehabilitate inmates? It strikes me that the summary actions his ministry has undertaken are totally out of keeping with the answers he gave earlier this afternoon and this evening to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and to the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), who were concerned about safety and rehabilitation provisions for inmates under the responsibility of the Solicitor-General.

I find myself puzzled and left thinking this is really a very irresponsible way to do public business. I would like to hear more from the minister on the background of the issue and how he explains what was done.

HON, MR. FRASER: It's a reasonably simple issue. There's a disagreement with respect to how much the psychologists who we did have working there should be paid. They were offered a 10 percent increase and turned it down. The critical thing for you is that while we are making an effort to resolve our differences with the psychologists we did have there, we have provided services through the mental health psychologists in the meantime. If some people in that organization don't feel competent to provide the service, then it's a good thing they aren't doing it. In the meantime, we have not abandoned our efforts on behalf of those resident in Oakalla.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to continue nagging the minister. As you know, Hastings Park is in my riding. It's intriguing to me. Maybe the minister could just bring us up to date in terms of where the track question lies at the moment and what studies are complete. I haven't followed this closely. Maybe the minister can just bring us up to date in terms of this whole exercise and the discussions that have taken place with the city of Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER: As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that you didn't hear about this earlier, come to think of it. Indeed, Hastings Park is in your riding, and certainly the track is there at the moment. Apart from the fact that we all know that a very well qualified Racing Commission has been established and that a number of meetings have taken place between the commission and people who raise horses, run horses and grow feed for horses, no decision has been made with respect to the track per se.

MR. WILLIAMS: If my memory serves me right, a former resident of Vancouver East, Robert Bonner, is the new chair of the Racing Commission. I think he recently made a presentation to cabinet that I understand was most worthwhile. Maybe the minister could give us some idea of the sort of presentation he had in that regard.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I can't.

[ Page 11149 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a decent idea of what he told you anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Another area intrigues me as well. As I understand it, the province now has the authority to license off-track betting in the province, so maybe at some stage of the game off-track will become a legal exercise, blessed by Her Majesty the Queen. I can't help but reflect on previous Social Credit administrations and the way they've handled licensing in various areas. We saw the string of bingo parlours around the province, and that has been....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, they're one of 110. Our friends had one licence; your friends had 109. That's fair, my friend; that's the spoils of victory. You know what that's all about. It's very clear what the government members really care about: the spoils of victory — all of them there licences out there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry to wake up the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The other members of the House did, Mr. Member — and the others put me to sleep. The first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure the Solicitor-General and his staff have assiduously read the auditor-general's report and the earlier reports on that licensing process when it came to casinos and bingo parlours. I have to commend the minister and his staff for upgrading the role and the overseeing capacity long after the horse bolted out of the barn.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This particularly concerns me. I would like to hear from the minister in terms of the kind of public process he sees prior to any licensing activity on the part of this administration. What kind of public process do you see in terms of participation by various Interests prior to considering licensing of this kind?

HON. MR. FRASER: The issue of teletheatre betting is, of course, under review. But if the commission was to make a serious recommendation with respect to that, we would pay close attention to it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I take it, then, that as the minister sees it at the moment, this is the prerogative in terms of the initial study by the Racing Commission itself.

HON. MR. FRASER: We have a Racing Commission to do just these things — to review the activities of that industry. That's why we have such qualified people on it, including the member you mentioned.

MR. WILLIAMS: I noticed that one of the members of the commission is Mr. Basile, who has great strengths and experience in Richmond, in particular. I presume he's there as a representative of the horsemen, but I don't think he's a horseman at the moment.

In terms of the interests of the horsemen, for example, what assurance do we have that their interests might be considered? I gather the tradition has been that there should be somebody that's seen on the commission as a representative of the horsemen. I'm not sure that the horsemen see Mr. Basile as a representative.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, the very thoughtful process that was entered into when establishing the Racing Commission was to gather together a group of people who were bright, knowledgeable, had some interest in the industry and were prepared to commit some time. I think we've actually come together with a board that is capable, intelligent and has some knowledge of the industry or could learn, if the occasion demanded, about some things about which they might not have infinite knowledge. I think the composition of the board is one of which we can be justifiably proud.

MR. WILLIAMS: Be that as it may, the whole question of licensing still is a concern, given the track record of the government, if you'll pardon the pun. If the commission is the group you're relying on, I would hope that there's every expectation that there's going to be a public process by the commission prior to entertaining licensing. Can the minister advise us, Mr. Chairman, whether he anticipates licensing in the near future at all? I mean this year.

HON. MR. FRASER: The only thing I can say at this moment is that such an event would be a departure from history, as the member well knows. We would give it very careful study before we accepted a departure like that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the elucidation, Mr. Chairman. I guess if it's very careful study, that probably means more than this year; I assume if it's careful study, it's not something you see happening forthwith or in the immediate future.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I made a point of not being specific, because I didn't want to say this year, next year or the year after. I said that if a departure like that is entered into, it would be done with great care and thought.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you are very good in terms of dealing with this year, next year or the year after. But let's face it. The track record is not good in terms of the licensing exercise by you folks. You check the list. You look at the ownership of those bingo halls. It's not what we would like in terms of a genuine, competitive, open system at all. That's really what I'm looking for.

[ Page 11150 ]

I've simply raised the matter because I think it's significant. There's clearly a lot of money to be made here, just as there is a lot of money to be made in bingo, just as there is a lot of money to be made in gambling. It's important that the sharing of that money be thought about carefully. It's important that the benefits be thought about in terms of some kind of equity. I'll assume, from what the minister has said, that that's indeed what will happen this time around.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that members of both political parties are involved in the bingo-hall business, and I think he is, too.

Of course, as he also knows, the gaming industry has grown substantially in recent years. Because of that — and maybe before that — the ministry has taken steps to make sure that everybody involved in the bingo game, or whatever other game they're involved in, is treated fairly and that all things are done openly and honestly. No doubt there will be human failings from time to time, as there is in any human endeavour. Notwithstanding that, we have made great efforts to make sure that everybody involved is treated fairly.

With bingo, for example, we're trying to organize it a little differently, as you probably know. We're trying to make sure that the organizations that want bingo hire the hall, instead of the hall hiring the bingo. We're putting in mechanisms that protect the interests of the players, the public, the beneficiaries and everybody else.

[7:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to make the point, though, that essentially we have monopoly values established with those licences, so you're giving away significant financial benefits in that process. It's clear from reports of officers of this House that that's been less than adequate in the past. You have the chance now, with a capable staff, to see that it's thought about differently and that it's not the kind of process it has been in the past. I think the point has been made.

Vote 61 approved.

Vote 62: ministry operations, $374,109,908 — approved.

Vote 63: emergency assistance, $1,203,500 — approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

GAME FARM ACT

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. EDWARDS: This section gives the definition of "game" as fallow deer, bison and reindeer. There is some problem with definitions of animals. I don't know if the minister is aware that all sorts of things can happen when you begin to define animals. In fact, under the Criminal Code, he may know that the term ''cattle" includes any horse, mule, ass, pig, sheep or goat. I wanted you to get that, Mr. Minister. That kind of behaviour makes people wary when they approach the definition of animal-kind, and that's what is here: fallow deer, bison and reindeer.

