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)
MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 10
[ Page 10853 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like the House to help me make welcome my aunt and uncle, Eileen and Norm Richards. I think they're the first citizens of Cascadia, in that they've been living in Summerland and working out of Seattle for the last 25 years. They're guests here today of myself and my parents from Sidney, Jack and Kay Collins. Would the House please make them welcome.
H. Lali: Visiting us today in the galleries is my niece, Rajwant Lali, who is here today to check out Camosun College. Would the House please make her welcome.
A. Hagen: I have the delightful pleasure today of introducing two groups to you. First, from the Purpose Young Adult Learning Centre in New Westminster, is a group of students who toured the building this morning and with whom I had an opportunity to have a chat. They're here with their instructors Phill Esau, Paul Richardson, Tony Douglass and Janet Simpson-Cooke. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome today.
It's rare that I have an opportunity to introduce someone from my family, so it's a great pleasure today for me to welcome Kristi Clifton from Prince Rupert. I know Kelli, Monika and Oliver will be waiting to hear about her visit to the Legislature today. Will you all join me in welcoming Kristi.
G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to welcome to the House a person visiting from my homeland in Holland, Dr. Trees Sloeker, en het is mijn hoop dat Dr. Sloeker het gezellig vind in Victoria. I pray the House make her welcome.
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. A. Petter: Bill 34 makes a number of administrative amendments to the Forest Act that will improve tenure administration, streamline administrative appeals under the Forest Act and the Range Act, and improve the ability of the chief forester to obtain information and set allowable annual cuts for tree farm licences. These amendments will provide necessary administrative powers to improve forest administration.
Bill 34 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.
FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.
Hon. A. Petter: The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act provides the foundation for the province's first forest practices code, which will fundamentally change the way we manage our forests. The act sets a new framework of forest management. In particular, it establishes a clearer, more legally enforceable system of legislation, regulations and standards; stronger compliance and enforcement powers, including administrative penalties and offence provisions; a new, legislated forest planning framework; powers to regulate managed private forest lands and botanical forest products; administrative reforms, including the creation of a forest practices board; and greater public accountability. It will help ensure proper forest management.
Bill 40 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.
SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE
V. Anderson: The father of Matthew Vaudreuil has come forward with condemning words for the Ministry of Social Services. Ken Hutchins has clearly stated that Social Services is to blame for the death of his son. Will the minister wake up and listen to the growing demands of people around this province regarding this and other abuse cases? Will she ask the ombudsman to conduct an independent inquiry into the care of children in this province?
The Speaker: There are two questions there.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As we have discussed in this House several times, I am absolutely committed to ensuring a full accounting of our role in the tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil. I have requested a review, as the opposition is well aware. I have also committed that if further action is necessary, it will be taken. The tabling of that review will be the first step.
The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member.
V. Anderson: The situation is clear. Further action is needed regarding all children in this province. Last week we called for an inquiry by the ombudsman. Today I tabled a motion to refer this issue to the ombudsman, asking, on behalf of the Legislature, for an independent inquiry into the care of children in this province. Will the minister confirm that she will support our motion to have the ombudsman undertake an inquiry into the care of children in this province?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have committed to members of this House that I will be tabling my report this week, and I remain firm on that commitment. I also remain firm in committing to each and every member of the Legislature that, after they have received and read that report and are fully cognizant of the case, if further action is necessary, it will be taken.
The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental?
V. Anderson: Besides asking for the inquiry under section 10(3) of the act.... I know that the minister is aware of public report No. 22 of the ombudsman, dated November 1990. Under the act, there was an interministerial committee for the concerns of children. Will the minister indicate when a
[ Page 10854 ]
report of that committee will be made available to the public?
[2:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, these are matters that we've discussed over the previous weeks with the hon. member and the House. I have committed to this House that further action will include changes to the law, and the House will be considering those very shortly.
PLANS FOR A NEW FIRST NARROWS CROSSING
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Apparently the Squamish nation and a consortium have put together plans for a new First Narrows crossing. I would like to know what discussions have taken place between the government and the Squamish band regarding any new crossing affecting Squamish lands.
Hon. J. Pement: I would like to say to the member that a number of projects, proposals and concepts have been brought forward. We have looked at a number of them, including theSNC-Lavalin one.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: My question, hon. Speaker, asked the minister what discussions have taken place with the Squamish band -- that we're aware of; they've been in the press a great deal. Almost all of these crossings will end up in their property on the North Shore. I didn't hear in your answer that they have been brought into discussions at this level. Have they?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I have mentioned that this project is one that we have looked at in conjunction with other projects. We certainly have had meetings with the Squamish band with this issue in mind.
The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: This proposal that's about to come forward includes a price tag: a toll of $2 per crossing -- that's what it's going to cost the commuters to use the bridge. We haven't heard that with the other proposal so far. Does the Minister of Transportation and Highways approve of charging commuters who would be using this bridge daily what would work out to be more than $1,000 per year?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I have to say to the member that no decision has been made at this point.
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION COSTS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for freedom of information. In closing debate on the freedom-of-information amendments last July, the sponsoring minister said: "It's a red herring to suggest that there are going to be excessive costs as a result of this legislation." He balked at our suggestions about meeting the costs of the FOI legislation. Can the minister tell us how much it will cost to fulfil the average FOI request?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will take that question on notice and get the information to the member.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member. That question was taken on notice.
J. Weisgerber: A new question, Mr. Speaker. I'll save the minister some time.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Weisgerber: The 1992 Peat Marwick report....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would remind the hon. member that the purpose of question period is to seek information, not to bring it to the House. Please proceed.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, I guess someone has to bring information.
The 1992 Peat Marwick report identified the average cost of FOI requests at $2,000 per request. Given those costs, can the minister confirm that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to start getting their money's worth? Are they going to quit getting reports that are whited out and blanked out? Will the minister undertake to give taxpayers their money's worth?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should know that the requests he and a number of his colleagues have made under freedom of information have gone extremely well. The information has been shared with members. If there are frivolous costs, it's the result of those members across the way who have been very frivolous with the legislation.
There is legislation, there is a process, and there is a commissioner who will gladly take your suggestions and complaints, hon. member. If you have complaints, I suggest that you use that process and ask the commissioner.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: I suppose this is what the minister considers working very well -- requests under FOI that even the minister can't read from across the way. The government's unwillingness to provide information is adding to the cost of freedom of information.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: When will the government start to come clean and give taxpayers the information that they ask for?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member across the way is part of the system of government. He knows the legislation and the process for lodging complaints or requesting changes. Hon. member, if you have not made your suggestions to the commissioner, please let my office know, and I will give you a hand with suggesting things to the commissioner if you have a problem with it.
PUBLIC OPINION POLL INFORMATION
J. Dalton: I have another FOI question, and this is for the Minister of Social Services. Maybe this one will be answered.
[ Page 10855 ]
On April 11 we wrote to the ministry asking for copies of all polling that they have commissioned. Last week the ministry informed us they had conducted one poll but that they could not provide us access as "it would reveal the substance of deliberations of the cabinet." Could the minister please explain why factual background information is being kept secret from the people who paid for it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The freedom-of-information law provides for such a reply as you received; it's well within the law as provided.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon member.
J. Dalton: Again to the same minister, I would refer her to section 13(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It clearly states that her ministry must release public opinion polls. Could the minister please explain why her ministry is in breach of this act?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The law is quite clear on documentation -- it provides for the working of cabinet submissions.... If the hon. member wishes to challenge this, there is an appeal process in the legislation, which he supported.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Dalton: I hardly think the public is very satisfied about these continual diversions away from what this act is supposed to do. The hon. minister may know that tomorrow the commissioner is conducting two very important hearings on this topic.
My final supplementary is to the same minister. When this government passed the law two years ago, they boasted that cabinet deliberations might be exempt but that the factual background would be provided, and the act provides for that. A public opinion poll is just that. It is background data used by cabinet. Could the minister please explain what the government is hiding by refusing to release this poll?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are many who can provide this member with a full understanding of exactly how the act works, in case, on the face of it, he doesn't.... Cabinet has not made a decision yet. He is well aware that the law provides for the release of supporting documentation after cabinet has made a decision.
"WHISTLE BLOWER" PROTECTION FOR CORRECTIONS OFFICERS
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Attorney General. Contrary to an explicit commitment that he made in this House regarding the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault escape, that inquiry is not offering protection or guarantees of anonymity to corrections officers or other government employees who are willing to come forward to tell the truth about what happened in that tragic incident. How can the Attorney General expect government employees to come forward when they're jeopardizing their careers in the public service by doing so?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Contrary to what the premise of the member's question suggests, I did not make any commitments on behalf of the Prowse royal commission. I cannot. They are independent and do not take direction from me, other than from the wording of the order-in-council. I did, however, indicate to the member and others that no reprisals would be exacted against people who come forward with information that would be useful to the commission or to the government.
D. Mitchell: Without whistle-blower protection of some kind, we're not going to get to the truth of the matter in what happened with the Danny Perrault escape. The Attorney General said in this House on April 21, in response to a question from me: "I will ensure that they are not disciplined in any way for providing the kind of information we need." Without whistle-blower protection, those corrections officers who have been willing to come forward through the news media with a guarantee of anonymity cannot and will not come forward to the Prowse inquiry. Will the Attorney General consider having his ministry expand the terms of reference of the inquiry to guarantee anonymity for those corrections officers who are willing to come forward and tell the truth in this matter?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The guarantee I gave the member, which he quoted, stands today and will stand in the future.
D. Mitchell: Can the Attorney General then tell this House why, in spite of the commitment he's made in the past, the Prowse inquiry is not willing to offer any guarantee of anonymity or any protection to corrections officials who have contacted them so far? Why is he not willing to help us get to the bottom of the Danny Perrault escape and find out what is wrong with the corrections system in British Columbia?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What I can say again is that if any corrections officer or official -- or anyone in British Columbia -- has information that they think would be useful to this inquiry and is concerned about reprisals, I give them my undertaking that there will be no reprisals for coming forward.
TENDERING PROCESS FOR SERVICES AT EXHIBITION PARK
L. Reid: My question is to the Attorney General and relates to horse racing at Exhibition Park. The minister's own executive assistant, along with the Pacific Racing Association spokesperson, have both confirmed that there was no open tendering process for racetrack technical services. Can the minister explain why an NDP government could not support such a tendering process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure which issue the member is specifically referring to, so I would be happy to take the question on notice and talk to the member about whatever concerns she has.
FEDERAL DEFENCE BUDGET CUTS
Hon. E. Cull: Last Friday I was in Ottawa to express the concern of our government with respect to defence installation cuts announced in the federal budget. I had the opportunity to meet with Ministers Masse and Axworthy and local MP David Anderson.
The defence cuts announced by the federal government continue a disturbing pattern that was set by the previous government, and that pattern was to focus a disproportionate share of federal restraint on British Columbia. Even
[ Page 10856 ]
before the cuts, defence spending in B.C. was well below what you would expect for a large province with a huge coastline. Despite the fact that 12 percent of the national population is in British Columbia, only 8.6 percent of defence spending is in this province -- and that's prior to the cuts. The latest federal budget has restructured restraint in such a fashion that B.C. will see defence spending fall even further now, to 8 percent.
Defence cuts are part of a larger issue, and they can't just be viewed in isolation. For years the federal government has been off-loading its deficit problem onto the provinces by applying restrictions to transfers to the provinces. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is continuing the Mulroney policies in this regard. What is less well known, though, is that these restrictions are being felt disproportionately by British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Thus, while B.C.'s population is 12 percent, B.C.'s share of federal off-loading in '93-94 was 14 percent, and it grows this year to 15 percent.
The off-loading has been particularly felt in B.C. with respect to federal contributions to social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan. Federal contributions are now only 29 percent of provincial costs, down from 50 percent as recently as 1989-90; unlike the other seven provinces, which are still receiving 50 percent of their funding. In addition to off-loading, the defence cuts have another adverse effect on this province. They aggravate a federal habit of denying British Columbia a fair share of federal research funding. Even before the cuts, B.C. received an unduly small share -- about 7 percent of federal spending on research and development.
In meeting with the ministers, I outlined three areas of concern for British Columbia. First, the federal government must direct special attention to providing adjustment assistance in respect of the closing of the defence installations, particularly in the case of Masset, because of the significance that that closure will have on its economy. Second, a resolution for Royal Roads needs to be found that does not involve off-loading federal costs onto the province. Third, B.C. should clearly receive its fair share of research and development spending.
[2:30]
I want to speak briefly on each of these. With respect to Masset, the main concern is that the total spending of this facility represents 50 percent of that community's income. Therefore it is critical that the federal government recognize its responsibility to provide adjustment assistance to allow the individuals and businesses in that community to adjust to the changes relating to the closure. To accomplish this the federal government must commit to a process under the federal industrial adjustment service to identify the best action to effect this transition. Provincial officials must be involved, as must local people, and the federal government must recognize its responsibility to provide for the transition in these communities.
With respect to Royal Roads, the decision of the federal government has been a major disappointment to this community. Before the trip to Ottawa, the federal government had reported that they were offering the facility to the province for a dollar. This offer has never been made officially and does not appear to be a legitimate offer. In any event, it would simply off-load the $12 million cost of operating the facility onto the province. The position of this government is that Royal Roads should remain a federal military college. Westerners deserve the opportunity to pursue their training in western Canada. Not only has this become an important national institution providing military college access to western Canadians, but the local community depends on the federal grant in lieu of taxes. Twenty percent of Colwood's tax base comes from the grants in lieu of taxes. British Columbia must continue to receive equal treatment and must receive the same treatment that Quebec is receiving with respect to their military college. We want to receive a serious offer from the federal government plus the commitment that Colwood will not suffer any further tax loss as a result of the closure.
Finally, on the matter of federal research and development, British Columbia continues to come up short with respect to federal spending. Only about 7 percent of federal expenditures are made in British Columbia. The cuts to the Defence Research Establishment Pacific, DREP, along with the federal decision to withdraw support from KAON, erode the modest federal commitment to research and to the scientific community in British Columbia. Federal support for research and development in this province is becoming less and less adequate. We need a renewed federal commitment for scientific research and development in B.C. Recently the Prime Minister and the Premier met and agreed to ask their officials to identify opportunities for increased federal spending. I think that's a positive first step towards addressing the problem.
As a result of my trip to Ottawa, I can report that the following has been agreed. The federal government has assured that the municipality of Colwood will not be short any local taxes as a result of their decision. They have also agreed to provide adequate transition funding and services, particularly with respect to the hospital in Masset, the community that is most affected by the defence cuts. They have also agreed to explore new federal funding for research and development in B.C.
However, in the final analysis, the decision to close Royal Roads as a federal university remains a disappointment to the province. We don't want this to be another example of how the federal government continues to off-load onto British Columbia. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, this is not acceptable to either the government or the people of British Columbia.
F. Gingell: I am very pleased that the minister came back from Ottawa with some good results. What disappoints me is that this government continues to not look at the opportunities that are presented to it for good economic development in British Columbia. Surely Royal Roads in Colwood opens some opportunities for us to develop a facility that will have international recognition, draw students from all over the world and create good economic development in this part of the province.
Surely it is time for us to recognize -- and I would have thought that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and many other members of the NDP caucus would have recognized -- that in the 1990s we are turning away from military colleges toward the realm of the twenty-first century.
More good news came out of Ottawa. I'm sure that all members of this Legislature will join with me in showing their pleasure that the federal government has committed to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the minimum of two additional seats in the House of Commons will be allocated to British Columbia before the next federal election. I think that is a good example of what happens when all sides of the House feel the same way about an issue. The government, by bringing forward their motion, showed their support of our motion, which was put forward earlier. Who was on first? We were on first, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 10857 ]
Let us turn these things that cause us problems into temporary hiccups. I understand the minister also has a commitment that British Columbia will be treated in exactly the same fashion as will the province of Quebec with respect to the closing of the military training installation in that province. So let us all look at these as opportunities and work together to create a better economic investment environment in this province, so that we move forward into the twenty-first century and not backward into the centuries before us, which have been plagued by war after war.
J. Weisgerber: It was interesting that as I reviewed the minister's comments earlier this afternoon, a couple of things stood out in my mind. First of all, I thought that only this government would send their Minister of Finance to Ottawa on a Friday when the Liberal Party was having a policy convention. I notice that the minister went out of her way not to mention which minister she met with. I would be curious to know whether indeed there was anyone there or not. But the other thing that was more obvious, looking at this document, was that again this government had gone to Ottawa and not dealt in any way with equalization payments. There was no mention of it. Indeed, the government went asking for more federal spending in British Columbia. It went the day after the Quebec budget had been tabled, indicating a $650 million tax reduction for Quebec taxpayers that was being financed, at least in part by British Columbia, through equalization payments. This minister, who was there the day after that event, didn't take the opportunity to even raise the issue. Indeed, that should have been the central focus of our application and presentation in Ottawa.
We should be looking at ways to reduce spending across this country, not at ways to expand federal or provincial government spending. It seems incredible to me that we would allow British Columbia to continue, without complaint, as one of the three provinces in this country that make equalization payments. It seems incredible to me that the Minister of Finance wouldn't question the fact that Quebec continues to be one of the have-not provinces. Indeed, the minister apparently didn't think to raise the issue. The minister didn't see anything wrong with a government that was able to cut $650 million in provincial taxes while still claiming equalization payments, with the assertion that they couldn't raise money of their own. It should have been at least one of the issues. Surely to goodness she recognizes that it is a responsibility of any Finance minister representing the province of British Columbia to raise, in the strongest possible way, the matter of the inequity that results from equalization payments being taken from British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and given to the other provinces, including Quebec.
The minister clearly didn't have her priorities in order. She did what one would expect from this government, and that was to go on saying: "Spend more and more; we need more and more." The presentation made by the Minister of Finance reflects the mind-set of this government: spend, spend, spend; rather than save. The minister didn't serve British Columbia well. But that should be no surprise, because this government isn't serving British Columbia well.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on a matter?
G. Wilson: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: The minister is to be congratulated on her recent trip to Ottawa. Quite clearly what we are dealing with here with respect to defence spending cuts is the removal of any officer training in western Canada. This is an issue that I think all parties in this House need to come together on and apply the same kind of rigour and force as we did with respect to Bill C-18. When British Columbia stands and speaks to central Canada with a united voice and says that we simply will not be ignored on questions.... The federal government is beginning to heed the kinds of issues we have.
Royal Roads is an officer training institution in western Canada. We must recognize that as such, it is a federal institution, with respect to a federal defence commitment. The federal defence commitment must have with it a commitment for western officers to be trained in western Canada. We have one of the largest undefended coastlines in this country. We have the Esquimalt base established here, as we do the Comox and Chilliwack bases. It is not enough to simply say that we are going to move those expenditures to Kingston in central Ontario.
I believe that what we have to do today is send the same kind of message to Ottawa as we have done over Bill C-18. We must let them know that it is not enough for British Columbia to have only lip service and a promise. That's all that we got on the weekend: a promise of electoral reform. British Columbia must have its fair share in Confederation. British Columbia will not sit idly by and see our shipbuilding contracts moved to central Canada; see anti-dumping laws with respect to the Okanagan fruit growers ignored by Ottawa; see the KAON project, which was promised by the federal government, cancelled; and see Royal Roads, our own western officer training institution, cancelled -- all by a government which seems to think that somehow British Columbia need only get a little oil on the wheel every time it starts to sound "cranky," I think the word was, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister.
British Columbians have seen their share of transfer payments reduced. Given the amount of money this province feeds into Ottawa, 29 percent is unacceptable. Ottawa has to recognize that we will not stand idly by and allow this province to be dragged along, like a dog on a leash, to feed the programs of a monetary and fiscal policy decided and directed by central Canadians, with the view that British Columbia will always be a supplier, with less and less return for the people who live in this province.
[2:45]
I congratulate this minister's efforts and attempts, and I would urge all elected members of this Legislative Assembly to stand up and take a united and strong position on Royal Roads and military expenditures in British Columbia. That institution should be maintained as an officer training institution for western Canadians. We pay our fair share in taxes; it's time we got our fair share back.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: the Attorney General's estimates in Committee B; and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in Committee A.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
[ Page 10858 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 16: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
J. Dalton: I am going to start this afternoon with some questions on a Corrections policy; I understand it's been recently implemented. The committee is well aware that we have an inquiry going on right now into another Corrections problem, but we're not going to get into that. The inquiry will run its course and hopefully will answer at least some of the many unanswered questions that the public has about Corrections.
I'm here today to ask some particular questions about a document I have in front of me. It's a four-page document, headed "Interim Policy and Procedures," on early reviews and automatic hearings by the B.C. Board of Parole. I understand this pilot project was implemented just last month. My first question to the Attorney General is: when was this policy implemented, and what is the purpose or rationale behind it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The pilot project began on April 4 of this year. My understanding is that it's slated to be concluded by July of this year. It was initiated in order to give us a handle on the issues in respect of consideration for parole.
The way the system has worked in the past is that parole consideration was only given to those individuals who made specific application for consideration. People who did not know about their opportunity or were not advised about their opportunity or did not have the wherewithal, for whatever reason, to make an application for consideration were not being considered.
