1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 9
[ Page 10837 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have a number of introductions. First of all, I should inform hon. members that joining us in the gallery today are 28 grade 11 students from Esquimalt Secondary, a great school in Esquimalt. Would all members please give the students and Mr. Kowalyk, their teacher, a warm welcome. [Applause.] Thank you, that was warmer than usual.
I'd also like to welcome to this Legislature Darshin Singh Daliwal and his wife Debbie. They come from Wisconsin. Mr. Daliwal is an active businessman in Wisconsin and has shown considerable generosity to the communities of Milwaukee. Joining him is Surjit Singh Mahaburya, who is the first Sikh to have ever received the Star of Courage. With him as well is Mr. Saba Singh Sall, who has assisted and is involved with the Commonwealth Games here in Victoria. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm satsiri akal.
T. Perry: I have great pleasure today in introducing constituents of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, whose absence will not be noted. They are also fellow beneficiaries of the Vancouver Family Montessori School Society kindergarten, who have come to make good a debt of mine from a fundraising dinner and have lunch in the parliamentary dining room at 12:30 p.m. I'm sure they're going to have a very fine lunch there. They are Gillian Kirkby and Tom Robinson and their daughters Shona and Katrina. I'm very pleased to see them here. I hope it doesn't mean that all the other people who have bought tickets to lunch at fundraising events over the years are now going to claim their dues -- but on the other hand, I hope maybe they will. I'd like to invite other members to join me in making them welcome. Also, in deference to the former Minister of Agriculture and present Minister of Tourism, I note they are very accomplished amateur winemakers as well.
V. Anderson: I believe there are members of the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation in the Legislature gallery today. I would like to make them welcome and have the House welcome them.
G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to rise in anticipation of an introduction in this Legislature later on in the year. This is a follow-up to my suggestion of last week that this Legislature send a congratulatory letter under your signature, sir, to the new President of South Africa. I know that letter has been written and sent.
Today I'd like to follow up on that with a suggestion that we invite President Mandela to come to Victoria in August of this year to lead his first-ever multiracial team, which will be entering the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, and to invite him to be here as a guest of British Columbia and this Legislature. I leave that for you to pursue with your good offices.
The Speaker: In response to the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, I would say that if this is the will of the assembly, I would be delighted and honoured to do -- and look forward with great anticipation to doing -- whatever I can to bring this outstanding individual and his team of athletes to this wonderful province of ours and the capital city of Victoria. If I can have the approval of the assembly, I'd be glad to proceed. [Applause.] Thank you.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a much more sombre note. I wonder if the Speaker could express condolences on behalf of the Legislature to the family of the Rt. Hon. John Smith in Britain. Mr. Smith had many relatives in Canada. As a member of the opposition, I did correspond with Mr. Smith on some occasions. I know he has contributed a lot, and it's very sad to see his untimely passing. I would ask if the Speaker could, on behalf of the Legislature, express condolences to Mr. Smith's family.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that this be done?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Speaker: I'd be pleased to do that.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. M. Sihota: This bill amends the Waste Management Act to provide authority to prevent pollution at its source by regulating the availability and sale of equipment, products or processes which cause air emissions. The first application of this legislation will be to the many small sources of gas and particulate emissions entering the atmosphere which, when accumulated together, lead to polluted air. In particular, the pollution prevention powers of the legislation are to deal with engine vehicles, fuels and wood stoves, to prevent air emissions.
Vehicles are responsible for between 70 and 80 percent of all standard gaseous substances emitted into the air around urban areas in British Columbia. They are also responsible for nearly half of all provincial carbon dioxide emissions, a gas directly linked to global climate change. There is no reason for this, as modern technology can prevent much of it from being emitted. Soon zero-emission vehicles will be available in North America.
Wood-burning appliances account for approximately 95 percent of the total fine particulate emissions from all space-heating sources in the province. These emissions can cause major health hazards when meteorological conditions limit their dispersal. There is no reason for such emissions to be occurring, as modern wood stoves are available and capable of reducing emissions by up to 90 percent.
This province needs to act to ensure that very low- or zero-emission vehicles, vastly cleaner fuels and low-emission wood stoves are available in British Columbia. The GVRD air quality management plan calls for a 50 percent reduction in emissions from 1985 levels by the year 2000. Their plans call for the implementation of California-type vehicle emission standards to meet air quality goals, including zero-emission vehicles that are likely to be electric or powered by a hydrogen-powered fuel cell. Technology-enforcing standards in California have forced automobile and oil companies to produce products which, when used together, significantly reduce emissions into the atmosphere.
This bill incorporates parts of the Motor Vehicle Act which permit the setting of motor vehicle emission
[ Page 10838 ]
standards for new vehicles. The bill will also expand powers to permit the Waste Management Act to require the sale of low- and zero-emission vehicles, such as electric vehicles. The bill establishes new powers with respect to regulating emissions from all types of engines and regulating the quality, supply and types of fuels to be supplied in the province. The ministry is engaged in extensive discussions with the automobile and oil industries and the wood stove industry with regard to these matters.
Hon. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. It will clean up the air in British Columbia. I commend this bill for members' consideration and urge its passage.
Bill 35 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.
THE WORLD IS OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD
V. Anderson: I rise today to speak on the topic "The World Is Our Neighbourhood." I personally have not been a world traveller, but I do believe that I have a worldview that enables me to believe that each child, each youth, each woman and each man, wherever they may live, is a neighbour to me and I to them. I can relate to their joy at being free. When I watch the television and see Nelson Mandela stand up and say, "Let freedom reign," I hear and see again Martin Luther King, whom I heard on the Boston Common, cry out: "I have a dream." Everywhere in the world, there is a desire to be free, to have dignity and to cherish life. That desire is so strong that men, women and children risk and lose life itself to seek and keep these goals. It is a lesson that is learned again and again: world freedom and world peace eludes us as long as any group or nation does not have freedom, wholeness and the essentials of daily living.
[10:15]
As neighbours, we are an interdependent people. In the long run we must rely upon each other, and most of all, we rely on the informal networks that we build within our nations and between our nations. Today I want to recognize one expression of this international networking that exists in our own province. It is that network of agencies, organizations and religious bodies which calls itself the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation, or BCCIC. Next Wednesday, May 18, they will be our hosts -- that is, the hosts of those of us who sit here in the Legislature. As they have done before, they invite us to meet with them in the Ned DeBeck Lounge from 6 to 8 p.m.
This is our opportunity to meet with the representatives of some 34 agencies that have concerns, contacts and interrelations with our neighbours around the world. Their focus is to educate here at home so that we may appreciate, understand and participate in our developing world. Cooperation, development, education and opportunities are some of the key words one will hear when we meet together. The world partners have much to teach and to share with us. No matter where each nation is in its stages of development, each has much to teach and much to share.
With this group of concerned citizens, one discovers most of all that one is a learner. The volunteer members of the many non-government organizations teach by participation, and encourage us to learn by doing. One example is Survival! a game designed for children between the ages of eight and 11. It gives players the opportunity to learn about the realities that face people in the developing world. It is a word game, with word searches, mazes, crosswords and brainteasers. It includes a survival dictionary, back-grounders, other resources and a world map. No doubt, parents and grandparents could learn a great deal by playing the game with younger members of the family. We may be surprised to find the children are better informed than ourselves.
One aim of BCCIC is to cooperate with the government of British Columbia in educational and developmental programs and in international relations. Indeed, at one time the government of B.C. contributed funds towards an agricultural fund as a token of our interest in world cooperation and in developing nations. These funds were matched by local organizations, and the combined contributions were matched again by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency. In the process we discovered that in giving we are receiving.
On April 21 the government of B.C. issued a press release to the effect that they were matching funds with the British Columbia association for medical aid for Bosnian children. A grant of $26,000 was undertaken for this program. I would encourage the government to support the establishment of a global development fund in cooperation with BCCIC. In so doing we would support and tie in with thousands across British Columbia who cooperate in international education and development in B.C. and around the globe.
However one uses the slogan, "Think globally and act locally," one soon realizes that these two initiatives are of equal necessity in today's world. In our Legislature we sometimes tend to think locally and act locally; this is both limiting and self-defeating. Unless we think and act in the global context we will have limited value and effectiveness.
The members of BCCIC have a challenge for us: not just to be their guest once a year, but to work with them on a daily basis. We would do well to have them monitor what we do here from a global view and to reflect back to us their impressions and perspectives. After all, we live and work in a global village, and within that village we are very privileged people. Putting it another way, we are among the fat cats of the world; we are among the minority which have; we are the symbols of the exploiters of the universe.
G. Brewin: May I add my words of welcome to the BCCIC members who are with us today. My thanks, too, to my hon. friend the Vancouver-Langara representative for his timely accolades to BCCIC and the groups who work so diligently and effectively in the international community. I am very much looking forward, as I'm sure we all are, to the event next week when we will all get to renew our acquaintances with them and their many member groups. I also want to thank him for sending me his notes for today.
I would also like to applaud the member for his timely suggestion about contributions to a global development fund. I'm sure that as we become more involved, we in this House will wish to participate in that fund as well.
But I would suggest, too, that any way you look at it, the task ahead for all of us -- for our neighbourhood, as my learned friend has suggested -- is indeed daunting. We face horrendous poverty, debilitating disease, desperate levels of illiteracy, ever-escalating incidents of military confrontation with dreadful loss of life, the environment under seige, and famines and drought that seem commonplace. The list of the world's ills seems endless.