Elk, reindeer and fallow deer are all species in the Cervidae family. It seems it would be fairly simple to get elk included in this. I would like the minister to respond to why the definition of these animals was not put in the Latin terms for the genus and the species.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The member asks whether elk could be put in. The decision was made not to include elk in game-farming. The decision was to name the species in the act. That was questioned last year when we put the legislation on the floor. We have had meetings on several occasions with the Ministry of Environment, as you can appreciate — at least I hope you appreciate what we've tried to do to deal with and facilitate answering the concerns raised last year about naming species. We also worked with the B.C. Wildlife Federation and have agreed that we shall name the species in the act, and we have done so. "Elk" does not have any bearing on its species. It's defined by biological terms which say that it's not generically the same as "reindeer." In fact, they are different subfamilies. The reindeer subfamily is Rangifer; and elk is Cervus — so there is a difference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, if you'll forgive me for this lapse of protocol, I just noticed that our Deputy Clerk's wife is in the gallery~ Would members welcome Mrs. Louise MacMinn to the sitting tonight.

MS. EDWARDS: I just wondered why the minister, who immediately went to the Latin terms to make that explanation to me, would not have included that in the definition section of the bill.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In this particular definition, I don't believe it is necessary, if we understand the biological terms. If there are questions, it can be referred to. There is no problem in our understanding of what is meant when defining them, so I believe that using the commonly known terms does not mean

[ Page 11151 ]

you can't use Latin or the biological type of an animal.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. EDWARDS: This section is really the first of a series of sections in this act that would allow friends and insiders influence beyond what could be reasonable. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) allow the minister to determine the length of the licence, whether a licence fee should be payable, and to favour one licensee over another by setting different terms and conditions for different licensees. It is possible but, given our experience, not very likely that some constraints would be put on the minister's ability to favour friends and insiders by the regulations approved by cabinet.

I wonder if the minister could answer this question. Under what circumstances would the minister offer an exemption from a licence or a renewal fee?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: What we were considering there was whether for any given reason the rancher was cooperating for the purpose of agricultural research into game-farming. That's the intent for giving a licence exemption: if it's for research purposes.

MS. EDWARDS: If that is the reason the minister wanted it there, I wonder why it was not put into the legislation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If it is a concern, it could be included in regulations. I don't think it necessarily has to be in the legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: I imagine the minister would agree with me, though, that it leaves it open. There is a great deal of latitude there, and the minister doesn't need to confine it to that. The legislation, which should give the framework, should indicate.... I would put it to the minister that leaving it so open within the legislation leaves too much latitude when the intention is simply to do it for research. However, I will go on to another question. The minister may like to respond to that in a minute.

I wonder what term he contemplates for the licences. I put it to him that the previous bill suggested one year. But here the minister could give 99-year leases, I suppose, or longer maybe; I'm not sure. That gives a whole lot of latitude, again.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Generally speaking, just to comment on the intent of the terms and conditions, we want to generally address those of animal husbandry, animal disease and environmental concerns That is the basic concern about the terms and conditions laid out in the issuing of a licence.

MS. EDWARDS: If the licence is transferable.... And I am not sure whether it is. I guess I should ask that question first. Is a licence transferable?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, it is not.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay. To go back a bit — in my notes, anyway — since the bill has been around for a year, I am wondering if the minister has any regulations available. Has he a good idea what the government has in mind? How long are we going to have to wait for the regulations?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We would obviously discuss the regulations within my staff, and as soon as we were able to put them in place they would be put in place. But first we need the act, obviously, before we can have the regulations.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific. This is the third time this bill has been introduced. Is it going to take a year to get regulations, or will it take a month?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are presently developing, in consultation with the industry and the Ministry of Environment, etc., regulations that we hope could be in place within a few months.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to ask the minister if there are any limits on "agricultural purposes only." It says in subsection (1) that game may be raised for agricultural purposes only. Let me leave it at that. How will the minister limit that and be sure that it...? How does he define "agricultural purposes?"

HON. MR. SAVAGE: "Agricultural purposes" usually means a few things. One is for the purpose of meat, milk, by-products or breeding stock. Of course the industry is currently and will continue to be managed in a manner to facilitate agricultural purposes. A permittee can either: (a) sell animals to another B.C. permit-holder; (b) sell animals outside B.C.; (c) sell animals to an abattoir; or (d) control the destiny of the animal through the food chain. An example is: abattoir, processor, distributor and eventually to the consumer.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. I don't understand where the minister got those sections. That's not in this act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I was asked about raising a type of game for agricultural purposes and what I meant by "for agricultural purposes." That's what I explained to you.

MS. EDWARDS: Were you referring to some related legislation? Where did you get, "may sell for (a), (b), to an abattoir inside the province, outside the province," etc.? Where is that definition from? Is it actually going to apply here, or is that simply an analysis that you put out to us?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's one that is used very commonly in agriculture. The same kind of descrip-

[ Page 11152 ]

tion, if you like, is used in describing agricultural purposes and other animal uses within the industry.

MS. EDWARDS: I take it, then, that it has no particular relevance except common usage. I have some concerns. Livestock from regular farms is regularly sold live. Would a game farmer be able to raise game animals and sell those animals live? My concern, of course, relates to the possibility of having them sold to someone who wants to organize a hunt.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There is the provision for them to sell them live, but not for the purpose of a hunt. I described what they could be used for under "agricultural purposes."

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't understand what power that description has it's not in any legislation. You said it's simply a commonly used description. It's not defined in here, and I can't understand why it would have any particular force.

[8:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There's no provision, as I understand it, in this act for animals to be sold for purposes of hunting — if that's what's being implied. It is not in there. That would be under the Wildlife Act. If there were reindeer or caribou — or whatever species they were hunting — that would fall within the regulations of the Wildlife Act.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 3 — inspectors. I wonder if the minister could tell me how many inspectors he expects to have within the ministry. Where will they be located? Will they have other tasks? Who will these people be?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Currently we have about 40 brand inspectors, about 20 district agriculturists and 10 other extension staff — including a game farm coordinator — and, of course, our chief provincial veterinarian. These are all public servants currently employed by the province. No additional cost from that point of view is anticipated.

MS. EDWARDS: Would it be fair to say that all of the game farm inspectors are currently on staff as full ministry staff, and that there will be no cost to the program that would have to covered by licence fees?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I stated, people are on staff, and we have been working with the Ministry of Environment where necessary. We have cooperation with the Ministry of Environment. We feel we are quite capably covered. There would be no expense required for additional Inspectors. I presume you're talking about fees for licences or fees for inspection. There's probably going to be an opportunity at some point to discuss what fee would be appropriate for the regulations that are drafted.

MS. EDWARDS: You referred to the Ministry of Environment, and certainly I know the B.C. Wildlife Federation was interested in seeing that the Ministry of Environment is closely involved. Are you talking also about using conservation officers as inspectors in this case?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I advise the member that we are presently doing that and have been for approximately a year and a half under authorization by the ministry.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure, then, why the minister didn't name them when he originally talked about it. Is this going to be largely a function of the staff of the current Ministry of Agriculture, or is it going to be largely a function of conservation officers who work within the Ministry of Environment?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's going to be mostly within our own ministry, but with the cooperation, if we require extra inspectors for any reason, of the Ministry of Environment, who have stated they would second staff to us if required.

MS. EDWARDS: It does not then look as though the minister intends to hire other people who would not be bona fide employees of the government, members of the public service.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, Mr. Chairman.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. EDWARDS: Before we discuss anything in this section, I would like to suggest to the minister that 4(1)(c) is worded extremely badly. I don't know if the minister would like to listen to what I suggest, but it says: "Where the minister believes the licensee has done or failed to do something that the minister considers inconsistent with the responsibilities of a licensee, the minister may, in writing, suspend or cancel the licence." Let me read that by making my own selection of the phrases that are interchangeable: "Where the minister believes the licensee has failed to do something that the minister considers inconsistent with the responsibilities of a licensee, the minister may...suspend...the licence." If he has failed to do something the minister considers inconsistent, he loses his licence. That doesn't make any sense, Mr. Minister. I believe that it's a wording problem that should be addressed. I don't think the minister will disagree with me. It needs revision. Does the minister agree with me?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If I'm not mistaken, this particular clause came out of the Livestock Brand Act, and it's consistent with that.