It is my strongly held view -- and in every way I take full responsibility for the initiation of this project, because I believe very strongly in it -- that it is very important that everybody in the system who has an entitlement to be considered for parole should be accorded an equal opportunity to be considered. In the past the system has worked only for those people who know their way around the system, who are pros at it, if you will; people who have been in before or people who have some of the abilities of amateur lawyers, as there always are in prison populations. People who are more literate are generally considered. People who do not have literacy skills, people who are poor and, in considerable numbers, native Indians were not being considered for parole. I felt that that was unfair, and the reason they were not being considered was that many of those people did not have the literacy skills or whatever else is required to put themselves in a position to be considered.
There have been suggestions -- and the member may have picked this up from some media stories that have been done on the subject; I think U.TV, in particular, had done some stuff -- that the number of people who would be granted parole would somehow double. That's not at all the case. The number of people who would be heard could conceivably be in that doubling range; but the number of approvals is expected to go, I'm told, from in the order of 300 at any one time to up to about 350. But we're moving slowly. We haven't done it across the board, across the province; we've done it simply as a pilot project. We will learn from it as we go and make decisions following that.
J. Dalton: I didn't hear the Attorney General say this, so my question will be: is this project only being conducted in the Vancouver Pretrial and Fraser Regional institutions, as I understand it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The pilot is being conducted in the Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions in our system.
J. Dalton: I'm going to get to a line of questioning in a moment about the lack of knowledge that some people entering the system may have about the right to apply for parole. Would I be correct in assuming that overcrowding in those two particular facilities may be the rationale behind it? Clearly, with double-bunking and other things, over-crowding is a serious problem, as the Attorney General knows. If this is a method to take care of that problem, I'm not so sure that this is the way to go about it, even though the overcrowding has to be addressed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are two answers to that. The first one is that the decision was made because I strongly believe it's a fairness question. Secondly, if there had been other reasons, it wouldn't have been as a result of overcrowding. The overcrowding that we face in the lower mainland is primarily in the remand-pretrial centres, and if you're in a remand centre, obviously you're not eligible for parole consideration.
J. Dalton: In response to that last question, that's fair enough. We know that the people on remand aren't eligible, but as the Attorney General well knows, many people in Vancouver Pretrial are not there on remand; they're serving sentences. I again suggest to the Attorney General that perhaps the rationale behind this is in part the overcrowding issue.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It may be that I misunderstand the member, but in the remand centre there are people who are there because they are on remand. It may be that in some cases people are also serving time for other offences for which they have been convicted, but they're in the remand centre because they're awaiting trial. You are not eligible for parole while you're awaiting trial. The crowding issue doesn't connect at all to this issue. Even if you could construct that case, which the member can't, for me this is a fairness question.
J. Dalton: Last Friday I had occasion to speak with a former member of the B.C. Parole Board. Obviously, I won't identify the gentleman; I'm sure he would be happy to come forward on his own if he chooses. Sometime last year he conducted his own informal survey of three Vancouver Island institutions. This was not a scientific survey, but I think the Attorney General should hear his results. He had occasion to go into the facilities on Vancouver Island and ask inmates why they had not applied for parole. He tells me, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, that out of the 25 people he spoke to, every one of them knew that they were entitled to parole. When they enter the system, someone in the system sits down and tells them that they are entitled to parole.
I am disappointed to hear the Attorney General tell us that this is in honour of fairness or something else. We want to be fair, but we also have to be honest and upfront. So of the 25 responders, all knew they were eligible for parole. Why didn't they apply? That's perhaps more informative. There are a variety of reasons. Some said because at two-thirds.... As we know, they're going to get out anyway, unless they don't behave themselves. Some say they're better off within
[ Page 10859 ]
the system. That's an unfortunate statement, but it's true. That's their home, and that's why recidivism is so high.
I submit to the Attorney General that it's not completely a question of fairness. There are people in that system who don't want parole or don't want to face the unpleasant prospect that eventually they're going to have to be back out on the street. Unfortunately they will probably be back in the institution a day later. That is not what we're going to solve today in this committee, but it is a fact. Perhaps the Attorney General would like to comment on whether people entering the system -- whether they be first-timers or repeat offenders -- are advised of their right to parole. And why do we need this further documentation, which I don't think is truly well intended?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's undoubtedly true that among a variety of other things inmates are told when they enter the system is that they have parole eligibility, or they will discover that at one point or another. The system that has been in place requires that some initiative be taken by that individual. Under the system we've had they are also required to fill out forms. Many people can't; many can't even read the forms. A significant number of people in our society can't read forms -- much less the proportion that are in our jail populations.
It is my strong view that at the date they're eligible for consideration, everyone should have the consideration that the system provides for them. In many ways this is a public safety issue, too. It's an issue that I think assists in providing public security, because everybody -- particularly in the provincial system, for sure -- is going to get out one day. It's better that people come out gradually; where they're able to and where the Parole Board has made decisions suggesting they should, better to let them come out in a way that gives them some supervision and some gentle re-entry into our society.
If you want public security at the top of your list of issues -- and I do -- then that's the best policy in that respect. Beyond that, I think the British Columbia Parole Board is very much a non-political, non-partisan board of community representatives who are outstanding British Columbians and who have an excellent track record in respect of decisions that they have taken.
Once in recent years -- about six years ago -- some politics entered that system, and it was an unfortunate blip. But we're beyond that again, and I think the decisions they make are excellent decisions and are in the best interests of the community.
[3:00]
We should all remember, in discussions about parole and all these correctional issues, that people are going to go back into the community. There needs to be some planning and some preparation. The parole part of all of that is a very important element. If people don't understand or are unable to take advantage of the ability to request a parole hearing, and are therefore unable to include that element of the release planning in their agenda, the public is poorly served. I see this as a very good public policy.
J. Dalton: There are several things I would like to comment on in reaction to those statements. Firstly, I am certainly happy to hear the Attorney General applaud the members of the Parole Board, because I agree. My father happened to be on the Parole Board at one time, but that was years ago and this is now.
The Attorney General talked about security. Well, that's true; obviously that's the issue of the day. That's why the Danny Perrault case is going on, because there unfortunately are examples where security and decision-making within the system are not always what they should be. This is a little off the parole discussion we're having right now, but I suggest it's symptomatic of the problem within the system. As I've said to this Attorney General many times -- and I will continue to say it -- the bottom line has to be public confidence and public safety.
The particular point I would now like to pursue on this is: will there be appropriate and adequate staffing and proper training for the extra staff presumably needed to implement this pilot project, and taking it further, is this project likely to become general policy throughout the system once we've gone through its test stages?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to prejudge the results of the pilot project. We'll let this project take its course. In July it concludes, and we'll make decisions following that.
In terms of staffing, the uptake has been minimal so far. The amount of extra work has been minimal, and there have been additional resources provided. Twenty-one people graduated from the JI training program in early May, and we're finding no resource-related issues developing as yet.
J. Dalton: The Attorney General also mentioned previously the need for parole, and that is certainly true. Obviously we have to have a mechanism in place. Those who are ultimately going to serve their sentence will be coming back out on the street, and we have to provide the best possible system within the concepts of confidence in that system and public safety.
In a moment I'll get into some of the specifics of this four-page document that I have, because some of it causes me concern, and I think it should cause the public some concern. But putting aside the obvious need for easing people back out, if the corrections system has difficulties within it.... Again I cite Danny Perrault as the obvious example, and of course the hon. Attorney General also knows there's an ongoing federal inquiry into the Ferndale situation. So it is not just the B.C. system that I'm taking shots at. I think we can certainly raise questions as to how corrections is working both federally and provincially.
So when the Attorney General launches a pilot project like this.... He also told this committee earlier today that he doesn't feel the numbers of those released under this pilot project will go up. I would suggest to the Attorney General that that is not likely. It's appropriate that people be advised of their right to apply. But the way I read this document -- and this is probably most important -- I think they're being encouraged to apply. Maybe that's not so bad, but I would submit again to the Attorney General that if you're going to encourage people to seek early release, you'd better have proper staffing, proper training and enough parole officers to monitor these people out on the streets.
I don't want the Attorney General to tell this committee and the people of B.C. that they don't make mistakes. I open the newspaper every day of the week and am horrified by the things I read. Sure, that's headline-grabbing, and sure, the Attorney General may accuse the opposition of trying to grab headlines on this issue. That's not my style. That might be the style of the third party or Preston Manning or people from other places. My concern is that I don't think all the nice statements in this document are going to work, because I don't think the staff in the corrections system are properly trained. I think there are too many of them there who are well-intentioned but don't get proper direction. Therefore I'll just make that general comment.
[ Page 10860 ]
Then I would like to refer to some of the statements that I see in this "Early Reviews and Automatic Hearings" document. "Early Reviews" is the first part of the document. For example: "These reviews will take place at one-sixth of sentence, and will consist of a file review instead of a hearing. If parole is granted on the strength of the file review, the inmate is released at the one-third eligibility date...." Probably a lot of people are going to qualify under this. So they will no longer be in the system; they will be out on the street. Do we have the proper staffing? Do we have enough parole officers out there to ensure that these people will be properly monitored, so that for the balance of their sentence, which of course they will serve out on the street, they will indeed be looked after in that sense?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says he's not headline-seeking on these issues. I note that he was available to media on the weekend, to make sure he gets Saturday morning Vancouver Sun coverage on occasion. So I'll believe the member when he refuses to take those calls from the media on some of these subjects.
I think it's important to put this into context, first of all, before getting back into the detail. When one considers the number of people who are coming in and out of the B.C. corrections custodial system every day -- the thousands of people who are processed, the literally more than 10,000 classification decisions that are made every year -- the corrections system really has a very good record for its decision-making ability. Occasionally things go wrong, and when they do, sometimes they go wrong in a very high-profile and horrific manner. But I think that if members stop to think about it, if that happened very often it would become commonplace and it wouldn't create the kind of news story that the occasional event does create. The fact that there is such a high amount of attention paid to a particular incident I think is proof, or at least strong evidence, that in fact the system works very well, because we have that kind of failure very infrequently. The ideal is for those failures to never happen, and that's the objective. Unlike members of the opposition, who never, ever make mistakes -- never -- sometimes members of the public service or the government do make mistakes. I think that those mistakes are very rare indeed in the corrections system.
With respect to the concern that the numbers of those who are eligible for parole will go up dramatically, they aren't. The fact is that of the considerations given so far, very few people in the pilot project have been actually released on parole as a result of the program. Many people will choose not to take advantage, and that's their opportunity. The Parole Board will be very careful, as it always is, about its decision-making. But in the final analysis, if inmate A and inmate B are both eligible for parole, but inmate B doesn't understand how to go about obtaining a hearing and isn't advised in the days preceding the eligibility, why should inmate B, because of heritage, background, literacy, social skills or whatever else, be denied the opportunity that inmate A has as the result of having some skill in knowing how to use the system? I think each should have the same opportunity.
If we believe in parole -- and I do, and I gather from the member's comments that he does -- then parole as a principle is obviously a useful tool in the correctional system, otherwise we wouldn't have it. We have it because it is a positive and useful tool. If it is, then everybody who is eligible should be entitled to it so they can take advantage of the opportunities that exist to make sure that people don't in fact repeat and end up back in the system again. If parole works toward helping people plan for their re-entry into society so that they don't come back into the system, then it's a very useful tool -- and parole does that. So why not make parole available to every individual who is eligible for it? There's no logic or sense that I can determine for saying that some people, because of their skill level, shouldn't be entitled and enabled to access this system and that others should. That doesn't make any sense to me.
J. Pullinger: I would like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Pullinger: Today I have the honour of welcoming, on behalf of the Speaker and this assembly, 20 grade 8 students, their teacher and several adults from Christ the King school in Seattle, Washington. I'd ask members here in the House to help me welcome our neighbours to the south.
J. Dalton: The Attorney General has talked about entitlement, and I do agree that everyone within the system should be treated the same and have the same opportunities. I guess the real quarrel.... In a way we are quarrelling now, but that's the job. The Attorney General also commented that the opposition never makes mistakes, which is true. It's unfortunate, however, that the government obviously makes mistakes, and sometimes these mistakes are very threatening to our society. That's my particular comment on that remark.
As for entitlement, I don't quarrel with that. The Attorney General is quite right. I don't oppose the opportunity for those who are entitled to and qualify for parole. They should get into that method of early release, because it does help to ease them back into society. We don't have a method in place yet, such as the one our neighbours to the south have, whereby after three strikes you're out and never seen again. Of course, for the most part we're not talking about dangerous offenders in the B.C. system. There are obviously some. But again -- and I'm going to get to some specifics in a moment that from my perspective will reinforce it -- I am fearful that this is a rather open-ended and well-intended, though perhaps not necessarily well implemented policy. I agree that it's only a test pilot. Maybe we'll see that it crashes, and we'll never try to get it off the ground again.
[3:15]
Let me get to what is probably the essence of this document, as to whether it's going to work or not. It's on page 3 under the heading of "Interim Reviews." These are dealing with the people.... I will quote directly from the document: "High-risk offenders whom corrections branch staff regard as unlikely to be granted parole will be referred to the board for an interim review to decide if the inmate should receive an automatic hearing or be advised to apply for parole." Why are we inviting high-risk offenders, who are unlikely to qualify, to apply for parole? Danny Perrault fits this description. If we are inviting and encouraging the Danny Perraults in our prison system to apply because we want to be fair and we want everyone to be entitled -- and all this other stuff that I'm hearing -- I'm sorry, but that compromises public confidence and it compromises public safety. I'm suggesting to the Attorney General that if that's the philosophy behind this, he had better revisit it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member focuses on an issue which is not the purpose of the policy.
Let me say, first of all, that the recommendation that people apply or be given the opportunity to apply does not
[ Page 10861 ]
mean that corrections officials are going to support parole being granted at a particular time. What is really important in these situations is that inmates who will be released some day begin to think about some of the obligations. One of the ways they can begin to think about planning for their future -- what they're going to do with their lives in the latter stages of their sentence and what they're going to do when they get out -- and be encouraged to embark upon that kind of serious self-analysis is by having parole as a focus of discussions. That doesn't mean parole is going to granted, but it means that people can begin to think about these kinds of issues.
The record with respect to release is good. We're not talking about a situation where we're dealing with decisions of the board that have gone awry. I think the member would agree that the board has a good record. We're not suggesting that for some reason this is going to encourage these people to have their freedom through parole. The fact is that they could have made that application on their own in any event. The policy is about making sure that it's an automatic procedure, the same way it is with parole boards that exist in other provinces and at the federal level. This is making the policies across the country consistent. It's not designed to get people out when they shouldn't be out -- that won't happen. If it does, it would hopefully be completely inadvertently. I'm not going to say that it will never happen. Some mistakes will inevitably be made, but there sure haven't been very many when you think about it.
J. Dalton: I don't think I'm going to pursue this much further. Obviously I have one point of view, and the Attorney General has a different one. We'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong. I'll just make one further observation, and then I believe that my colleague from the neighbouring riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi wants to jump in on the same topic.
Again, I point out to the Attorney General that when you set loose policy like this.... Sure, it's well intentioned. A lot of things that this government does are well intentioned, I suppose, but quite frankly, I don't think that a lot of the things this government does are right. And I don't speak alone when I say that. If we have well-intentioned policy that is not properly phrased, and if the project is not properly staffed and staff aren't properly trained.... I'm sorry, but I do not believe that these high-risk people will not, in some way or another, get out prematurely, before they are entitled to. The flavour of the wording of this.... The Attorney General wants to downsize this and say that it really isn't part of the policy. Well, it happens to occupy the latter part of this document, which is only four pages in length. A fair amount of emphasis is placed on high-risk offenders. We can't lock them up forever. I might just share with the Attorney General an interesting comment that the last NDP Premier of this province shared with me the other day. I don't think I'm breaking any confidence by saying this. Mr. Barrett said to me: "You know, there are some people in the system who should never be released."
I will step aside for my friend from West Vancouver-Garibaldi.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want one -- not argumentative, I trust -- additional word before turning to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. The high-risk inmates the member talks about, generally speaking -- not always -- know the system and have been able to take advantage of the opportunity for a parole hearing in any event. The fact that there's a lot of detail in the policy in respect of that issue demonstrates the care and concern that the system takes in dealing with people who are in on serious offences and who are a high risk. That's all that this represents. We are taking exceeding care. I will just repeat that we're not talking about anything more than an automatic consideration, rather than consideration if you know the system. Many of those high-risk people know the system all too well.
D. Mitchell: I would like to pursue a couple of aspects of this important line of questioning that has been pursued by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. Before I do that, though, I'd like to ask the Attorney General if he could be a little more specific about a matter raised during the review of his spending estimates last Friday in this House. The member for Vancouver-Langara raised a question about what was referred to as the residential historical abuse program. My understanding is that this is a program whereby individuals who have been part of the corrections system -- for instance, in British Columbia -- and have been abused at the hands of employees of the government, have some recourse and can receive some benefits through this program. Could the Attorney General inform the committee what the official stated purpose of this program is, when it was first established, how many people have applied for assistance under it so far, who is eligible and whether one must be a resident of the province in order to obtain counselling and other benefits?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to be as helpful to the member as I'd like to be, primarily because the program is administered by the Ministry of Health. It's not a corrections program; it's not a program that's particularly spun out of corrections. What we're talking about here is residential historical abuse. Some people have at some time in their life been in the care of the province or in the care of an institution -- and not necessarily even an institution -- which could have been the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health or perhaps the Attorney General. If individuals who have been in those situations feel that the system has inflicted some abuse upon them, they are, on their own say-so, able to join in the counselling program that the Ministry of Health offers. I don't know how many people are taking advantage of that program. The Ministry of Health could provide that information. If I can get that information before these estimates are through, I will certainly add that to the discussion.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that commitment. I was unaware that the Ministry of Health was responsible for this program on a cross-government basis. If that's the case, I'll pursue that during the Health estimates.
One aspect I am interested in, which perhaps the Attorney General's ministry might be able to shed some light on is: is there any limit to the retroactivity of such a program? Is there any limit on the residency of the individual who might apply for such benefits?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before we get off track, the benefits made available are in fact counselling. It's available to anyone who believes that they were abused during a time when they were in the province's care -- at any point in their life, going back historically. I don't want to be categorical about this, but I understand that it's available to people who are now resident in British Columbia.
[ Page 10862 ]
D. Mitchell: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, and I'd be happy to discuss it with the Attorney General outside of the spending estimates, but I'll just make one point: if a citizen of this province was abused by the system -- broadly speaking, the system being government -- when they were in the care of the government, and are residing outside the province, let's say in a neighbouring province, why they should be denied the counselling benefits that the Attorney General referred to is beyond me. It would seem that the obligation is recognized by the existence of a program. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for someone living outside the province some years later not being eligible for the counselling benefits that the Attorney General referred to.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises a question to which I haven't given any consideration. As the member understands, this is a program administered by the Ministry of Health to which the other ministries that have some involvement contribute financially. It's certainly a question that raises a good point, and we'll have a look at it.
D. Mitchell: In reviewing the Hansard Blues, I see that one other point made last Friday by the member for Vancouver-Langara was that it might also be advisable for the government to have a brochure or some policy statement governing this program so that offices such as those of MLAs might have some basic information on this program. As the Attorney General is aware, our MLA offices are contacted all the time for information about this kind of program, and it doesn't appear that there's much available. I'm not sure if the Attorney General would want to respond to that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope to be able to send a copy of the brochure across the House to the member in a few minutes. I notice somebody scurrying out of the gallery. Hopefully they will find a copy for me.
The program was announced 18 months ago. The Ministry of Health does have a brochure that talks about it. It's designed to try to assist individuals who have a legitimate complaint about the way they were treated when they were in the care of the government. We see this as a positive means of providing some assistance. It grew out of the discussions around the Jericho Hill situation, to a certain extent, which is being treated in a unique way because of the unique issues there. But it's a program that we're not trying to hide at all.
D. Mitchell: I'm not going into any specifics. I've had some matters drawn to my attention that don't relate to the Jericho Hill situation at all, but I won't go into those right now. I'd like to familiarize myself further with the program.
I would like to return to some aspects of the corrections system, though, and the line of questioning that's been pursued today in the committee. In particular, I'd like to deal with vote 17 of the Attorney General's estimates, which deals with the corrections system. I realize that we're on vote 16, the minister's office. Hopefully he won't mind if I move back and forth a bit.
[3:30]
I'd like to begin with references to the replacement of inadequate facilities in recent annual reports of the ministry. In the last couple of annual reports -- 1991-92 and 1992-93 -- there were some very specific references. For instance, in the 1991-92 annual report there were references to the final closure of the Oakalla facility and the fact that the last of the three smaller institutions that replace it opened in July 1992, I think it was. Planning and consultation continued for the replacement of the Victoria Youth Detention Centre and the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre. In the 1992-93 annual report for the ministry, there were references to the continuing process of replacing the Willingdon centre with two smaller centres, one of which would be in the Fraser facility in Maple Ridge. The branch also consulted with the community on the location of the new Victoria Youth Custody Centre, according to the annual report, and there are references to a couple of other smaller facilities. The year 1993-94 is now completed, but the Ministry of Attorney General's annual report has not yet been tabled in the House. Could the Attorney General tell us which facilities were being worked on in that year? Are any replacements being planned right now for inadequate facilities that the Attorney General can tell this committee about?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to do this from memory, with some jogging of my memory by my helpers. The Prince George adult centre is well underway in terms of construction. It's replacing an old system that has some Oakalla-like features. Planning for Willingdon continues. The plan there is to build a new facility in the Maple Ridge area, as the member notes, which would house half of the people who have been in Willingdon, and to replace the building at Willingdon with a new building that would house the other half. The Victoria Youth Custody Centre is in a preliminary stage, but a site has been selected. Municipal approval has been reached with the community of View Royal, if my memory is correct, and hopefully that antiquated place that we operate just a few blocks from here will be a thing of history before too much longer.