While we might wish, on occasion, to zap these issues and images on the television screen away from us, they are there
[ Page 10839 ]
and they are part of our neighbourhood. We are all aware of the fact that 20 percent of the world's population receives 82.7 percent of the total world's income. Not surprisingly, then, at the other end of the scale, the poorest 20 percent receive only 1.4 percent of the world's income. It is indeed outrageous. Our task is to invert that process. Yes, I guess I am saying that we need to look vigorously at redistribution of the world's income. We have been able to do some of that in Canada, in many ways, but it would appear that we have yet to make that change at the world level.
Let's consider some of the principles, then, involved in international sharing. If there is to be a genuine social safety net for the world's poor, it will have to be based on a new framework, where commitments to the aid effort will be treated as firm obligations, where the burden is distributed progressively and where aid allocations are made rationally and equitably in accord with agreed global goals. This aid should be channelled, preferably through multilateral organizations that can operate without the political pressures that determine much bilateral aid. The distribution should be based on a new policy dialogue which stresses that aid should be directed to human priority concerns, and encourages recipients to reduce their military spending and respect human rights.
These imperatives suggest a new economic community, rather than the new economic order that we have been talking about, which has been seen by many as a world order that is run by the industrialized nations in the interests of the industrialized nations, and at the expense of the developing nations, with the result that this vast majority of mankind will be continuing in poverty, increased instability and ever-present insecurity. It suggests a ranking, and that is not entirely appropriate these days. The eradication of poverty must be the first priority.
I would suggest -- and I'm sure others would agree -- that our greatest hope lies in that shift. As we talk about a world economic community, we look to organizations of international stature, such as the United Nations. We're talking here about a reformed and strengthened United Nations and other institutions, such as the International Committee for European Security and Cooperation. Also, as part of that, there should be greater emphasis on non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, OXFAM and Greenpeace.
Next year is the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. We in British Columbia and Canada have an opportunity to participate. We have an opportunity to spend some time to reflect on the benefits and strengths of the United Nations and on the areas in which the United Nations needs to improve as it takes us into the next 50 years and beyond. Our neighbourhood needs the support of all of us, locally, nationally and internationally. I know that I will be joined by other members of this Legislature as we look at the plans for the celebration and acknowledgement of the accomplishments of the United Nations.
V. Anderson: I thank the hon. member for Victoria-Beacon Hill for her fine, enthusiastic and detailed presentation. I enjoy working with her very much, in response to some of these presentations.
I agree with her wholeheartedly that we must look at a reorganization of how we govern the world in which we live and that we must take the leadership and participate in the activities of world organizations, particularly the United Nations, which is finding a new role and a new place in our society. We must continue to realize that the informal groups will do the groundwork and everyday preparation in the neighbourhoods, communities and villages around the world. In the long run, individuals will make the difference.
I would ask the members of our Legislature if they too might make an individual difference. Perhaps they would like to kick off a global development fund by each of us making a personal contribution. Let me put out the challenge put out in many other organizations that each of us make a donation to the BCCIC global development fund not by voting in the Legislature, but by doing it personally. To kick this off, on Wednesday night I will be delivering my own personal cheque for $100 and invite others to do the same.
Unless you think that invitation for Wednesday night was to raise dollars from us, let me correct that immediately. The BCCIC does not know that I'm making this request, and they will be as surprised as the members of this Legislature. Do not blame them if you don't agree with it; the blame is solely upon myself. I am requesting that we demonstrate our concern for our neighbours around the world by this symbol of our participation. In so doing we may recognize the thousands of volunteers in this province who donate untold time and effort and be good neighbours in a universal way.
[10:30]
The focus of BCCIC is to link together overseas programming with education here at home. BCCIC helps the NGO community here and overseas to pool common learning and find common solutions. A modern reality is that the so-called underdeveloped countries have much to teach, and they need to share with us their lessons in life. No doubt South Africa can teach us much in bringing about a unity from adversity and diversity. Canada desperately needs to learn those lessons today. BCCIC can help. And what is BCCIC but a working group of volunteers who care, and use their lives in that caring.
INVESTING IN CHILD CARE
B. Copping: This year the province of B.C. has proclaimed that May be Child Care Month. It is a time to recognize the important contributions of parents, child care providers, community organizations, and most important of all, the children.
The idea began in 1982 when our Premier, then mayor of Vancouver, in a speech to the B.C. Daycare Action Coalition suggested that a week be proclaimed for workshops, festivities and publications to focus the attention of the city on day care issues. The week has grown into a month in which the whole province participates.
Quality child care that meets the needs of families at a cost they can afford is essential to our government's plan to invest in jobs and the economy. In 1994 we are building on partnerships we started two years ago. Two years ago our government announced a new child care strategy aimed at making quality, affordable child care available to more families in B.C.
Since that time we have taken many important steps. We have introduced five new child care programs, including funding for child care spaces for infants and toddlers. We have expanded 11 programs to help give communities the resources they need in order to provide safe, quality care that better meets the needs of families. We have created over 5,000 new child care spaces in our first year of these programs. Under B.C. 21 we will be building 7,500 new spaces over the next three years. With funds to help increase low wages, we are also working to acknowledge the contribution of child care providers. We are working towards ensuring that parents have access to services, and we are providing children with the chance to grow and learn in safe, caring environments. But the job is not yet complete.
[ Page 10840 ]
The cost of child care sometimes makes it difficult for families to find child care. For others, the kinds of spaces they need are not available in their communities. Child care across the province, while less fragile than it was two years ago, still needs our help to meet the needs of families. There are those who say that child care should not be a priority, that the work we have done should be undone and the child care system left to survive -- or, more likely, not survive -- on its own. But our government rejects that view. We acknowledge that child care isn't just a commodity to be bought and sold at the going rate. It is a critical economic support to families and communities.
The economy plays very heavily in child care. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Stats Canada surveys all point to an emerging pattern of skilled labour shortages. It makes good economic sense to invest in working people by removing barriers to their participation in the workforce and in training programs.
Women with children are the fastest-growing portion of the workforce. According to the 1991 census, 66 percent of B.C. women who have children under the age of six work outside the home. The shortage of good, safe and affordable child care is the single greatest barrier that these women face in getting education and training and finding and keeping jobs to help support their families. An investment in child care is an investment in our economy.
In 1990, parents' annual payments for child care in B.C. came to approximately $350 million. The child care sector accounts for over 15,000 paid full-time jobs in B.C. These workers put $150 million back into the economy, which helps support another 3,000 jobs across the province. Building new child care centres means more jobs for British Columbia and an increase in the size of the economy. Every $1 million spent on capital construction results in a $900,000 increase in the B.C. gross domestic product, 6.4 person-years of direct employment in the construction industry and a total of 20.6 person-years of employment overall.
Over the long term, expanding child care may in fact save taxpayers money. One study estimates that a $1 investment in child care returns $6 in taxpayers' savings because of lower costs of education and public welfare, lower crime rates and higher worker productivity. Making child care available to low-income working families costs less than maintaining them on welfare. For many two-parent families, the second income made possible by the availability of child care is the only thing that stands between them and poverty. Single mothers, whether working or on income assistance, have a low average income. Child care is essential to helping these women get the education and training they need to succeed in today's workforce and support their families. Employers also benefit when employees have good, dependable child care. Employees are more productive on the job, less likely to be absent or late for work and less likely to leave early or show signs of stress.
Of course, let us never forget the benefits to the children. High-quality child care benefits children by providing care for them in their parents' absence and by supporting each child's social, emotional, physical and intellectual growth. Research indicates that quality early childhood education benefits children, particularly those from low-income families. The social and economic benefits of early childhood education include higher motivation, better performance upon entering school and less need for remedial education programs. Positive experiences in elementary school increase their chances of completing high school and, hence, of gaining employment as adults.
H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Giesbrecht: I have the pleasure of doing an introduction for the Minister of Health, the MLA for Prince George North. In the precincts today, we have 32 grade 9 and 10 students from Lakewood Junior Secondary in Prince George, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Launder. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in response to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and her private member's statement this morning on investing in child care.
I believe this is an important initiative. It's something all members of the House, all members of the community and all parties can support. Child care is important for families in the province, and the choice of that care is important to the Liberal opposition. The quality, affordability and accessibility of all types of child care, be it private, non-profit or family in-house, are things we have to make sure are provided and supported by all members of this House and all members of society.
I recall twenty-odd years ago, as a young mother with young children, that those choices were not there -- certainly not to the degree they are today. To a large degree the struggles of young families to find affordable care goes on. Some statistics are that mothers with children under six years of age earn $1.6 billion each year in British Columbia. That is a significant contribution to the province's economy, which the member talked about. Mothers with children under 12 make up 62 percent of the labour force -- again, a very significant contribution to the economic well-being of the province. Child care is an essential community service which enables parents to participate in the workforce. As the member said, the ability of parents and particularly young women to participate in the workforce is extremely important.
The initiative to provide day care in our public schools is also extremely important. A federal study has indicated that the education of women and their ability to earn a livelihood is directly related to their being able to complete their education. If the mothers are young and they don't have that ability, it makes it very difficult, and many of them show up in our social services statistics, as we all know.
The initiatives brought forward by the ministry and the centres that have been opened are steps in the right direction, ones which I encourage the minister to continue. I feel the government should regulate, monitor and assess the quality of child care for our children. The importance is evident; the investment in women, families and children is always important for our society.
I thank the member for her private member's statement and support what she has said about the government's initiative, and the importance of investment by the province and of the contribution made by women.