[ Page 11153 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to suggest then that probably the Livestock Brand Act needs revision as well. If I were caught in this.... It's just very bad wording. It says that if you don't do something that's inconsistent you can lose your licence; if you fail to do something inconsistent you can have your licence lifted. That, I presume, is not what the minister means, but that's what it says.

HON. MR SAVAGE: In the Livestock Act, that was to deal with poaching or rustling and that's the reason it was worded that way.

MS. EDWARDS: Could I suggest an alternative wording, Mr. Minister? It says: "Where the minister believes the licensee has done something that the minister considers inconsistent with the responsibilities of a licensee or has failed to do something, which creates an inconsistency with the responsibilities of a licensee, the minister may, in writing, suspend or cancel the licence."

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm just being advised that basically it will have to stay that way because of possibilities of changing names and forms. It's designed to be read like that to cover that concern.

MS. EDWARDS: That doesn't remove the fact that the act now says that if a licensee fails to do something that the minister considers inconsistent, he is subject to losing his licence. I imagine that if anybody is being a good licensee, in general terms, he's going to fail to do something the minister considers inconsistent. The wording is going to have to change, and somebody is going to have to change the rest of it, if that's what follows. The wording is simply illogical.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'll just let the staff clarify that, if we could come back to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Should we stand that down for the moment, then?

AN HON. MEMBER: Stand that clause down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. That is clause (1)(c) of section 4.

On section 5.

MS. EDWARDS: This is another one of those "friends and insiders" provisions. This section provides an appeal provision that is absolutely amazing. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with coercion and corruption.

This is what is proposed by the bill. The licensee who is upset writes to the minister, who made the original decision. He has a time-limit, but he's writing to the minister who made the original decision. The minister decides that the letter from the licensee is not an appeal and considers lifting the suspension or cancellation under the powers granted. Suppose they say: "Let's make a deal." Or, if there's no deal, the licensee may — provided he is not out of time — formally appeal the minister's decision to the minister who originally made it, and with whom he could not make a deal.

The minister who made the original decision appoints a three-person panel to hear the appeal under a procedure which is established by the cabinet on the recommendation of the minister who made the original decision. Or, if the licensee is still unhappy with the suspension of his licence, he can appeal to the courts. But the only thing he can appeal to the courts on is whether or not the act and the regulations have been followed in putting the licensee out of business. Does the minister see any potential for corruption here?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I don't. If you look at the appeal process.... If an inspector discovers, for example, that a game farmer is not complying with the licence, then the inspector discusses the problems with the game farmer. If there's no compliance, then the inspector writes the game farmer to clarify his obligations, giving him time to rectify problems. Then if there's no compliance within the time given, the inspector's supervisor invites the licensee to give reasons for non-compliance.

If there's still an unsatisfactory resolution, then subsection 4(3) applies, and the minister sends a notice of either suspension or cancellation. Once the game farmer sends a letter of appeal under subsection 5(l), the minister and staff withdraw from discussion with the game farmer and allow the matter to go to the appeal board. I don't see why that would necessarily indicate corruption. I don't understand your question.

MS. EDWARDS: The question is that the minister grants the licence originally. The minister can accept the original appeal. If that appeal is not accepted, the minister appoints the appeal board, and that's the only place there is any appeal on the substance of the complaint — the minister, the minister, the minister, the minister. That kind of situation has no arm’s length provisions at all in the whole process. It sets up a situation where the minister has total power, and he can call his friends and insiders and do whatever he chooses without any check on what he's doing.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Obviously the review would not be done by the minister. The review would be done by groups from the game-farming industry and would involve specialists. I don't think we should imply that the minister would corrupt what would be a fair review process if there was a problem.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has to recognize that he is the person who takes every step in this whole process. That would not be accepted, as the minister well knows, in any judicial or quasi-judicial process. He should recognize that the minister is the only person who has the power to make the appoint-

[ Page 11154 ]

ments to the panel that then hears the appeal. Those people are appointed after the appeal is launched. They are not even appointed before the appeal is launched; they're appointed after the appeal is launched, and they're appointed by the minister. This is a pretty close arrangement. Does the minister recognize that there's no guarantee of impartiality here?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I don't buy that argument. I believe that you depend on the peers in the industry to be fair with the judgment of an appeal. I don't believe there's any implication whatsoever that the minister would interfere in that process. It's authorized by the minister to take place. But I have greater confidence in the peer sector of an industry to judge that appeal, along with the specialist who would be part of the appeal.

[8:15]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I do not suggest that the minister would interfere, because he would not have to interfere; he has all the power right there to do everything. Legislation which is good legislation sets up a process and a structure which prevents the possibility of that kind of thing happening. This just contributes to the possibility of a friends-and-insiders situation.

There is no guarantee of impartiality at all. The minister and the minister alone has the power of economic life and death over the game farmers. Is this section designed to give that kind of power to the minister? Why would the minister want that kind of power? Why would he not want to have some external process in 'the middle of this structure to diversify the kind of appeal and the kind of decision making that's in this act?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, obviously, if you read section 6, there is a judicial process that can be followed. There's nothing stopping an individual from using the judicial process.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't know that section 6 has anything to do with this, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly wouldn't want to rely.... You probably mean subsection (6), where the appellant or the minister may make an application to the Supreme Court. The only thing that can be done under that subsection is that the appellant, or the minister, can appeal it on a question of law or jurisdiction. There is nothing about the substance in that.

I imagine that certainly if there were something wrong with the law or jurisdiction, you would take it to court. Otherwise, there is no appeal allowed, unless of course there is an appeal on law or jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal — if the Court of Appeal allows it.

But there is no opportunity for an appeal beyond what the minister decides, and it's strictly the minister that controls the whole process — deciding who gets the licence, what he pays for it, what the conditions are. Then he can do the appeal, and he appoints the board for any appeal that's there. He has total power. There is no process to appeal to anyone else.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I don't see anything in there that precludes common-law rights. The person may appeal under judicial review. I don't see where that's stopped, in any case. Common-law right exists.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, the whole point here is that it is not common law when you can't apply to the courts. There is no application to the courts. This is to the minister, again, and to a panel that's appointed by the minister. This minister set it up in the first place, and made the decisions as to what he's going to pay and what he's going to be able to do. It's a closed situation. I think the minister should respond to that. I think he should make some provision in this section to deal with that situation and to vary the process so that somebody other than the minister has a part in it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As I understand it, they already have a lot of the rights you're concerned about. I don't see that because we have an appeal process described in the act, ordinary rights don't exist for any individual. They're already there.

MS. EDWARDS: I have to stress, Mr. Chairman, that it is not correct to say that you have all your rights just because you can appeal a process on a question of law or jurisdiction which simply says: "Did the minister have the right to do that?" This legislation is giving the minister the right to do it. He does it right from the word go. Every one of the steps in the whole process depends on the minister himself, and that, I am saying, is a situation where the appellant, who would be a game-farm operator, would lose his rights.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't know why I am having a problem getting this through. I still say the common-law right, if you look at it, is not pre-empted by this. This is an appeal process which, in discussions with the industry, with Environment and with B.C. Wildlife, was felt would be workable.

There is an appeal process by peers. The appeal system allows It to be kept a relatively low-expense process. That's why it was put in there that way.

MS. EDWARDS: The appeal is done by a panel appointed by the minister. That panel has to follow procedures that may be laid down by the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is a very tight process and it doesn't give variety to anybody who has input into this. The minister has almost total control. He is the man who makes the original decision. You can appeal it to the minister, to the minister's appeal panel and at the minister's discretion, and the minister can make those decisions. It is one of the most restrictive clauses on anybody who may be wanting to operate a game farm.