The Vancouver Pretrial expansion is expected to be ready for occupancy in July 1995. For the new lower mainland correctional centre, we are in a very preliminary stage for planning. The property hasn't even been acquired. Hopefully, if all goes well with the province's ability to secure funding for these capital costs, and the opposition doesn't give us too much trouble about borrowing too much money, we'll be able to be ready for occupancy in 1997. There are a couple of other projects in various facilities around the province where upgrading is a continuing matter.
D. Mitchell: I have the great burden right now of being the only opposition member in the House, so I'm sorely tempted to wind up these estimates. But unfortunately, I have a couple of other questions. If no one else enters before we get them answered, I'd be glad to do that.
The references the Attorney General just made were to sections of the annual reports dealing with inadequate facilities. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can tell us how a corrections facility is deemed to be inadequate. Can he tell us, for instance, what guidelines are used by the ministry to determine what is inadequate when it comes to facilities for housing criminals, dangerous offenders and others?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We use United Nations standards. For example, one of the.... Let me put it another way. I think if the member were to come with me to visit some of the old facilities, it wouldn't take reading a manual to know that they need replacing. Those of us who had an opportunity to visit Oakalla in years gone by knew, without reading a policy book or a set of guidelines, that this was an inappropriate and inadequate facility. One only has to go through the existing Prince George jail to know that most farmers wouldn't keep their animals in conditions like that. There are some pretty obvious standards. But, to be more formal about it, there are United Nations standards which we go by.
[ Page 10863 ]
D. Mitchell: Approaching this from a different angle, I wonder if the minister might tell us if there are guidelines to tell us what would be adequate. If there are United Nations guidelines telling us what is inadequate, in terms of corrections facilities for persons convicted of crimes, for dangerous offenders and others, does the ministry have any guidelines for what is adequate? For instance, through the news media the general public hears about minimum security and high-security facilities. What do these standards relate to? Is it how high the fence surrounding the facility is? What are the standards that make a corrections facility adequate? Can the Attorney General make references to higher levels of incarceration for more dangerous offenders, for instance? Are there guidelines for such things?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will understand if I tell him that I don't know what those rules and guidelines are; but they exist and they're available. Certainly if the member wants to pursue the issues with staff in the corrections branch, he would be more than welcome to take advantage of that. Clearly there are different standards for high security as compared to minimum security; different rules are in place. To know what they are we'd both have to go and sit down and look at them and talk to people who do this for a living, as opposed to what the member and I do for a living.
D. Mitchell: The Attorney General must appreciate that there is some concern in the general community right now about this, especially with some recent high-profile and well-publicized instances of escapes or absences without leave. There are some real concerns in the community about the categorization of our corrections facilities -- so-called minimum security, medium security and high security -- and yet people convicted of serious crimes appear to be on the loose from time to time. Granted, the Attorney General has noted that these are exceptions to the rule, but there is some serious concern about that. If the Attorney General is not wanting to discuss that in committee, I would take him up on his offer of following it up with his officials in order to understand it better myself.
I would like to ask about another issue dealing with inspection and standards. I know that the Attorney General has made some pronouncements on this recently. I've looked at the two most recent annual reports for the Ministry of Attorney General, and there are some references to inspection and standards in the corrections system. For instance, in the 1991-92 annual report, there's a reference to the fact that "the division conducted 30 inspections of institutions, probation offices and contracted services, and dealt with 309 complaints from inmates and youths in custody...." In the 1992-93 report it said that complaints by offenders and clients were approximately 285 during the course of the year.
I'm wondering if the minister could tell the committee today what the nature of complaints coming forward from inmates and youths within the system would be. The volume is certainly quite high. The annual report of the ministry sheds no light on what these complaints might involve. Is it possible for the Attorney General to give us a flavour for what kinds of complaints come forward from inmates within the system?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair, first of all, to say that the complaints vary. I smiled when I saw the note that I was passed, because the variation in complaints ranges from lost socks to loss of privileges -- which occurs when correctional staff feel that's appropriate -- to disciplinary matters. If an inmate is disciplined, they may feel that the discipline meted out by staff at the particular institution was inappropriate, unfair or unwarranted and will often make a complaint to the inspection and standards branch. That's the nature, as I understand it, of most of the complaints.
D. Mitchell: I can imagine that some of the complaints might be of a more serious nature than the trivial examples that the Attorney General has noted. I'm sure that there is a variety of complaints. I'd be interested to know if the Attorney General or his ministry can tell us what the number of complaints was for the 1993-94 fiscal year just ended. I've listed the numbers of complaints for the last two years. Does the Attorney General have any statistics for the number of complaints for the last completed fiscal year?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm unable to provide the number for the year that ended six weeks ago. It may be that it's not added up and compiled yet, but if I can get that information to the member during these estimates I will. If I can't, I will undertake to write the member with that information in advance of the release of the report.
Going back to the main issue, all of the complaints are obviously not frivolous. On occasion, there are complaints that, on the face of it, are serious and warrant proper and serious consideration. More often than not these prove to be unfounded, but nonetheless, they do occur. I can't give a percentage. I don't know how many are of that kind, but some are seen at first glance to be serious and are treated in that way. They are dealt with by the inspection and standards branch in a way that, hopefully, provides some integrity to the system for both inmate and staff.
D. Mitchell: I have one other question on the inspection and standards branch within the corrections office. There are also references in the ministry's annual reports to a significant number of requests for review of correctional centre disciplinary hearings. In 1991-92, 244 such requests came forward. That was a significant increase -- about one-third -- over the previous year. In 1992-93, appeals of disciplinary decisions numbered some 208. So there is a significant volume of appeals of disciplinary hearings coming forward within the corrections system. I'm wondering again if the Attorney General could tell us if he has the statistics available for 1993-94 -- the fiscal year just ended. Also, could he tell us who hears these appeals? What is the nature of the issues that come forward in the form of appeals?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that I can answer the question with respect to the nature of the appeals without going back and looking at the list of issues that come forward, but they are heard by the inspection and standards branch of the corrections service. As the member knows, there is legislation on the order paper that will mean that in the future this matter will be dealt with in a different way.
D. Mitchell: I won't belabour this point, but I think this is an important issue. I'd like to thank the Attorney General, actually, for his answer to my question in question period in this House today, which dealt with the Prowse inquiry and looking into the Danny Perrault escape from New Haven Correctional Centre. I think his answer today in the House went a bit further in terms of a commitment to protect the corrections officers within the system who may wish to come forward and testify at the inquiry but are fearful for their jobs, of reprimands or of jeopardizing their careers by
[ Page 10864 ]
coming forward. But the question I'm getting at right now, in terms of appeals of decisions within the corrections system, is about my belief that some of the very matters that will now go before the Prowse inquiry, which is looking into one specific incident in the corrections system -- the Danny Perrault escape -- but which is also looking into the corrections system and the administration of corrections in the province, have been raised in some of these appeals. Correctional centre disciplinary hearings is how they are referred to -- and requests for reviews of those hearings or appeals. What I'm trying to get at here is that there have been charges of abuse of power within our corrections system on the part of officials and government employees, and of abuse of people within the system. Individuals such as Danny Perrault -- and we're not going to discuss his case today, because it's before an inquiry -- and other individuals within the system have launched appeals, because they claim to have been abused by officials and corrections officers, sometimes at the most senior levels in the corrections system. I realize that this may get addressed before the Prowse inquiry. I myself plan to make a submission to the Prowse inquiry on this matter. But my point is to ask whether or not there have been allegations that the Attorney General is aware of that are part of the statistics for 1991-92, 1992-93 -- which I just referred to -- or perhaps the fiscal year just ended, which the Attorney General can admit during this set of estimates are of a serious nature and that may in fact relate to the Prowse inquiry. Or are there other instances where serious offenders, dangerous criminals within the system, have been involved perhaps in a high-profile way or in a manner that's never been brought to light before that the public was aware of.
[3:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pausing because I want to be sure about my answer in this respect. Unless I misunderstand the member's question, I'm not aware of any issues of the sort that he's describing that are a cause of concern. There may be -- the member may have an illustration or two on his desk -- but not that I'm personally aware of at this point.
D. Mitchell: I'm not going to belabour the case, and I'm not going to bring forward incidents in this committee today, but I believe that the appeals that come forward within the system are oftentimes not of a trivial nature; they're of a very serious nature. I'm sure that some of them will come forward in due course. I think we have to wait to see what the Prowse inquiry can come up with first. I continue to be of the view that the Prowse inquiry's mandate and terms of reference are far too narrow and restrictive and that we need a much broader-ranging inquiry into our corrections system -- but first things first.
I'd like to ask one final question of the Attorney General in this committee today. It deals with the total amount of public money spent on corrections in our province. I'd like to actually help the Attorney General, if I could, to get more money for corrections, if that's what's needed. I'm not sure that is what's needed. The total vote for corrections in British Columbia this year is almost $211 million, according to the estimates that the Minister of Finance tabled in this House. Last year it was $198 million or $199 million; the year before that it was $185 million or $186 million, so there is an increased expenditure.
I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us if, during the period of time that he has been responsible for the corrections system, he has taken any specific initiatives in the way we manage the corrections system in British Columbia that would save taxpayer dollars. Has he taken any specific initiatives that would allow us to save money in this branch of government?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We've taken a number of initiatives. I think the most dramatic is the electronic monitoring program, where people serve their time on electronic monitoring rather than being in a custodial facility; this is considerably less expensive than the cost of prison. We are taking -- and have taken in this budget -- initiatives to spend more on the community side as opposed to the institutional side, with the view that it's a cost-effective way of dealing with correctional issues. By that I mean dealing with probation supervision of community service and work service supervision in the communities, which is, again, cheaper and more effective from a rehabilitation perspective.
A number of initiatives along those lines are being undertaken. I think that one of the reasons why the costs have gone up the way they have is because of the nature of the crime that is being committed these days. But more and more relevant is the profile of the inmate population, which is far less benign as a profile than it was, say, ten or 15 years ago.
D. Mitchell: The minister has identified some areas where there's an attempt to reap cost savings within the corrections system. He's spending $211 million this year on corrections in British Columbia. There may be some British Columbians who feel that that's not enough. If the Attorney General had been more successful at Treasury Board -- and I can't ask what happens in that cabinet committee -- what areas of corrections would the Attorney General, if he could, spend more money on? What would be the ministry's priorities in the corrections system if more taxpayers' dollars could be expended in this area?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, whether it's in order or not, I relish the opportunity to answer the question. I really feel very strongly that we need to do more on the community and community service side; on involving community through various local organizations in developing programs closer to home, if I can use that Health term; on finding ways of enabling native Indian bands to supervise their children rather than have them sent away to jail; and on finding ways of adding to the number of probation officers who are able to work in our province. We have increased them this year by a fairly significant number, considering the economic and fiscal constraints that are around us. But that is the side of the system that I would want to put the most emphasis on. It's cheaper; it's more effective. It produces better results for the community in the long term by getting people to lead normal and productive lives rather than lives that put them in conflict with the law.
D. Mitchell: I would like to ask the Attorney General one further question. There is a broad-based perception in British Columbia that our corrections system is too lenient on criminals who are being handled within the system, if I can use that term. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of that; I'm not sure whether he agrees with it or not. Certainly my constituents believe that is the case.
We hear about dangerous criminals being on parole and committing crimes. An inquiry is looking at the Danny Perrault case. We hear phrases like terminal temporary absences. The phrase boggles my mind: a dangerous offender on a terminal temporary absence. I'm not really sure that I understand completely what that means, but it means they're out in the community when perhaps they shouldn't
[ Page 10865 ]
be. That's my interpretation of what a terminal temporary absence is. We hear about criminals taking fishing trips and having day passes, when they're out in the community and sometimes committing dangerous crimes. These may be the exceptions to the rule -- and I'm sure the Attorney General would argue that -- but there is deep concern in the community right now.
Would the Attorney General not agree that at the end of the day the one thing that can restore confidence in the corrections system in British Columbia is a full, wide-ranging, independent public inquiry into the whole corrections system, including parole and how dangerous offenders in particular are handled within the system? I think all members of the House would want to see confidence in the corrections system restored. It's not there today, and the Attorney General has admitted that. Perhaps once we get through the Perrault inquiry, depending upon its findings -- the Attorney General may want to know what those are -- would he not agree that a full, broad public inquiry, no matter how long it takes, is actually necessary to restore confidence in the system?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I wouldn't agree, and I'm sure the member is not surprised by that answer. I think that over the last few years we have had very few issues as consequential as some of the recent events. If we can find out through the Prowse inquiry what transpired in this particular incident, we may learn enough to provide answers that a broader inquiry might produce some years down the road. I also think that we can begin the process of advising the public about how well the system actually does work. That's been a failure, and I take responsibility for that. I don't think we talk about the positives enough. One of the reasons we don't is probably that we never get any coverage for it, so nobody ever knows if you do talk about something positive. But the system really works very well, and we need to say that repeatedly. That's probably as important in regaining public confidence as anything.
I intend to be far more aggressive in talking about the good decisions that are made and in talking about the reality. The reality is that all these inmates that the member is talking about are going to be out one day. So what we have to do -- there are other purposes too, but it's a primary public security focus -- is make sure that when the day arrives that they are going to be out, they're as ready for it as we can enable them to be. That's the crucial issue. The member talks about fishing trips. I don't know whether they occur, but if they do, I think it's a good idea. You can't be in a jail -- in that inhumane, unreal atmosphere that is unrelated to life, to working, to relationships and to everything else that occurs in one's daily life -- and then suddenly one day be out and maybe be given a bus pass as you leave the jail entrance. To go where? Well, you're going to go back to your old haunts, unless you've had a program that helps you to reintegrate into society. That's what all these initiatives are about. That's what the temporary absences are about; that's what parole is about. That's what all of these programs are for; they are crucial. Without them -- with the kind of mindless system that some would advocate where those opportunities aren't available -- we will have huge and horrendous public safety and public security issues, and we will have an increasing crime problem like they're having in the United States, where they have a regressive and repressive criminal justice system.
G. Wilson: I don't disagree with the Attorney General's last comments, save and except that we have to make sure that those kinds of things don't happen in the instance where an individual is out and a crime is committed, especially a crime against another person. It's obviously not an easy task, and one that we could debate for many more hours.
I'd like to change focus slightly and talk more specifically about aboriginal justice and the extent to which this ministry is involved in aboriginal policing and aboriginal justice systems. I canvassed this fairly thoroughly under the estimates of Aboriginal Affairs. I am curious on two grounds. One is the extent to which the ministry is consulted with respect to aboriginal policing, where that is becoming a functional part of some aboriginal communities. Secondly, to what extent is the ministry actively putting money into it, either through commitments to the community justice system or to some other programs which would seek an interface between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities that are in close proximity? I thankfully remind the Attorney General of the moneys made available to the Sechelt Indian band, who were interested in putting together a program with respect to youth violence in that community. That program has proven to be fairly successful, and I think it is something that should be repeated.
I would like to start this discussion by talking about aboriginal policing and your involvement with it, and secondly, the moneys that may be available for ongoing programs with respect to interfacing aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may get into more detail as we go on with this, and I have an opportunity to listen to and read some of the briefing notes. Let me say off the top that we are very much involved with initiatives in respect of aboriginal policing. First of all, we have worked closely with the aboriginal policing project in Lillooet, which has resulted in the tribal policing force established there, and it would be fair to say that the ministry has had a significant involvement. We are also working with the RCMP in respect of their native constables program.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
In provincial policing, I think the member knows that we as a province pay 70 percent of the cost -- I'm going to be corrected on the numbers if I'm wrong -- and the feds pay 30 percent on normal policing matters. In respect of aboriginal or first nations native constable programs, the federal government actually pays the majority; they pay 52 percent of the cost and the province pays 48 percent. It is estimated that in this fiscal year the number of native constables will be 67 and that there will be 29 tribal police in the province. That goes up from 58 to 67 in the fiscal year we've just concluded. In tribal police, it goes up to 29 from 8 in the year we've just concluded. So there is a real emphasis on first nations policing. We do not dictate to native communities about how or who they choose; this is a matter for discussion. Different native communities prefer different options. Some prefer not to have the program and to rely on the traditional RCMP detachment. But we're open; we're available for and in constant discussion with them about that.
[4:00]
The member also talked about some other issues. I just want to say that we as a ministry are also considerably involved in what I would describe as getting at root causes that lead to a lot of problems with the justice system. Obviously in native communities a lot of the root causes go back to social ills that in many cases -- at least in my own experience -- can be traced back to the residential schools and the sexual abuse and other patterns of behaviour that
[ Page 10866 ]
became established. We are involved, with other ministries where it's appropriate, in assisting in funding programs to come to grips with these root causes of ills in communities that later lead to the kind of behaviour that often ends up putting people into conflict with the law.
I have just one final thought on this. A traditional response of governments historically is that the Attorney General's ministry, Solicitor General's ministry or Justice minister -- whichever is appropriate in which jurisdiction -- has always sort of picked up the pieces. The ministry hasn't worried so much about root causes but has simply been the agency to fix the mess when it finally arrives at the criminal justice door. It's my view -- and I think this view is shared increasingly across the western world -- that we all have to begin to pay more attention to root causes and the sources of the ills that lead to the problems. We all know how much a factor drugs and alcohol are in the crime rates in our society. We have to get back to some of those root causes. While no government can do enough in that respect, we're certainly putting in as much effort as we can to get at those root causes.
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
C. Tanner: It isn't really a point of order. But if the minister could project....
The Chair: Is it or isn't it a point of order?
C. Tanner: It's a point of order, then. If he could project a little more, we could hear a little better over here.
The Chair: Would the Attorney General speak up or speak out or however it works.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we could just focus for a moment specifically on the Lillooet policing. How much has that cost the province in dollars to date?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have the information, but it's not handy. If the member wants to go on to some other questions -- if that works in terms of his organization here -- I'll come back with that answer.
G. Wilson: That's fine.
The second thing is a question. I draw the minister's attention to a document that was actually received through his own office and dated May 6, 1994, so that the Attorney General knows where I'm coming from on this. It was written to Mr. Villa-Arce in his office. There were a number of issues with respect to recruitment and selection aspects of the mandate, expenditures of moneys, accountability and questions to the extent of who these native officers report to. If we're waiting on the amount of money, then, I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us what the procedure is with respect to the authority lines there. To whom do these constables report? They are presumably there to enforce the laws of the province and of Canada. To what extent does the chief-in-council have authority over the actions they may take within their normal role as a constable?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the first question, I still don't have an answer. But I can say that the total amount for municipal policing, through the tribal policing program -- and I say municipal because that's the way it's organized -- is $336,000 in the current fiscal year that we're debating. I still don't have the answer as to how much of that is in Lillooet. But we begin to come closer to some numbers the member can work with.
In respect of the way the Lillooet police service operates, it is like any municipal force. It's under the Police Act and has its own police board. The B.C. Police Commission is responsible in the same way as it is for the 12 municipal forces. The pattern is the same, and these police officers are properly and fully trained, as are other municipal police officers. The theory is that it works the same as other municipal forces.
G. Wilson: I guess it's on that theory that I will start to focus some attention. There's an old adage -- and the minister will have heard it, I'm sure -- that if you see a person assaulted on the street, you call a cop; but if you see a cop assaulting someone on the street, whom do you call? We have to be extremely careful in the development of municipal police forces. In the selection process, the finest people should be brought forward and trained -- and in the vast majority of cases, I think that's done. Where abuses occur, there should be a very clean, legitimate and direct process for appeal, review and reconsideration.
I wonder if the Attorney General might talk a bit about how the community policing advisory committee was set up, how it was structured, what process is involved with respect to recommendations coming forward on that and the extent to which training is monitored through an agency outside the Police Commission itself.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member raised three issues; number two was on what I thought was a totally unrelated topic. I may have misunderstood when he talked about the community policing report, which didn't seem to be related to the issues of the training and accountability that exist within the municipal forces. I may have missed what the member was saying. I will answer it in the same way that I did before. All the institutional apparatuses that exist for the 12 municipal forces -- the rules, training, accountability, procedures, the complaint commission and the commissioner -- also exist for municipally based tribal police forces. There's no difference in that respect. I don't know what more to say about that, other than that when Mr. Justice Oppal reports, I'm expecting to get advice from him in respect of these issues and ways in which we can improve the system that's now in place. I'm looking forward to those recommendations as well.