B. Copping: I certainly appreciate the comments from the hon. member for Langley. Our government has started to do something about the critical shortage of child care for working families. Specifically, we are providing $846,000 in child care facilities and equipment grants. We are providing $572,000 in emergency repair, replacement and relocation child care grants to upgrade or repair existing facilities. As I previously mentioned, through B.C. 21 we will be increasing the number of child care spaces by over 7,500. These spaces
[ Page 10841 ]
will be in schools, hospitals and post-secondary institutions and represent an investment of over $32 million. We have also allocated $5 million through the wage supplement initiative to improve the wages of child care workers. This initiative will help to encourage recruitment and retention of child care workers.
I'm very pleased that many child care facilities in my riding have benefited. I've been able to give grants to the Simon Fraser University Child Care Society, the parent-participation Hillside Place Preschool and the Friendly Forest Preschool.
Child Care Month is a time for all of us to celebrate the contributions of all those who make our child care system work in B.C., and to learn from them what we need to do to make our investment in child care work even better for more people. Building on the partnership started two years ago, our child care strategy will continue to bring government resources and communities together to help parents and families across B.C.
THE E&N RAILWAY
C. Tanner: I rise today to talk about the E&N Railway, an important facility which is available to the people on Vancouver Island and, hopefully, to the world. The Victoria Times-Colonist of September 30, 1983, printed a big, bold headline that said: "For the Fifth Time in 15 Years, Death Knell for Dayliner?" Nearly 11 years later, again the bell tolls. But this time there's a difference. The Supreme Court of Canada has now ruled that Via Rail has no obligation under the constitution to operate a rail service on Vancouver Island.
In response to that judgment, 11 government members from Vancouver Island wrote to the Prime Minister on May 6 of this year, asking him to rescind a cabinet directive and, in doing so, not only ensure an E&N rail service but also fulfil a federal election promise of 1993. That letter puzzles me, because I wonder what happened to those 11 members' own election promises of two years earlier, to have B.C. Rail operate and expand the E&N service.
[10:45]
On March 27, 1992, I was accused in this House by the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith of offering "patronizing twaddle" in response to her very thorough review of the background to the E&N Railway -- a review I thought was intelligent and interesting -- and of her government's commitment to it. I'm sorry she felt that way. The substance of my suggestions were echoed last Sunday in the Times-Colonist editorial entitled: "Without Via, E&N Could Really Roll." The editorial went on to suggest that B.C. should forget Via Rail. It has mismanaged the line, it has done nothing to promote it and has done nothing to advertise it. That editorial pointed out that Via Rail has provided "minimal and unimaginative service and scheduling, antiquated equipment, many run-down stations...." Why then plead with the Prime Minister to allow Via Rail to continue? Why perpetuate a running sore?
E.M. Forster could well have been thinking of that little station on Wharf Street when he wrote: "Railway termini are our gates to the glorious and the unknown." Has this government really considered the tourist potential of the E&N -- as I did in 1992? I submit that it would be a valuable asset for skiers en route to Mount Washington, for sailors or for other boaters chartering boats in Desolation Sound, not to mention its very real potential as a commuter corridor for local residents. Rocky Mountain Railtours, a private organization using CP rails, released a forecast earlier this week that put their passenger load this for season at between 23,000 and 24,000. If Rocky Mountain can do that, why can't a private enterprise be considered for the E&N line? Why can't the E&N line be as successful, or even more successful, than the Rocky Mountain line?
In the late 1870s Premier Walkem of British Columbia threatened to secede from the Dominion if work on the line wasn't started. In 1883 William Smithe, MLA for Cowichan, became the Premier, and finally the deal was struck. The present MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith has a long history to live up to. I would like to see her use her influence to push for a British Columbia takeover. Let's be proactive, not reactive. Let's negotiate some good terms with Ottawa. Let's look into the cost of leasing those rails and obtaining those rights-of-way. Let's use our imagination to utilize this asset for the benefit of tourism -- railway enthusiasts, hikers, campers, day travellers -- as well as for moving freight. The narrow-gauge railway between Skagway, Alaska, and Carcross in the Yukon has become a cruise ship favourite and a world-famous tourist attraction. Why not here? We have the cruises, the rails and the countryside. All we need is the will.
It was recently brought to my attention that seven more British Columbia railway stations have been designated as heritage sites, including those at Duncan, Qualicum and Courtenay on our railway on Vancouver Island. The designation of those sites makes them historical attractions for tourists and people visiting Vancouver Island. During that designation by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Michel Dupuy, on February 18, he also mentioned that Vancouver Island's Via service on the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway has been a bone of contention since the courts required the federal government to keep their passenger service open, against an order of the Mulroney government. The Nanaimo station on this line has already been designated under an earlier act, and the E&N roundhouse in Victoria is a designated structure under different legislation. It seems that everybody realizes the value of this railway except those 11 members who are asking the federal government to continue something that is obviously badly mismanaged.
This morning I read in the local paper: "Victoria Urges Campaign to Save E&N."
"Victoria is calling together civic, provincial and federal officials, as well as Tourism Victoria, in a campaign to save the E&N Railway. If the city doesn't jump in to take the lead, nothing will happen, Councillor Helen Hughes told councillors Thursday. Victoria should 'gather all those MLAs up' who recently fired off a letter to Prime Minister Chretien calling for a reversal of a decision of the former Conservative government directing Via Rail to shut down the Vancouver Island service, Hughes said.
"The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, Victoria MP David Anderson and other groups associated with the railway should also be among those invited to a strategy session to plot the railway's future course, she said. The group would look at options to run the service, such as involvement by the private sector or a B.C. Crown corporation, she said. Mayor Bob Cross, who earlier suggested the private sector may want to step in, agreed to call the group together."
There is a real hope that this railway can be saved for the benefit of all of us.
J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to rise today and respond to the statement made by the Liberal member for Saanich North and the Islands regarding the E&N. First of all, I want to make something very clear. What we heard this morning is an appeal by the Liberal caucus for British Columbians to lease the E&N from the federal Liberal government. They want British Columbians to pay to lease the E&N. On May 5
[ Page 10842 ]
we heard another member of the Liberal caucus saying that we should purchase the E&N.
I want to make it very clear to this Legislature, to everyone who's listening and to the media that while the New Democrats have said since 1989 and before that the line is mismanaged and the opportunities are not used, we have also made it very clear that British Columbians have paid for that line through the teeth. We laid out a four-point plan, and I'd like to quote it for the members opposite: "Under this four-point plan, the province would run the railway, while the federal government lives up to its historic responsibility by paying the operating costs." That's from our 1989 literature. We also said in the same document that: "The CPR and the federal government would be required to pay B.C. back for their continued use of our forests and lands over the last 120 years. They must either give back the huge tract of land that runs alongside the railway or provide compensation."
We are dealing with a Liberal opposition that wants the taxpayers of British Columbia to pay again for the E&N Railway. This government is interested in seeing it managed properly and seeing its potential reached, but we are not willing to see more federal unloading from the federal Liberals onto the people of British Columbia. We've seen enough of that; we've seenTRIUMF-KAON, Royal Roads, the Naden military band and the base in Masset all closed -- all of those people were put out of work with no plan and no compensation. We've seen the shipbuilding industry neglected here -- more jobs gone. We've seen Bill C-18 try to deny British Columbia its two seats that it badly needs. We have seen the federal Liberals unload, off-load and download everything but the two seats we in British Columbia deserve.
We are not prepared to accept more off-loading or downloading. There is indeed a great deal of potential in that line, and we have said for years now that we are willing explore that potential and manage the line. As the member opposite has made very clear in his statement, the federal Liberals are mismanaging it, and he's arguing, quite correctly, that we New Democrats in British Columbia could manage it much better. Certainly I agree with that. We will explore those opportunities -- we've made that intention clear -- but the members opposite ought to be joining with the government members to hold the federal Liberal caucus's feet to the fire to say: "You hold up your campaign commitment. You hold up your responsibility to keep this line running, and you hold up your moral obligation that says the federal government should pay the cost, because the people of British Columbia have paid enough."
We certainly agree that we have been active, proactive and aggressive on this issue for many years. Our position hasn't changed since day one; we maintain the position that, yes, there's a lot of potential, particularly in tourism, but let's not ask the people of British Columbia to pay yet again for something they have paid for -- and paid for well -- over the history of this province.
C. Tanner: There is an interesting change of tone in this member's reaction to my speech this time from what it was a year ago. Let's face facts. About a quarter of Vancouver Island was given to CP Rail when it took over the line. If it's too late to get that back, let's at least protect what's left with a little British Columbia experience in exchange for what we've already lost. Let's live in the real world. Let's see what we can do. In fact, let's just get something straight about the members who signed that letter to the Prime Minister recently. Eleven out of 13 Island MLAs signed a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. One NDP member from North Island constituency didn't sign, because, as he says, the railway doesn't go through his community. Of course, that also applies to the constituencies of Oak Bay, Hillside, Saanich South and Beacon Hill. But these four members always seize every opportunity to sign letters -- either to someone else to take over the responsibility or denying any responsibility. The thirteenth member on the Island is me. I wasn't consulted, because I'm not of the right political stripe.
The federal government has obeyed a court decision. Let's turn that negative decision into something positive, and get this railway to work for tourists, residents and British Columbians.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member for Richmond Centre concluding on this same statement?
D. Symons: I see there is a minute left on the time, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the member opposite. I did make some comments in the House regarding the railway. The date the letter was sent to Ottawa and the motion that was passed in this House.... I think the member had a sort of selective reading of what I said. I was saying that I supported wholly....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The Chair had not been fully advised of the arrangements. I was under the impression that there had been an agreement for you to take your place. But the procedure is that a statement is made, there is a response and then there are concluding remarks. I regret that I recognized you. It was my mistake.