[ Page 11155 ]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: This section deals with animal escapement, and that is one of the major problems with game-farming. It says: "...the Wildlife Act does not apply to that game provided the licensee recaptures the game within a prescribed period after its escape." Perhaps the minister could tell me what he anticipates for that prescribed period.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The prescribed period of time are looking at is 30 days or less.

MS. EDWARDS: Thirty days or less. Would that be written into the regulations? And it could be less — in what circumstances?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If there were some particular urgency for it to be less, then it would be.

MS. EDWARDS: Could the minister describe some of those possibilities — why would there be an urgency?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Basically what we would be concerned about is a disease problem, if there were one, from an escaped animal.

MS. EDWARDS: Would the minister clarify, then, that the only legislation you have to depend on in order to take that animal — other than have the owner get it back — is the Wildlife Act?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is also under the Animal Disease Control Act.

MS. EDWARDS: Since escaping animals don't really punch a clock when they leave, how are you going to enforce this 30-day rule?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: By immediate notice.

MS. EDWARDS: Immediate notice. Could you define that? Immediate notice by whom to whom?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If the farmer knows an animal has escaped, he must advise immediately of that escapement.

MS. EDWARDS: It seems to me that it's another thing to be enforced, Mr. Minister. It might be a little difficult to enforce. Maybe you are depending on it being enforced by the fact that if it hasn't happened you will then know. Or what?

HON. MR SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, in most of these cases, as I understand it, we're talking about farmland that at some point will be bordered by fences. I'm sure if an animal escapes, the farmer will know it. Anybody who keeps domestic animals knows basically when they escape, especially when they're bordered.

MS. EDWARDS: If you happen to run across an unscrupulous game farm operator who lost an animal and wants to get it back, do you think the first thing he's going to do is run and report it? What's he going to do? It seems to me that if that's the only way you're going to know, you will have an extremely difficult time enforcing it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine anyone, if their animal is worth a substantial amount of money, not showing concern for an animal that has escaped. We're dealing with indigenous species, as you should appreciate. Some of them are worth a lot of money, and if one was missing, I'm sure it would be heard about very quickly.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: Did you say we were dealing with indigenous species, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Pardon me, not indigenous.

MS. EDWARDS: It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that if you lost an animal, and you were going to have it subject to seizure and being owned by the Crown within 30 days under the Wildlife Act or whatever, and you wanted to get that animal, there would be no particular incentive to report it gone until you had looked for it. So there might be some question of when the 30 days started. I think there are some major problems with that.

I would also like to know what protection there is for persons whose property is damaged by escaped animals.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the case of escaped animals, the farmer is liable.

MS. EDWARDS: Is that in the act?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's in common law and within the Wildlife Act.

MR. PERRY, I'd just like to share the member for Kootenay's concern about the escape of non-indigenous wild game, the enforcement and the prescribed period. I'm reliably informed by the library that since at least October 1988, some wild game of a non-indigenous species have been on the loose in British Columbia. I'm referring to Alfred the Alien Frinton, Ruff Tuff Duff Duff Scott, Brian Godzilla Salmi, Richard the Troll Schaller, Tony the Weasel Wiezoreck and Bob Nightstalker Colebrook — all of whom are members of the Rhinoceros Party. If they're not considered game in the act, I certainly consider them fair game here in the Legislature.

Section 6 approved.

[ Page 11156 ]

On section 7.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister chose not to answer my colleague, I notice.

This one protects inspectors. I notice that missing from the long list of those protected against legal actions for damages is the minister, who makes all the decisions. Is the minister willing to accept the civil legal liability for his actions under this act? Or is your omission an oversight?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Since the minister is not conducting the inspections, the minister is not included in the list.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister takes a whole lot of the actions, and I just wanted to make sure that the minister saw himself protected. He certainly makes various decisions, and I suppose his decision as to whether or not somebody can conduct a business, and once they've conducted a business, whether he closes down a business and so on.... I just put that to the minister — it's obviously his problem.

[8:30]

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. EDWARDS: Now we're getting to the regulations. The cabinet can make regulations. The scope of the regulations is not yet known, and the minister says they've been working on them, but it would have been extremely useful to have draft regulations at this point. Are there draft regulations available now at all?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Not at this stage. We are using the Wildlife Act.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder If the minister could tell me whether he will put the regulations out in draft form before they are actually put into effect, so that the public has an opportunity to respond to them and make comments.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The regulations are being discussed with the Game Farming Advisory Council, which involves the Ministry of Environment and of course, the B.C. Wildlife Federation. So we are in consultation through that council, discussing what would be in the regulations.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister anticipate making the consultation broader and including the general public?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We are obviously including a number of groups, as I said: the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the SPCA, the Federation of Agriculture. A number of different groups have been consulted and are involved in drafting the regulations, and I think we have a good, broad group. We have veterinarians, etc., participating in the Game Farming Advisory Council towards drafting those regulations.

MS. EDWARDS: The answer, I take it, is that it's not beyond the groups chosen by the minister.

Will the present regulations that apply to the game farms simply be transferred under this act? How closely will the new regulations be to those regulations?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes. And they will be very close.

MS. EDWARDS: Game farm permits are not currently issued for the Queen Charlotte Islands, because that area is deemed to be so environmentally sensitive. Is the minister prepared to maintain the exemption for Haida Gwai, and would he tell the House what other regions might be excluded for similar or different reasons?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If you look under subsection 8(2)(a), we specify the "regions of the province in which a licence for a specified type of game shall not be issued" — on the recommendation of the minister. I think it lays it out pretty clearly there. Regions for game-farming are obviously subject to the review and consensus of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, so we will be working jointly to define what regions are suitable for game-farming.

MS. EDWARDS: I didn't hear if the minister responded to my question on Haida Gwai, and he certainly wasn't specific otherwise. Would you at least speak to the Queen Charlotte Islands question?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not positive on whether the Queen Charlotte Islands themselves would be excluded. There is some federal jurisdiction as well, and again, it would be with discussions with the Ministry of Environment. But I don't think it necessarily means that there would be game-farming on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to make another observation and ask the minister why this was eliminated. In the bill that came forward last year, there was a clause which allowed the prohibition and raising of a species or subspecies of game for agricultural purposes. Now any prohibitions that are there are of an area, a region. Why did the minister decide not to work with the Ministry of Environment, to allow the prohibition of a species or a subspecies? Why was that taken out?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think we've got very narrow definitions as it is. To fall back on subsection 8(2)(a), we specify regions or province in which a licence for a specified type of game shall not be issued. I think the guidelines are very tight on where anything could be raised, as far as game farm animals are concerned.

[ Page 11157 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I know the minister has in the definition of "game" for the act.... It's not as tight as I would like it, but at least it says only three species. I wondered if the minister might say that as an answer, but he didn't; he simply said we're only designating as far as regions are concerned. Maybe that is the answer — that you've already got a limitation and there will be no further species. I know the B.C. Wildlife Federation was highly concerned at one time about the species and about the necessity for public input at any time that the minister and the Minister of Environment were going to consider another species or subspecies. They asked — and I believe it should be so — that there be public consultation before any different species are introduced. That does not come under the act now, so it's easy to lay that out. Would the minister consider that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have obviously had consultations, and we have made the changes naming the three species clearly. I'm not aware of any decision that had to go public. It was consultation between people who are professionals in the field — no pun intended, may I remind you — who have the expertise to decide which species would ever be farmed. I'm comfortable that the three we have listed here are those that have been suggested by the Ministry of Environment wildlife branch. They have clearly stated that any species that would ever be considered would have to go through consultation with them, and we have done so in drafting the three named species in this present act.