G. Wilson: Let's break down some of those issues, then, and deal more directly and specifically with some of the concerns that have come forward to this member. With respect to enforcement procedures in the particular tribal police forces, to what extent are those forces directed by chief and council and by policies developed by the band on band land? To what extent are they there to enforce strictly the laws of British Columbia, as would be mandated for a municipal force? Municipal police officers don't engage in bylaw enforcement practices, generally speaking. Sometimes they do assist municipal bylaw enforcement officers, but only where there is some threat of violence or some problem associated with the enforcement of bylaws. My question is: to what extent are these tribal officers directed by chief and council?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The tribal police forces will enforce the law in their community in the same way as the New Westminster police department will enforce the law in their
[ Page 10867 ]
community. They end up enforcing the Criminal Code and other statutes in both cases. They also are responsible, in both cases, for some elements of local bylaw enforcement. That matter is determined between the police board and the chief of police in each case. I'm not sure where the member is going. The model is parallel. Conceptually, one needs to think of the jurisdiction of the Lillooet tribal police force as having the ability to do in their community what the New Westminster force can do in the city of New Westminster.
G. Wilson: I'll tell you exactly where I'm headed with this. It has to do with accountability for constables in the tribal policing section, in the same way as we would look at accountability for people in municipal forces. There may be difficulties with people who perhaps, for whatever reasons, have some difficulty knowing from whom they take their orders.
In this document that I just referred to, one of the concerns involved this question put to a provincial constable: "What is your jurisdiction or role, or under what authority do you enforce this infraction? I've broken no laws of the province." The response was: "I take my orders from band chief and band council, and I'm doing as I've been informed to do." The difficulty is that when you have that kind of enforcement.... And that may be a perfectly legitimate thing for them to be doing. I'm not for a moment suggesting that necessarily, on the basis of the information I have in front of me, there was anything particularly untoward.
The problem that we potentially run into here is an opportunity for those people who are empowered over others to be able to enforce the law in a manner that this Attorney General, I'm sure, and other people in British Columbia might find unacceptable. When those kinds of things occur, through what process is there going to be some legitimate appeal and concern expressed? And who is going to be overseeing and monitoring those kinds of appeals? That's the issue.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I prefer not to respond to second-, third- or fourth-hand suggestions of what he said and they said. The parallel would be for city constables in Vancouver, through the chief constable, to take their direction from the mayor and from the chair of the Vancouver Police Board. The police board sets the policy and the direction, and the chief constable is accountable to the police board. The elected mayor is the chair of the police board. In Lillooet the elected chief is in precisely the same position as Mayor Owen would be in Vancouver. That's the parallel.
[4:15]
Concerns or complaints may arise. If that occurs, there is a procedure to be followed through the B.C. Police Commission, which has, among its five-member board, one person who is responsible for dealing with complaints. But the commission is there in the same way it is for any other municipal force.
G. Wilson: That leads to the heart of some of the concerns that I'm hearing more and more as I travel to various communities -- mostly, I confess, in the lower mainland, but certainly to one interior community as well. It's important for the public to be aware that there is some kind of authority external to the police commission and that they have an avenue to it. There is a growing concern in the province, with respect to law enforcement and the justice system generally, that policing one's own and setting up commissions to police one's own are not necessarily the best way to proceed when complaints are brought against individuals.
There is often an accusation -- and I'll put it in those terms -- that people who have been involved as the chair of a commission, in the appointment of officers, as a chief of police or in bringing appointed members in as constables, have a tendency to want to deal with things in-house. They want to do whatever internal disciplining has to be done quietly and internally, and they will look after their own. While I can see that it may be an effective way of managing some minor issues, the public won't accept that any longer on major issues. The public is going to want an opportunity for a full and public review of these procedures.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I only draw the minister's attention to this one particular set of concerns, but there are a number of concerns now with respect to the changing nature of economic activity on aboriginal reserves, particularly the introduction of profit gaming. There is going to have to be some very serious attention paid to the whole question of law enforcement, policing, how those officers are appointed, how those commissions operate, what kind of internal review there is and what public opportunity there is for those reviews to be considered when complaints are lodged. Oftentimes complaints are discouraged -- let me use that word in a generous way -- before they can actually get to the point where they can be heard with any degree of authority.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Without agreeing with all of the implications and with everything the member said, I share the view that there has been concern about a variety of issues in respect of policing. It was one of the reasons, more than a year ago now, that we established the Oppal inquiry into policing. The act under which we operate is 20 years old, by and large, and policing and community attitudes and values have changed since then. It's time for a complete review. It's time to make sure that we are delivering the services and providing that accountability in a way that is in tune with where people are today. That's why the Oppal inquiry is so important to me, personally, and will prove to be very important to all British Columbians. I would prefer to have my answer based on what seems like a cop-out, which is to say: let's wait for Wally Oppal. It's a serious issue that requires deep and careful thinking, and I'm sure that's what we'll get with the report when it finally arrives.
C. Evans: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Evans: Hon. Chair, since you're busy, I'd like to introduce a couple of your constituents. Sheryl Beaudoin and Jason Albain are here from Nanaimo, accompanied -- or maybe even coerced into coming here -- by my son, Philip Evans.
The Chair: Did the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast finish a set of questions? I see the member for Saanich North and the Islands trying to get to his feet, and I'm wondering whether this is a logical point to go to somebody else?
G. Wilson: I would like to go back to aboriginal policing.
The Chair: In that case, I will recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
[ Page 10868 ]
G. Wilson: I will recognize the Oppal report as something that we can chew into when it arrives.
I would like to hit two other areas with respect to aboriginal policing and aboriginal justice. My question has to do with the agreements now being made that deal more specifically with rights and privileges that may extend into aboriginal communities as a result of the Treaty Commission process. I raised this in the Aboriginal Affairs estimates, and sections of it were thought better to be raised here. It has to do primarily with this whole question of the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, as I understand it, must apply now in agreements in Manitoba -- although I'm not sure there's been an agreement to the effect that it will apply here.
My question also has to do with citizenship rights that may exist under tribal law in an agreement such as the one this government has just signed with the Nisga'a, in which eight Nisga'as can determine the citizenship of future Nisga'as. There can be an appeal process to two people, one appointed Nisga'a and one appointed federal officer. Under law, that is going to impact significantly on the rights of those people deemed Nisga'a citizens who are operating or living within that area under Nisga'a jurisdiction. Yet clearly there could be a conflict between Nisga'a tribal custom and law and that of British Columbia. My question to the Attorney General is: where those conflicts arise, under what law will that individual be subject? They will be primarily civil matters, not criminal, but they may be something as simple as adoption law, as one example.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The continuing negotiations to reach a treaty with the Nisga'a have these items on the table. It seems pretty clear that the Criminal Code is going to apply, and there's not going to be any question about that. It seems pretty clear that the equivalent of municipal bylaws will be the purview of the local authority -- in this case the Nisga'a processes. Provincial statutes are issues that will be discussed at these tables. There may be instances where it's appropriate that a local procedure should prevail. It may have more relevance in that community than a provincial statute. I can't say more than that about it, because these are matters that are not resolved and are the subject of discussion.
G. Wilson: I would come back again to looking at the whole question of money spent establishing a municipal police force or something similar in the municipalities and aboriginal areas. I don't argue with that. I think some pluses have been established. There have been some minuses, but that would be expected. But the fact that the minister would suggest that we in British Columbia are currently negotiating the applicability of provincial law to one group over another -- one that is able to define itself, to define who may be a member of that group and to therefore define who will be excluded -- is a major departure from this country's traditional system of government, because this country has always argued that the law will apply equally to all citizens, that no distinctions will be made. Equality under the law is a very fundamental principle upon which the country was built.
My question to the Attorney General is more direct. How does the Attorney General feel about negotiating exclusivity of law or a parallel system of legal jurisprudence that may be applied -- and presumably we're talking about oral tradition, tribal law, customary law or whatever it may be -- to one group of people exclusive of others in British Columbia? Does the Attorney General not see that that is setting us up for some very significant conflicts in the future?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Like the former government, I have no problem with agreements about child welfare policies and rules that were signed with the Spallumcheen, for one, and with the Nuu'chah'nulth for another -- that I can do from memory, and I think there were others -- where different procedures and rules were in place. Beyond that, for about 20 years we have had a separate educational system for Nisga'a people in the Nass Valley through a Nisga'a school board, which operates very effectively.
The member is suggesting that somehow this is going to change if the local government -- in this case, the Nisga'a people -- get to choose who is covered by it. Well, everybody who lives in Vancouver and everybody who travels through Vancouver is covered by their bylaws, so I'm not sure where the member is going with this. I understand some of the issues where, if you put your imagination to work, members could think of dire situations, but none of those issues have been agreed to. Discussions continue to work out an agreement that, to echo the Premier's commitment, everybody in British Columbia, native and non-native, can be proud and happy with.
G. Wilson: The reason I ask these questions is that I believe it will have a very profound effect on not only this set of estimates but all sets of estimates as we work through this new proposition that's coming forward. With respect to the Nuu'chah'nulth, sure, there are rules and procedures that differ, but that doesn't change the law. The law's application is consistent, but there are rules and procedures that are different. Yes, the city of Vancouver has a charter that governs people who live there, but notwithstanding one's racial origin, anybody who lives in the city of Vancouver is equally governed under that charter. One cannot argue the same of the agreement made with the Nisga'a. I can become a Vancouverite by going and living there, but I could never become a Nisga'a, because there's no way to do that. My citizenship could never be determined, because citizenship is tied to race in that case, and that is a fundamental departure in Canada.
I would argue that with respect to the provincial statutes -- and I recognize that the criminal statutes in this case are going to apply, although some, I believe, may come to the table.... But in this case let's look specifically at gaming. That's where I'm headed with this thing. Gaming was removed from the Ministry of Attorney General and given to another minister. In an earlier discussion in these estimates, this minister suggested that I should take up with that minister why he got it and this minister lost it, and I will. But the costs of policing that will be a direct result of these kinds of activities -- especially on aboriginal reserves, where this government has said it will have no jurisdiction or authority -- are not going to be determined by a political or geographic boundary. If they spin off into neighbouring municipalities such as Kelowna, who is going to pick up the cost? Where is that money going to come from? The rules and regulations that may apply within that jurisdiction are clearly going to spill into the neighbouring jurisdictions, and guess who is going to pick up the tab -- we are. That policing cost is going to come out of this set of estimates or next year's estimates or the one after that. So these are not just hypothetical questions. These are very specific questions that deal with real costs that people are going to have to bear.
So I would ask one last question on aboriginal policing, and then I will yield. Certain activities are inevitably going
[ Page 10869 ]
to be a functional part of gaming for profit. One can prove it statistically by looking at any other jurisdiction where gaming has come about. If indeed there is provision for relative autonomy in the regulations and procedures to getting profit gaming and there is a commitment that the policing costs are going to be borne by this ministry, where does the minister see the costs for those kinds of activities being absorbed?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Gaming is governed by the Criminal Code. The code enables the province to license, and that's not going to change. Any other questions the member has are presupposing the adoption of policies that the government has not adopted. So I don't know how we can take it any further.
[4:30]
C. Tanner: I want to ask the Attorney General some questions concerning the native alternative court system. I note in the newspaper reports after Marion Buller did her inquiry around the province: "After travelling the province to interview aboriginals and justice officials, Buller said a complete overhaul of the system is required -- that they are not getting justice within our system now." I know that until a year ago, we had an alternative native court justice system, particularly on the Saanich Peninsula, but I don't see it in operation anymore.
My questions are: What happened to it? Is it still available? If it's not available on the Saanich Peninsula, is it available in another part of the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: For a variety of reasons, the South Island project was put on hold last year while an evaluation was done of how it was working. Our philosophy in respect of dealing with native justice issues in their varying components -- whether it's policing, the prosecution stage, diversion, what happens in the court system or through to Corrections -- is that there isn't a cookie-cutter solution, a program that we can design and impose on native communities. That's not the way it works. Our whole approach has been to try to work with native communities to help respond to issues and solutions that they have identified, perhaps to mould them in a way that we think may be a more appropriate resolution of a particular issue and to design programs on a case-by-case basis. That's what's happening.
I'd prefer not to go into detail about them in the estimates, but some problems developed in the South Island Tribal -- I've lost the precise name, but we know what we're talking about. It's the project that the federal and provincial governments and the South Island Tribal Council were involved with in terms of community justice. It ran into some problems that required it being put in abeyance while we saw whether we could find ways around those particular issues.
Some of the issues were raised by a group based in the member's constituency, the Naukana women's centre. I'm sure the member has met with them or has had comments from them. Some of the concerns that they raised helped us come to the conclusion that we did.
C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister doesn't particularly want to talk in detail about why the withdrawal of that program took place. However, if inquiries are made and you find a solution for them, I couldn't find anywhere in your budget this year where funds would be available should you want to put that program back in place.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is an item in the aboriginal programs part of the budget for community initiatives -- and a number are already funded -- that allow particular initiatives to be funded by the ministry should those projects meet mutually satisfactory goals that we and the community have. We have a variety of initiatives in place around the province. If a diversion program were proposed that could solve some of the problems that come with the territory, then we would look very seriously at it. The money is located within the aboriginal community justice part of the budget.
C. Tanner: I take it that while it's there, it's not specified. Could the minister -- not necessarily now but maybe sometime in the future -- afford me a list of those programs still in place, if there are any, and a list of other programs that are taking place, so that if some of my constituents are interested, I could direct their attention to them?
Can I change the direction of the questions a little now? I would like to talk about the Buller inquiry. First, how long did it take and how much did it cost? Second, she has come to a fairly far-reaching conclusion. Frankly, it's one that I've heard in other jurisdictions in Canada and one that I've heard for some time on a subject that I've been interested in for ten years. They've come to the same conclusion that I suspect the minister thought they might. What is the department going to do about it? It's a fairly condemning report of our system.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll just deal with the issues in sequence. First of all, yes, the ministry will communicate with the member by way of a letter that will list the initiatives underway in terms of aboriginal justice issues being funded and/or supported partly by us. We'll get that information to the member and to any other member who would like that information either in writing or by way of a briefing, which I think might be a useful thing to do.
Second, the Buller commission cost approximately $96,000. It occupied about three months. It was done very quickly on a very low budget, as these things are done. Ms. Buller made some reference to that in the opening parts of her report. I don't blame her for doing that. It was low-budget, and it was quick. Nonetheless, she produced a report that I think should cause every British Columbian to stop and ponder. Whether each or any of us agree with all of the conclusions she reached, the overwhelming sense of the report is that there are indeed serious problems with the way in which aboriginal justice is delivered in our society. I think it goes beyond British Columbia. It is a North American problem, and it is more acute in some parts of North America and Canada than it is in others. It's more acute in some parts of British Columbia than it is in others. I come at this from the firsthand experience of representing a constituency which has a large proportion of native people and a wide variety of bands from four different tribal council groupings and three different language and cultural groupings. In one of them I see horrendous problems in respect of how people deal with or are dealt with by the justice system.
Most of Ms. Buller's recommendations are directed at the Legal Services Society. What she was looking at wasn't a comprehensive review of native justice but rather a look at how legal aid can be best provided to native people in British Columbia. Her recommendations were focused on that, and it's only by the way that the more pervasive kinds of indictments are rendered by her. I have indicated before in this House -- and everywhere I go -- that I share those general views and concerns. We have a lot to do.
[ Page 10870 ]
I have also been firm from the beginning that the resolution of the failure of our system to deal properly with native justice issues is not in setting up a separate native justice system parallel to the existing justice system. I firmly believe -- and in this I think I'm supported by most native people and certainly most people in my constituency; I can attest to that -- that the direction of the solution is in finding parts of the system that can be applied differently or more appropriately in each community: whether it's diversion programs that could apply appropriately in a community; whether it's holding court in a different way; whether it's finding more aboriginal policing that is directly related and from the community; or whether it's in the corrections system in terms of having parole or probation supervised by elders or part of the elders council, or the extended family, which is a feature of aboriginal communities that doesn't exist in our fractured non-native communities.
There are a whole series of initiatives that I'm keen to pursue, all of which have to be done within a terribly limited financial framework. We're not going to make quick or easy progress, but I'm determined that we keep it at the very top of the priority list.
C. Tanner: The Attorney General is saying the sorts of things that I'm pleased to hear, and I agree with him. I have four reserves in my constituency as well, and those people are suffering from the court system we presently have. That is illustrated by the fact that 3 percent of the population of British Columbia is native, and 17 percent of the people who are now incarcerated are native. Obviously there's no relationship between those two figures. Something is wrong. You didn't need Marion Buller to tell you that. I'm sure the Attorney General knew that.
While I know he's sympathetic with it, I still haven't heard any solutions. Are we still studying the Buller report, and we're going to have something specific, or has she merely confirmed what the Attorney General and his party and many members on this side have known all along: that we've got a problem that we have to address?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is that we have not yet released a formal response to the Buller report. It's something that's still being worked on in the ministry, and we have not done that; nor has the Legal Services Society, to my knowledge, provided a response in respect of the issues that were directed at them. To date, what I have done -- in a public way, anyway -- is express my general agreement with the picture that is being painted by Ms. Buller.
In respect of solutions, even prior to her report, we have been working on a number of those issues, and we will continue to do so in as aggressive a way as we can, working with native communities and working within the budget that we have allocated to us.
M. de Jong: On Friday the Attorney General answered a couple of questions about some proposed capital projects. I'm not certain that this is the forum for members to go to the Attorney General and suggest that this riding or that community or somewhere else needs a courthouse; I'm not sure I know where that forum lies, but I don't know that this is it.
My question on that point is a little more general and is designed to encourage the Attorney General and his ministry, when giving consideration to capital funding and courthouse facilities, to not have regard strictly for historical judicial centres. The argument exists, as the minister correctly points out, for places other than Chilliwack and Abbotsford. It exists elsewhere in the province too. The various local bars have difficulty dealing with infrastructure that has arisen around a historical judicial centre that no longer necessarily matches population growth and courthouse activities. I wonder if the Attorney General could just address that and offer some assurance that his ministry doesn't feel bound by what have been historical judicial centres.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, it wouldn't be unusual for members to advocate for their constituency in this arena. It has been a time-honoured tradition.
Secondly, I don't think government funding -- taxpayer-supported dollars -- allows governments to make decisions based on a notion of some traditional way that we've always done things, and it's nice so we should continue it. Last Friday I made reference to a courthouse being at the centre of every small community. Together with two or three churches and the town hall, courthouses comprise the heart of the community. Those days are probably on their way. We cannot simply make decisions based on "wouldn't it be nice"; we have to make them based on economics and good, sound public policy. The answer to the question is that just because it always has been so doesn't mean it always will be so.
[4:45]
M. de Jong: Dealing with court services, I have seen material from this ministry that seeks advice and comment. I would encourage the minister, when considering capital improvements and capital funding, that courthouses are certainly an issue. There are communities across the province that, I'm sure, lobby his ministry daily and weekly for those facilities.
There is another aspect to courthouse services from the perspective of the bar and, by extension, the people receiving the services -- clients -- that needs to be addressed and not forgotten, and that is courthouse libraries. I know, and the minister will know, that there is a separate society set up to administer that function, but for those individuals who require legal services outside the major centres, the facilities, where we do have some courthouses, are woefully inadequate. The minister will know also that those tend to be the centres where practising firms tend to be smaller and less able to establish their own stock of legal resources. In the end, if the practising members of the bar aren't able to get their hands on materials, the client is going to suffer. Technology assists. Maybe the Attorney General can indicate whether, where new courthouses are planned or even in existing courthouses, some thought been given to making on-line services like QuickLaw, for example, available to the public and to practising members of the bar.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I said earlier that it has been a time-honoured tradition in this House for members to represent their constituencies. I don't think that it has been a time-honoured tradition for members in this House to tout their profession, but it has happened on occasion in this House, I have no doubt.
While I appreciate the point that it's the client who benefits from a well-prepared lawyer, law libraries are a private resource. As the member knows, they're funded not by government, but by the Law Foundation of B.C. I think that developing provincial on-line resources relates more to things like having the statutes available on-line in a way that they may not have been. I don't think it speaks to the point of making the law libraries an extension of public funding. I don't think we're likely to go in that direction.
[ Page 10871 ]
M. de Jong: I take the minister's point, and I would only remind him that, yes, if the library itself and the resources within the library fall by and large outside his jurisdiction, the facility itself is something that the ministry has traditionally provided. He will, I'm sure, take this as my submission on behalf of the profession but also on behalf of the clients, who will profit by the availability of those services.
I have several other questions that relate to court services. It wasn't that long ago that the monetary jurisdiction for small claims court was increased, fairly significantly, to $10,000. That has necessarily resulted, one supposes and presumes, in increased traffic and use of that court. Some time ago the backlog was fairly dramatic. The ministry and the court services branch took some extraordinary steps to lessen the delay. The ministry has introduced the settlement conference element to these matters. What information can the minister offer, if any, to indicate that the time from issuance of the notice of claim to final settlement, and more particularly issuance of the notice of claim to a trial date, has been lessened for those largely unrepresented people who seek redress in that court?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're really in the early days here, and the assessments are continuing. There's some early indication that the delays have been reduced, but I can't give specific answers about that yet. There's a report due in July of this year on this matter, and I probably won't be able to give good answers to that question until then.