Before recognizing the fourth and final statement this morning, I would remind members that in preparing their private members' statements, the content is not to be of a partisan nature; this is an opportunity for members to bring matters forward on a non-partisan basis.
REAL SKILLS FOR THE REAL WORLD
U. Dosanjh: This morning I want to talk about Skills Now. When you ask British Columbians what government's main priority should be, increasing skills training opportunities almost always tops the list.
We understand the importance of skills development. Last week I had the privilege of being with Premier Harcourt at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary school in Vancouver-Kensington when he unveiled Skills Now -- a new, forward-looking plan that will invest $200 million over the next two years to create or expand more than 30 practical, innovative skills training and support programs for British Columbians. Through a mix of work experience, apprenticeships and other programs, Skills Now will ensure that students, workers and the unemployed have the skills they need to take advantage of the new jobs in B.C.'s changing economy.
[11:00]
The government can't do this alone. Everyone has to do their part. As part of the Skills Now initiative, in partnership with business, labour, educators and communities, our government will establish the B.C. Labour Force Development Board to maximize job opportunities and keep British Columbia on the leading edge of job training and retraining. Skills Now is a forward-looking plan that will find new and practical ways to increase access to skills that are in demand today, and for tomorrow. Skills Now consists of four building blocks, each aimed at meeting a critical job need.
[ Page 10843 ]
The first building block will link high schools to the workplace by putting more priority on practical work experience outside the classroom, so that more young people will get the skills they need while they're still in school and graduate with real skills for the real world. This means increased work experience and apprenticeship preparation, almost doubling the number of students graduating with work experience to 50 percent, issuing credits towards students' graduation for skills learned outside the school and awarding students post-secondary credits while attending high school for completed courses in computer technology, electronics, forest science, business administration and other fields.
There will be more high school graduates through expanded-stay initiatives and alternative education programs, such as storefront schools to encourage dropouts to complete their education. It will put students on the information highway through a provincial learning network linking B.C.'s 1,600 public schools with colleges, universities and libraries. There will be mandatory career planning by students, modernizing vocational and technical training to reflect the application of electronics and computers in all trades. We must do more to open more of the right doors to colleges and universities, helping more young men and women keep ahead in our changing world.
That's where the second building block of skills comes in. We will triple the number of new student spaces in colleges and universities to 8,100 this year from 2,700 last year, including $12 million that challenges colleges and universities to find innovative, cost-effective ways to teach more skills to more students. We will give degree-granting status to six colleges and institutes, including BCIT, which will get a new $32 million state-of-the-art campus for downtown Vancouver to provide greater training opportunities for workers, businesses and entrepreneurs.
Improving access to post-secondary education for students with disabilities, aboriginal students and single parents is a high priority. We will also have six new advanced technology programs in growing job fields such as environmental management, film animation and computerized mapping. Modernizing technical equipment with matching grants from business will also take place.
Retraining of workers closer to home is the focus of the third building block. For workers looking to upgrade their skills to find new jobs, Skills Now will create ten new community skill centres across British Columbia linked by computers and telecommunications to provide closer-to-home training for 10,000 people. The creation of 70 small businesses and 15 sectoral training programs, such as B.C.'s forest renewal plan, will share the responsibility and cost of retraining workers. Expanding and modernizing apprenticeship programs to create 300 apprenticeships in new and emerging fields will also take place. There will also be quick-response training programs for communities affected by plant closures and expansions.
The fourth and final building block is aimed at moving the unemployed from welfare into the workforce. New initiatives with B.C. businesses and individual training plans that target local job needs will help people back into the workforce and into well-paying jobs. Up to 50,000 unemployed British Columbians will have access to new programs under this plan. Matching training to local job needs so that people can stay in their own communities is also a priority. There will be training credits for British Columbia businesses of up to $10,000 for each new employee that businesses train. Further targeted vocational and skills training at colleges and universities for up to 20,000 people is also included as part of this Skills Now project.
At least 90 percent of all new jobs between now and the turn of the century will require specialized skills, and three-quarters of them will call for post-secondary training. Acquiring these skills is beyond the reach of too many British Columbians. A third of high school students drop out, and many graduate without any job training or work experience. Thousands of qualified British Columbians can't get into colleges and universities, and many more can't find the technology programs they need.
Our government has been listening, and we have a plan. I believe the best way to help ordinary British Columbians is by providing them with the skills to succeed in B.C.'s changing economy. Skills Now will ensure the people of our province get the skills they need for the new economy -- real skills for the real world.
L. Reid: I am indeed pleased to rise and debate on this topic, and I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I certainly understand the necessity for the infrastructure building blocks that we put in place today to actually create meaningful work for British Columbians. That is the discussion, and it is, I think, the goal that each legislator will have uppermost in their mind today. How do we translate a broad range of community-based programs into meaningful work? Legislators in this chamber have heard me say in the past that the best social program in the world is a job. There have to be opportunities for people to be gainfully employed through programs such as these so that their self-confidence and self-esteem are not compromised.
The question that we must ask today is: how do we create some framework for productivity? How do we ensure that these building blocks that the hon. member spoke of will indeed allow us to realize the objective that we all deem to be very important -- simply, whether or not they will translate into meaningful work? That is the issue on the minds of British Columbians. That was certainly the issue on the minds of Canadians during the last federal election, when we talked about the necessity to ensure that jobs were in place. That was the issue of the day.
How do we prepare for the future? What infrastructure programs will we need? Certainly infrastructure today is dramatically different. We talk about the world changing. Well, hon. Speaker, the world has changed. We need to recognize that our infrastructural needs are no longer bricks and mortar. There are going to be very different learning tools in the future -- and very different working tools, if you will. We will see computer systems and networks that allow us to convey information much more readily and efficiently and to actually look at markets in all different parts of the world, as opposed to just what happens in British Columbia or in each of our individual communities.
One of the most interesting aspects of my work as an MLA is looking at RFPs, requests for proposals, from a number of businesses in this province, the criteria that are attached to that and how they evaluate who gets a project or successful tender in this province. Certainly one of the most interesting aspects of that is how little weight is given to implementation of a plan and project management. That is a crucial area, I think, because how well a project has been planned out determines the success or failure of any given project.
I very much want to see British Columbia lead the way in terms of being a home for research and development. I want us to have some sense that our educational plans, whether they be five-year plans or ten-year plans, are actually
[ Page 10844 ]
building something for the future and will translate into meaningful jobs. One of the most important building blocks I'd like to refer to in my comments this morning is the ISO 9000 program. I'll speak specifically to the ISO 9001 program for design, engineering, production and support of quality software programs. The hon. colleague made mention of an infrastructure program. I believe that that infrastructure program will speak specifically to computer networks. How best do we position ourselves in the next century? By looking, I believe, at an international organization for standards: ISO, the International Standards Organization, which is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies. How do we set standards? How do we ensure that the product we begin with reaches the market with some integrity and calibre, if you will, around some of those discussions? The work of preparing international standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees. I would think that the majority of projects that come forward in British Columbia -- and, frankly, in Canada -- will at some point need to achieve that set of standards. Those standards are going forward in the international community, and they will be the standards that we in British Columbia must meet, if indeed we're going to be competitive and achieve those markets in countries other than Canada.
I think that is the goal, and I think that the Skills Now package that the hon. member spoke of will only be successful if it can indeed position us to be competitive in global markets. Setting standards, I believe, is the role of government; whether or not we achieve them is the role of government. But whether or not all the good work we do in this chamber actually translates into meaningful work for British Columbians and into a sense of confidence, self-respect and self-esteem -- that is the goal for us today. That is the goal for the Premier's new program.
I look forward to seeing it evaluated over the next number of months; any new program needs evaluation and some kind of projection as to how many people it will actually employ. I've not seen that information come forward. My hon. colleague certainly has not mentioned it this morning. I trust he will in his concluding remarks.
U. Dosanjh: I thank the hon. member for her response. I'm somewhat astonished that the hon. member would perceive the Skills Now program as a program that would create meaningful jobs. This program may contribute toward creation of meaningful jobs.
The major thrust of this program, however, is aimed at training the young men and women of British Columbia -- the workers of tomorrow -- for the kinds of jobs that exist. A major thrust of this program is to marry the schools with the employers, jobs and training institutes, so that we begin the building blocks right from grades 7, 8 and 9 onwards into grades 11 and 12; so that 70 percent of our students, who never end up at universities or technical institutes, get training in cooperation with the employers in British Columbia and with the technical institutes like the British Columbia Institute of Technology; so that no time is wasted and there are no dropouts; so that high school students and graduates can make a smooth transition into the meaningful jobs that exist out there. One of the difficulties we have today is that we have jobs out there and do not have enough trained and skilled individuals to fill some of those jobs. We need to create training and skill-learning opportunities for the young men and women of British Columbia -- that's the major thrust of this program. This program in turn will give the impetus for British Columbians to be competitive in the world. If we have the best skilled and trained workers in the world, we will have a competitive industry and workforce. We need to see this program in that light.
It's important and a privilege for me to stand here today and talk about this, because the announcement for this particular initiative took place in my constituency, Vancouver-Kensington, at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary -- a school that was given $99,000 as part of this total initiative, to put in place a program to give meaning to this kind of project. That program at Sir Charles Tupper is called a tech-step program. The school itself will cooperate with BCIT. And the students in grade 11 and 12, or perhaps even earlier, will begin to learn skills and take credit courses that will be given at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, so they can have a smoother transition from school into the technical training and the skills they require to be meaningful workers for the meaningful jobs that may exist out there.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 16: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
J. Dalton: I guess I could say welcome back. It's been a while -- almost a month -- since we concluded the first round of the AG's estimates. This is round two. I can't give the Attorney General any specific idea of how many rounds we might go on this, but certainly there are other issues that have to be canvassed. My intention this morning is to raise one issue in particular -- maybe two, depending on how long my colleagues will allow me to stand on my feet -- and then other members, I believe, have other issues they wish to raise.