MS. EDWARDS: I have the greatest regard for the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Mr. Minister, but they do not represent the whole province. I would like to see the minister have a broader and larger concern and have the legislation require that there be a public process before any other species comes in — not just regions, but also species or subspecies.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There obviously would be a public process, because you could not add another species without changing legislation. Is legislation not public?

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MS. EDWARDS: This act provides for the grading and marketing of agricultural produce. I wonder where B.C. game would be processed.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: B.C. game may be processed at federally inspected plants, federal-provincial plants and provincially licensed plants throughout the province. There are approximately 50 of those in existence.

MS. EDWARDS: You talk about federally licensed and provincially licensed plants. Could you be more specific? Where are they? Are they throughout the whole province? What kind of inspection goes on at a federally licensed one? Can you clarify that for me, please, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There are several plants throughout the province. As I stated, they are scattered throughout. Inspection is done in the federal plants by federal inspectors; in some cases provincial plants are certainly inspected, by the Ministry of Health as well. I believe that all the precautions taking place for the slaughtering of animals would qualify for game farm animals.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could tell me how many meat inspectors there are in the province of B.C., both federal and provincial.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, I couldn't, because it's under the Ministry of Health.

MS. EDWARDS: This is a matter of considerable concern, Mr. Minister, because it's this section of the act that would be used in the case of any disputes over poached animals and so on — and if there were a native game animal, if this went through and there were some dispute.

One of the major concerns of people who are worried about game-farming in this province is that there are not enough meat inspectors. The whole process of deciding whether or not a piece of meat you've got is elk, for example, or reindeer is such a detailed, technical process that the suggestion that going through normal plants is going to protect us against having meat go through those plants that are inspected is simply not enough. There is a problem with the meat plants, but the whole thing is that their meat can be sold otherwise. It can be sold directly to restaurants and so on.

The whole business of meat inspection is one of the major concerns of the people who worry about the expansion of game-farming. I wish the minister could give me some more specific assurance as to how the inspection is going to be done. How are we going to be assured that the meat that goes through is going to be very carefully and adequately inspected and that there isn't more game going through than is coming from game farms?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope the member is only talking about non-indigenous species. Of obvious concern, from what I read into what you're asking me, is whether we would have animals poached that may not be game farm animals. As you know, the game farm animals would be branded and inspected at receiving stations by inspectors. We have something in the neighbourhood of 20 or 30 brand inspectors in the province who monitor the movement of livestock and check for brands.

As for animals poached from the wild, I don't believe there would be a problem, because they would be identified as not having brands. I have to believe that the Health ministry has sufficient inspec-

[ Page 11158 ]

tors to check the meats labelled as whatever. If it's going to a market within a given area, the inspector will mark what the particular product is.

MS. EDWARDS: There is some major concern. Perhaps the meat that goes through these plants would be much more likely to have no problems. We would be much more likely to avoid problems by having it go through these plants. There is a lot of concern about the number of meat inspections and the possibility for selling poached animals, on the basis that they would be sold as game farm animals when they weren't game farm animals. There is a major problem. There's a shortage of meat inspectors in the province. Nobody would deny that. There's also the fact that the kind of testing that has to be done to determine what species of game you have — particularly if it's a subspecies and you are deciding between a subspecies and another subspecies — is a major, technically difficult thing to do. This is a concern. It's under the Agricultural Produce Grading Act, but it is a concern in the whole issue of game-farming.

[8:45]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: This is a large improvement on what we had previously. The act is clearly improved, because no animal can get to a plant without certification as to what the animal is. It has to have been certified by brand inspection. That, to me, says it is falling under the Livestock Act, and clearly says a person cannot slaughter at a provincial or federal slaughter facility without having certification from brand inspection as to what the animal is. We did not have anything like that before. What previously stopped any game from being sold as meat anywhere? You tell me.

MS. EDWARDS: I would sure like to answer the question the minister posed to me. It's very clear that most people can tell the difference between elk meat and beef, for example. Since you don't sell elk, that's fine. But it may be very hard to tell the difference between venison from an indigenous deer and venison from a fallow deer.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question about section 16. This prohibits the sale of a specified type of game. You add the paragraph: "prohibiting the sale of a specified type of game at a public sale." I am wondering if there is any need for regulation around private sales. Why is only "public sale" mentioned?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We're dealing under the Livestock Public Sale Act. That's why it's worded like that.

Sections 16 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to know if the minister is going to heed my suggestions and do something about section 4.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Again, if something failed, it would cover an omission. An omission could be an inconsistency. There is a specific reason it's worded that way.

MS. EDWARDS: There may be a specific reason, but I still put to the minister that if he is passing legislation that says "where the minister believes the licensee has done or failed to do something that the minister considers inconsistent with the responsibilities of a licensee, the minister may, in writing, suspend or cancel the licence," and that is not what the minister intends, it is badly worded legislation, and I don't think it should go through.

Section 4 approved on division.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 9, Game Farm Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PRODUCTS STANDARDS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 57, Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. EDWARDS: I hope you will forgive me. I am, in a word, the relayer of the message here. In general we support this legislation, but we have these questions.

Under this section we talk about the federal Food and Drugs Act. The federal statute uses language that limits the powers of the inspector. It says, for example, that "the inspector may at any reasonable time" do various things. This act doesn't do that, although it refers to section 23. I wonder if the minister intended there to be any limit to the activities of an inspector or an analyst.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I refer to section 23. Subsection 3(2) is the reference for the question. This is

[ Page 11159 ]

considered by the federal Food and Drugs Act, and we are applying the relevant sections of that act. That's why we're responding with that.

I can explain section 23: the power of an inspector regarding examination, detention and seizure of the product.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 6 says "the minister may appoint inspectors." I wonder why the minister is appointing them. Is this a situation where we're going to have outsiders appointed by the minister? Or are they going to be public service appointments?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Previously, under different acts federally, we have cooperated provincially in appointing the inspectors. In some cases there is not a dual requirement by the provincial and federal acts. We have cooperated on that basis; that's why that's there.

MS. EDWARDS: As I understand it, you may appoint the same person who has been appointed under the Food and Drugs Act. Will there be other kinds of appointments? Would the minister tell me how many inspectors are likely to be required for this?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not positive how many there are in total. For instance, our marketing food specialists are good examples. We could appoint them as inspectors. We do have a number of inspectors federally and also some provincially. I don't know the exact number; I don't have that at my fingertips right at this moment.

MS. EDWARDS: Has the minister actually consulted with Agriculture Canada? They certainly told us that they were not consulted before the bill came down. Have you consulted with them since the bill came down to see if this suits them?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: This is Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.

MS. EDWARDS: Did you consult with Consumer and Corporate Affairs before the bill came down?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, we have consulted with them, and are continuing to consult with them. It has not been totally finalized, but there is cooperation with them in working out inspection.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could tell me what he expects the cost to be of the appointment of inspectors and inspection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There again I couldn't give you an exact figure; it would depend on the amount of inspection required.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MS. EDWARDS: Here again I want to ask the minister the question that I began in section 3. We want to know the limits, because under this section it requires that anyone in the food Industry must make food available for inspection. What limits does the minister see to this requirement?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, different points can be set out for Inspection purposes during normal business hours. This inspection could take place at processing facilities or wherever at normal business hours — but at different points.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that it would be a good idea to have that in the act. I understand the federal legislation has that, and it's not in this act.

The other question I have is this: does the inspector have powers to delay the food for any length of time?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, in subsection 8(l)(c), you're allowed to detain food. That's the section you can do it under.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the moment, the Chair is wondering whether or not musical chairs is going on here this evening. Hon. members, you've moved enough chairs tonight.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has said that we can deal with it under section 8, but there are no limits under section 8 either. So my question is: are there no limits under section 7? If there are limits, why are they not written into the legislation? You can see the possibility.