M. de Jong: I have heard the Attorney General welcome suggestions from all members of the House, and it is in that spirit that I will make the following suggestion. In analyzing that data as it arrives on his desk, I would encourage the minister to take account of the fact that the new small claims rules, which his ministry introduced some time ago, provide for a new procedure in that court: essentially a notice-of-motion element to the small claims hearing process. The information I have received from people who practise in that court or who find themselves in that court is that whatever improvements arose as a result of the reallocation of resources to cut down the delay, the addition of the notice-of-motion procedure has caused all kinds of difficulties, in that it becomes all but impossible to schedule small claims court. There's no telling how long a particular notice of motion is going to last. That may be something his ministry will want to look at in allocating judicial resources and courtroom space.
I might add that the improvement seems to be good, in that it allows for more speedy access to the court. The difficulty is that it renders it all but impossible to schedule in that court, recognizing that most communities have small claims court only once per week. If the whole day is taken up hearing someone's notice of motion, all the trials scheduled for that day simply can't proceed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the best thing I can do with that submission is to say that we'll take what the member has suggested. If my staff need further information from the member, we'll ask him for that. If there are any improvements we can make or if any of the changes we have made are causing a negative result, we're certainly interested in trying to deal with that.
M. de Jong: Along the same line of courthouse and court services, just dealing with the provincial family court, the minister has undoubtedly heard dissatisfaction expressed by just about everyone involved in that process regarding the delays. The family justice reform project purports to deal with some of those issues. I have a couple of specific questions for the minister, dealing firstly with the issue of custody access reports. I know that the report provided and tabled in March speaks to that issue and to separating that function from what is presently contained within probation services. Has that begun in the four areas where the pilot projects were to take place? Perhaps the minister can take advantage of this opportunity and provide some update on the status of the pilot projects that the report called for.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first of the pilot projects began on May 1 of this year -- two weeks or so ago. There are four pilots in the province, all slated to begin operation by the beginning of June. The member knows, I'm sure, but I'll repeat this for the record. They're in Burnaby-New Westminster -- which was the first of the pilots to open -- and in the Nicola Valley, Kamloops and Kitimat.
Where the projects have started, they are already moving to having the family court counselling component of the probation officer's job transferred to the family justice centre. Rather than having that part of family law happening in the probation office, it will happen as part of an integrated whole in the family justice centre. So that is beginning. It is my hope that if, in one form or another, this works in the way all of us expect it will -- we're still looking at some issues around the edge -- then family court counselling will eventually be separated entirely from corrections and the probation service, so those two distinct and different things that probation officers do would no longer be integrated.
M. de Jong: Without being trite about it, I presume the minister is satisfied that this administrative improvement will lead to a minimizing of what are in effect horror stories, at the moment, for people requiring the preparation of custody and access reports. Sadly, there seems to be an absolute lack of understanding on the part of the judiciary that a judge ordering a custody and access report doesn't mean that report is magically going to appear. Though it might, quite frankly, shut up the litigants for a couple of hours, they leave the court only to discover under the present set of circumstances that the preparation of those reports can take up to a year, which really does nothing but aggravate the situation.
The reform project report is fairly comprehensive. It might be unfair of me to ask the Attorney General in a very global way what this is going to mean in terms of additional personnel and cost, but that is it in a nutshell. Can he give some indication?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The annualized cost of the pilots is $1.1 million. That doesn't mean we're spending $1.1 million this year, because they're beginning during the course of the fiscal year.
It's fair to say that there is some enrichment in the early going, to make sure that we get over the bumps. When you try to implement a new way of doing something as complex as family law, you want to make sure that no individuals going through the system are disadvantaged or hurt by the changes. So some additional resources have been thrown at it.
[5:00]
Over the long term, I think we will end up saving the system considerable amounts of money, and that's important. But even more important, in a sense, we're going to save a lot of people a lot of heartache and grief, which now
[ Page 10872 ]
comes as a result of the adversarial system that's so much a part of the system.
M. de Jong: The tenor of the report seems to be that we want to offer people the classical one-stop shop for matrimonial and family law services. There is always a suspicion, when an initiative of this sort comes along, that rather than drawing people out of the various branches of government that are now providing that service from various sources -- and admittedly making it very difficult in many cases for people to access those sources -- those people will remain where they are and will simply be adding another level of bureaucracy. From the perspective of the client it's perhaps a better bureaucracy, but nonetheless it's another level. Can the Attorney General offer some assurance that these people are being brought in and not simply duplicated?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The best way of offering that assurance is for the member to visit the centre in Burnaby. As he goes down the hall in that office, the member will see that so-and-so comes out of Corrections, so-and-so out of Social Services and somebody else out of the FMEP part of Social Services, and for the most part they come out of Corrections. So these are not new positions; they are people who have worked elsewhere in the system before, and they're being brought together in an integrated way. As many of the reports have recommended, a lot of the additional cost comes from us trying to upgrade the mediation skills so that we avoid the litigation result. So a lot of the training that is going on adds to the cost that we have now. It's not setting up a new bureaucracy; it's reorganizing the one that we have in place.
M. de Jong: Along those lines, one element of the mediation process that is referred to in the report is making available a supervision pool of individuals in each community where the project exists. If it turns out to be successful, I suppose, the pool of individuals would be available to offer their services as access supervisors across the province. I can offer the Attorney General my observation that individuals whose marriages and relationships have come apart are often in need of that resource, particularly given the transient nature of our society, where the old days of someone's mother or relative being available to offer supervisory services just aren't available anymore. Can the Attorney General indicate whether these would be full-time employees? If so, what other services would they be providing beyond supervisory services? What basic level of training would they be expected to have at hiring, and what further training would he foresee them receiving?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not able at this time to provide details of the training that's available or a profile of the group of people involved in providing the supervision that the member talks about. As we begin these pilot projects, very high on the priority list is the training of individuals who will have that responsibility. As I say, I can't give details just off the top of my head. I would expect that some of them would be volunteers in the community; others may be people involved in Social Services where that's an appropriate resource. Underlying it all is a determination to spend the necessary moneys to ensure that people are well trained and equipped to be able to do this job properly. There's no percentage in this for us to have the thing fail because of inadequate training and preparation.
M. de Jong: Getting away from the family justice report and the family courts, on the criminal end of things the Attorney General will know that some effort has been made to promote the concept of disclosure courts to assist in moving criminal cases along, particularly within the Fraser Valley. Once again, the delays have been particularly horrific. Of course, as the Attorney General knows, when the Askov decision arrived, it was particularly horrific from the perspective of the Crown obtaining convictions on any number of serious charges. Can the Attorney General offer any observations that he and his ministry may have concerning the disclosure court experiment and whether or not he foresees it continuing into the future?
I will tell him that part and parcel of that whole process.... This is again an observation that I would make to him. We all deal with limited resources. The process may work better if it's possible to designate a Crown counsel who would be more available outside court to deal with defence counsel and the accused, which is a means of determining which prosecutions are going to proceed and what range of sentence the Crown is going to seek on a particular charge. It would simply be a means of facilitating some communication between the Crown branch and the defendant, the accused. It's very difficult for accused persons to make decisions about how they wish to dispose of a particular charge -- if indeed they wish to dispose of a particular charge -- if they're not aware of what the Crown's position is. Crown counsel who are on their feet talking in court are in no position to speak to accused persons about how their charge may be disposed of.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes an excellent point, with which we agree. I'd simply say that he's hit the nail right on the head.
In respect of disclosure, in addition to that basic and most important point, there are some matters that may not be very well served by disclosure court. We need to sort out which kinds of cases are better dealt with there and which ones aren't. There are lots of pilots going on, it seems, but there is a real need for lots of changes, and that's why so much is going on. The evaluations are continuing.
We already know the point the member made about the close relationship of the Crown -- a dedicated prosecutor being involved, and that kind of thing. I'm not sure if it was a direct question or not, but just to provide the information, this year we're spending an additional $850,000 on disclosure courts. The question was: are they likely to continue? The answer is yes, they are very likely to continue. They provide a very important new way of doing things and reducing delay. We just have to find ways of making it work better, and some of the member's suggestions speak to that point.
M. de Jong: I have another series of questions, but I think I'll ask one more and then yield to others. I'm not sure if the Attorney General can answer the question. It's a matter that came up in a court a few weeks ago. What happened to the victim-fine surcharge?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was puzzled at first by the way the member phrased his question. It exists. The Crown does ask, but it's up to the judge to make the decision. I'm not sure whether some judge said something else about this that I'm not aware of.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
[ Page 10873 ]
M. de Jong: I appreciate the Attorney General's response. All I can offer to him is that there was a time in the infancy of the tax where it was requested on a regular basis. I'm certainly not in court on a regular basis any longer, but it has been in excess of a year since I've seen Crown counsel ask for that particular tax following the imposition of a fine by a judge. And yes, the Attorney General is correct when he says that it is a discretionary call. Judges aren't exercising their discretion, because they're not being prompted to do so by Crown prosecutors. That may not be necessary. I think judges have the inherent jurisdiction to impose the fine. The fact of the matter is that they're not doing it, and they're not being asked by Crown counsel to impose the fine. As a source of revenue for the victims-of-crime program, it may be something that the Attorney General wishes to examine.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, it is something that the minister wants to examine. We have already done so, and we have already initiated the necessary instructions to Crown counsel to make sure that they do what the member is asking that they do.
G. Wilson: Because I didn't have the Attorney General indicate it specifically, I just wanted to make sure that the charges in the May 6, 1994, letter by Margaret Lampman, which I referred to a few minutes ago, are being investigated by the ministry. I only alluded to one aspect -- the lack of accountability -- but other fairly serious allegations are contained in this material. If the Attorney General is prepared to simply say that action is being taken and that there is some investigative process, I'd be prepared to move my questions on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the letter that the member is referring to has been referred to the attention of the comptroller general. But if the member is raising another matter that we may be confused by, perhaps it would be better if he sent the material over, and I'll have a look at it.
G. Wilson: I'll do that, because I thought that you had had it pulled when I mentioned the author and date. If I could have that delivered to the Attorney General, it would be useful.
While he is reviewing the content of that material, I wonder if I could move to the last area of inquiry I have in these estimates. Perhaps it won't take too long. It's a sensitive matter. It's a matter that I'm aware the Attorney General has concerns about. It has to do with matters of the justice system and, in my judgment -- and in the judgment of many people who have talked to me -- what amount to very serious allegations raised by Vancouver lawyer Jack Cram.
Hon. Chair, I know that there is a reasonable limit to how much we can legitimately talk about in these estimates, and I'd be prepared to be guided by the Chair on this question. My concern is that there doesn't seem to be any process by which independent action can be taken with respect to charges made against the Law Society or the judiciary. The ombudsman, clearly, is not in a position to take action. There is no independent process for potential litigation, save and except the court system, which may be or is, in this case, the subject of that concern.
[5:15]
I know how easy it is for individuals who are prepared to take on what is perceived to be the establishment -- with what they believe to be and often are well-founded concerns, in this case, of corruption and, in other cases,misappropriation or abuse of power -- to be pointed at and accused of being less than mentally stable, out-to-lunch and people who shouldn't be heard. But the public wants to know that there is a process whereby the kind of accusations and allegations brought forward by Mr. Cram are being reviewed by an independent authority who has some weight to be able to see whether there's any basis to them. A court of law is clearly not an appropriate place to hear that, except perhaps for contempt charges that may affect disbarment.
Can the Attorney General tell us his thinking on this with respect to his ministry and the questions on the justice system? I can tell you that as I investigate this -- and I am investigating it in some detail -- it becomes a much more tangled web than even I believed. I think there needs to be some avenue by which that information and material can be safely delivered to an independent authority for review and comment. I'd like some guidance from the Attorney General as to where that might be.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to provide very much guidance. There are a number of matters around this issue which are either before the courts or before other bodies that provide due process. The member talked about an independent process. The courts are independent; and if there are concerns there, the federal judicial council has its own process. I'm not going to say much more about it, because there are matters before the courts and, as I understand it, before the federal judicial council.
G. Wilson: The federal judicial council, in reviewing this, is hardly going to give a lot of faith to those who are looking for an independent judgment. I know that's a very difficult thing to say, but in fact we're at the point where that's true. It's very much like what I raised earlier with respect to the police governing the police and the Law Society regulating lawyers. Whenever you have a closed shop managing its own affairs.... The public is losing faith that the system is working, because when these kinds of allegations.... The allegations are very specific, with times, dates, names and places; and when you go behind the allegations and do a little more investigation, there are many more names, places, times and dates. All kinds of activities are being alleged, of which there seems to be some knowledge, that are clearly outside the laws of the province.
I think it's important at this point that people feel they can direct themselves to some public avenue, because the judicial council will or won't hear the case, period. If it does, it's a closed hearing. Members of the public would put themselves in an enormously vulnerable position, because they would be taking on the authority of the country. The police force, the judiciary and the legal profession are pretty heavy authorities. One, ten, 15 or 100 little individuals who are trying to crack that nut are finding themselves in a position of potential jeopardy.
The question is: to whom do they turn if they don't come to their elected members of government? It's the only place they have to turn, because the only safety in pursuing these questions is a public forum. Your only protection is knowing that everybody else knows that you're going after this stuff. So I ask the Attorney General whether there is any contemplation within his ministry of providing that kind of avenue, because, failing that, my guess is that the situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better in this province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no.
C. Tanner: I'd like to follow up on some of the questions asked by the member for Matsqui concerning the courts being extremely crowded these days. In fact, my friend
[ Page 10874 ]
described the delays as being horrific. Has the minister directed his Crown prosecutors' office to proceed with all sexual harassment cases irrespective of their merit, even if the Crown counsel thinks that they are going to be thrown out of court?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have given no direction to the prosecutors in that respect. The normal charge approval policy, which is a public document and public policy, applies. I haven't given any special direction.
C. Tanner: Would it be possible for the minister or members of his ministry to find out whether there has been an increase in those charges since this government took over?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would help. Is the member talking about the spousal assault policy of the ministry, or is he talking about something else?
C. Tanner: I am talking about that specifically but also about all charges of a sexual nature which are brought particularly by women, and whether the understanding that I have -- that the number of those charges has increased incredibly in the last two years, and that as a consequence, other court cases have been set aside, or the courts have become cluttered with those cases to the point where other cases are being excluded -- is true.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have the statistics in front of me, but it wouldn't surprise me if the numbers of cases of sexual assault are increasing. It's not the result of direction from me to the Crown prosecutors. It's more as a result of the opening of our society to the recognition that these things occur. The feminist movement has enabled women to be more proactive with respect to coming forward about sexual assault or other sexual conduct that is inappropriate or illegal. We have a society now that is finally beginning to take that issue out of the closet and bring it into the light of day. Inevitably, there are going to be more complaints registered -- and, as a result, more charges are going to be laid.
C. Tanner: I understand what the minister is saying. I approve of the fact that it is coming out of the closet; I don't have any problem with that. But I do have some problem with whether or not any discretion is being used anywhere in the system to stop cases that obviously aren't going to go anywhere from cluttering up the court.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the first instance, the police officer's discretion always applies when an officer is investigating a complaint. Secondly, in respect of how the Crown operates, the public charge approval policy applies to these issues, as it does to any other. There is no public policy distinction drawn. I'm trying to say that at the end of the day, these issues are treated as any other complaints of a potentially criminal nature.
C. Tanner: The charge approval policy.... That's actually the description I was looking for. Have the people making that decision been given direction by this government or by your ministry to let all charges like this go through, irrespective of whether they think they can be proceeded with?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all. The charge approval policy, which requires a substantial likelihood of conviction and that the charge be in the public interest, applies equally to all matters. There is no separate policy in respect of sexual assault.
J. Tyabji: I want to bring something to the Attorney General's attention that follows from a speech by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast with regard to Mr. Cram. I have been on a number of radio programs lately. I think one of the biggest problems the justice system is having right now is with the perception that there's a lack of willingness to admit that it's a human institution and that, as a human institution, it is fallible, and it may not be perfect. When allegations of the magnitude of those raised by Mr. Cram -- who has a track record as a lawyer in Vancouver -- are made, I think people would feel some comfort in having them addressed. Even this morning, it came up again, with people saying: "We have a lot of questions, but we have no answers." That, in itself, develops its own momentum.
One thing that goes to the heart of why people are so willing to look at this issue and focus on it.... I'd like to draw an analogy where there is a lot of attention.... As part of the partisan politics of question period in this House, the Minister of Agriculture was brought to account under an independent body -- the conflict-of-interest commissioner -- by the Leader of the Opposition in what many of us thought was a frivolous, partisan attempt. That received probably five days of serious attention. No one was laughing on the cabinet side; the cabinet ministers took it more seriously than we in the Alliance did. Given the nature of the complaint, it seemed to be something.... We will see the ruling of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, and there will be due process. An independent body will determine whether it was frivolous or serious. But in the interim, there was no laughing from the cabinet ministers; there was no dismissing of it.
With Mr. Cram we have someone with a long track record bringing up very serious complaints at a time when the justice system is perceived to be something that benefits people who have a lot of money; that's something that I've heard. The Attorney General knows, because I usually copy him with a lot of the correspondence on this. The files that I alone have on what's wrong are staggering, whether it's small claims court, small businesses, custody cases or divorce cases. You name it: people are having problems. When you have something that affects so many people so dramatically being raised by someone with a reputation, and when there's such a consistent dismissing of it as if it was frivolous when so many people feel that it warrants a look, the Attorney General should be aware of it.
From my discussions with members of the public, they're not willing to dismiss it as easily as it's being dismissed by people representing our political institutions, for whatever reason. If that means that the Attorney General has more knowledge than members of the public do -- if he does -- there should be something forthcoming to ease the minds of those people who don't share his confidence. The fact that it's been treated.... In this case obviously it's not the Attorney General's responsibility, fault or even in his domain that it has been treated the way it's been treated in the press and in the courts. When it's treated in that way, it does nothing to instil a sense of confidence in the system -- in fact, to the contrary.
I'm sure that the Attorney General is aware that a big rally is being planned in support of Mr. Cram; that the research documents backing him up are extensive; and that the cases that he uses to draw upon in his claims either warrant dismissal because they've been investigated and dismissed,
[ Page 10875 ]
or a further review. I wanted to make that comment on the record, because I don't think we're doing justice to this issue in this body of debate through which we analyze issues of importance to members of the public, give them due weight and consideration, and then render a decision on them.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First, I said earlier in response to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that I wasn't going to comment any further. There are a variety of processes continuing and underway, and there is due process in respect of those matters. For me to say anything would be to interfere in a way that I think no one in our society wants Attorneys General to interfere. I'm going to leave it at that.
[5:30]
Earlier the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast also raised the letter from Margaret Lampman. I had in mind a different letter when I gave my answer, so I gave an incorrect answer to the member about the disposition of her letter, which was only just into the ministry; it was dated May 6. The issues that have been raised by the letter-writer are being thoroughly reviewed and examined within the ministry at the present time, and we will respond to her when that's complete.
M. de Jong: In response to an earlier question from my colleague, the Attorney General referred to the policy directive dealing with spousal assault cases. I'll preface my question to the Attorney General with the suggestion that I don't think many people would quarrel with the general approach taken by the ministry in seeking to pursue these offences with a greater amount of vigour than was necessarily the case in the past. There is, however, an argument to be made that the nature of the directive issued by the ministry has placed undue constraint on what one could call the line officers or the Crown prosecutors conducting the cases. They now feel an absolute obligation to proceed to trial or to proceed with cases that, in the past, might not have proceeded to trial or might have been disposed of alternatively -- i.e., with a peace bond or some other process which also served to constrain the accused's behaviour for a period of time but didn't necessarily result in a criminal conviction.
My question to the Attorney General is: can he give the members here some indication of his impression of the directive and how he foresaw it being applied? Is he satisfied with the manner in which it has been applied? Or does he foresee some further changes and refinements that might reinject into the process some degree of discretion on the part of his line officers, the prosecutors in the Provincial Court?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to thank the member for his question, which is different from the question of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. Now we're talking about the spousal assault policy of the ministry, which essentially says that if you are assaulting an individual -- it doesn't matter whether it's in a bar, on a street corner or in your bedroom -- the force of the law is going to apply equally. We are no longer going to turn a blind eye, as I think society has done in the past, to so-called domestic violence -- which in real words is called wife-beating.
We have an aggressive policy in respect of that. Police officers are being and have been advised of the policy over the last number of months, as have our prosecutors. The policy is leading to more arrests and charges in that area, which is as it should be. There's far too much of that kind of violence in our society, and we are moving in a relatively aggressive way to deal with that. The member asks if there will be refinements, changes or whatever. I think that all policies, all things that governments do, have to be constantly monitored, and when there are problems or when improvements can be found, then changes have to be made. We always keep an eye on that kind of response.
With that, hon. Chair, given the fact that Committee A has risen, and given the fact that there are events that some members wish to attend tonight and other matters on television which other members wish to pay some attention to, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:58 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $420,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I believe we left off last day with me asking a question about the sign shop in Kamloops. To refresh memories, I'll just go through that very quickly. I was wondering if there had been a study done to show that privatization wasn't cost-effective and that government should take it over, whether that study was available and if I could have a copy of it. The other part of my question was whether the sign shop would be bidding on private sector signs. I'm not sure if we had completed that, or if we stopped at that point when the bell ended our discussion last time.
[3:00]
Hon. J. Pement: There was a study done by Peat Marwick with regard to the sign shop, and a copy is available. In regard to bidding on sign projects in the private sector, the answer is no; the government will be looking at Forests and Parks.