The matter I would like to start with this morning involves a recent visit I made to the West Vancouver police station -- not just because it happens to be one of the two police forces in my riding, but because of a particular prisoner record computer system West Vancouver has recently implemented, which I had the pleasure of seeing in operation. It's a system I'm sure the Attorney General and his officials will know: an OCS prisoner record system. It is, of course, the new technology and the new software available for use in areas of police work, like many other things in our new computer world.
[11:15]
The thing that impressed me most about the system, of course, was the speed and accuracy it allowed in keeping records and the ability to instantly ascertain and compare prisoners' backgrounds, traits and characteristics -- things of that nature. I guess the downside was that I was disturbed to hear that very few police forces have got into this new technology; at least, perhaps not in the way systems like this should invite. I was informed that the West Vancouver system cost $25,000. That's an all-inclusive cost: equipment, training and all the software needed. Another thing that disturbed me a bit is that West Vancouver is now becoming the receiver for prisoner record information from other lower mainland police forces, because West Vancouver has the technology in place and are passing it on to others who don't have it in place.
So my first question to the Attorney General is whether this sort of programming is being considered provincewide.
[ Page 10845 ]
From what I've observed, it seems to be a rather piecemeal thing, and I don't think police work should be done piecemeal -- not anymore. Traditionally, police forces did stake out their territory, and that's fine. West Vancouver, of course, is a municipal force; North Vancouver, the other part of my riding, has an RCMP detachment.
Another point I would add -- and I may have shared this with the Attorney General at other times -- is that I've had occasion to ride with both North Van and West Van police, and they don't talk to each other. The only time they actually get to talk to each other is, for example, when they meet down at the Capilano Indian reserve. Actually -- and this is a point Justice Wally Oppal made to me recently -- often a police officer would be better to stop his patrol car, get into a pay phone and dial the neighbouring police force. If that's true -- and, of course, Mr. Justice Oppal wasn't being totally serious, but I think he wasn't being totally frivolous, either -- then I think we have to bring policing into the twenty-first century.
Again, my question to the Attorney General is whether a program such as OCS is being considered, one that we can implement in every jurisdiction in this province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The technological changes and developments that are occurring, as members know, are rapidly occurring, in the sense that the technology is changing faster than most of us can keep up with. That's just a reality of today's technological changes. The province developed a program which OCS is operating. Police forces, as I understand it, have the opportunity to choose the systems that they wish to opt into. A number of innovative technological advances are occurring as we speak. The RCMP in the lower mainland are trying very advanced technological approaches to fingerprinting, and other initiatives are underway.
I don't know whether the member recognizes that we don't impose a provincial system on the police. They make their decisions. We try to make available to them the best opportunities and the best technology. It's not for us to impose a system on them that we choose. We do this in cooperation and work with them with respect to those issues.
With respect to communications, I think the fact that various police forces don't talk easily to each other has been identified as a problem for a long time. I understand that there is a meeting among chiefs of police, including the RCMP, in British Columbia in the next few weeks to discuss this very issue in a serious way and to try and make progress on the ability of officers from one detachment or force to talk with one another.
J. Dalton: The Attorney General made a comment about choice, which I understand, saying that systems such as OCS cannot be imposed upon police forces. Perhaps it's time for such an imposition to be considered. I don't know, and we can't prejudge what Justice Oppal will be telling us at the end of this month, but I suspect he may have some comments on this very topic. Not that what Justice Oppal has in his report will dictate the future, either, but I think the very thorough study that he has conducted -- as the Attorney General well knows -- has to be given due consideration. If he does comment on it, I hope we'll all be able to follow up on it. I truly believe that it is time for the Attorney General, who is the head of law enforcement in this province, to step in and say to police forces: "In the best interests of public confidence and safety, we want you to do the following."
The other point I would make is that if we are not able to impose the new technology on forces.... I cite the example again of West Vancouver, which I think is on the leading edge, and I believe Delta is another example, where they're doing this now. If we don't have any game plan in mind to not only impose -- if that's the right term -- upon police forces but also interconnect.... The Attorney General made the other good point about communication, but if every police force in the province chooses its own new technology, they won't be able to talk to each other through computers any more than they can over the telephone. So I invite the Attorney General to seriously consider -- and I'm sure his department has thought of this -- that we have to move beyond the territorial situation, where each police force takes care of itself, into a far more effective method of policing. It would be cost-effective, too, I presume.
That will lead into my next question. Of course, the Attorney General can comment on what I've just said as well, if he so chooses. I cited the cost of $25,000 in West Vancouver. Does that cost then come out of their annual policing budget? I presume this is true, because it's the choice of West Van whether to implement this or not. Does the Attorney General in any way assist police forces choosing to get into modern technology, or are they left to their own devices as to whether to implement systems and pay the costs that follow?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, we don't provide specific or additional funding for assistance in getting into new technologies.
At this point it's important to say several things. First, I am very much looking forward to Justice Wallace Oppal's report with respect to these and many other issues, and I expect to take some guidance from that. Second, I remind members that the chiefs of police and the RCMP recognize the issues the member is talking about -- the communications and technology and the common use thereof -- and are meeting shortly to once again advance that issue in a serious way. Third, it is important for me to remind members that for the last several years the ministry has been attempting to develop what has been called an integrated case processing system to try to find a way of integrating the entire criminal justice system -- from police right through to corrections, and everything in between. This a pretty significant initiative and requires a great deal of care in developing it. Work is underway to develop those kinds of systems that will integrate all of the information and technological services that are used in the entire criminal justice system.
J. Dalton: I have a newspaper article in front of me that I clipped back in January, and I believe the Attorney General just referred to this. It's describing a new computer system that the RCMP is implementing in some detachments. Perhaps the Attorney General can fill us in as to how far that's gone. The program they are describing has the initials VICLAS. Could I take it that that's the program he has just referred to?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not able to respond to the member at this stage. I don't remember the article, and I'm not familiar with the initials.
J. Dalton: I will make one more reference to this, and then I'll be happy to pass it across the floor and share it with the members opposite.
As the Attorney General will see, the article describes how, with new technology and computers, the RCMP is now
[ Page 10846 ]
able to quickly track people who are under arrest, for example, so that they can pair them. It is quite similar to what West Vancouver and other detachments are doing. There may be an outstanding search warrant for someone. They can immediately put in descriptives and the computer will spill out.... In one example they typed in "white, red-haired male." Seconds later the computer narrowed the field to 661 files. There must be hundreds of thousands of white, red-haired males in British Columbia, but with a very general description -- and a couple of other details, I presume -- they are able to narrow it down.
I witnessed the West Vancouver program, which I presume is similar to this, and I know the prisoner record information that West Vancouver can now enter into its computers. There are categories for peculiarities, marks, scars, tattoos, deformities, etc., and I saw it demonstrated. For example, if the suspect has a scar on his left knee, they can put that right into the program, and it will tell you whether there's anyone in the program that has a scar on his left knee. I think that's a very intelligent way of policing. The officer who demonstrated it to me said that approximately 31 characteristics of a prisoner can be entered. With 31 characteristics, in this day and age you should be able to almost instantly find the person you are looking for.
That's the point that I make, and I will be happy to pass this across the floor in a moment. The Attorney General is certainly welcome to take a copy of it. But it does demonstrate again that this is the leading edge and this is obviously what we have to consider. I appreciate that the chiefs of police are meeting, and they're obviously discussing these issues on an ongoing basis. But there could be a downside if the chiefs are there to talk about territorial turf first and provincewide policing second. We should reverse that and encourage the chiefs to talk first about policing in the province, and then, if they are still concerned -- as they should be -- about their own communities. That should become secondary, because this type of technology is far too important to be implemented in a helter-skelter way saying: "You can do it, and the department next door will make its own choice."
One other comment I'll make in this regard is that North Vancouver has not yet implemented the OCS system, but I know they're looking at it. In fact, that raises one other question I wish to ask. Is the Attorney General aware of whether other departments are seriously considering the OCS or similar systems, or is it still in the discussion stage?
[11:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer to the last question. It's not something that I think we're involved in.
The member talked earlier about the computer technology available to police officers; in particular, I think he was talking about RCMP technology. I think that what he is describing is what's known as the CPIC system; it's been in place now for 20 or 30 years. It is technology which is being constantly upgraded and which is beginning to be available in patrol cars so that officers can access, right on the spot, information that's contained within the system. One example of how efficient and effective it can be: if the police want to match a set of fingerprints, it takes eight seconds to search the entire country to see if there's a match. As time goes by, that technology will be available to police officers right on the job. I think that's the reference the member is making. In general terms, technology is an increasingly important tool in the policing arsenal, and it is very much a part of the criminal justice system. It is an issue that we have to give a lot of time and attention to, and we do.
J. Dalton: I'll lead away from this line of questioning, as I think the Attorney General agrees that it's very important to pursue these things. As he also commented, we look forward to Mr. Justice Oppal's report, because I'm almost certain -- I'd probably be prepared to put a loonie on it -- that he will be commenting on these things in his report. I would like to ask two or three questions about community policing, and then I'll stand aside for other members who have other questions, probably of a community nature as well.