I was going to deal with the hours of business in section 8. But in section 7, it looks as though you could insist on inspecting it, and under the pretext of inspecting, you could hold food for any length of time. That would worry me if I were a processor or a transporter of food.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I think that food cannot be detained without a reason to detain it. Any food item must have a legitimate reason for detention. I don't think you can just callously go in and say that you're ordering the food detained without a legitimate cause to do so.

MS. EDWARDS: I would agree with the minister, but the legislation doesn't say that.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MS. EDWARDS: This section gives provincial inspectors extremely strong powers. They have pow-

[ Page 11160 ]

ers that their federal counterparts don't have. Under federal law, inspectors may detain food for a reasonable time; under this act provincial inspectors can virtually do as they please, provided only that it is for the purpose of carrying out their duties. Who decides that? That's obviously the question. Does a person whose property might be, in their view, unreasonably interfered with have the right to sue the Crown and/or the inspector for damages? For example — and I've had this put to me — what if an inspector decided that a shipment of milk was tainted, seized it for inspection and kept it for three days? By three days, of course, it's tainted; it's not going to be saleable. Under circumstances like this — and it's not impossible, the minister would certainly agree with me — has the owner of the property the right to sue the Crown and/or the inspector for damages?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I definitely would say yes, because if there's wrongful detention, they have the right to pursue legal action.

[9:00]

MS. EDWARDS: On what legislation would the owner of the property have to base the idea that it was wrongful detention? There's nothing in this act that says there has to be reasonable suspicion.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You don't need statutory rights; it's under common law.

MS. EDWARDS: If you didn't get the decision that you wanted, if you sue or if you don't sue, what appeal process is available? The minister will note that under subsection (2) it says: "...reasonable grounds for believing that an offence...has been committed, he or she may seize all the food and other things by means of or in relation to which he or she reasonably believes the offence was committed." If there's some dispute, what is the appeal mechanism?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would say to the member that any inspector would exercise their power very carefully, because it still comes back to the point that anybody has the right to appeal through the judicial system.

MS. EDWARDS: Anyone who goes to the courts goes under the rule of law, and that means that they have to have a dispute based on law which is written out and agreed to. That is the law, and you have to follow the law. We are dealing with an interpretation of the law. What I am suggesting in this case is that the law is not there to give the basis to a person for disputing something that might happen under this inspection process.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I have to hope she understands. You still have the right by common law, because that's the way inspectors have been taken to court before.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister would like to outline the concept in modern law under which they would go to court. We may not be lawyers; this is law. This is law that the minister is putting forward. What concept of common law do you perceive? Is it that there would be wrongful interference? Is it thievery? What concept does the minister propose?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would think it would be a breach of duties or some tort action.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 57, Food Products Standards Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 58.

BRITISH COLUMBIA WINE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the evening, I join you in discussion. I don't want to pop my cork or anything.

Under section 2 it says that the institute itself shall consist of seven members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This makes the institute vulnerable to political direction by the Premier, the cabinet and the minister. There are two ways that this can be done. It can be done by the appointment to the institute: the seven members are appointed, plus the government employee who also is non-voting but is designated from the minister's staff. Then you note under subsection 2(4) that any of these appointments, "shall be during pleasure," which clearly means that if they don't do what they're told, they're not going to be appointed anymore. They can be fired as soon as they don't do the minister's bidding. This is interesting.

I have a question about the appointee. This appointee from the minister's staff — would that be not a ministry person but a minister's office person?

[ Page 11161 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the last question is no, it would be somebody from the ministry staff, not from the minister's office.

MS. EDWARDS: Would it be a public service position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes, it would.

MS. EDWARDS: Would the minister consider it useful to designate that in the act?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't believe it's necessary; I think it's clearly understood. We've named how we could best, in discussion with the wine producers.... Certainly we want to involve the growers and the processors. In fact, for the member's information, we are talking about two commercial winery representatives, two estate winery representatives, two grape growers and one farm winery, plus a ministry staff person.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm going to ask the minister's indulgence on this one in particular, because my colleague the second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) gave me a situation that he wanted me to put to you, and I hope I do it correctly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he? Why isn't he here?

MS. EDWARDS: He's working very hard at his critic role, trying to understand this act further.

Under section 4(l)(a), it says: "The institute may, by bylaw, establish minimum standards for wine, to be adhered to by processors, and may set additional standards for different regions of the province." My colleague suggests that it is poorly worded. He thinks he knows what you mean, but he suggests that it should be "establish minimum standards for different wine, to be adhered to by processors, and may set additional or different types of standards for different wines of the province." Does what he says fit into what you meant? He's saying that when you talk about setting the different standards region by region, you're not really getting to the essence of it, which is that you want to set different standards wine by wine.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We're basically talking here, hon. member, about appellation standards.

MS. EDWARDS: It doesn't get to the point that the member wanted me to make, which is, yes, appellation. But when you said appellation standards, you said you don't set it. He suggests that you're talking about different types of wine.

Obviously I'm in over my head; I wish I were in a vat, right?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think I know what the member is getting at. If you're talking different regions or different areas you could have possibly different standards in the wine, that's true.

MS. EDWARDS: Will the minister be able to do that, within this clause? He will be able to do that but he doesn't designate it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The standards that will be established for the different regions will have to be approved by the institute.

MS. EDWARDS: I also want to know how much the fees are likely to be. It says that the institute may establish fees for registration, certification of wines and testing of wines. How onerous are they going to be? How great are the fees going to be?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We don't see these as being onerous. There is only cost recovery intended in talking about fees.

MS. EDWARDS: When we move on to subsection (2)(b)(ii), it suggests that the institute may expend money raised by a levy for the promotion of wine. The wine industry was given $400,000 for over two years of use to do promotion already. The wine should be promoted; we agree with that. But the question is why this is not included in a "Buy B.C." program or something like that, as other products are. Why does it necessarily devolve onto the wine institute instead of being with a broader and larger program of "Buy B.C."?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There is provision there for them to be part of and ask to be part of a "Buy B.C." program, but what the levy does is allow for the institute to make a decision if the members wish to have a check-off for promotional purposes.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the minister said that it could possibly be both; it might be part of the "Buy B.C." program and also, then, if they still want to promote more they can levy for that. Is that correct?

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. EDWARDS: Section 5 gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considerable power over the institute. They can:

"...issue a direction to the institute or its members specifying factors, criteria and guidelines that the institute or member shall or shall not use with respect to the exercise of its powers.

"(2) The institute or its members shall comply with any...special direction made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.'

What special direction does the cabinet have in mind?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The only time any special direction would be necessary is if for some reason the

[ Page 11162 ]

actions of the institute were conducted under unusual circumstances and such action were to be proven necessary.

MS. EDWARDS: May I ask for something more specific?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If they tried to act outside the powers laid out within the act; if they went beyond what they are empowered to do.

MS. EDWARDS: Again, I have to question that. If the act is there and they are appointed at pleasure, you are saying that we then have to have another clause to say that they do what they were told to do under the act; and if they don't, they are going to lose their job anyway. I don't understand why the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would want that power.

[9:15]

What we are talking about is appellations for wines and that kind of thing. Certainly the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.... We don't want anyone in Ontario saying: "That darned B.C. They gave a good appellation to the wine the Minister of Mines liked." We don't want that kind of thing happening. There is certainly a danger here, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you could explain this.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't see that as a danger, because the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make changes. If something outside the power of the act is undertaken by the members, then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the right to make the changes or make the decision.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MS. EDWARDS: The question is: what is the penalty if a producer or processor who carries on business without being registered under the act therefore commits an offence?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If he fails to register, the provisions of the Offence Act would apply.