D. Symons: On the topic of highway blockades, I wrote to the minister a while back on that, and I think your answer was quite clear:
"My ministry's role in the process is to provide background information regarding the status of the road in
[ Page 10876 ]
question. This often includes working with the first nation concerned to determine what its primary issues are and whether the ministry can address them as expeditiously as possible. Representatives of my ministry, the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs assess the particular circumstance of the roadblock in close consultation with the appropriate ministries...."
It goes on talking about the process that we go through.
My concern is that we had a couple of blockades last summer. One of them on Highway 99 in the Okanagan really didn't involve Highways per se; the dispute was over other land issues, but they were using the highway as a way of slowing people down and letting them know that they had aboriginal concerns. When I read your response, I see quite a long time lag. They could certainly blockade the highway for a day or two before all of this consultation process was carried out. If we were to follow the answer you gave, we could have a great deal of disruption to traffic in the middle of summer.
What added to my concern was that last year, on May 31, 1993, as quoted in the Vancouver Sun, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs of that time said: "Slowing highway traffic can be a legitimate form of political protest." I ask the minister: do you agree with that response given a year ago? I tend to disagree with it.
Hon. J. Pement: I'm trying to clarify which highway that was with regard to the blockade. You said 99, and I believe it was Highway 97.
In cases of blockades, we try very hard to resolve the situation by working with those involved and by trying to provide alternate access when we can. We're now working with the first nations through the summit meetings and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to resolve some of these issues and find different ways for native groups to protest their issues.
D. Symons: I have great sympathy for the aboriginal people, who have been waiting more than a century for the settlement of claims, but my concern is that if we allow that method of protesting and raising issues, people who have concerns about forest practices could use the same method. We might create a double standard by saying: "You can use blockades as a method of protest, but you can't." That's my concern: that we have an equal playing field for all involved.
I'm also saying that going through that process after the event wouldn't discourage people from using blockades, because they get a day or two to do it before the process could follow through.
I have another question on an entirely different matter, which goes back to Highways projects, costs and so on. I note that a flagperson -- which I think is a terrible term; maybe we could use "flagger," since we have fishers -- who is working for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways gets somewhere close to $18 per hour plus fringe benefits, whereas someone working in a private firm gets approximately half of that. It would seem that this isn't a terribly onerous task. If we're going to continue to have projects come under highways contractors or working within the ministry, then we're going to be kiting the costs of a great number of projects here. We could be building more highways, rather than paying higher salaries to people who are paid reasonably to begin with. Could the minister respond, please.
Hon. J. Pement: Our work is contracted out. It is done through the private sector on a bid basis.
D. Symons: In Highways you have job descriptions, and you know how much a person working in a particular job is paid. Would you have a job description for a flagperson -- or whatever term may be used there -- and what the rate of pay would be, whether or not you have people doing it in the private sector? Is there such a position within the ministry? We can leave this for another day, if the minister does not have the information at hand.
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have that position within the ministry; therefore we don't have the job description.
D. Symons: If any flagging is necessary, I would assume that it would be done by someone brought in on a contract rather than someone taken from another job, who might work with the ministry and be put onto that temporarily, because there wouldn't be a position for them.
One other thing that has come out recently is concern that the new environmental act that's about to go through the Legislature may exclude the Bamberton and Island Highway projects. My concern here is the Island Highway. Will all the environmental portions of the act that are likely to be passed as legislation apply to the Island Highway?
Hon. J. Pement: This is an issue of future policy.
D. Symons: I would be greatly astonished if the government bringing forth the environmental act would excuse one of its own projects from that very act. In a sense, I hope that wouldn't be the case, but, in another sense, when I read the environmental act, I find there are many places where the project would never make it on time. This government is talking so much about setting up the Transportation Financing Authority and about being able to build things on time and on budget. I can't see it. There are so many opportunities for people to challenge it by looking at it from an environmental angle, where you have to have an environmental council and all the rest to examine each and every little step of it, that we would have to spend a great deal of time keeping that project on budget and on time. On the other hand, if the government believes in its own environmental policies it's going to apply to other projects around the province, it would seem hypocritical for the government to exempt itself from the same process. That's a comment, not a question, but if you care to respond, I'd be delighted.
Hon. J. Pement: I definitely believe many projects have to have an environmental study done of them, and there may be some that will be involved. One must remember, however, that when you step into the planning phase of developing a highway, you will also put into that phase environmental studies and environmental concerns. There are public consultations as the plans are developed, whereupon environmental issues come up as well. It's part of the process already developed in the highway planning scenario.
D. Symons: I wasn't questioning that the ministry isn't doing that; I was just saying that you will have to follow the same environmental guidelines, rules and regulations that everybody else does. I'm sure every project around the province is subject to some internal and external scrutiny as far as environmental concerns go. My concern is that we all play by the same set of rules, and I gather that that may not be the case.
I have a question that relates to something that has been in the news recently. There are some problems with a
[ Page 10877 ]
rancher in the Cariboo area and a roadway that's projected to lead onto his land. There is some concern by people in that area who say a road was previously built into the disputed land in the Williams Lake area, and it was built with public money. Now this particular person is trying to prevent access to his property. I'm wondering if the minister could confirm that there was a road there that was built with public money and should therefore be a public road.
Hon. J. Pement: You would have to identify which rancher and which road.
D. Symons: It's a minister of this government, and the area is around McLeese Lake. Apparently there was a road built there in the thirties, during the Depression years, and the people in the area say it was built with public money. It was built by the public rather than with public money. The public went out and built it because there were no government funds for building it. It became a public road in that way. People there claim that this is a public road and that now no one has the right to close it off and prevent access to certain properties around the lake.
Hon. J. Pement: I think you would have to identify which road it is, since there are many roads around McLeese Lake.
D. Symons: It's the road that's in dispute at that particular lake at this time. Apparently a lady had wanted to buy the property and have access to it. I will find out the exact road and bring that information to you.
Each year the minister gives every MLA a list of the capital projects and rehab projects within their ridings. I'm wondering if I could get a copy -- maybe they could run lots of them on one page, rather than just a little at the top -- of the projects that are taking place within each riding in the province. I would appreciate having something. It could be a computer printout, where they would be all on one page or on a few pages.
Hon. J. Pement: We can certainly give the member a list of the approved projects.
D. Symons: I'm not sure whether this should come up now or in a few minutes when we get to the Motor Vehicle Act. But in what way -- if at all -- is the ministry involved in promoting van-pooling? I see signs at the side of the Massey Tunnel that say, "Go Green," and I've seen signs encouraging people to pool. Is the ministry involved in that as the ministry or is it through a subagency -- say under the Motor Vehicle Act? Do you put any money into encouraging people to van-pool?
[3:15]
Hon. J. Pement: We work with the Jack Bell Foundation on this issue, in the area of promotion and information. There is no funding at this point.
D. Symons: I was going to mention the Jack Bell Foundation. If the van-pooling program works, it gets vehicles off the road by doubling up, tripling up, etc. That takes the pressure off highways and in effect can save money. Maybe putting some money in there would be a proactive way of saving costs in the expansion of our highway system. It might be cost-effective to support this program financially with advertising and promoting the use of vans in the province.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I will say that we do provide support on the promotional side of it. We also work with B.C. Transit in the whole area of getting people into vans or onto the transit system. Actually, we do contribute to the Go Green program through the motor vehicle branch.
L. Hanson: I'd like to go back to the issue of road blockades, which was raised earlier by the official opposition critic. Last year there were considerable threats about a possible blockade of Westside Road -- I'm not sure of its official designation. The result would have been that people on that side would have had alternate access from Kelowna to get to and from their residences but not from the other end, which would have been really impractical. In the past there was fairly aggressive action by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to keep highways open. There seems to be a reluctance to continue that process if an actual blockade should happen. I recognize that a threat is not a closure, and it has to be treated just as that, but in the case of a closure, has the ministry's policy changed in regard to the responsibility to keep open the accesses to residences, farms and so on?
Hon. J. Pement: It's not a case of changing policies; it's a case of trying to work through the problem with the first nations involved through a negotiation process. When there is a blockade, I think that the best route for us is to try to get people back to the table, discuss the issue and come to an agreement. It's better for all involved.
L. Hanson: I recognize that diplomacy and negotiation are certainly the most attractive process, but when highway corridors and transportation access are blocked, there has to be some limit to the negotiation process. There certainly will be a limit to the patience of the people who can't get through. I hope the minister would recognize that there is a short term where negotiations and diplomacy make sense, but not in the longer term. I hope the minister recognizes that and would take action if it did actually become a fact.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the concern you've raised with regard to access, which is certainly a concern to the ministry. This ministry has been working very diligently with first nations so that we do not have closures such as the one at Duffey Lake for three months. So far we've been fairly successful in negotiations with the summit and with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in setting up a dialogue to try and alleviate such situations.
L. Hanson: I appreciate that remark from the minister, but there has to be some recognition that even though there have been past successes, people who depend on those access roads should have some confidence that the ministry, in reacting to a blockade of that access, would not go into long-term negotiations, even though I acknowledge the minister's suggestion that there has been success in some cases.
I hope the minister would recognize that there is a finite time, because many of my constituents are very concerned about what they would do during this negotiation process if that blockade became a reality. Despite examples of success in the past, as far as having their access blocked, the people who live there are not too understanding of a negotiation process over a long period of time.
Hon. J. Pement: Part of that process is working with those who are being denied access at the time. I believe it requires
[ Page 10878 ]
the ministry to work with residents of an area, and also with people trying to work through that access. I really believe that most of the time we are able to alleviate those situations and work well with both the residents and first nations.
R. Neufeld: I have some brief questions. First, I didn't receive all the information from the ministry, but it's probably more my fault than it is the ministry's fault. You may have it with you. I talked to your people this morning. I inquired about the amount of money that has been spent to date on the Taylor Bridge. I don't have those figures. Does the minister have those?
I'll restate the question. The original contract was for $3.6 million. If the figures I've been supplied with are correct, completion will require $5.2 million, which is an increase of about $1.6 million over the original contract. That seems high. I wonder if there are extenuating circumstances that would require another $1.6 million to complete the project.
Hon. J. Pement: I'm going to go over the figures starting in 1990-1991. These are for the Taylor Bridge painting project. In 1990-1991, the money spent was $1.2 million; 1991-1992, $997,000 -- I'm rounding these figures off -- 1992-93, $1.3 million; 1993-94, $1.1 million; 1994-95, which I gave you the figure for, is $2.206 million. The actual total, disregarding the rounding off, comes to $6,900,071.
R. Neufeld: That makes it worse yet. Obviously some things went dramatically wrong, either in the initial acceptance of the first contract that the ministry let at that time or in something later on. The increase from the anticipated expenditure of $3.6 million to $6.1 million is nearly double. Is there some reason why we would be that far out?
Hon. J. Pement: First, with regard to the cost of the project.... The project took longer than was expected. I'm sure the member is aware that the first contract was terminated for safety reasons, which caused a claim and extra costs. The scope of the work was larger than expected by the ministry. When we went to a second contract, that remobilization, including coming back in and setting up, cost more as well.
R. Neufeld: I understand, and I know of some events that happened with that contract. Can you tell me the claim cost for the company that was terminated?
Hon. J. Pement: The claim cost was $1.085 million.
R. Neufeld: The scope was larger than anticipated. Could you please elaborate on that a bit?
[3:30]
Hon. J. Pement: It was a case of underestimating the amount of painting to be done on the bridge.
R. Neufeld: The bridge is the bridge; it obviously didn't change. Were we not going to paint all of it? Is that what happened? Were we only going to paint a third of it to start with, and then we decided to paint the whole bridge?
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry was not correct in the estimate of the surface area to be painted and had to adjust accordingly.
R. Neufeld: The $1 million that had to be paid out in a claim cost seems excessive to me because of the events that led up to terminating that contractor. If I remember correctly, it was because of a death and very poor safety practices, which none of us condones. I certainly don't have any problem with that. But why, if the contractor bid $3.6 million -- I don't know exactly how much of the bridge he had completed, but he probably had a third or so done -- would we still end up paying him $1 million, because he was a very unsafe contractor? That seems quite excessive. If we terminated the contractor just because we didn't like him or something.... Because of the events that led to termination, it seems excessive that on a $3.6 million contract, you would pay out over $1 million to get rid of him from the job.
Hon. J. Pement: The reason is the terms and conditions of the contract. The ministry at that time did not have prequalifications for safety performance for private companies. In terminating the contract, they therefore could come back to the ministry regarding expenses they had already paid out, equipment they had provided, etc., so it was all based on the terms and conditions of that contract.
R. Neufeld: Could the government, as owner of that job and that bridge, not have enforced stricter safety measures on the original contractor and had him finish the work that was planned? Again, $3.6 million is an awful lot less than $6.1 million. Second, is the $1 million claim cost included in the $6.1 million, or is that in excess? Third, were there court costs involved, or was this an out-of-court settlement?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to this particular contract, safety inspections were done by WCB, not by the ministry. However, with a few qualifications, there is a set of conditions for contractors to follow with regard to safety issues. In this case, as a result of the accident, more information came out about the contractor with regard to safety practices in other cases. Under those conditions, the ministry felt that it could not continue with the contractor.
R. Neufeld: The second and third parts of the question were: is the $1 million included in the $6.1 million costs, and were litigation costs also included?
Hon. J. Pement: The $1 million is included in the $6.1 million, and there was no litigation as a result.
R. Neufeld: This is a follow-up to a question I had asked the minister in estimates about the BCR, and I'll just leave the question with you and ask that you get an answer back to me. I had asked whether income taxes were paid by the trucking arm of BCR, and you informed me that they were, and that they were paid back through the B.C. Railway Company. I have here the B.C. Railway Company consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992, which states that the income of B.C. Railway Company and BCR Properties Ltd. is exempt from income taxes. Could the minister expound on that a little, because as I understand this, they don't pay income taxes?
I'd like to go on and briefly touch again on roadworks in my constituency, just to finish that off. I received the numbers I requested, and I thank you for them. I want to go back to what I talked to you about before: the activity going on in the Peace River country, both north and south, but specifically north, with regard to the oil and gas industry and the heavy usage that puts on our roads. Could the minister review what the ministry is going to spend in the north? I see that in 1993-94, the work anticipated to be done
[ Page 10879 ]
in the constituency -- I'm just using round numbers again -- amounts to about $3 million. That includes road resurfacing, upgrading, bridge projects other than the Taylor Bridge -- this year you added in the Taylor Bridge; I don't know why because last year you didn't -- and other minor road-upgrading projects. Of that $3 million, if you take out the intersection lighting and those types of things, which amount to about $300,000, that leaves $2.7 million for roads in Peace River North. That's resurfacing, gravelling, bridge work and all those kinds of things.
In 1994-95, we find that the Taylor Bridge is included, and the amount that was given to me is $3.3 million. If you take out what's anticipated to be spent on the Taylor Bridge this year, which is $2.2 million, that leaves you with $1.1 million to be spent generally across the whole constituency. If you take out other items that don't really have anything to do with roadworks, such as fencing, guard rails and those types of things -- which I eliminated out of the other one -- you come up with a total of about $800,000 that's going to be spent on road surfaces in Peace River North. This is after we've experienced a complete upturn in the oil and gas industry. Even last year, with the heavy rains, the roads did not keep up to the traffic; in fact, they were really deteriorating. If last year we spent $2.7 million and this year we're going to spend only about $840,000, maybe the minister could explain how we're going to keep up. We expect to see an increase in oil and gas activity and in agricultural activity. Maybe the minister could explain how we're going to do that.
Last year that specific area of British Columbia contributed about $360 million in oil and gas alone, and it reduced the anticipated deficit by $169 million. That's right in the budget manual. That $169 million came out of Peace River North and Peace River South, which reduced the anticipated deficit of your government. If we're going to reduce spending on resurfacing and upgrading those roads by almost $2 million, how are we going to keep up the road?
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, I don't think I would consider guard rails and other projects and works we do as not being road projects. All of them add to and enhance the roadway, so taking out those projects per se is difficult. I don't quite agree with that approach.
We'd definitely like to spend more money on rehabilitation of our roads, and we're doing the best we can with the finances we have, in the economic times we're living in. I'd like to remind the member that we are doing some capital works in Peace River North -- Beatton River being one. Starting this year, we're putting in $2.5 million on that capital project, which is an access road that has been identified by the region, the municipalities and the residents as a priority area to get that upgrade and new road system through there. I think we are doing a good job of attempting to provide the accesses the member has brought up.
R. Neufeld: I'm not making light of the guard rail or the lighting. I took them out of the year before and this year. You can add them in. I don't think it actually makes that much difference; one just about offsets the other.
But if we go back to 1992-93, just to explain a little further, I see a deterioration of our highways up there in that about $3.7 million was spent in '92-93 and about $9 million in '91, and these are figures from the ministry. I can see that there's going to be a tremendous drop and that we're going to have some problems trying to maintain those roads on that small a budget, especially if we have another wet summer like we did last year. Although we do appreciate the work that's going to be done, I think some serious problems are going to come up, and they are going to have to be looked at.
[3:45]
You mentioned the Beatton crossing, and I'd like to just touch on that. The Beatton crossing is a $12 million project, once completed. What's budgeted this year is approximately $2.5 million. Is that correct? Exactly what is the $2.5 million going to do?
Hon. J. Pement: This will be spent on the east portion of the road to the Beatton River, and will be for the highway standard for gravel base.
R. Neufeld: The next question is about the $9.5 million that has to be expended. Is that going to be spent next year so that we can finish it? Or are we going to spread it -- if I remember the minister correctly -- over two years? Can we expect that the other $9.5 million or $10 million will be spent the next year?
Hon. J. Pement: We're looking at a schedule that will complete the crossing and the final approach to a gravelled surface in the second year.
R. Neufeld: Are there any projections further on for a paved surface?
Hon. J. Pement: The intent in the schedule is to look at the third year as the paving project.
R. Neufeld: Is the Beatton River crossing the only project in Peace River North that is being financed by the Transportation Financing Authority? Or are there other projects being financed by that means?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
R. Neufeld: Yes, meaning that's the only one, or yes, meaning there are more?
Hon. J. Pement: My apologies to the member. Yes, meaning that's the only one.
R. Neufeld: Thank you.
H. De Jong: First of all, I'd like to ask if the AirCare testing stations come under this ministry's jurisdiction?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes. AirCare is under the motor vehicle branch, which is part of this ministry now.
H. De Jong: AirCare has been in operation now for three or four years, I guess. Has the ministry got any statistics on cars? Whether it's 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 kilometres, do they really need that kind of examination each year? It seems odd that within a year after a person purchases a car it already has to go to the AirCare station for testing. There must be some statistics available by now indicating which cars are the offenders, or at what stage in the life of a car it may become an offender of the system.
Hon. J. Pement: First, for your information, the AirCare program has been going for eighteen months. All makes, models and years of vehicles have gone through it for two and a half months. The data is still incomplete: we don't have complete data with regard to separating out which cars may be more polluting than other cars. We look at new cars according to today's federal standard and at older cars
[ Page 10880 ]
according to the federal standard that they were developed upon.
H. De Jong: It costs money to go through those AirCare stations, and I suppose every dollar saved is a dollar earned by the general public. Since it has gone on for a year and a half now, are there any statistics available to indicate whether there are any offenders among the one-year-old cars with about 25,000 klicks?
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have specific data on this issue. We could draw a sample if the member requests that. In my understanding, the percentage for the one-year-old car with low mileage indicates that very few fail.
H. De Jong: I don't expect the minister to draw this out for me today, but I think it would be worthwhile for the ministry to look at. There are some anomalies in the system at the present time, and they're a cost to the people who own cars. For instance, a fellow phoned me the other day and said he'd bought his 1993 car in December. His licence expired in March and he had to go through the AirCare station in order to get a new set of licence plates. Some people buy the 1994 models in September and they're free for a whole year, because they don't need to be tested in 1994, the year that the car supposedly goes on the road -- but they go on the road earlier. I think -- and the minister may wish to comment -- that there should be practical information established in terms of the age of a car, such as the number of kilometres on its odometer. I think that would only make sense. It would cut down the rush at the AirCare stations and it would not require those people who have.... It becomes a farce to go through those stations with a new car. That's my comment.
Hon. J. Pement: We'll take his comments into consideration with regard to the issues he's raised. At this point, current-year models are exempt. After that, all cars go through on a yearly basis.
H. De Jong: A further question on this: on the basis of what I've explained, doesn't it make sense to the minister to make a change in that respect?
Hon. J. Pement: I'm always open to new ideas. If it's a reasonable scenario, we'll certainly look at it, but I've explained how AirCare is set up at this point in the program.
D. Symons: To carry on the same thought with the AirCare program, vehicles of a decade ago put out considerably more pollution than current ones, assuming that both are in good repair. In that sense, and going back to the member's comments, if you had 20 current models on the road -- this year's or last year's -- it's likely that they would put out considerably less pollution than one car which is a decade or more older. Do you think that would that be appropriate, hon. minister?
Hon. J. Pement: I think the issue is good repair. My understanding is that if the computer system malfunctions on new cars, they can actually be worse polluters than older cars -- by 50 to 70 percent.