Community policing, as the Attorney General well knows, is a very important aspect of modern policing, if I can put it that way so we'll move away from computers and get down to something that, perhaps as far as a particular police force is concerned, is certainly very effective and should be encouraged more and more. I've had occasion to visit downtown policing offices -- if I can describe them that way -- in Prince George and North Vancouver, of course, where one has opened in lower Lonsdale. I was in Williams Lake about a month ago. Unfortunately, when I was there, the office wasn't open, but I know they have one in the downtown core of Williams Lake. I'll be going there next weekend and will certainly visit it. I know that's happening all across the province. Can the Attorney General advise the committee on the extent of this type of community policing? I know it's being encouraged. I don't want specifics as to how many such offices there are, but is this thing on an ongoing basis as far as the cost, for example? Do the costs have to be picked up out of the annual budget of the force, or does the Attorney General's office provide some extra funding?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I need to say that in general -- and I think I made this comment earlier on in estimates discussions -- community policing means different things to different people, and different police officers have different visions and views of what community policing means. It's not simply setting up an office in a community or a suboffice in a neighbourhood. That's very much a part of it, and it is an important part, but community policing has a wide variety of components.
I just need to say that we are very supportive and encouraging. It's not in a directive way, because we don't direct in a hands-on way, but we do provide general direction to police forces and to the provincial component of the RCMP in British Columbia in particular. A section that deals with making community policing a priority is included in my instructions to the RCMP about what our priorities are, so that's very much a part of our agenda.
If policing is going to be effective in tough economic times, as we have now and probably always will have, we're going to have to find ways of making sure that the community is involved, in a proper way, in assisting the police to provide the security to property and persons that everyone demands and deserves in our society. That requires a greater cooperation between the community and the police, and a greater participation both ways. That's the future of policing, and I don't think there's any disagreement about that anywhere. All police forces are moving in that direction in one way or another.
With respect to the community offices, we provide some financial assistance out of our crime prevention budget to help start up community police offices in certain situations. That's part of our encouraging the police to move in this direction, as we have done, as the members notes, in a number of communities now.
L. Fox: May I have leave to make an introduction?
[ Page 10847 ]
Leave granted.
L. Fox: The members of the House, I'm sure, will be aware that this week has been set aside to recognize our dedicated nurses, whose work we as individual members and all British Columbians enjoy. This has, in fact, been B.C. Nurse Week. In particular, today is Licensed Practical Nurse Day. We have some members in the precincts, and I'd like to ask all the House to join with me in showing their appreciation for the dedication of the nurses in British Columbia.
T. Perry: I'd like to seek leave to respond very briefly to the member's introduction on behalf of the government.
Leave granted.
T. Perry: I'm not sure who they are, but having worked with many licensed practical nurses and having also benefited as a patient from their services, I can say that they're a greatly underrated group who have performed a wonderful role in B.C. in the past. I hope they will continue to do so in the future. I really am delighted to join the member for Prince George-Omineca in welcoming them here.
J. Dalton: I'm more than happy to stand aside for anyone who wants to introduce anyone. In a moment I'll be happy to stand aside and let other members jump in and ask questions of the Attorney General.
I just want to make one more observation about community policing. The Attorney General is quite correct that just a downtown presence as such is only part of community policing. I recall a meeting that I and some of my colleagues had with Justice Oppal about two weeks ago. We got into a definition of community policing. There isn't any standard definition, but that's probably something else that he'll be commenting on in his report. I guess my perception of community policing -- and I believe the Attorney General alluded to it in his remark -- is to get the community involved in assisting and being eyes and ears for the police.
However, a word of caution here -- not that this is directly relevant to our line of questioning. Tonight there unfortunately will be a community meeting in Oyama, which is in reaction to a rather horrific crime committed the other day. I'm only citing that because, unless the community can feel confident that policing.... It's a community responsibility as well as a police responsibility. But if, for whatever reason, public confidence is dissipated by incidents such as that -- I guess the word "vigilante" will be flying around that community, or at least from some sources -- then that of course is the downside. I must applaud the wife of the victim in that case. From her perspective, she's spreading caution in that community, saying: "No, this is not the route to go." And I quite agree.
However, community policing -- again coming back to my definition -- is truly whereby friends and neighbours, such as with Block Watch.... My particular street formed a Block Watch a few months ago. Business Watch is another very active program in North Vancouver. These things are not expensive. Usually they don't cost anything, other than to get together now and then -- along with police officers, of course -- to have a social event and discuss community policing. They are very effective. The other feature of them is that if you get the community involved, and if the community realizes that it has a true voice and a presence, then not only will it make the police's job much easier but of course it's going to take some pressure off budgets. The Attorney General was quite right when he said "cash-tough times" -- they are. So that's the sort of thing we have to give more and more thought to.
I do welcome the ongoing dialogue. Of course, estimates is only one of many avenues we can pursue this and other topics in. So I'm going to step aside for now and allow other members to participate.
R. Chisholm: I've just got a few questions. They're partly on policing and the state of policing, which I guess enhances what our critic has been saying. I have to wonder -- when we have all these costs, and we're trying to save money and get the best possible policing for our society -- why we are not adjusting some of the ways that we approach policing.
For instance, when an off-duty police officer has to come to court to give a statement, and this is costing in the vicinity of $40 an hour, why can't the officer produce an affidavit? That is evidence in a court case. There are other methods that we could utilize for policing, too. After all, we have highly trained individuals as police. They could be taking care of criminal actions, whereas they are giving out parking tickets at this point in time. Why could not civil servants, let's say, be operating radar and that type of thing? These are just thoughts, but I would like to hear what you think of how costs could be alleviated and these moneys put toward the actual job of policing our society, taking care of violence and the types of things we see on the increase.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I welcome comments from members trying to find ways of doing things differently. We all need to push at the edges all the time. There are some limitations, however.
First of all, in respect of policing, a trained peace officer is required to do the actual policing in order to have the charge laid. With regard to standing around waiting for court appearances, the affidavit alone isn't going to work. If there is a trial and cross-examination, the officer has to be present. There are obviously problems when you don't know whether a trial is going to proceed on the date it is planned, or for one reason or another it's adjourned or resolved. There is a lot of wasted time, no doubt. We work on that issue as best we can by trying to coordinate the events in a way that minimizes the waste of time. That's a priority within the system. Nonetheless, it's fair to say that there are times when an officer's valuable time is being wasted as a result of sitting around waiting.
The police are getting more police officers into the field -- onto the street and into the community -- rather than doing desk jobs that could be done by others who aren't trained police officers. That is now happening in a more significant way, and it's seen as part of the solution to getting more officers into the community. That's another initiative that's well underway.
[11:45]
R. Chisholm: That was exactly the kind of answer I was hoping to hear: utilizing someone other than policemen in the office and that type of thing. We don't seem to have the people on the street that we need, and we seem to have them wasted in other areas and other endeavours which are not necessarily the jobs they were hired for.
The other area I was looking at was DNA testing and what the Attorney General thought of it. DNA can prove without a doubt whether a person is guilty, and it can ensure that an innocent person is not wrongly convicted of a crime. In this society we have phone taps, which are legal. I wonder if taking a swab from a person's mouth is any different than you tapping a person's phone. There seem to be some
[ Page 10848 ]
objections to it, of course, but I have to wonder if there is any difference between you listening in on a conversation and someone taking a swab, testing the DNA and ensuring innocent people are not going to jail and the proper people are going to jail for their crimes. I would like your thoughts are along that line -- whether you see this as part of the system in the future.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As far as we're concerned, DNA is just another advance in technology. It's better than fingerprinting and more certain. In terms of taking samples, some changes in federal legislation are still required. Together with the federal government, we are discussing that issue, and I think they are receptive to it. DNA is a very valuable tool in the arsenal. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than a technological advance that we need to take advantage of.
R. Chisholm: I gather from that answer that you're saying this is going to be authorized for use. At the present time, it's up to the discretion of a judge as to whether or not it is used. Or am I on the wrong wavelength?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are two elements. The member and I may not have communicated effectively. First of all, in order to collect a sample, there needs to be a change in the federal law. In order for the information to be used in court, the judge has to accept that it is admissible evidence. So that's the two-step process we're talking about here.
R. Chisholm: My last question on the subject is: are you approaching the federal government on the Charter amendments that would have to go through to change it so that this would be authorized?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we have had discussions with the federal government about it. The Identification of Criminals Act requires amendment. I think it's fair to say that there is no opposition to the notion. Both governments want to get on board.
R. Chisholm: The other area I want to talk about under policing is the bail system. Bail seems to be far too easy to attain. I'm just going to quote an article that was in the Province, as evidence of what's going on here. It's about an individual who has gone on and on and who was let out of jail:
"He was arrested in November with a gun and drugs while out on parole, and released by a justice of the peace on a promise to appear in court. His trial isn't until July. The man was arrested again in December and charged with four robberies. 'He was hitting hotel desk clerks in the downtown,' said the squad's detective Don Jarvis. He was released again, on a promise to appear or pay a $1,000 penalty, by Vancouver Provincial Court Judge Jack McGivern, over the protests of Crown counsel.
"Since his second arrest, the man has been charged with four more robberies and is suspected of many more. 'After being arrested for the robberies in the downtown area, he moved uptown and was hitting gas stations, video stores and drug stores along West Broadway,' Jarvis said."