MS. EDWARDS: Except for section 5 — is that correct? This is a question for information. I am not suggesting anything, because I don't know what it says in the Offence Act. It says that section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply, but you are telling me that in subsection (2), if they didn't register, the Offence Act except for section 5 would apply. Is that correct?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That is correct.

Section 8 approved.

Section 9 negatived.

Section 10 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 58, British Columbia Wine Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 58, British Columbia Wine Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 45.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Ree In the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask a couple of questions of the minister with regard to this section. This is more or less the substance of the bill. I think that it is not only a good idea, but that it has been a long time coming. This part of the bill provides particulars to parents. I want some direction from the minister as to how the ministry intends to carry out this particular section. How will you provide this information?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We would be providing this information to the parents in writing and in a form that would be consistent across the province. I'm not sure what the member particularly wants with regard to the question, other than that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I realize the question wasn't all that clear. The problem with providing information to parents to date has been that often — and I would point to an example in my own constituency — the family courts dealing with apprehensions only sit on a Wednesday. So if there is an apprehension say on a Monday or a Tuesday.... According to the existing legislation, the filing has to happen within seven days. The dilemma that the ministry faces is that they either have to go directly to the courts that

[ Page 11163 ]

Wednesday, therefore providing only two days for paperwork, or wait for the following Wednesday, which gives a longer period than is laid out in the rules provided by the ministry.

In addition to that problem, the courts aren't that accessible in every region in that they don't have the opportunity of sitting every day. In addition, there's the problem of staffing time required to present the information to parents.

Often staff don't have the time, and this additional administrative burden would take away from other caseloads. The question fundamentally is: will you provide more staff time?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure how to answer that question. We do provide an initial report to the court when children are taken into custody; so they have the information at that point. That has to be provided when the children are taken into custody, so the information is available.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thought the minister was going to continue and explain how he is going to deal with this additional requirement that this legislation will bring. From talking to some of the front-line workers, while they certainly welcome the government's initiative here, they are a little perplexed as to how they will be able to handle the additional workload. I had hoped that the ministry had given some thought, in bringing this bill forward, as to how they would fulfil the mandate. Given that this is a commitment to provide this information, will you be providing the staff support to fulfil it? Can we realistically expect that it will be carried out uniformly throughout the province, or will the government be using the clause where it says it is practicable in some regions and not in others — "practicable" meaning that they don't have the staff to carry out the responsibility?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, that's not what is meant by "practicable" at all. It will be provided, and it will be provided uniformly; that's why it's being set out in legislation. This information for the most part has already been provided, and we are now putting it into legislation so that everyone knows what information is required, what they can expect and what information will be received.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have two points. First of all, I beg to differ with the minister. It is not always provided; there are areas where it is not uniformly provided. But I would like to thank the minister for making the commitment that staff resources and equitability are goals.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 45, Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 60.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 60; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LOVICK: I am put in a bit of an awkward position here, insofar as the individuals we thought would be here to (a) present this bill and (b) respond from our side were not informed, to the best of my knowledge that they had that responsibility. We were told that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — under whose name this bill appears — was not going to be available this evening. Therefore the individuals we had decided would respond are not here at present. What I must do is struggle and scramble to make sense of this measure.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: My point is that I don't think the public is terribly well-served in this. I imagine that under second reading most of the concerns that we had to express about this bill were expressed. The minister therefore has some understanding of the difficulty we have with it.

Our sense is that the bill makes it easier for the government to borrow money. I wonder if I might start under the aegis of section 2, which we understand removes the requirement that a government body must request a specific loan from the government before the government can borrow for the purpose of lending to government bodies. I wonder if the minister would be able to allay the fears that my colleagues outlined in second reading about that section and about this new power that we're talking about, insofar as we suggest the bill does make it easier for the government to borrow money. Would he care to respond just to that opening?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm aware that there was a concern by my critic opposite. He did make some comment about it being easier to borrow money. It does not make it easier to borrow money. It does, however, provide more flexibility for us to borrow money at the most opportune time. The ministry is made aware of borrowing needs of Crown corporations in the course of normal exchanges. We have some sense then of a future need. By virtue of our

[ Page 11164 ]

knowledge that a need is possible and likely in the near future, this bill would give us an added opportunity to save the public interest costs by attempting to recognize (a) the need to borrow and (b) the current market conditions at the time.

I should also point out that orders-in-council would be required, as they are now, for borrowing. This legislation doesn't change that requirement in any way. It is our attempt to ensure that when we must borrow, to the extent we can we maximize the savings to the taxpayer in terms of the interest paid.

[9:30]

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate those comments. I'm wondering if the minister could confirm for us that by borrowing the money under this particular provision, the government can effectively warehouse or put that money aside for use at a later time. That is the case? This makes it possible?

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I see the minister nodding his head in affirmative to that.

Is it also the case that section 2 allows the government to use money for a purpose other than the one for which it was originally borrowed?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm comforted. It's clear from the second question that the member opposite has a pretty good grasp of the major issues that this bill embraces. We would have to bring forward an amending OIC were the intention to be altered. The way we report our borrowings and request them is through orders-in-council. This bill would require an order-in-council to be introduced if the stated purpose were to be altered in any way.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Finance refers, and quite legitimately, to the protection insofar as orders-in-council must ultimately be public documents. The predicament that we on this side are having is that orders-in-council are by their nature — dare I say — secretive. That is not the public process I'm talking about -how the public's financial affairs are being conducted. Therefore we have some legitimate concern about relying on that mechanism and especially saying that thus it ever was; we already have those kinds of powers in the use of orders-in-council.

I wonder if there is some better compelling reason for this measure than I've heard thus far. I'm sorry, I perhaps wasn't listening as closely as I ought to have been in the opening comments to the first answer I got from the minister. So if I'm asking him to repeat something he already alluded to, my apologies. If he wouldn't mind explaining the essential justification for this measure again, I will indeed listen more carefully.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: My earlier comment dealt with the comment my critic had made that this bill made it easier for government to borrow money. It does not make it easier; it does give us more flexibility. It does enable us to capture any market downturns that might have the effect of saving taxpayers interest costs.

We do know in advance, in order-of-magnitude terms, Crown corporations' borrowing needs. Knowing that, plus knowing the market on a daily or hourly basis, this amendment would enable us therefore to anticipate the borrowing need and capture any possibilities the market provided.

I should also point out, dealing with the first point that the member made, that this government and this province reports more detail in terms of financial transactions and borrowing transactions than virtually any other province in the country. We do publish annually a complete breakout of our borrowings, interest rates, etc. The order-in-council process that I talked about earlier is published weekly and does contain the details of borrowing decisions.

To the question of disclosure or adequate public knowledge, this bill in no way inhibits the standard practice. That standard practice, in terms of comparison to any other provincial jurisdiction, puts us in extremely good stead. We really do stand almost unchallenged in the area of reporting financial transactions. That's a tribute to the Financial Administration Act that earlier administrations have brought and which has the effect of putting a discipline into the system. I have no hesitation in giving comfort to the member opposite that this system does not in any way diminish accountability.

MR. LOVICK: To be sure, orders-in-council are published weekly. The point is that they're not debatable; they're after the fact. So it is with much of the reporting, and that's as it must be in the majority of cases certainly. What we're talking about here is what seems to be an increase, if you will, of the propensity on the part of government to be allowed more freedom without close public scrutiny and debate. I guess that's the concern we have. I'm sure the minister, though I know he endeavoured to give me comfort, will recognize that I don't take much comfort in what appears to be the nature of this measure. It does look as if it's a case of making it easier for governments to borrow money without that kind of disclosure. Given the track record we've had recently in terms of budget stabilization funds and other things, I am sure the minister can understand that we do have some apprehensions about this particular measure.