D. Symons: Considering the efficiency of the emission systems in current cars, and that they can be 70 percent worse than older cars, that would make them considerably worse than their potential. I was going to ask a question leading up to that, and leading up to what the previous member was also asking. What are the main causes for cars polluting? Is it more because they've worn over time as they age or because they're out of adjustment?
Hon. J. Pement: It is really a maintenance question. If the car is out of adjustment, the mix will be wrong.
D. Symons: The concerns I have in regard to AirCare are not so much the tests themselves as the manner in which you can, in a sense, buy your way through, because even if your car fails, you can get a conditional pass until next year if you put so much money into repairs. What seems to be the case here is that if you do the repairs ahead of time and have your car adjusted at a service station or a repair place, and then you take it to AirCare and it fails, what you spent beforehand does not count toward the amount of money that you could end up putting into it in order to be able to get a conditional pass.
[4:00]
It seems counterproductive to discourage people from having their cars maintained, because if they fail the AirCare program, then the money spent before the test may end up being money down the tube, if they have to go the full extent of whatever that limit is in order to become eligible for this conditional pass. I wonder if, in going to a recognized AirCare facility within a reasonable period of time prior to going through the test, any repair work done would count toward the conditional pass.
Hon. J. Pement: Conditional passes are three months; I think the member said a year.
With regard to people having repairs or a tune-up done prior to going to a certified facility and not passing the test, I would suggest they return to the original facility. I would think with good businesses practices, car would be tuned properly.
Since there are a number of possible scenarios -- the amount of time that has elapsed, or what has happened to a car since it has been through a repair shop prior to it to being brought to an AirCare facility -- it's difficult to give a specific answer.
D. Symons: I may have used the wrong word when I said "conditional," because I think you can get a conditional pass when you've failed, or you can somehow postpone it for three months, then buy your insurance for that period of time and go through testing again in another three months. But if you've spent $225 or more on repairs, then I believe you do get your insurance for the following year, and that's the figure I'm referring to.
Let's suppose my car is misfiring and what not. I take it in prior to going to AirCare, and it turns out that the service station tells me I need to have the whole carburetor rebuilt, or something of the sort that runs to more than $225. If I go to AirCare a week or a month after this preliminary work has been done, some fine-tuning may be needed, but the money already spent does not count toward this. The only thing that would count is if they did charge me extra, rather than saying: "Well, hey, we'll let you go on this."
Or let's say they found out, when I went through AirCare, that the catalytic converter in the car also had gone. Somebody put some regular gas in there and burned out the converter. Now I find that I've already spent the $225 on the carburetor, but AirCare will say: "That doesn't count. You've gone over the limit prior to the test, but it only counts what takes place after you've gone through and have the printout." You take that with you to the repair depot. This will count toward the $225, and you will get your insurance
[ Page 10881 ]
for the following year. That's the point that I was getting at. People are discouraged if they have cars the age of mine. It's a bit of a gamble going through AirCare each year.
Since I happen to know a little bit about carburation, as far as that kind of adjustment goes, I'm fairly capable of doing this myself. But on other types of things, and for most people, this may not be the case. We get into problems where people would say they aren't going to take it into the service station five or six months in advance to have this done, because when they go through AirCare, they spend an excessive amount if it doesn't pass. I'm talking about this $225 on repairs that might lead to putting in a new exhaust system, a catalytic converter or carburetor -- things that are fairly expensive. That work they've spent money on might get them three quarters of the way along through AirCare, and indeed might get them to pass. If it doesn't pass, it counts nothing toward the fact that your car would have gone through if you did it after AirCare. It would have been given insurance for a year until next year, and it would go through the same procedure then.
Hon. J. Pement: I found the example the member gave a bit confusing. In maintaining your car, I'm sure that when it comes to systems not working -- muffler systems, or the catalytic converter -- one wouldn't wait until AirCare to have them repaired. You repair your car as required. In tuning your car up prior to going into AirCare, you go to a facility, as we were talking about before, and you expect service to bring it up to snuff for AirCare. If you go in and it's not, then I would suggest that the person go back to the service centre and have a bit of a dialogue with them.
I'll take the concern you brought up into consideration, but when it comes to repairing a car, one does the repairs as needed. If there is a particular standard, whether it's mechanical, safety or AirCare, I would expect the owner-operator to have that car in good repair.
D. Symons: I'm not sure whether too many people would know whether their catalytic converter is actually working or not, or whether the carburation of their car is in the best adjustment as far as AirCare goes. You can change the carburation a little to give you more power, but it will also increase your pollutants. As far as the feel of the car goes, they can't tell what's coming out the exhaust. I'm not sure whether it's a case of people simply going in; they may not be aware that it's polluting. If it feels fine to them, they may not take it in, and that could be a problem.
What I was after, and I'm not sure if the minister caught the point, was this business of you allowing them to buy their way into their insurance by having a $225.... I believe it's going to escalate this year, becoming a little more expensive to get through. For some people, then, you're going to be discouraging pretesting or keeping the car in A-1 shape. If their car is older, they might not pass AirCare, and they might have to spend up to that amount of money. They might not care to spend a great deal more than that by having to spend it twice, once prior to AirCare and then more on further work needed after they've had the AirCare work done, which would require them having to spend up to that figure of $225 to have it pass.
I'll move to another topic. The Minister of Environment has been examining emission standards in California. He went down there in February and brought back some recommendations. Were those discussed with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways beforehand, or did the Ministry of Environment do it in isolation from your ministry?
Hon. J. Pement: We worked together with the Ministry of Environment to set the regulations.
D. Symons: It seems that they're going to bring in very stringent ones, and I have some concerns if we're going to make the automobile the only area of stringent regulation. Can the minister explain why the AirCare program does not apply to Transit buses; why it doesn't apply to commercial vehicles of larger size; why, indeed, it doesn't apply to the ferries, because you see a fair amount of stuff going up their exhaust pipes as well? If we want to clean up the air, we shouldn't look just at the private automobile; there are a lot more types of transportation out there that are also polluting the atmosphere. If we're going to be fair, they should be addressed as well.
Hon. J. Pement: Remember, our program is only 18 months old. As far as Transit buses, etc., are concerned, we can't accommodate them because of their size alone. However, when questioning the Minister of Environment about investment with regard to the transit system, you may want to ask how buses are maintained, etc., through the system. I think the ministry's new approaches and the minister's recent announcement about the vehicle emissions standards we're looking for are a real plus to the province and to Canada.
D. Symons: Since you have 18 months under your belt, I wonder if the ministry intends to expand the policy to commercial vehicles. I didn't hear that in your answer.
Hon. J. Pement: This would, of course, be future policy.
D. Symons: I find it almost amusing that the ministry considers this a secret rather than telling us that six months or a year from now they're going to expand this, and that the industry better prepare for it. I'm not sure whether this is a secret, or whether it's not decided or what.
In Arizona, you can have your car tested for exhaust emissions for approximately $6; in B.C., you can't do that for less than $15 plus $1.05 GST and PST or whatever, which adds up to $16.05. I'm wondering why the big difference, and I don't think it's the dollar exchange.
Hon. J. Pement: With the particular jurisdiction he is referring to, I don't know what the terms of conditions or criteria that particular facility has, but this was a private bid and was done through an open bidding system, and we work accordingly.
D. Symons: I don't believe the Arizona system has the dynamometer that tests under loads, as ours does, so that's one difference. I believe one of the companies that's involved here was involved in the Arizona system; it lost the contract after several years, and costs actually went down when another company took over.
Moving on to something that is slightly different but ties in, we now have these testing stations around the lower mainland, and I'm wondering if the program is going to be expanded to test safety features as well. Will it be testing steering and braking systems, particularly of automobiles? I believe the government now has a report in its hands on vehicle safety inspections, and I wonder if the minister is considering mandatory vehicle inspections. Could current facilities be expanded to accommodate mandatory vehicle inspections such as we used to have in British Columbia?
[ Page 10882 ]
Hon. J. Pement: The report you refer to has been released and is there for public discussion. We have just received this information and need to analyze it.
D. Symons: I gather from the minister's words "public discussion" that there are going to be public hearings, or channels provided to encourage the public to give the government feedback. Is that so?
Hon. J. Pement: The report has just been released. We hope to hear comments on it from the public; we encourage all members to comment as well. We just received this document and need to analyze it.
[4:15]
R. Neufeld: You were talking earlier about mufflers, etc. I want to inform the Liberal critic, because he drives on a lot of pavement.... I'm sure that the minister is quite aware that in the part of the country that I come from, it's hard to keep a muffler on a car because of the gravel roads; we have some difficulty.
I know a number of people have interests in antique cars. I'm not sure what happens with antique vehicles in the AirCare program. Is there any move to put them through AirCare? I wonder if you could give a quick explanation about that.
Hon. J. Pement: Antique and collector cars are exempt.
R. Neufeld: I had a question for you earlier about the B.C. 21 Transportation Financing Authority. A news release was put out by B.C. 21, announcing $3.5 million of work to take place in Peace River North. You include the Taylor Bridge and other things. Can the ministry explain why those items are listed in a B.C. 21 news release if they have nothing to do with B.C. 21?
Hon. J. Pement: I explained that to another member. The B.C. 21 program is more than the Transportation Financing Authority. It also comprises the criteria for apprenticeship training where it is feasible -- equity in employment, regional development and local hire.
D. Symons: I wonder if we can move to the motor vehicle branch and deal with the licensing of motor vehicles. One of the issues that's hot in the press right now is the concept of graduated licensing, involving a probation period that would run into months or years rather than the existing short period of a few weeks. This longer probation possibly would include driving only if accompanied by an experienced driver for an extended period of time, a curfew on late-night driving, a zero tolerance of alcohol and limiting the number of passengers. A traffic violation in that period of probation would require that you go back to the beginning and start all over again. I wonder if the minister has investigated the graduated licensing process and can give us some indication of what has been discussed and what's likely to come down the tube.
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has been reviewing this concept of looking at other jurisdictions, but there is no policy decision at this point.
D. Symons: One matter that was brought to me in regard to this, and I could see the gentleman's concern, was his son and the learner's licence. He was in the process of teaching his son to drive and was taking a good amount of time to make sure his son was well-trained. During the process, the learner's licence ran out, and they apparently had go back and start all over again for that period. I'm wondering if it might not be an idea to extend the length of time on a learner's licence so a good training process can take place, rather than forcing the learner to finish off quickly, get on the road and suddenly have a full driver's licence.
One way of bringing in graduated licensing might be to extend the length of time for a learner's licence, so a person might go through that learner period for a little longer before they have full rights as a driver on the road.
Hon. J. Pement: It is definitely part of the review that we're looking at.
D. Symons: In some jurisdictions, they now have mandatory impounding of the vehicles involved in impaired driving offences. That is also in our Motor Vehicle Act, section 214, which states that the vehicle is to remain impounded for the length of the driving prohibition. Is that enforced in British Columbia? If a driver is prohibited from driving for a year, is his vehicle impounded? Would the cost of impoundment go to the driver, who would receive it back when he got his licence back?
Hon. J. Pement: The impoundment within the legislation is 24 hours. Whether that is enforced depends on the way the peace officer reads the situation. The person cannot drive the car away if it's a roadside suspension, but in some cases where there is someone else there who has a licence, that person is allowed to drive the car away. It just depends on how the enforcement officer picks up on the scenario.
D. Symons: There are many instances, though it's hard to know the numbers involved, where people have had their driving licences suspended because of drinking-driving infractions, and they continue to drive the vehicle while it's suspended.
Not only do we have people out there who have had their licences suspended, but we have others who are driving vehicles without any licence. Unless they happen to be pulled over, we aren't aware of that. If they're pulled over, what they get is a fine. They can continue to go on driving if they can avoid paying the fine, and some people do.
I'm wondering whether mandatory impoundment of a vehicle might be one way of cutting out a number of people who are driving either while under suspension or without a licence at all. It puts the rest of us on the road in danger as far as insurance coverage is concerned. If you have that extra bit on there, you might be covered, but it's still an unhealthy situation to have people driving who are either suspended or don't have licences.
Hon. J. Pement: Some options that the police officers can use are the 24-hour impoundment, fines and imprisonment for seven days or up to 14 days on second offence. Again, that requires going through the court system and having a case accepted by the court. As to mandatory impoundment, I'm not sure what the member means in terms of length of time, but it does happen in other jurisdictions, and it is an area that we are reviewing as well.
D. Symons: By mandatory impoundment I mean something more than a 24-hour suspension -- considerably more than that. We have to bring in some sort of system for people who are going to continue flaunting the law. We have to have some way of telling them that we're serious about this. I don't think a 24-hour suspension does that. If they are
[ Page 10883 ]
caught driving without a licence, they might have a 24-hour suspension or a fine -- I'm not quite sure -- but that doesn't stop them necessarily. There are some people who continue to do it, because they don't believe they have to obey our laws and they don't have the sense of responsibility, as citizens of the province, that most of us do. That's why I'm saying that mandatory, lengthy impoundment of the vehicle might be one way of driving the message home to these people. If you take a $10,000 car and find out that you're not getting it back for months until you've paid your fines, your debt to society and all the rest, that might have a sobering effect on them.
Tied in with that, I believe we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70 million worth of unpaid traffic fines in this province. Is that figure somewhere in the right ballpark?
Hon. J. Pement: In the area of impoundment of vehicles -- so I can get a better understanding -- you suggest having that vehicle impounded for a month. Would this be the type of scenario with regard to someone driving another person's vehicle? In other words, if the driver in question does not own the vehicle, would that vehicle be impounded for a month?
Back to the unpaid fines, a significantly high amount are not paid, and that's in the area of $120 million.
D. Symons: Gad, it's a lot more than I thought, almost double the figure I gave.
Just to go back to impoundment, in a sense I was suggesting that, because I think that's one way of making me realize that I could lose the car. If I give it to someone, I'm going to make sure that they have the right credentials for driving that car. I think the impoundment should still apply, but I guess the person who was the owner of the car could appeal if there were exceptional circumstances. We have to make all parties involved in this responsible: the owner of the car and the person who might borrow or drive the car.
To get back to this rather large sum of money that's outstanding as far as traffic fines and violations go, it seems to me that we're missing something here. If that amount of money owing to the government in the way of fines is building up, obviously we're not collecting them very well. In that sense, the question arises: does giving somebody a fine inhibit their behaviour if they don't seem to be paying the fines and are obviously getting away with it?
Hon. J. Pement: It is definitely an issue that the past government didn't look at. We've actually increased our enforcement in this regard. We've looked at having collection agencies collect the fines -- a more aggressive pursuit of collecting fines -- and we've also made it more convenient to pay the fines by allowing credit card debiting as well. There may also be ways of charging interest on those fines.
D. Symons: I find it amusing, in a sense, that you think that charging interest on fines is going to encourage them to pay their fines when they ignore it in the first place. I don't think that route will encourage them.
[4:30]
I'll go back to my idea of impoundment. If something like that suddenly takes the car out from under them, maybe that will grab their attention. We have to have a better way of fining. I don't want to see us do what some American states do. If you're an out-of-state person, they know you're out of their hands once you've crossed the state border. So they'll hold onto you until you've paid your fine and not let you out of the state. I don't want to see that taking place. But there must be some way to make people realize that when they're given a fine with a period of grace in which to pay that fine, if they don't pay it, we're going to get it from them. We somehow have to make it known that there are going to be strong repercussions if they take these things lightly. So I would make that recommendation.
I think we could make roads safer and could cut down accidents and so forth if the people who are breaking the law and running up fines are expected to pay them. It will make them more responsible in the future, if we're more careful with people who are driving without a licence or while suspended and make them realize that we are darned serious. We have to use some techniques of that sort in order to drive home the fact that we're serious about these infractions.
I want to move on to a slightly different topic that's also tied in. A good number of cars with out-of-province plates -- and it's difficult in British Columbia because we're a tourist attraction -- drive around the province for quite a period of time. Either the vehicle is registered out of province -- Alberta, possibly -- or the driver is carrying a driver's licence for a lengthy period of time when he's out of province. These people may even return to their home province at the appropriate time and get relicensed -- both driver's licence and vehicle licence -- and live here year after year under those circumstances. They use an Alberta address for their licences but basically live and work in British Columbia. Is their some technique we can use for tracing these people and, if they are B.C. drivers, seeing that they are registered and licensed in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Pement: After you are a resident, you have 30 days to change your vehicle licence and six months to change your driver's licence. As for people who try to extend those times, it's a really difficult thing to track them down. However, if they are stopped by police officers, they are often found out at that point if they don't appear to be visitors. If they're stopped on an infraction, they will be questioned.
D. Symons: A number of years ago I purchased a boat in Seattle, and I had to pay my duty and all the rest when I came across the border. As my licence was in process and hadn't yet gone through, I still had the American registration on the side of the boat. Within a month of the boat being at the marina I had a visit from Canada Customs. They saw the boat was there, and had obviously gone around to the various places and checked up on what visitors' boats had stayed too long. They inquired if and indeed checked that I had paid customs duties on that boat. I'm wondering if there is not some way we can find people who are working here and have indeed become residents of British Columbia, or have worked in the province for an extended period of time -- over that three months you referred to. Is there not some way we can catch up with them to make them register their vehicles and be covered in the same way the rest of us are in B.C.?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case of the police being aware. It may be more prevalent in some communities than others, so they're more alert to these issues.
D. Symons: Another member wants to jump in, but I just have one more on this. On this whole process I brought up of unlicensed and suspended drivers and vehicle licensing, I'm wondering if we went to a national program of licensing and vehicle registration, where one computer kept track of this, if
[ Page 10884 ]
we couldn't keep better track of people who have offences in one province or another as well as keep track of suspended licences. It might work to our advantage to get together with the other nine provinces to get national licensing and vehicle registration. I know we have problems -- ours are tied in with our insurance in B.C. -- but this might be one way to keep track of what's going on out there, and possibly to get offenders more rapidly.
Hon. J. Pement: To a degree, we can track licences in other jurisdictions through computer systems. I've written to the ministers of transportation and highways in all provinces with regard to setting up a national system for vehicle identification numbers. We're also encouraging and have had dialogue with the U.S., but it's a massive undertaking.
R. Neufeld: What time period does the $120 million in fines represent?
Hon. J. Pement: I haven't got the exact time, but it goes back prior to 1990.
R. Neufeld: I was under the impression that in there was a Peat Marwick report in 1991-92 which stated that all bad loans and debts were written off. Obviously that's not the case in fines. Would I be correct in assuming that?
Hon. J. Pement: Fines aren't debts.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if the motor vehicle branch has considered the banning of radar detectors.
Hon. J. Pement: It's definitely an issue that we'll be looking at.
D. Symons: I'm not sure whether this might come under the Motor Vehicle Act or not, but is there an interest in calling for the certification of all those employed in the automobile repair industry? With my little knowledge, I could go out and open a shop and call it Doug's repair shop and not have any formal training in auto repairs. Is there any thought in doing that?
Hon. J. Pement: This is really an issue for the Minister of Labour.
D. Symons: Driver training: has the ministry or is the ministry going to be establishing standards on required course content to operate a driving school? I believe you're bringing in some restrictions as far as the size of the bond and all the rest that operating driving schools must post, but do these also include course content and the appropriate training of the driver trainers involved?
Hon. J. Pement: We have had dialogue and consultation with the industry with regard to this issue and definitely have been talking about revised standards.
D. Symons: I did have some questions, but I think maybe the minister has answered them in another context dealing with the regulations involving vehicle identification and salvaged vehicles. This is really an interaction between the motor vehicle branch and ICBC because they're both involved. I guess I may have covered most of those. With the government's mandated safety inspection before rebuilt cars can be registered or insured, is it now the case that there will be a mandatory inspection before a car that's been off the road because it's been either a wreck or salvaged can be reinsured?
Hon. J. Pement: We did mention before, when ICBC staff were here, that identification numbers now show on the computer with a D for those being demolished. And for repair, when the identification number comes up with an R at the end, it then requires that that vehicle have the inspection.
D. Symons: I have quite a few other questions down here regarding vehicle identification numbers, and I think I've actually asked most of that before.
Going back to fines for a moment, I believe some municipal councils around the province have suggested that fines should revert back to the municipality rather than to the Crown. This would be one way in which municipalities could balance their budgets. Also, the policing that is required on the roads could go back to the costs of that policing action itself.
Hon. J. Pement: Both of these actually come under the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Attorney General.
D. Symons: Just one other thought regarding vehicles driven by people who have bad driving records. After they pile up a number of driving points, I wonder if it might be a disincentive if they had shocking-pink licence plates so everybody would know that those particular drivers have achieved the dubious fame of having 15 or so points for poor driving habits. I have a suspicion, on reaching that number of points, that people will either lose their licences or they will have to bring in their cars and have the pink licence plates mounted. This would have a dramatic effect. Maybe the minister could respond to this suggestion.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to collecting points, a new driver has up to two years, during which time there is a process of warnings and intent to remove the licence if a number of points accumulate. An experienced driver may have a licence suspended after accumulating 12 to 15 points. I have not considered shocking-pink licence plates at this point, but it's an idea.
D. Symons: I am suggesting that when they are accumulating these points, it's done in secret. By requiring, after they reach a certain number, that their licence plates will change colour, this will have the effect of letting everybody else around those cars know that the drivers have unsafe records. I think that identifying these people would have a calming effect on the public.