My concern here, of course, is that this isn't just happening in Vancouver; it is happening all over the province. I'm wondering if there isn't anything we can do to tighten up our bail system and ensure that people who are going to continually go out and rob, and do whatever they're going to do in society, are retained until such time as they can be arraigned and go to court for their crimes. There seems to be an awful lot of this. Whether we're talking about Vancouver or downtown Chilliwack, we hear the same story over and over again. I'm wondering if the Attorney General sees a tightening-up of this in the future.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises an issue that has a flood of ramifications, not the least of which would be the capacity of the remand system and pretrial centres to cope with the results. It's important to say that the Criminal Code is the law to which judges look when considering bail applications. First of all, there's a presumption of innocence. We all tend to forget that everybody's innocent until a court determines otherwise. That's a very basic tenet of the British legal system that most news organizations have forgotten, and often members of this House tend to lose sight of it, too. The whole law is based on the notion that you're innocent until proven guilty. If you're making an application for bail, the judge has to be persuaded that there isn't going to be a problem if the person is let out on their own recognizance or on a small bail amount.
Having said all of that, I think that there clearly are occasions when the notion that the member is expressing is correct -- people are back out on the street easily, on some occasions. Whenever that happens, of course, it's drawn to our attention, so that we know about it. We don't know about the 9,000 other times that it doesn't happen; that's the thing we have to remember, too, in keeping a proper balance here. I don't know what more I can say about it, other than that the Crown prosecutors will make application for tougher bail conditions than judges may decide to set. We're in the hands of the court, and the judges are in the hands of the Criminal Code when it comes to these questions.
R. Chisholm: I understand how your hands are tied, but we make the laws; maybe the laws have to be tightened up. After all, this man committed nine crimes in this very short period of time. I would think that at a certain point in time, common sense would prevail and you would have to apply at least for a bit higher bail or something to ensure that this individual either stays in remand or in whatever system we come up with.
All I'm saying to you, hon. minister, is that I think we have to take a look at some of our laws. They're far too lenient. When the person has done it nine times -- and this is just one case; I can get you hundreds of cases, as you know -- somewhere along the line we have to have a balance too. We have to protect the innocent, not just the guilty. If the person has nine counts against him in a matter of days, maybe it's time to say that this person stays here, or that the bail is set high enough that he does stay until his situation is addressed and proven one way or the other.
My next question to the minister is about enclosed land and the problems we have on university campuses. Some of our laws do not allow for the arrest of people who are skulking around in the shadows of universities or inside buildings, because of the way the laws are defined. This letter was sent by the University Women's Club. They are concerned about this situation and put a couple of points forward which I'd like to read to you. Maybe you can give them a response. They said why couldn't the government "define 'enclosed lands' to include public or private buildings and adjoining lands to which the public normally has access"? Why could that not happen? Why could they not "clarify the offence of trespass to include the act of returning to any enclosed land to which access has previously been denied"? Maybe this would start helping some of these situations we see in these universities.
[ Page 10849 ]
I'd like to see you address those two points, and then there are two more that they have written here for me.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The University Women's Club has been fairly extensively campaigning all members of the House to deal with the problem that they and the member have outlined. They saw the remedy as being through the Trespass Act. Our sense was that wasn't the best remedy. We agree that the problem they identify is serious and needs close and careful attention, but we didn't see the Trespass Act remedy as being the most effective. The Criminal Code has a number of provisions that can and should be used, and more recently there has been another provision -- the anti-stalking provision of the code -- which could very well be an asset in dealing with the problem that the University Women's Club has identified.
The Chair: I was about to say, "Shall vote 16 pass?" but I'm precipitate. Therefore, the member for Chilliwack.
R. Chisholm: Good try, though, hon. Chair.
The last question I have refers to the Chilliwack courthouse. I know the minister recognizes the name because of problems ensuing in the ongoing study and what have you. I'm asking for an update on exactly what is happening with the Chilliwack courthouse. I know we're getting a new courthouse, but at what level? Will it be Provincial Court or Supreme Court, as it always has been in the past? Once you give me that answer, hon. minister, I will discuss the other information.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give as full an answer at this stage as both of us would like. Courthouse planning is still underway in terms of the provincial assessment of appropriate facilities around the province: where they should be located, which configuration, what the future demands are going to be, and what the population trends will lead to in terms of planning.
I don't mind saying that, historically, we have not had effective planning for courthouses. Traditionally, the courthouse has been something like the village square: it gets built downtown, then everybody has one, and it's a status symbol. In fact, in tight times that's not the best plan for courthouse development. You may not want to have one or two rooms in every community; you may want to have four or five rooms a few miles farther apart in order to provide more effective service -- primarily for budget reasons, but there are other factors as well.
Those are issues that we have to grapple with. The planning for courthouse development is not complete. I said to the member a month or two ago in the hallway that the Chilliwack courthouse, in some configuration, is on the list; it's not been taken off.
One of the reasons we've only been able to spend $70 million on the capital side in the current fiscal year is that members of the opposition have been quite concerned about how much money the government is borrowing and have been urging us to cut back on that. I don't know whether the members in the House are aware of this, but opposition members have been saying that the province is getting too deeply in debt, and the ratio of debt to expenditure is out of whack, and we need to cut back on borrowing.
[12:00]
So we've been listening to members of the opposition and have been cutting back on these kinds of expenditures. One of the results in our ministry is that we've only been able to allocate $70 million to borrowing for capital facilities in corrections and in courts, primarily, this year. One of the results of that demand from the opposition has been that the Chilliwack courthouse is lower down on the list than it might otherwise be.
R. Chisholm: I'm very pleased that you're listening to the opposition, at least. I'm not so sure that Chilliwack should be lower on the list by any stretch of the imagination, but at least you're listening to some of our suggestions.
When it comes to the Chilliwack courthouse question, at present we have a Supreme Court in the Burnaby area and in Chilliwack, servicing the areas of the Fraser Canyon, Agassiz, Harrison and Hope. Having it move further down the valley towards the city is only going to increase the time, space and economic cost for those people served by the Supreme Court.
Geographically, this is where I personally believe it should be. But other factors have come into play since I last talked to you: for instance, the amalgamation of Matsqui and Abbotsford. With that amalgamation they've decided to go with their own police force. The RCMP is now moving out to Chilliwack, which will have the drug unit and all the rest of it. It would, of course, be handy to have a Supreme Court in that area to service the type of policing that we're going to see.
I just want to bring to the attention of the Attorney General the fact that the equation has changed, and there is further emphasis for why it should be at that end of the valley. The people at that end of the valley, who are not necessarily from Chilliwack, are starting to get very concerned that they're not going to have their courts either. I'm talking about Boston Bar and places like that. I'm getting phone calls from the mayors, and I'm sure you're starting to receive letters from them stating that they want it in that area. I just want to bring the point home that the people have spoken in this matter too. With the RCMP now moving into that area, maybe this is just another point as to why the Supreme Court should stay and service that end of the valley.
V. Anderson: I raise my question to the Attorney General. We've had a number of people inquiring about how they can get what they feel is justice and compensation for abuse that they've suffered while under the care of the Ministry of Social Services at some point in their lives. These people have grown into adults and are trying to rebuild their lives and overcome their difficulties. Some of them are in the counselling program and others aren't. But even those in the program feel it is not adequate, because it doesn't get them an apology or compensation to enable them to overcome the abuse and their family difficulties.
In inquiring about this to the Ministry of Social Services, the minister has written back, and I have the correspondence on this. She said that she has inquired about this in the Attorney General's ministry. They replied that there is no liability, but if these people still feel that there is a liability, they can take the government to court. Many of these people feel that this is a continuing victimization: they were victimized as children; their lives have been put in turmoil economically, emotionally and in every other way; and they do not have the resources or the ability to take the government to court.
I want to ask the minister: is there not some way that these people can have some justice done and have the situation rectified, so that they can get on with their lives and not continue the suffering of their families, their children and the community at large?
[ Page 10850 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to say to the member that I know that he raises this in a very sincere way, and it's an issue that concerns all of us. There have been some real tragedies, and I just want to acknowledge that that's the case.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
There are two ways I want to try to answer the member's question. One is to remind the member that the criminal injury compensation program is available. In fact, in the last year or two it has been accessed quite significantly by British Columbians. Its budget costs have gone up quite dramatically. This is a program that was started, I think, in 1974 and is now in the $27 million or $30 million range. Some $27 million was expended in 1993, up from $18 million in the previous year -- these are calendar years -- effectively a 50 percent increase in one year in criminal injury compensation as a result of more people becoming aware of it and accessing it. That's an avenue for people.
In addition to that, individuals who feel that they have a claim against the government because of historical residential or in-care abuse, or alleged abuse during those times, can make a claim -- they don't necessarily have to go to court -- to the Ministry of Social Services, if that's the ministry they were in care of. The Ministry of Social Services would, in turn, talk to our ministry and gain legal advice about the question. So claims can be dealt with that way. If, upon receiving a claim, it was determined in the province's view that there was no liability, then no option would exist other than to proceed to court; but presumably, if it's clear that there was liability, then an individual could proceed to some resolution with the government. That's the process: they have to make a claim; otherwise, how do we deal with it? To say in general terms that everybody who was ever in the care of the government has a claim because the government was liable -- that opens up a Pandora's box, which wouldn't be fair. Each claim has to be dealt with individually; each individual has to make a claim.
I recognize the member's point. He made it the other day in question period, and I heard it and understand it -- that for many people this is a difficult thing to do. But in order to access the system in any way, they need to make a claim to the ministry in whose care they were at the time of the alleged difficulties.