However, I am clearly out of my depth. I have no expertise on this and therefore I can do nothing except let section 2 pass for the moment, unless some of my colleagues want to respond.

MS. EDWARDS: I would just like to put to the minister that considering the constraints the provincial government puts on other government bodies and has done for years and years — saying that if you don't use the money that was given for this purpose or for that purpose, there's trouble — it is a standard

[ Page 11165 ]

of public account, if you like. Now the provincial government itself suggests that it may borrow money and then use that money for something else, and the minister says: "Well, we are responsible because we tell you what we did after we did it." Why don't you tell us what you're going to do before you do it?

This, as you say, certainly gives you more flexibility. The minister suggests it doesn't make it easier to borrow, but it certainly does make it easier to borrow in the sense that you don't have to account ahead of time for borrowing it. The money doesn't have to have been requested before you go out to get it. You may decide you aren't too sure whether it will be used for something if it was requested. So it does make it considerably easier on the government, as far as the accountability issue is concerned. I would like to put that to the minister.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's a truism in human nature that people won't believe what they don't want to believe, irrespective of what the truth is. The fact of the matter is that nothing has changed here. All we are saying is that in the interest of the public there should be the flexibility given to the Ministry of Finance to save the public money, to save the taxpayer interest costs.

I see these histrionics with the member sitting next to you, so let me just give you something to postulate about. This government has an outstanding record in terms of debt management. It's the best in the country without question. For this critic — municipal affairs, I think, is his job — to attempt to speak intelligently on the subject astounds me. I would welcome the opportunity to debate the truth of what I've just said with that wise individual.

Let me just say that the ratio of our tax-supported debt to the gross provincial product is the lowest it's been in 25 years. To suggest that we're going to go off on some borrowing binge for the mere purpose of borrowing money is absurd. You just have to look at the record of this administration to know that we don't borrow money if we don't need it. If we do borrow money, we're going to borrow it at the most advantageous rates we can get. Those rates are recognized right across the country, and our performance, as exhibited by an Improvement in our credit rating, sustains the point I'm making.

Lastly, let me remind the members opposite that our debt costs are 31/3 cents for every dollar of revenue. The figure for the federal government is 35 cents — ten times that amount. So don't sit there and try to manufacture the argument that this government is fiscally irresponsible and going to go off on some borrowing binge.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, the minister pretends that he would not like histrionics. Interesting!

I would like to put to the minister that what he suggests is that the Social Credit government will be government forever. It's an amazing argument. It is not believed by most of the people in this province As a matter of fact, I would say that an extremely high percentage of the people in this province do not believe that to be the case. I would like the minister to think about that for a minute. Nevertheless, that's just an exercise.

I would like the minister to listen again to what I said about public accountability. Public accountability is not in this act. It allows the government to go out and borrow — which, of course, this government says it doesn't like to do and tries to avoid; it tries to get the debt down. This allows the government to borrow for purposes that it has not yet defined. This new legislation breaches that basic tenet of public accountability.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Absolute nonsense! The fact of the matter is that we require OICs now, and we're going to require OICs in the future. If we change the intent or the reason for this borrowing, then an OIC is required to change it. For the member opposite to say that's no comfort because we didn't know about the first instance that exists now, and we're not going to know about the next instance that we're talking about with this change until after it occurs.... Of course. That's the way it is now. What should I do? Appear before the opposition caucus every time I want to borrow some money?

We're talking here about trying to save the taxpayers costs; we're trying to save them some money. I know that this is a distant concept for you to embrace or understand, but we happen to think we're elected to do that.

People look to us to manage their money responsibly. It would be absurd for us to have knowledge of the fact that a Crown corporation needed to flip a borrowing or reactivate a new borrowing — roll over a borrowing is the phrase I was looking for. It would be absurd for us to know the need existed and at the same time know that we've got a short-term window to save some money so that we can warehouse that money In the interim; the taxpayer is the beneficiary.

If, as you suggest, we might change, we might have done this with some devious mind and not told the truth about why we wanted to borrow the money, then we've got to bring forward an OIC to tell the world about it. What more could you possibly ask for? You've got full accountability; you've got more accountability than you have now.

MS. EDWARDS: But I was not imputing any motives to the poor minister. I was simply saying the minister may not know anything at all. I think that's much more likely. He doesn't have any idea what he wants the money for, but it's such a good market he can't resist. Has he ever been on a shopping spree and simply can't resist the sale? Look, the interest rates are so low, and you know what? We've got government by order-in-council. We don't need to be responsible to the Legislature for the spending here; we have to be responsible to an order-in-council which you can see later, and then you can take to the voters whenever the heck we get to an election. But Mr. Minister, that is the issue. It's public accountability, and this is not publicly accountable.

[9:45]

[ Page 11166 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I want to ask the minister a question. Is it not true that this bill gives the government total authority to use the money you borrow for any purpose you see fit, regardless of whether a specific or a direct reason for that borrowing has been given?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I know we've used two syllable words. We should have used one-syllable words, and then this question would not have been necessary.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It would have been anyway.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It would have been anyway; all right.

We dealt with that in response to the question first put by the first member for Nanaimo. We have some knowledge about Crown Corporation borrowing needs. Having that knowledge — while not yet confirmed in writing — warns us that we're going to have to be in the money market. With this bill, we would have the flexibility to save the taxpayers some money if there was that window of opportunity. We are not going to charge off and borrow money we don't need. This government's responsible record of money management would refute any such suggestion. The record shows that we have done a very responsible job of managing public money. We would like to do a more responsible job.

Here we have the absurd situation where the members opposite are trying to manufacture an argument where they would be opposed to saving taxpayers' money. What's wrong with saving taxpayers' money? Is there something immoral about it? Are you trying to make an argument here that you want the taxpayers to pay more interest than they should? Are you trying to manufacture an argument that it is somehow in the public interest to have taxpayers pay more interest than they should? How can you defend that statement?

The purpose of this bill is to save the taxpayer interest costs. What could be a more admirable objective than that? If you really cared about taxpayers' burdens and the problems of financing these marvellous social programs we bring forward here every day, you'd understand the need for us to make sure we don't pay too much interest. I don't know how I can make it any plainer, but I did use two-syllable words.

MR. LOVICK: I commend the minister for his leap into the multisyllabic, and he's done a good job. His answer is quite clear. I had no difficulty.

I just want to pose one very specific question. When I suggested to the minister in my opening comment that this bill seems to make it easier for the government to borrow money than was hitherto the case, he said: "No, that is not the case." However, let me quote to the minister, if I may, the explanatory note to section 2, which reads as follows: "The new sections 41.1 to 41.5 of the act remove the mandatory requirement that a specific government body must request a specific loan from the government before the government can borrow for the purposes of lending to government bodies." If you remove a mandatory requirement that makes you do X — in other words, whatever we have is minus X — does it not necessarily follow that we've made it easier to borrow money? I pose the question purely for purposes of logic. I'm sure the minister would agree with me that my initial rendition of this bill's purpose is indeed accurate, would he not? If he grants me that, we may grant the bill.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 60, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that tomorrow morning we sit at 9:30 a.m. Having said that, I wish everyone a pleasant good evening and move the House do now adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The learned Clerk advises me that in this case the motion has to be that the House at its rising do now stand adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: So be it.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:52 p.m.

ERRATUM

Tuesday, July 17, 1990, Morning Sitting (Volume 19 Number 13), page 11035, left-hand column, line 5: for 'MR. LOVICK" read "MR SIHOTA".