There's a double thing here. Other drivers can steer clear of these people, or leave more space behind them. At the same time, pressure would be brought -- like the stocks idea of days gone by; not that I'm suggesting we put them in stocks -- by letting the public know that such persons have bad driving records. This way some pressure would be put on them, and I suspect they might smarten up.
J. Weisgerber: I notice the minister nodding her head at the member's suggestion, and I was thinking how much I would like to be at the cabinet meeting to hear the response of the Minister of Environment to the idea of having shocking-pink licence plates. I'm sure the Minister of Environment would find that this would contravene some of his environmental regulations, and he would not want that to happen. In any event, perhaps blushing red would work
[ Page 10885 ]
as well as shocking pink, but that really wasn't why I wanted to get into the debate today.
As the minister would know, there has been a considerable lobby in the northeast region for 16-wide mobile homes. They are sold regularly in Grande Prairie, Alberta, and transported on Alberta highways throughout the entire province. Many of the people in that region, shopping for a mobile home, find themselves in Grande Prairie looking at these 16-wide models, and then come back frustrated because they can't bring them into British Columbia. There has been a suggestion, as the minister knows, for the northeast region of British Columbia where highway configurations are very similar to those in Alberta, that we allow, at least on a limited geographical basis, 16-wide mobile homes to come into the province.
The minister and I have communicated and corresponded on this issue as long as the minister's been in this portfolio. Indeed, before the last cabinet reorganization, while the responsibility for this function was with the Attorney General's ministry, we got the response from the Attorney General that he had reservations about the implications of this. Correspondence from the Minister of Transportation and Highways said that the then-minister had no objections at all to the introduction of 16-wide mobile homes. There was some expectation in the constituency and in the region, when this responsibility was moved from the Attorney General's ministry to Highways, that there would be some more positive action.
I know the minister spoke to the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce within the last month or so on this issue. The last correspondence I had from the minister is dated in January, indicating that at that time a decision was expected within a very few weeks following that. We're now into the latter part of May. I don't want to push the time thing; I wouldn't want to get a negative response simply because I was pushing hard on the issue. But I think there is a genuine need to resolve this issue. A number of families have deferred a decision to buy a mobile home because they really believe that it would be to their great advantage to have a larger mobile home.
I wonder if the minister could perhaps bring us up to date on where we're at on this issue -- an opportunity to read into the record what steps have been taken, what kinds of reviews have been done, and what's anticipated over the next couple of months, as this issue continues to be a hot issue not only in my own constituency but in the neighbouring one to the north as well.
Hon. J. Pement: As far as moving wider loads, there is a special permit process that one can use. Moving wide loads is restricted, in a sense, to early morning, and has to have escorts, etc. There is a limitation of 30 kilometres, I believe, as well, with regard to moving wider loads. With regard to what you're really asking for -- permission to use wider loads on the highway -- at this time we are saying it's limited to 14 foot 6. We are looking at reviewing the issue, but right now we are maintaining the existing policy.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, from the answer I got, I gather that it would be permissible, within a 30-kilometre distance from the point of entry into British Columbia, to move a wider-than-14-foot-6 mobile home if you met the wide-load requirements that exist when you move a house, for example. People often lift up houses and move them down the highway. There are industrial vessels as wide as 20 feet, or wider. Has the minister thought at all about extending the radius? People might find themselves willing to go along with the speed requirements and the time-of-day requirements.
If the minister would refer to the correspondence we've had over the years, she would see that we started out by suggesting that there be certain times of day during which it would be more desirable.... We proposed special permits that were restrictive in nature. I don't think we ever thought about a 30-kilometre radius. I wonder if the minister would consider allowing people to move mobile homes by permit to a greater distance than the 30 kilometres she outlines.
Hon. J. Pement: I have to correct the mileage for the special permits. It's not 30; it's 50 on special permits for overwidth loads. The policy is really directed at anything other than mobile homes, being that mobile homes are just that: mobile.
There is a concern about the frequency of traffic with mobile homes. However, as a ministry, we are taking a look at it.
J. Weisgerber: Now I am confused. I'm not sure whether it's a 30-kilometre radius or a 50-kilometre radius, or whether we're talking about kilometres per hour. There are two areas there: speed and distance.
Hon. J. Pement: I apologize for the confusion; it was a 50-kilometre radius.
J. Weisgerber: As I understand the situation, it's not possible to move a 16-wide mobile home under the permit system that allows you to move a house or a large industrial vessel or something much wider and more cumbersome on the highway than a mobile home. If I correctly heard what the minister said, because the 16-wide mobile homes are designed to be transported, you're unwilling to give a permit to them. But you are prepared to give permits to things that weren't designed to move on the highway. Things that are more cumbersome and harder to move would, I suspect, provide a far greater hazard to traffic, but we're prepared to allow those things to be transported. But because a mobile home was manufactured with the idea of being moved down the road, we're unwilling to give a permit for that particular structure or vehicle?
Hon. J. Pement: As the member stated, the current policy does not include the extra-wide mobile homes. It's a case of frequency in the mobility of the homes, as I mentioned before. The intermittent traffic is quite different than moving a house once or a large piece of machinery from one point to another.
J. Weisgerber: If there were any kind of survey taken, I believe you would find that mobile homes rarely move more than once or twice in their lifetimes. I suspect that the huge majority of 14-wides, 16-wides, or any other manufactured home you care to talk about, go directly from the place of manufacture or the dealer's lot -- wherever it might be -- to a foundation, and it never moves again. You don't see mobile homes zipping up and down the highway; that's not the attraction. The people calling me are primarily farm people who simply can't afford the expense of getting tradespeople to come out and do all the incremental work that's necessary in building a home.
[5:00]
It's much more cost-efficient to build a home in a factory setting, then move it and set it up. If mobile homes were ever being moved on an annual or biannual basis, I don't think that.... There must be statistics within the industry that
[ Page 10886 ]
suggest that these homes aren't being moved. I'd argue the other side of what I heard. These homes -- they're not vehicles -- are designed to be moved. They are designed to be easier to move on the highway so that they provide less hazard than some of the other categories for which permits are granted. Those would all be strong arguments in favour of issuing permits.
I would like to go back to where we started 18 months or so ago on this issue, because these suggestions were made then. I think if you have an opportunity to review the correspondence, you'll see we made all the arguments that we are making now with regard to special permits.
The first person who came to me with this problem lives three miles from the Alberta border, down a straight, wide road. The only thing that's preventing him from buying a 16-wide mobile home is the inability to move it, when he's three miles down the road from the Alberta border, where it would be legal. It would go onto a farmstead and likely never be moved again -- any more than a house would be picked up and moved again. At that time the minister suggested that there might be restrictions around certain times of day or days of the week and that perhaps on a holiday weekend you shouldn't be moving one of these down the road; but conversely, that there were other times, given the road configuration in the region, when it would make absolute sense to allow people to move them.
That's all anybody wants to do. Nobody wants to present a hazard to traffic; nobody wants to do anything unrealistic. But it's very hard to convince a young family that goes to a sales lot and sees the home of their dreams -- 16 feet wide and 80 feet long, some of them quite luxurious and well laid out. When they are told, "No, you can't have that one; you've got to take the one that doesn't quite make it," they come away feeling frustrated, as happens to all of us in a similar situation.
My reason for coming here today is to put on the record that I think there are some good, solid, logical arguments for allowing -- at least in the northeast part of the province, with restrictions and, if necessary, with permits -- the movement of these 16-wide mobile homes.
R. Neufeld: I'd like to go a little further, because this affects my area, too. My colleague talked about three miles over the border, but I would like to see it go a little further than that. This is another issue like the Desan Road, where we just keep putting it off and putting it off. There was a study of sorts done by the ministry. In fact, there was supposed to be a video shown to our caucus about the dangers and why we couldn't have 16-wide mobile homes on the highway. I wonder where that's at. I'd like to know if the study was completed and if it's available for us.
Hon. J. Pement: I gather there was an attempt to have a video on the provincial photo log, giving the different traffic safety issues that the ministry was looking at, and it didn't work out. Both members raise good points. We're looking very closely at the issue at this time, and I hope we can give them an answer fairly quickly.
R. Neufeld: One of the major obstacles has been the lobby of the mobile home manufacturing companies within British Columbia, specifically, I think, those in the Okanagan and the lower mainland. If my memory serves me correctly, they didn't feel it was fair if they could not compete. If you just allowed the movement of 16-wides in northeastern British Columbia, which can easily be accommodated on the highway system we have, it would be unfair to them because they wouldn't be able to compete in that market.
I've done some work on that issue and found that most 14-wide and 12-wide mobile homes -- there are not many 12-wides purchased anymore -- purchased in the north already come from Alberta. They come from Grande Prairie or Edmonton. They don't normally come from the southern part of the province up to the northern part. I would say that probably -- I don't know if this is poor salesmanship and they just don't want to come north, or what it is -- most of the mobile homes are purchased in Alberta. So just for the minister's information, that should be a non-issue.
The other thing I would like to point out to the minister -- and she doesn't have to respond if she doesn't wish to -- is that because she's lived in the north, she knows that many things that happen in the north.... You can't do it in the south, so we're not going to let you do it in the north. I hope that would help this minister be a little more aggressive in bringing the issue forward and bringing it through. I would certainly appreciate it very much.
Hon. J. Pement: I definitely recognize northern issues -- no doubt about it -- and also the diversity within the province. From northwest to northeast, there's quite a different geographical scenario. We'll take your comments into consideration.
L. Hanson: I have a little story that the minister might be interested in. There seems to be some question about the consistency in the application of motor vehicle rules at different weigh scales. In this particular instance -- I won't bore you with a whole bunch of stories, but I could give you a whole bunch -- an individual carrying 17 preformed cement pieces went to the weigh scales outside Kelowna and got a fine for having his load distributed improperly, which is fair enough. It was wrong, and he had to go back and have it redistributed, which is understandable. He was going down to the border near Oliver or Osoyoos and was stopped by a mobile checkpoint between Peachland and Summerland. They went over the whole thing and said that everything was okay, so he went on his way. Then he went through the weigh scales on the other side of Penticton, and the fellow there said: "I don't care what those other fellows said, you don't have enough tie-downs." So he got another fine and had to put on a bunch of tie-downs. They almost appeared to be trying to harass the trucker.
I recognize -- and I think everyone does -- the need for safety on the highways, but there should be some consistency in the application of the rules. I had hoped that the minister would look at that situation, because I have about half a dozen different stories that have come as a result of that. Some were rectified after they had complained, but there almost seems to be an unofficial autonomy in the different operations as to how they apply the rules.
Hon. J. Pement: Specifically, in the case he's outlined, I think what happened was that they missed the tie-downs, by the sounds of it, in the first round. I don't know if that was the case or not, but it could have been, in which case the tie-downs are a regulation to load, and load is an issue that's of concern. However, there are standards that all weigh scale operators should be able to follow. I'll certainly take your question to heart with regard to us taking a closer look at those standards.
L. Hanson: I recognize the need for safety rules, but I think there is an expectation on the part of the public that
[ Page 10887 ]
they be consistently applied. That's the concern, not the fact that they went through two legitimate checkpoints where the tie-downs were not in question. Then in the third one, the answer was: "I don't really care what those other fellows said, you've got to put on more tie-downs." It's not the fact that it was required -- I think that's fair, reasonable and understandable -- it's the consistency question that is very important, to the trucking people.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to deal briefly with the second half of this question, which I noted last week that I wanted to raise. The Rocky Mountain doubles seem to raise a problem similar to that of the 16-wide mobile homes.
As the minister knows, a proposal was put forward to use Highway 2 between Dawson Creek and the Alberta border as a test run for Rocky Mountain doubles. Those are essentially B-trains, which are allowed all around British Columbia, but with a longer rear trailer configuration than is currently allowed.
The reason that this is a critical issue is that most of the goods brought into Dawson Creek in particular are brought in by truck. Of those goods brought in by truck, probably 95 percent come from Edmonton by way of Grande Prairie rather than from B.C. So almost all the trucking coming into northeastern British Columbia -- whether in the form of multi-LCL and LTL loads coming in with Canadian Freightways Ltd., specialty units coming from one of the major retail chains like Safeway or in gas tanker configurations -- is from Alberta. In Alberta the Rocky Mountain double is an approved configuration.
Many times a day, trucks destined for Dawson Creek come to within 30 kilometres or so of Dawson Creek and drop the second trailer at a wide spot. The former site of the weigh scale has a wide parking area. I know the minister was up there and had a look. These people routinely come in, drop a trailer, haul the second one into Dawson Creek, haul an empty trailer back, pick up the second trailer and take it into Dawson Creek. This happens day after day and time after time.
[5:15]
Both the businesses and the consumers in Dawson Creek recognize that this practice is adding significantly to freight costs for goods brought into Dawson Creek. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would suggest that it costs twice as much to ship an item from Edmonton to Dawson Creek as it costs from Edmonton to Grande Prairie, even though the Edmonton-to-Grande Prairie haul is about 280 miles and the distance from Grand Prairie to Dawson Creek is only another 80 miles. If you look at the published freight rates -- the going contract rates in the business -- you'll find that they are almost double into Dawson Creek. So it's a major issue.
The minister has been to the chamber of commerce and has already been prevailed upon to take another look at this issue. That's the reason that this issue simply won't go away in Dawson Creek. People there look at the highway configuration from Edmonton to Dawson Creek. I think the section of highway between the border and Dawson Creek is as good and, in some cases, better than the highway configuration on the rest of that journey. People just don't understand the reluctance to permit these longer trailers. There has been a lot of work done, as the minister would know because I sent her comparisons of safety records. I know safety is the issue that has been raised as the reason for not permitting these.
Around the western and northwestern United States, where longer trailers are the most prevalent, the longer the trailer rig, the better the safety record has been. I think the reason for that is pretty clear. Shippers and trucking companies regularly look for their most competent drivers with the best safety records and put them into these longer units. Indeed, as the minister would know from material I provided to her earlier, there is nothing in any of the work that was done in the western states to suggest that these configurations are unsafe or present any risk. As a matter of fact, the statistics suggest the opposite. I know it's hard to make the argument that a longer trailer is safer, but I think it's pretty clear that the drivers of longer rigs are the top 5 percent of highway drivers in the country and that the jobs attract those folks.
Again, the reason for the continued desire to see these changes is economic and I can provide the minister with all the documentation she might want regarding the fragile state of the commercial economy in Dawson Creek. It's already threatened by the fact that consumers go across the border to Alberta and buy in substantial volume -- I read a two- or three-page letter today from the chamber of commerce -- because they don't pay the 7 percent social services tax there.
It's not a new problem; the problem has been there for as long as we've had a social services tax in British Columbia. But it threatens the local retail economy on an ongoing basis. Every item that adds to the price in Dawson Creek or that makes it less expensive in Grande Prairie contributes to cross-border shopping, which is to our detriment. So that's the reason that I and groups like the chamber of commerce will continue to push this issue. Perhaps the minister could share with us any other thoughts she may have on that.
Hon. J. Pement: The issue of the long combination vehicle is still that of traffic safety concerns, and at this point our policy to not allow them still stands.
We're looking at some studies being done in the States with regard to the safety issues. I gather that some moratoriums with regard to safety issues have been put on these vehicles in the States in the last while. I have certainly heard the concerns the member has raised.
J. Weisgerber: In conclusion, I think these two items are very similar, and they speak to what I believe is a very real argument to regionally modify our Transportation and Highways regulations. There is a solid and valid argument that I have been making for longer than I've been in opposition. I made it when I was in government, and I'll continue to make it as long as I represent that area. I think there are legitimate reasons to modify our highways and transport regulations in the northeast region, given the volume of traffic that comes from Alberta and the similarity of traffic.
One of the things that's contributing enormously to B.C. government revenues these days is oil revenues. All the exploration equipment used in that industry comes back and forth from Alberta. Many of the rigs working in northern Alberta have already paid sales tax in British Columbia to allow them to move back and forth across the border. But every time the rig-movers move a rig, they have to meet the needs of two different regulatory jurisdictions. I believe that adds to their costs. Those costs are ultimately reflected in bids and bonus bids in what companies are prepared to pay for the privilege of doing business and looking for resources in the area.
It seems so logical to me that we would move into some regional modification of regulations, not only in the northeast but in other areas. I don't think we can always bring in regulations in this diverse province that apply
[ Page 10888 ]
across the province. I don't think we can always take the worst-case scenario on every highway or byway in this province, pass a regulation that deals with that particular issue and then apply that regulation across the province.
I'll put the minister on notice that come this time next year, I'll be back arguing this issue. I'll continue to argue it until I move onto my just rewards or we find some way of resolving a basic inequity in our system.
D. Symons: Just tying in a bit to what the previous member was saying, I have had some concerns expressed to me by somebody who was trying to get into the towing business about the amount of red tape. Somebody from back east came to B.C. and was just amazed at the amount of red tape involved in going through the bureaucracy of our motor vehicle branch and our Motor Carrier Commission in order to set up a business in B.C., but they're determined to carry through.
We seem to be saying to the rest of the world: "Invest in B.C." But I think if the minister could do one thing during her term in office -- if she were able to cut through red tape so people could be served quickly and efficiently, yet we could still do the checking we need to do to make sure we're giving licences to people who deserve them for bona fide businesses -- that would be a real feather in her cap. Perhaps she could do that so we give people who want to start a business here a fair degree of service, rather than what appears to be stonewalling them in their attempts to get a business. I don't know if that deserves a comment or not.
I would like to get to something else, involving handicapped parking. The minister might have to tell me that the two instances I am bringing forward aren't within her jurisdiction, but maybe she could use her influence to talk to the others.
One concerns a gentleman who drives handicapped people to the malls and so forth. He has been dismayed by the number of times he gets there and finds that the handicapped parking spots are taken by people he later discovers don't seem to be handicapped at all. Since the mall is private property, the police apparently don't do anything about who is parking there; it becomes a mall issue. I'm wondering if the minister could somehow elicit more support, possibly from the malls and all the rest, to police those spaces or turn the issue over to the police. I'm not sure whether it can be done, but it's an area that deserves concern.
This other area may or may not be municipal, but it concerns a taxi company in Victoria. One of the drivers wanted to use fire zones for loading and unloading handicapped people, and it might also involve a minute or two to get them to the doorway and into the building. Is there some way these things could be addressed so that they could use the spaces? Fire zones are where there are fire plugs, but the vehicle driver would be in the immediate neighbourhood. They could use them legitimately rather than illegitimately, as they do now, and pull in to load and unload people, with the necessary time it takes to get them to the building door or the elevator. If this could be somehow be legitimized, it would go a long way toward helping the handicapped.
Hon. J. Pement: Both issues are in the area of municipal bylaws and would come under the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
D. Symons: If the minister could use her influence to get the municipalities to address those issues, I'd appreciate it.
I was going to mention long combination vehicles in a slightly different context than the member for Peace River South did -- I got the right direction this time -- because I was going to compliment the minister on her policy regarding long combination vehicles. If the member cares to look at my notes here he would see that I said: "Maybe there could be a possible exemption for Peace River." It does tie into this and was written here long before the member made his comments. We have to be careful that we don't apply the rules he mentioned earlier across the province. That area of B.C. ties itself so nicely into Alberta that we should not do anything down south that might make them think they should secede from the province and join Alberta. If we can make our rules flexible enough to meet their needs and not impose our restrictions here on them, that is something I would suggest.
[5:30]
Tying in with this are some suggestions dealing with trucks. We should require that trucks have reflective markings along the length of their sides so that they are visible from the side. They should also have visible markings -- these reflective tapes -- all across the back, rather than simply having tail-lights. While I'm at this, there should also be more splash controls on trucks -- mudflaps, side-curtains -- so that the wheels are skirted on the backs and sides with tassel skirting to stop them from splashing cars. They pass a car or a car passes them, and often the wheels put quite a bit of stuff onto car windshields, which momentarily blinds the driver. If there was a bend coming up, they might not notice it because the windshield wipers were cleaning this mess off the windshield. I think that would be one way to cut that down. If the minister might respond to those two suggestions....
Hon. J. Pement: Large trucks are definitely required to have clearance lights so that they are better able to be seen at night during the dark hours of driving. Mudflaps are required; I'm sure the member is aware of that with regard to rocks flying up from the tires. We'll certainly take a look at other issues that the member has brought up.
D. Symons: I am aware of the clearance lights, but there was a suggestion to have reflective tape go along with them.
On the suggestion for mudflaps, I'm aware of them in the back, but a tassel skirting on the sides might improve things as well.
I'm wondering if section 164(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act is enforced to the extent it should be, where it requires that there be 60 metres between commercial vehicles on the road. This might not be the case in places where there are commercial vehicles and not much else. Having a long series of commercial vehicles, particularly if they happen to be going less than the speed limit, makes it difficult for private vehicles to go the speed limit and to pass them when there isn't sufficient space between them. I'm not suggesting that we want drivers jackrabbiting between vehicles. If that rule was enforced more, we would cut down on the number of people getting into the dangerous situation of passing a combination of commercial vehicles.
Hon. J. Pement: There is a requirement to have a distance between vehicles and not to allow a convoy-type process, but it is really an enforcement issue as well.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:33 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]