V. Anderson: The first question that would come up is: how would these people get to know that they can make a claim? In the particular cases that we've dealt with there has never been any indication in any of the correspondence that there was a process for making a claim under the compensation program; nor was there any indication of how they would go about making that compensation claim. If this is available, I'm concerned that in the particular cases that have come through our office there has been no indication that there is a process whereby these things could be dealt with, nor any information on how to do this.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I appreciate that we're not talking about an ordinary course of events, but in an ordinary course of events someone would take advice as to what they could do about an issue. They would get legal advice, or they would get advice from a counsellor or an MLA who knows how these things work, and would then proceed from there by way of making a claim. What we're talking about here is alleged abuse or other occurrences which are alleged to be the responsibility of the government. There isn't a program, other than the counselling program through the residential historical abuse program, of compensation in general, but everyone has the ability to access the system by making a claim and, if there's a dispute, to have the courts resolve the claim. I hope that MLAs -- particularly MLAs such as the member for Vancouver-Langara, who are very much involved in this -- would make that known to individuals who may be in these situations.
V. Anderson: I think the minister may be missing the point. Individuals who perhaps have not gone through some kind of catastrophe in their lives have the emotional ability to put forth a claim if they're angry; or if they've been hurt in a car accident, they know how to cope with that. If there's some resistance or nobody seems to be paying any attention to them, they fight their way through whatever system might be available. These particular people have gone through traumatic events which have damaged their whole lives and do not have the emotional ability the average citizen would have to fight the government. That's the way it appears to them to be, because in their minds the government has fought them or enabled them to be beaten or abused over the course of their lives.
Is there a particular process, pamphlet or direction that can be given to these people to say that this is an option? If you have a claim against the WCB, for instance, there is a process and a person to go to, and there is an advocate within the WCB and the associated systems who can help you work through those steps. These people are not able to do this on their own without support who would be available and be an advocate for them in working through the government system. An advocate and a process seems to be demanded here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't missed the member's point. I understand it, but it's a difficult one to deal with. If the member is suggesting that the ministry should encourage the counsellors involved in this program to advise people about the process, I have no problem with that. Individuals always have the opportunity to go to the ombudsman's office, and the ombudsman's office can carry matters of this kind forward -- as that office has in the past, as the member knows.
We don't know who to provide the information to. It is not like the Workers' Compensation Board, where everybody is covered if they are in an employment-related situation and there is therefore a clear understanding of who gets the information and what their rights are. In this situation, we don't have a list of individuals who may qualify to pursue some action. So there is a responsibility on the part of the individuals or their colleagues, counsellors, families, or some other supportive person or group they may work with, live with or whatever, to act for them if they can't act for themselves. That's the way it has to happen. It is very difficult for us to deal with it proactively, because who do we deal with? We have to hear from people and respond to the specific claim that they may have. The individuals themselves don't have to do that; they can have someone do that on their behalf.
V. Anderson: In light of publicity that's happened recently, in light of the freedom of information this government brought forth, and in light of the acts that are going through which enable people to go back even to their childhood to deal with that, the opportunities are there in increasing fashion, and people are beginning to network with each other in order to "fight the government." That's the
[ Page 10851 ]
kind of feeling out there: "We have to fight the government." That concerns me, because it's not fair to the government; it's not fair to the people accused of being abusers, because names are being used in the public press; and it's not fair to the persons who have been abused. For many of them, it's a matter of an apology. Some also want compensation, but the very first priority is an apology and an awareness that it was not their fault; that it was not something they did. The impression they have had to live with is that what happened was their fault: it was the way they behaved or it was the way they didn't respond.
[12:15]
Besides passing legislation which is opening these doors, the government needs to find a way, as we have in other areas, to say: "If you have a concern or a claim, here is a way to deal with it. Here is a claim form you can fill out. And here's a person who can help you work through it and put it in the kind of terminology that workers in the bureaucracy can understand. "Their experience is that if they do it in their own words, they're simply discounted and told: "Well, you don't fit the category." Nobody sits down with them, examines their personal situation and then says: "Where do we go from here?" The ombudsman, in the experience of these people and in the manner in which it operates, is not the route. It does not serve the purpose of dealing individually with personal cases, which have devastated not only their personal lives but the lives of those around them -- their parents and families. There are just so many people involved. We're discovering, unfortunately, there are so many of them out there that are coming forward because of conditions.
We even have some of the government ministry members saying: "Well, it's really too bad. It wouldn't happen in the present circumstances. But -- because it happened historically, or it happened prior to certain regulations being passed and was accepted back then -- there's nothing we can do about it." That kind of stalling and frustration is growing considerably in the community. The anger these people have been trying to overcome is now being brought to the fore again.
So I'm asking if there's not a way that the ministry can be proactive and say there is a system and a process. In our legislation, we have opened the doors so you can go after private cases. But it's a different thing to go after a private individual who has wronged you than to go after the government, which is an amorphous body that really doesn't exist -- you cannot personalize it, because the people who were in the system are no longer there. But it was the system that put you there. You had no say in it. You didn't go there willingly and by choice. You fought it all the way. And you're still fighting that same system.
It seems to me that if we really care, we have to find a means and a process whereby these people can enter the system with care, understanding and support, to help them to work it through personally as well as legally. I don't hear that happening at the moment. I hear him say: "We want to. Yes, we're open." But nobody's got a key. Nobody gives them the key to open the door or shows them what door to go to or who to take it to.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't want at all to take away from the member's legitimate and appropriate concerns. But where we have been able to identify a specific situation with a specific group of people -- Jericho Hill -- we established a process. We retained Tom Berger to deal with all the civil side of the issues. Clearly, where there is a.... And I say "we" -- that really was a cross-ministry initiative with several other ministries involved, obviously.
It's not the Attorney General's ministry that takes the lead in these matters, until it reaches a legal question. We provide legal advice to ministries. If there are comparable situations -- not necessarily the same, but comparable to Jericho Hill -- that were the responsibility of a particular ministry, then that's where these questions should go. That ministry should consider whether a solution similar to the Jericho solution is appropriate.
If not, and if those circumstances don't exist, then the remedies are individual. People need to make their own way through the system, but they can do that in discussions with the ministry they were involved with. I don't mean to be passing the buck here. But it's not the Attorney General's job to tell Social Services what programs to have or how to deliver its programs. It makes those decisions on its own.
V. Anderson: The people in poverty have made what they call a joke book about how they get treated by governments. They have said: "It's no joke, but it's so bad that you have to laugh at it, or you can't deal with it." It's recommended reading for anybody in government who hasn't already seen it. When someone sitting out there has to deal with government, they're dealing with a compartmentalized government of ministries that don't appear to talk to each other. I have phoned different ministries about cases, and I finally had to phone back and say: "This one tells me this, and the other one tells me that. If you don't tell me that you're going to get together and come up with a solution by Monday, I'm going to the press." I got a solution by Monday, but only after I'd phoned them independently and said: "You talk to each other and then come back to me."
We as a government cannot pass the decision off to one ministry or another, because these are interministerial questions. I have correspondence from one of the ministries which says: "We have been advised by the Attorney General's department that we have no legal responsibility in this case." So you're out of luck. If the minister is willing to tell me that there is an interministerial committee that represents the government, to which a person -- who happens to be just a lonely individual who doesn't have the fortune, if you like, of being in a group of individuals, such as those at Jericho, to deal with it.... My understanding of the Jericho case is that it wasn't the abused individuals who got the process underway; it was other people, on their behalf. The difficulty with so many individuals who are not in a collective process like that -- such as in the Matthew case -- is that other people think there's something wrong with their story, because it certainly couldn't be that bad; it must have been something that they caused to happen, and they have blown it up far greater than it ever was.
They can't get past the hurdle of the first person within government who would trust and believe them, because they say: "No, we can't afford the compensation. The system doesn't allow it." You go to this group, and they say: "No, it doesn't quite fit us." And it doesn't. You go to this group, and they say: "It doesn't quite fit us." But where does the government collectively deal with the situation of a person who has a collective interministerial concern that has ruined their life and who wants to get back on track? Without that recognition and support, they're not able to do so.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've seen the book that the member refers to, and I feel that way myself on many days when trying to deal with government. I find it impossible to deal with some days, and I share the public's concerns about it. That's not something that is unique to ordinary citizens.
[ Page 10852 ]
The facility that had responsibility for the care under which the individual allegedly suffered some abuse wasn't an interministerial facility. It was a facility that was the responsibility of one ministry or another. Somebody has to take the lead. If you really want to bog it down, have an interministerial process that people have to come through. The ministry that is alleged to have been responsible and to have not exercised its responsibility properly is the one that the people should go to.
The member says that when they go there, people pass the buck. I know how that happens. It happens to me as an MLA everyday too. What do you do? What do people do in this situation? There are a variety of ways of dealing with the issue. First of all, there are many non-governmental community associations and organizations which make it their business to assist people in these situations, so there's that whole non-governmental apparatus that is quite often really very effective. There are victim assistance offices that are funded by government, municipalities and others in almost every community. They provide assistance to victims or people who perceive themselves as victims, who can use the people in those offices to batter walls of government down and find out who they should talk to. There are more than 75 MLA offices around this province, where MLAs and constituency assistants can offer the same kind of support and assistance. If all of that fails, and it's impossible to get a lawyer -- if legal aid or any of the other myriad of community services out there aren't available for some reason -- then there is the ombuds office. So there is a wide variety of opportunities for people to have their concerns heard.
To go back to the member's first point about how to get through to government, you identify which ministry it is, get someone to help you and start there. If that doesn't work, in the final analysis you enlist the assistance of the ombuds office.
There was an understanding that we would adjourn by 12:30 p.m. today. Unless the member wants to pursue this, we'll let it go at this point. With that, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:29 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]